Sitting of 3 March 1937

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,
London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill.
Bill committed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Earsdon Joint Hospital District) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British nationals now held as prisoners of war by the Spanish Government and by the rebel forces, respectively; and whether he will take action to secure their repatriation?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have no information as to the number of British subjects held as prisoners of war by either side. As I said in the course of yesterday's Debate, the question of the withdrawal of foreign combatants in Spain is before the Non-Intervention Committee, and I will certaining consider suggesting that the committee should examine the question of the release of prisoners of war as part of the general question.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposals are under consideration by the Non-Intervention Committee for the withdrawal of all foreign combatants in the Spanish civil war?
  Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my Noble Friend to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Captain Briscoe) on 22nd February, and to the statement which I made on this subject in the course of yesterday's Debate, to which I have nothing at present to add.
  Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that His Majesty's Government will press as far as they can on the Non-Intervention Committee for an early withdrawal of these combatants in Spain?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, certainly, but the hon. Member will know how complicated and difficult the question is.
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are contemplated by the Non-Intervention Committee to secure that none of the foreign naval units carrying out the blockade themselves participate in offensive operations on the coast of Spain?
  Mr. Eden: The scheme of naval observation which is under discussion by the International Committee provides that the ships of certain Powers will be allotted zones off the Spanish coast in the occupation of that party to the conflict which is opposed to the party with whose policy the Government in question is in sympathy. This scheme appears to present the best practicable method of ensuring an impartial application of the scheme of observation.
  Mr. Mander: What is to stop such States as care to do so firing on the coast? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed that there shall be British ships in various ports, such as Valencia and Barcelona, under the control of the Spanish Government?
  Mr. Eden: I do not share the apprehensions of the hon. Member. There are risks in any situation, but I think that the risks will be less once the scheme

  333
  is in force than they have been hitherto. We are, of course, taking our share—rather a full share.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that there are British ships in certain of the ports of Spain, will they continue to be there under the new conditions?
  Mr. Eden: I rather think that those ships are occupied in the transport of refugees. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave misgiving in many quarters with regard to the arrangements made in the Mediterranean for the supervision of this business?
  Mr. Eden: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have considered the possibility of offering mediation in the Spanish dispute, either in conjunction with other governments or otherwise; and whether he can make a statement on this matter?
  Mr. Eden: The question as to whether His Majesty's Government can take any steps to provide a basis of negotiation between the contending parties in Spain is constantly being considered in the light of developments. I regret to say that up to the present His Majesty's Government have received no indication that either party are prepared to consider mediation of any nature.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman acquainted with the attitude of the French Government in this matter and is he likely to get into touch with the French Government to consider this possibility?
  Mr. Eden: As far as I am aware the attitude of the French Government in this matter is entirely the same as our own.
  Lieut.-Commander Tufnellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the developments which have recently taken place with regard to non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War, he will now see whether it is possible to arrange for concerted action by the Powers concerned for the furtherance of humanitarian work in Spain, in
  334
  order to prevent unnecessary suffering through famine and disease?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member will recall that, in reply to a question asked by the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on 15th February, my Noble Friend stated that His Majesty's Government were considering whether the question of any international relief action could now be further profitably examined. It was accordingly pointed out to the Spanish Government that, while His Majesty's Government were ready to give all possible transport facilities to the principal British relief organisations working on Spanish territory, they could not by themselves assume responsibility for the provision of relief, but that they would be ready to consider sympathetically proposals for an international initiative on the lines proposed by them at Geneva in December last. To this the Spanish Government replied that, thanks to the help already afforded by His Majesty's ships and to supplies collected from the interior, they had now collected sufficient food to meet the situation, although the assistance of private relief organisations would continue to be urgently required. At the same time I can assure the hon. Member that, in the event of the Spanish Government modifying their attitude, His Majesty's Government will be ready to take the initiative once more in this matter.
  Colonel Wedgwoodasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, in the recent affair of the "Havock" and "Gipsy," the anti-aircraft guns were not used against the aircraft instead of machine guns?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Stanley): If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the reply given to him on 24th February, he will observe that both the main armament, which is adapted for use against aircraft, and the machine guns, which are specially provided for that purpose, were fired.
  Colonel Wedgwood: As that answer shows that machine guns were used and that 4·7 guns were fitted on the ships, may I ask the Noble Lord whether he has ever tried, as I have, to shoot at an aeroplane with a machine gun, which is only less ridiculous than shooting at it with a 4·7 gun; and, further, why the

  335
  anti-aircraft guns which were provided for that purpose were not used?
  Lord Stanley: The 4·7 guns were adapted for use as anti-aircraft guns.
  Mr. Alexander: Is it not the custom to fit the new multi-barrelled anti-aircraft guns, and why were they not used?
  Lord Stanley: No, Sir, they were not fitted.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Were there any of these multi-barrelled anti-aircraft guns on board these boats, and, if so, why were they not used?
  Lord Stanley: The answer is that they were not fitted to these boats.
  Mr. Garro Jones: If the aircraft were at such a low altitude as to be within range of machine guns, how did it come about that they were missed when the 4·7 guns were used?
  Lord Stanley: They did not fire until the bombs had been dropped. They were not under war conditions, and therefore, naturally, did not open fire as early as they would otherwise have done.
  Mr. Macquistenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of gold has been exported from Spain to this country since the civil war started?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): 7,680 troy ounces of gold, value £49,089, were imported from Spain in the period 19th July, 1936, to 1st March, 1937.
  Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know how much has come from Spain through France?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No, Sir.
  Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know whether this money has gone to the credit of the Soviet Republic?
  Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that the gold has been exported from Spain to pay for their imports?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I could not say for what reasons it has been exported.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher (for Mr. E. J. Williams)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of
  336
  the case where the crew of the British steamer "Lenaria," at Boston, Massachusetts, have refused to load a cargo of nitrates consigned to the Spanish insurgents, whether nitrate is on the list of commodities prohibited by the Non-Intervention Committee; and, seeing that trading with the insurgents in Spain is an act which should not be countenanced by a friendly Power like Britain, whether he will take action to protect these British subjects exercising their right not to assist the enemies of a friendly Power?
  Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my Noble Friend gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on Friday last. In doing so I should like to make it clear that His Majesty's Government have no information to lead them to suppose that the shipment in question was other than part of a normal business transaction with which it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to interfere.

  BALKAN ENTENTE.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the recent Balkan Conference at Athens, and as to the views taken by that conference with regard to the treaty of 24th January between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria?
  Mr. Eden: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a translation of the communiquç which was issued in Athens at the conclusion of the recent session of the Council of the Balkan Entente on 18th February. With regard to the second part of the question, the communiqué states that the Council noted with satisfaction the conclusion of the pact of friendship between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia signed at Belgrade on 24th January; this pact, the communiqué states, corresponds to the aim of the Entente to consolidate peace in the Balkans; and it is consequently considered to be a valuable contribution to inter-Balkan collaboration.
  Following is the translation of the communiquç:
  "The deliberations of the Permanent Council, which have taken place in an atmosphere of the utmost cordiality, have made it possible to affirm once more the perfect unity of views of those who direct the foreign policy of the four countries and the solidarity uniting the Balkan allies.

  337
  The Council, having proceeded to a thorough examination of the general European situation and the questions of particular concern to the States of the Balkan Entente, has agreed to reaffirm its desire to develop the whole activity of the Balkan Entente with a view to contributing to the maintenance of peace. Every effort in this direction will have the full support of the Balkan Entente. Faithful in its attachment to the League of Nations, the Balkan Entente is resolved to continue to collaborate actively in the work of Geneva in order that in difficult circumstances the League of Nations may be able to discharge its high mission within the framework of international action in favour of peace. The Council of the Balkan Entente particularly appreciates the recent agreement between Great Britain and Italy, which constitutes an important factor for the maintenance of peace and for stability in the Mediterranean.
  The Permanent Council has noted with satisfaction the conclusion of the Pact of Friendship between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia signed at Belgrade on 24th January, 1937. It has affirmed that this Pact corresponds to the aim of the Balkan Entente, to maintain and consolidate peace in the Balkans. In consequence it considers that the Pact signed by Bulgaria and Yugoslavia is a valuable contribution to the establishment of a friendly collaboration between all Balkan peoples.
  The Permanent Council bas noted the decision of the Economic Council, reached at Bled on 15th July, 1936, and has adopted the appropriate measures for putting it into execution.
  Appreciating at its true value the contribution which the Press is called upon to make to the work of the Balkan Entente, the Permanent Council has affirmed with pleasure the cordiality which has marked the meetings of the Press Conference of the countries of the Balkan Entente.
  The next meeting of the Permanent Council of the Balkan Entente will take place in September at Geneva on the occasion of the Ordinary Assembly of the League of Nations."

  GERMANY.

    BROADCASTS (BRITISH DOMINIONS AND COLONIES).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the propaganda broadcasts being sent out from Berlin to various British Dominions, Colonies, and Mandated Territories; and whether, in view of the matter broadcast, any representations are being made as to the undesirability of action of this kind?
    Mr. Eden: So far as concerns broadcasts received in the Dominions, the hon. Member will appreciate that the matter is entirely one for the Dominion Governments. As regards the Colonies, Pro-
    338
    tectorates and Mandated Territories, reports received from Colonial Governments indicate that the broadcasts received from Germany are not of such a nature as to give cause for representation.
    Mr. Mander: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain reports which have been received?
    Mr. Eden: I have listened in to one or two of them, and they seem to consist of light music and a praise of German landscapes.
    Mr. Thorne: When the German Ambassador returns to London, is the right hon. Gentleman going to have conversations with him about Colonies, in view of what he said the other day?
    Mr. Eden: That has nothing to do with broadcasts.

    BARCELONA CONVENTION.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the view of his advisers, Germany's recent denunciation of the international status of German rivers affected the Barcelona Pact of 1921 and the agreement of 1929 by which Czechoslovakia was given the right to establish her own zones in the ports of Hamburg and Stettin?
    Mr. Eden: I am informed that the German Government have assured the Czechoslovak Government that they consider themselves still to be bound by the stipulations of the Barcelona Convention of 20th April, 1921, and by their undertakings in respect to the Czechoslovak free zones existing in Hamburg and about to be established in Stettin.
    Mr. Henderson: Are we to understand that in fact there has been no interference by the German Government with the right of the Government of Czechoslovakia to establish these zones?
    Mr. Eden: I understand that is so, but perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    CALENDAR REFORM.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Advisory Committee for Communications and Transit of the League of Nations have reported upon the resolution on the sub-

    339
    ject of calendar reform passed by the International Labour Conference last June; has the suggestion been brought to the notice of the various Governments; and what has been their decision?
    Mr. Eden: No communication from the Advisory Committee on the subject of calendar reform has been received by His Majesty's Government since the date of the Council resolution quoted in the answer given by my Noble Friend to the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Walkden) on 10th February. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Day: Is the matter still under consideration?
    Mr. Eden: I am afraid I do not know.

    COVENANT.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of making a declaration of policy to the effect that British armaments not only may but will be used in bringing help to the victims of aggression, in accordance with our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations?
    Mr. Eden: As the hon. Member will be aware, I dealt fully with this subject in the course of yesterday's Debate, and I cannot add to what I said then.
    Mr. Mander: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is definitely not prepared to substitute the word "will" for the word "may"?
    Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in yesterday's Debate.
    Mr. Emmott: Do not the terms of the question on the Paper seem to indicate that the hon. Member has not read the text of the Covenant of the League?

    CHINA (INSURANCE LAW).
    Mr. Moreingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) particulars of the Chinese insurance enterprise law, which it is understood came into force on 15th January, 1937. particularly with regard to the respective obligations of Chinese and foreign insurance companies;
    340
    (2) whether he has yet had any report from His Majesty's Ambassador in China as to the proposal of the China Government to amend the law relating to insurance so as to require that all policies of insurance shall be in the Chinese language; and whether, in view of the fact that the new Chinese insurance law was originally promulgated in July, 1935, and came into force in its revised form on 11th January, 1937, he will ask His Majesty's Ambassador to expedite his report on the subject with as little delay as possible?
    Mr. Eden: I am informed by His Majesty's Ambassador, that on 11th January of this year the Chinese Government promulgated certain modifications of the Insurance Enterprises Law, together with regulations for the enforcement of the revised law. One Article of these regulations provides that policies shall be printed in Chinese, and that, if a foreign language is also used, the Chinese text shall prevail. A further Insurance Law, governing contracts between the insurer and the insured, was also published on the same day. I understand, however, that these measures did not come into force upon the date of their promulgation, and are not as yet operative. I have at present no further information, but a full report upon the subject is already on its way and will reach me shortly.
    Mr. Moreingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reports as to whether the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs directed the provincial Government of Szechuan early this year to the effect that no foreigners or their Chinese representatives are permitted to do insurance business either in the interior or at any non-treaty port; and, if so, what steps he has taken to protect British interests in this respect?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I have received no information to this effect, but I am requesting His Majesty's Ambassador to furnish me with a report.

    JAPAN (RESCUE MISSION INCIDENT).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make

    341
    concerning an attack by Japanese upon Englishwomen in the Osaka prefecture; and what action His Majesty's Government are taking?
    Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Ambassador has reported that on the afternoon of 24th February the premises near Osaka of the Japan Rescue Mission, an officially recognised organisation engaged in social work, were forcibly entered by a Kyoto brothel proprietor and three male members of his family in search of one of his former prostitutes. In the ensuing struggle some four or five British ladies, members of the Mission, were slightly injured. I am informed that they are, however, suffering from nothing worse than shock and bruises. All the assailants except the proprietor himself have been arrested. I understand that the Acting Consul-General at Osaka is in close touch with the Japanese authorities, who are acting with energy in this matter. He has also seen Miss Kirkaldy, the acting head of the Mission, who has expressed herself satisfied with the attitude of the Japanese police.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are there any other cases of attacks by Japanese upon British nationals in which no satisfaction has been received?

    GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL (TREATIES).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs whether, under treaty with Portugal, Great Britain is bound to protect both Portugal and her colonies against all enemies?
    Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which my Noble Friend gave to the Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day) on 10th February, and also to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 11th November, and 16th December, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Mander: Do I understand from that answer that the Government are proposing, under certain circumstances, to ask British subjects to go out and be killed in defence of Portuguese colonies?
    Mr. Eden: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will consult the answer, he will understand a great deal.

    IRAQ (ASSYRIANS).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any suitable area in any of the self-governing Colonies, Protectorates, or Mandated Territories has been found in which it would be practicable to settle the Assyrians of Iraq; what contribution would be paid by the League and/or the Iraqi Government towards same; and will he make a statement on the present position?
    Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies returned to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 10th February. It is impossible to indicate in advance how any new scheme which might emerge from the settlement of the Assyrians would be financed. The present position is that His Majesty's Government have informed the Council of the League of Nations that they are prepared to recommend Parliament to agree that the balance of the contribution offered by them in September of last year towards the Ghab scheme should be made available for any new scheme, which received the approval of the Council. This offer was subject to the same conditions as the original offer, which include the contribution by the Government of Iraq of an equal amount and a contribution by the League of Nations. I understand that the attitude of the Government of Iraq corresponds to that of His Majesty's Government. Moreover, the Assembly of the League of Nations decided, in October last, that the balance of the total contribution offered by the League to the previous scheme shall also be regarded as allotted, in principle, to any new scheme of settlement. As regards the last part of the question, the general position is that the competent committee of the League Council is continuing its efforts to find a suitable place for permanent settlement for those Assyrians who still wish to leave Iraq. His Majesty's Government are doing all that they can to assist the committee in its very difficult task.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee are meeting with any success in their inquiries?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot. The hon. Gentleman knows the immense difficulties of this subject.
    Captain Heilgers: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel assured that the Assyrians are receiving considerate treatment at present by the Iraqi Government?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I believe the position at present is satisfactory.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION.
    Mr. Markhamasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied with the meteorological information and weather forecasts supplied by the Meteorological Office; and whether he contemplates setting up a special naval meteorological department under the Hydrographer to the Navy?
    Lord Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, there are technical and operational aspects of meteorological work which are peculiar to the Navy and arrangements are under consideration between the Departments which will make special provision for this.
    Mr. Markham: Does this special provision involve the setting up of a completely new meteorological department under the control of the Navy?
    Lord Stanley: It refers to modifications in the organisation which, when they are made, will more suitably meet naval requirements.

    DIRECTOR OF DOCKYARDS.
    Mr. Kellyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention to appoint as Director of Dockyards a naval architect or practical shipbuilder, as was formerly the practice of the Admiralty?
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why a naval officer of executive rank has been selected as Director of Dockyards instead of reverting to the practice which prevailed prior to 1917 of appointing persons with appro-
    344
    priate technical and administrative experience of a kind suitable for the position?
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): As already announced in the Press, the present Director of Dockyards will be succeeded on the 1st May next by Rear-Admiral C. P. Talbot, C.B., D.S.O. The policy of the Admiralty is to select for this post the most suitable person available when each appointment is made, irrespective of whether that person is a naval officer or civilian. The appointment recently announced was made on this basis.
    Mr. Kelly: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the great shipbuilding programme which the Admiralty have in hand, they will now appoint an officer who is connected with, and who has practical knowledge of shipbuilding rather than one who has naval experience in the fighting forces?
    Mr. Lindsay: I think experience shows that in this post what is needed is a man with more general abilities, and not of specific technical attainments.
    Mr. Alexander: What has been the experience of Admiral Talbot in materials and in dockyard work?
    Mr. Lindsay: I would like to give my right hon. Friend exact details, and I will do so at another time. Admiral Talbot has very considerable experience in both.
    Mr. Kelly: In view of the fact that previously one with knowledge of shipbuilding was appointed, why has there been this reversal to a naval officer?
    Mr. Lindsay: It has been the practice for the last 20 years, and it has been highly successful.
    Mr. Kelly: It has not.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman seriously appoint as general manager of an engineering factory under his control a person having no experience of the running of such a factory?
    Mr. Lindsay: I would like to point out that this position requires a knowledge of ships as well as of the work of shipbuilding.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Do not officers have to fight and run the ships when they are built?

    VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
    Mr. Keelingasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that His Majesty's ship "President" is refusing applications to join the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve owing to her complement being full; and whether arrangements will be made for Londoners desiring to enlist in that Reserve to join another ship?
    Lord Stanley: I am aware that the London Division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve is now fully up to strength. In addition, the division has already been allowed to overbear both officers and men on account of slight shortages in some other divisions. The hon. Member will appreciate that the necessity for attendance at drills makes it impossible for men to join divisions out of reach of their homes.

    SINGAPORE BASE.
    Mr. Thorneasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the naval base at Singapore will be finished; how much money has been spent up to the nearest available date; what was the total estimate; and whether there has been any difficulty in obtaining iron and steel at the present time for this work?
    Mr. Lindsay: It is anticipated that the base will be ready for general use in the financial year 1939. The expenditure up to the end of January, 1937, is £5,856,000; the total estimate is £11,211,750. No difficulty has been experienced up to the present in obtaining iron and steel required for the work.
    Mr. Alexander: Does that revised figure include the expansion of the dock facilities to take double the number of capital ships?
    Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Will the base be completed before or after the next war?
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the Admiralty records show why all hon. Members opposite opposed its continuation in 1924?

    ENSIGN.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what instructions have been given relative to a change in the colour of one of the components forming the naval ensign?
    Lord Stanley: The Government Departments concerned have recently agreed to the re-introduction of the brighter shade of red formerly used for bunting and flags. This shade will be specified in all future purchases of naval ensigns.
    Mr. Bellenger: While noting with approval the Noble Lord's reply, may I ask him to reassure the House that the change in the colour of the flag indicates no change in his right hon. Friend's political opinions?
    Lord Stanley: I can assure the hon. Member that the change has no political significance.

    PROMOTION (LOWER DECK).
    Mr. W. H. Greenasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to what improved conditions, financial and otherwise, it is intended to introduce for warrant rank in order to overcome the breakdown in the supply of candidates for gunner, gunner (T), and boatswain?
    Lord Stanley: I regret that I am unable to add at present to the answer given to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 17th February.
    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ratings promoted to sub-lieutenant in the years 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936, respectively, who received their early naval training at the Gosport training establishment, His Majesty's Ship "St. Vincent," and the Shotley establishment, His Majesty's Ship "Ganges"; also the number of these officers who received their pre-naval training at the Royal Hospital School, on board the training ships "Mercury," "Warspite," "Arethusa," and "Exmouth"; and whether, in view of the low numbers from the latter establishments, more commissions will be awarded to their boys in future?
    Lord Stanley: As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The selection of candidates for commissioned rank can only be made from the most suitable ratings, wherever they may have been trained.
    Following is the information required:

    Sub-Lieutenants promoted from Lower Deck.

    Year.

    Number of ratings promoted to Sub-Lieutenant.

    Number who received training as rating in His Majesty's Ships

    Pre-Naval training in Training Ships, etc.

    "Ganges."

    "St. Vincent."

    1933

    …

    …

    6

    3

    2

    1 (" Arethusa").

    1934

    …

    …

    5

    4*

    *

    1 (Greenwich Hospital School).

    1 (Lanes, and National Sea Training Homes).

    1935

    …

    …

    3

    2

    1

    —

    1936

    …

    …

    4

    —

    4

    1 ("Arethusa").

    NOTE.—* One rating also served a short time in His Majesty's Ship "St. Vincent."

    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the failure of the majority of boys, recommended as likely candidates for commissioned rank from the training establishments, to obtain commissions at the same age as public school cadets, as intended under the sub-lieutenant scheme, he will institute a scheme of promotion from boy to cadet on similar lines to that for the promotion of artificer apprentices to cadet (E)?
    Lord Stanley: The present scheme for the promotion of ratings from the lower deck to acting sub-lieutenant is devised to bring the ages of ratings so selected into line with those of cadet officers. Up to the present the ratings promoted have, however, been somewhat above the normal age for cadet entered officers and the matter is amongst those now receiving attention. It is not proposed to adopt the scheme suggested in the last part of the question.
    Mr. Alexander: What is the main reason for the severe falling-off in the number of men promoted to officer rank from the lower deck in the last three years?
    Lord Stanley: That is what the Admiralty is taking steps to find out, and is the object of the consideration which is being given to the matter now.
    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of writer and supply ratings, respectively, between the ages of 24 and 30 (the ages between which reserve accountant officers are to join the Navy) who have passed the higher educational test for officer rank, and who have qualified professionally for warrant
    348
    officer, respectively; and whether, in view of the large experience and high qualifications of these ratings, he will reconsider the previous Admiralty decision, and institute a scheme of early promotion to commissioned rank for accountant branch ratings on the same lines as the systems for seamen ratings, engine-room artificers, and Royal Marines?
    Lord Stanley: Five supply ratings and 15 writer ratings between the ages of 24 and 30 are at present fully qualified for promotion to warrant supply officer and warrant writer respectively. 166 supply ratings and 142 writer ratings have passed the higher educational test. It is not possible without considerable investigation to indicate how many of these ratings are between the ages of 24 and 30. I will again consider the possibility of instituting a system of early promotion to commissioned rank for these and other ratings of the accountant branch.

    WARRANT OFFICERS (RE-ENGAGEMENT).
    Mr. T. Hendersonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of warrant officers over 50 now serving as the result of previous appeals to re-engage after reaching the age for retirement; and the number over 50 required to re-engage under the appeal issued last week?
    Lord Stanley: The number of commissioned gunners, commissioned gunners (T.) and commissioner boatswains over 50 now serving is 68. The shortage remaining is 60.
    Mr. Alexander: Are steps being taken to remedy that position?
    Lord Stanley: I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have had a

    349
    committee dealing with this matter. We are now considering what further action can be taken.

    VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
    Mr. T. Hendersonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many petty officers and other naval ratings have received craft training before their final discharge from the service in the home ports in the last three years, and the length of training period?
    Lord Stanley: As the answer includes a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information required:

    Number of Naval Ratings who received Vocational Training before Discharge.

    1933–4.

    1934–5.

    1935–6.

    Portsmouth

    302

    366

    281

    Chatham

    116

    150

    96

    Devonport

    319

    264

    325

    Total for the Royal Navy.

    1,346

    1,368

    1,016

    Notes.—(1) Ratings are not necessarily discharged to shore in the year in which they receive training.

    (2) The men are trained for a large variety of occupations and the length of their training varies according to the occupation.

  PALESTINE.

    POLICE SEARCH, KFAR SABA.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why, and with what results, police searched Kfar Saba colony in Palestine, for arms?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): This action was taken as a result of an incident at the Arab village of Kfar Saba on 3rd February, when a truck containing six Arab passengers was fired on. Acting on information received, the police on 22nd February searched six houses in the Jewish settlement of Kafar Sava, three kilometres south-west of the Arab village. The occupants of these houses were suspected of having been concerned in the firing on 3rd February. As a result of the search, one new Polish rifle, parts of another and other military equipment were seized. Six Jews were arrested, of whom two still remain in custody.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have these men released; and has he observed that yesterday the Appeal Court in Palestine released Arabs who had been arrested for having arms on the ground that as they had been arrested after the expiration of the emergency regulations, the arrests were illegal?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I should like notice of the second part of the question. I had not heard before of the action of the Appeal Court to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. I certainly will not order the release of these people. They are suspected of having been implicated, and I think the charge ought to go forward.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Are we to understand that in Palestine there is one law for the Jews and another for the Arabs?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly not.

    DISTURBANCE, TIBERIAS.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any comment to make on the official communique in regard to the outbreak at Tiberias?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have seen a copy of the notice which was issued to the Press in Palestine on 2oth February. I have no comment to make on it.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Was that a communique issued to the Press?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It was issued by the Palestine Government on the evidence given to them by the police and district officers on the spot. I have no information other than the official information.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Could not the right hon. Gentleman find out further information; and is he aware that this official communique stated that there was a Jewish demonstration in Tiberias and the evidence was that a party of Jews—
    Hon. Members: Order!
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: May I correct that statement? All the evidence which I have goes to show that this trouble was caused by a small party of Revisionists or New Zionists marching in uniform.
    Colonel Wedgwood: That is the official statement. Can the right hon. Gentleman not get further information?

    MUI TSAI (COMMISSION, EVIDENCE).
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can arrange for the evidence given to the Mui Tsai Commission to be placed in the Library of the House?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Copies of the volumes of evidence have already been placed in the Library of the House.

    HUMIDITY (MAPS).
    Mr. Markhamasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when it is hoped to have published maps showing relative humidity in Great Britain; and whether it is intended to accompany such maps with a new handbook of normals?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I have been asked to reply. It is estimated that the necessary computations will be completed in about nine months' time and that the maps will be published within 12 months. The average values will be published in a book which will contain maps showing the geographical distribution of relative humidity for each month and for the year as a whole.
    Mr. Markham: Do I understand that such maps would be accompanied by a new handbook of normals?
    Sir V. Warrender: That is implied in my reply.
    Mr. Alexander: Will the companies who will benefit by this information be asked to pay anything for it?
    Mr. Markham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a question, not of industries benefiting from the information, but of the nation as a whole benefiting?

  AVIATION.

    JUNCTION AERODROME SYSTEM.
    Mr. Loganasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the special facilities offered, he
    352
    is prepared forthwith to select Speke as a central junction aerodrome in the proposed experimental scheme?
    Sir V. Warrender: My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air hopes shortly to be in a position to announce the decisions reached by His Majesty's Government as to the adoption of the recommendations of the Maybury Committee. In the meantime, it is only possible to say that if the junction aerodrome system should be approved in principle the selection of the central junction aerodrome will demand very careful consideration, and no immediate pronouncement is possible.
    Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject?
    Sir V. Warrender: I do not think that I am the person to receive a deputation, but I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to my Noble Friend.

    MUNICIPAL AERODROME, LOUGHBOROUGH.
    Mr. Kimballasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he is aware that Loughborough College has a well-equipped aeronautical engineering department with a large number of students, but that practical flying instruction is made difficult by the absence of any local aerodrome; and can he take steps to remedy this deficiency;
    (2) whether he is aware that the Loughborough Borough Council over six months ago entered into negotiations and agreed the purchase price for a site of over 200 acres for a municipal aerodrome; and why the Air Ministry have so far failed to give their approval?
    Sir V. Warrender: The proposals of the Loughborough Borough Council for establishing a municipal aerodrome have been under investigation. The technical inspection of the site has recently been completed and the views of the Air Ministry as to the requirements necessary to develop it into an aerodrome have been communicated to the borough council.

    INTERNAL TRANSPORT.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air which commercial air lines in Great Britain ceased to operate in 1936; and whether any and what further steps are proposed to improve the system of internal air transport?
    Sir V. Warrender: As regards the first part of the question, I am circulating the particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part, the question of the steps to be taken to improve the system of internal air transport is being considered in connection with the recommendations of the Maybury Committee.
    Mr. Lyons: Is the question of Government subventions under consideration, in order to help these internal air lines in their great difficulties of development?
    Sir V. Warrender: That is another question.
    Following are the particulars:
    Commercial air lines in Great Britain which ceased to operate in 1936:
    British Airways, Limited.—London—Liverpool.
    North Eastern Airways, Limited.—Heston—Leeds—Newcastle—Edinburgh. (Subsequently replaced by a line Croydon — Doncaster — Leeds/Bradford—Newcastle—Perth).
    Southend-on-Sea Flying Services, Limited, with Short Brothers, Limited.—Southend—Rochester.
    Crilly Airways, Limited.—Bristol—London—Norwich. Bristol—Leicester—Norwich. Liverpool—Leicester. Northampton—Leicester—Nottingham.
    This list excludes suspensions of services during the winter season.

    SEAPLANE BASE (LYTHAM).
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has now considered a site and factory at Lytham, Lancashire, offered to him for the purpose of production of seaplanes or as a seaplane base; and what views he has formed on the subject?
    Sir V. Warrender: The offer was duly considered by the Air Ministry, but the site is unsuitable as a Royal Air Force seaplane base, mainly because of tidal conditions in the Ribble, and the Ministry is not seeking further capacity for the manufacture of seaplanes. The agents for the leaseholder have therefore been informed that the Air Ministry does not wish to acquire the property referred to, and at the same time an expression of thanks was conveyed to them for bringing the site to the notice of the Department.
    Mr. Logan: Do I take it that if a reliable seaplane base can be pointed out, the Ministry will be prepared to consider such a site?
    Sir V. Warrender: I daresay.

    AERODROME BUILDING (BRICKS).
    Mr. E. Dunnasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the bricks being used in the aerodromes in this country are being purchased from manufacturers at home and abroad; and will he see that the orders placed for bricks are located in the counties where the aerodromes are to be built?
    Sir V. Warrender: As regards the first part of the question, the use of foreign bricks would be contrary to the contract conditions. If the hon. Member has any information that the conditions are being contravened, I should be grateful if he would inform the Air Ministry. As regards the last part, bricks are provided by the contractors undertaking the construction work, and it is not practicable to insist on their obtaining bricks made in the particular county in which the work is to be carried out.

    METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE.
    Mr. Markhamasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any special funds or facilities are given to superintendents of the Meteorological Office to carry out investigations or research work; and whether the results of such investigations are published by the Meteorological Office?
    Sir V. Warrender: No question arises of making special payments to members of the staff of the Meteorological Office, who are all whole-time civil servants, in respect of investigations or research work carried out by them. Provision is, however, made in Air Estimates to provide payment to investigators outside the office at Universities and elsewhere, and to the National Physical Laboratory for special investigations. As regards facilities for research at the Meteorological Office, the normal work of a large proportion of the staff is in the nature of research, especially at the observatories, and the sum total of research work carried out by the staff is very considerable, as will be seen from the list of papers published by them which is

    355
    quoted in the annual reports of the Director of the Meteorological Office. The Meteorological Office itself publishes two series of monographs: Geophysical Memoirs and Professional Notes. During the ten years 1927–36, 35 papers have been published in the former and 29 in the latter, and many of these deal with outstanding research work in meteorological science.

  DEFENCE.

    SUPPLY.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Prime Minister whether he has come to any new conclusions regarding separate supervision of the strategical aspects of Defence from the supply aspect of the problem?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the suggestion which he dismisses so curtly has the support almost unanimously of informed opinion as expressed both in this House and outside?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add.

    NEW FACTORIES.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence how many new factories it is proposed to build in connection with the rearmament programme; and how many of these will be situated in the Special Areas?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): It is not at present possible to say how many factories it will be necessary to build for the purposes of the defence programme. The White Paper (Cmd. 5386) indicates the extent to which consideration has already been given in this connection to the Special Areas, and the Government propose to continue this policy as and when the occasion arises.
    Mr. Paling: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that there are areas not included in the Special Areas which are equally hard hit with unemployment, and will he also bear in mind that, in answer to a question a fortnight ago, he admitted that not a single factory had been put down in the whole of Yorkshire?
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether it is proposed to establish any more aircraft or other factories; and, if so, will he bear in mind the heavy rate of unemployment in the Wigan coal area?
    Sir T. Inskip: There is no present intention to establish further aircraft factories. Factories for other purposes will, however, be required, and consideration will be given to the Wigan area in this connection.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking not to arrange for the establishment of any factory in the constituency of a Member who votes against the Defence Estimates?
    Mr. E. Dunnasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the bricks being used in the construction of the Chorley munition factory are being purchased from the Fletton brickfields, whilst unemployment is prevailing in the brickfields of Lancashire and Yorkshire; and will he state what he proposes to do in the matter?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson)(for the First Commissioner of Works): No, Sir. I am informed that the bricks being used in the construction of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Chorley are being obtained by the contractor from brickfields in Lancashire.
    Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister see whether it is possible, in view of the large unemployment among stonemasons, to use local stone, when it is available, instead of brick?

    ESSENTIAL MANUFACTURES (IMPORTATION).
    Miss Wardasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has acquired from the Board of Trade information as to the essential manufactured requirements of this country which are imported from abroad and not manufactured here?
    Sir T. Inskip: I am in close touch with the Board of Trade and other Departments on these matters.
    Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the other day the President of the Board of Trade said that no information was available, and will he con-

    357
    sider, when he receives the information, asking manufacturers whether they would consider setting up the factories required in the Special Areas? Could I have an answer?
    Sir T. Inskip: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that long question down.
    Miss Ward: Shall I get an answer if I put the question down?

    FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Mr. De Ia Bèreasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in the event of any future wars, since ration cards alone without food would not prevent starvation, what steps he is taking to secure for this country an adequate supply of food?
    Sir T. Inskip: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and to himself on 18th February, and to what I said on the subject of food supplies during the debate on the same day. I explained that though the Government's task is directed to ensuring the uninterrupted supply of essential food and is not restricted to control and rationing schemes, it is not possible to furnish information at the present time.
    Mr. De Ia Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state, in order that more food may be produced in this country in the event of any future war, what steps he proposes to take to retain the boys and young men on the land instead of allowing them to drift away to the towns?
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 19th January last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Salford (Major Stourton).
    Mr. Thorne: Are the Government doing nothing to put into cultivation all the land which is now out of cultivation?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the answer to which I have referred.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has established any official or unofficial censorship upon the publication
    358
    of information in the Press relative to the national defences; and whether such restrictions apply to the technical as well as to the daily Press?
    Sir T. Inskip: No censorship of the Press is exercised. From time to time the Press are asked to refrain from publishing certain items of information the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to national security.

    METALS.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the Government have made any forward contracts for the supply of steel and other metals for use in the rearmament programme or whether they have instructed Government contractors to make such purchases at prices now ruling?
    Sir T. Inskip: So far as direct supplies of the materials in question are concerned, advance covering arrangements have been made in certain cases. So far as supplies of contractors are concerned, no instructions have been given. Over considerable areas of supply contractors are aware in advance of the probable requirements and can take appropriate action.
    Mr. Garro Jones: May the House understand then that the price which the Government are paying for their metals for rearmament is at a figure considerably less than the greatly enhanced prices which are now ruling?
    Sir T. Inskip: In a great many cases yes, certainly.
    Mr. Alexander: Does the right hon. Gentleman now expect a reduction in the price of the material by the halving of the import duty?
    Sir T. Inskip: If the right hon. Member is referring to iron ore, I will consider that and obtain information.
    Sir Hugh Seely: Does it cover copper?
    Mr. David Adamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the abnormal rise in the prices of non-ferrous metals and consequent advance in the cost of materials for armaments, he proposes to formulate a plan for the control of such metals?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): My right hon. Friend has consulted the Minister

    359
    for Co-ordination of Defence, and as at present advised they do not think that such a control is either necessary or desirable.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that there was again a sharp advance yesterday in the price of base metals?
    Dr. Burgin: Yes, certainly, but if you want a commodity and there is a world price at which you can procure it, and if you set up a form of control in your own country so that you may buy it at a lesser price, it results in your not procuring it.
    Mr. Adams: Are we to understand from the answer that the method of controlling metals during the War was incorrect?
    Mr. Paling: Are the Government going to do nothing in regard to controlling these prices?
    Mr. Garro Jones: Has the Minister ever heard of the principle of forward purchases?

    TIMBER SUPPLY.
    Lord William Scottasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to ensure an adequate supply of timber in the event of war; what quantity of home-grown timber will be available; and whether arrangements have been made to ensure that such timber is promply made use of?
    Dr. Burgin: The questions involved in ensuring supplies of timber for essential purposes in the event of war are not being overlooked. Arrangements for the use of home-grown timber are being considered in conjunction with the Forestry Commission, but I am unable to give any estimate of the quantity of timber which is likely to be available from this source.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend taking any steps to see that a census of timber production is taken?
    Dr. Burgin: I think that that is rather another question, but I have no reason to believe that the Forestry Commission are not well informed as to home-grown timber.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no census whatever of production in this country?

    FUEL OIL.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher (for Mr. E. J. Williams)asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the extraction of oil from coal is seriously considered as part of the Defence policy of the country; and what progress is being made in implementing such plants for Defence purposes?
    Sir T. Inskip: Yes, Sir. I would refer to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) on 17th February.
    Mr. Paling: Does that mean that the process referred to has been a success and that it has been decided to go on with it and to lay down plants at other places?
    Sir T. Inskip: No decision as to other places has yet been made.
    Mr. Alexander: Have the Government considered the extraction of heavy oil fuel from coal?
    Sir T. Inskip: I will look into that.

    UNITED STATES (NATIONAL PLANNING BOARD).
    Mr. C. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the work of the National Planning Board in the United States, which is engaged in the organisation of housing, transport, town-planning, commerce, and industry; and whether he will consider the sending of a commission to inquire as to the success of the board's efforts in New England and report as to how far they are applicable to the British Isles?
    The Prime Minister: Apart from references which I have seen in the Press, my attention has not been drawn to the work of this board. As at present advised, I see no ground for sending a commission for the purposes to which the hon. Member refers.

  TRANSPORT.

    SHIP CANAL (NEW BRIDGE).
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport whether he can make a statement about the prospects of a new bridge or bridges to be constructed over the Ship Canal between Warrington and Salford?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hore-Belisha): No definite scheme has been submitted by the responsible authorities.
    Mr. Smith: Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation recently from the local authorities, and, if so, what steps is he taking with a view to getting them together to carry out this most needed improvement?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There was a discussion with the deputation. I did not participate in that discussion, but I await any scheme that may be submitted by the responsible authorities.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received the report from the chief constable of Stoke-on-Trent of the investigation that was promised into the number of accidents on the roads of the city?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: A committee of investigation appointed by the city council considered with my officers certain suggestions for improvement, and a number of these are now being put into effect, including the construction of several roundabouts, the erection of warning signs, the placing of pedestrian crossings, the resiting of refuges and the re-aligning of curbs.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a reply from the Transport Advisory Council on the question of the practicability of compelling all motor vehicles to be equipped with guards for the purpose of reducing road fatalities; and whether he proposes to take any action on same?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part is, "No, Sir."
    Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received a report from the Association of Municipal Corporations in response to his request that it should indicate any practical measures for the better protection of cyclists and other road users; whether he can state the nature of the recommendations which have been made by the association; and what steps he proposes to take to give effect to them?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I made no request to the Association of Municipal Corporations, but the Transport Advisory Council
    362
    are, at my request, investigating this matter.

    RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (MANCHESTER AREA).
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the House about the proposed electrification of railways; and what sections of lines are to be electrified within a 50-mile radius of Manchester?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: In the area in question, electrification is being undertaken by the London and North Eastern Railway Company of the line between Mancheser and Sheffield and by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company of the Wirral section of their railway, from West Kirby and New Brighton to Birkenhead Park.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Are these railways being run by the centre-rail method or by a safer method?

    DISABLED DRIVERS (PARKING FACILITIES).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allenasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to consider the issue of special instructions, or a special badge, to enable drivers of motor vehicles suffering from loss of a leg or leg injuries special facilities for parking their vehicles?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have no power to adopt this suggestion.

    RAILWAY TICKETS (CONDITIONS OF ISSUE).
    Mr. Grovesasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many railway tickets are issued on condition that neither the holder nor any other person shall have the right of action against the company or other owners of any vehicles or premises upon which such tickets are available in respect of injury, loss, damage or delay, and that these tickets are issued in circumstances that the passenger cannot normally learn the conditions of issue; and whether he will take powers to compel the railway companies to publish clearly on posters as well as on the back of the ticket the conditions of issue?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am awaiting from the railway companies the result of the further examination which I asked them to make of this matter.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (WINDSCREENS).
    Mr. Crowderasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the danger to motorists who, having cars fitted with safety-glass windscreens, have found these suddenly rendered opaque by being struck by chance pieces of stone; and whether he will, in the interests of public safety, make inquiries into the extent of this type of occurrence?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. Consequent on my attention being called to this matter by my hon. Friend, I at once communicated with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION).
    Sir Murdoch Macdonaldasked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to announce the Government's decision upon the report of the Committee on Electricity Distribution?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have decided to adopt in principle, subject to certain modifications in detail, the recommendations of the McGowan Committee for a reorganisation of electricity supply. As the Prime Minister has already stated, it will not be possible to add to the programme of the present Session a Bill dealing with this matter, but His Majesty's Government intend at an early date to communicate to the associations of the principal interests affected an outline of their legislative proposals, and we shall be prepared to discuss with the associations any points which they desire to raise. The major modifications in the recommendations of the committee are that the schemes for the consolidation of the separate undertakings will be prepared by the Electricity Commissioners, not by temporary district commissioners appointed for the purpose; and that in every case, irrespective of the size of the undertakings concerned, schemes made by the commissioners and not agreed by the undertakers will become operative only when confirmed by the Minister of Transport and approved by Parliament.
    Mr. White: Will the outline of the legislative proposals be submited to the House?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: They will form the basis of discussion with the associations concerned.
    Mr. Ede: Will these negotiations be confined to the associations or will the major undertakings of the country be consulted?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I understand that all the undertakers are in one association or another, and it will simplify matters if we can deal directly with the principal bodies.
    Mr. Leach: In making modifications in the McGowan recommendations, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider the need of favouring the claims of the largest undertakings, the municipalities?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The modifications that I have announced are those that I have been given to understand will be generally acceptable,
    Mr. Ede: Are we to understand that the Minister's statement with regard to the non-appointment of the second commissioner will also apply to the area of London and the home counties?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: It will apply universally.

    TRADE DISPUTE, HARWORTH.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Attorney-General how many possession orders have been obtained by Messrs. Barber, Walker, and Company, Limited, against their tenants at Harworth, Nottinghamshire, involved in the present trade dispute; and when the earliest order is due for execution?
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have been able to ascertain the number of possession orders applied for since October of last year by Messrs. Barber, Walker and Company, Limited. I cannot say whether the tenants are involved in the present trade dispute. Eighty-five possession orders have been made, but in only three cases has possession been obtained. The remainder are suspended on terms until varying dates. A further 173 applications were returnable on 23rd February, but the hearing was adjourned on the plaintiffs' application till 23rd March.
    Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether any legal steps can be taken by these tenants to

    365
    obtain suspension of these orders, considering the negotiations which are now going on between the Minister of Mines and certain other parties?
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I am precluded by my office from giving legal advice to private individuals, but I have no doubt that the tenants whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind would be able to get legal advice as to whether they have any rights in that respect.
    Mr. Buchanan: In view of the fact that a large number of these people are involved in a trade dispute and that the taking over of their houses will bring women and children into the dispute, could not the hon. and learned Gentleman see his way to approach the firm and ask them, in the interests of humanity, to stop these possession orders?
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that that is entirely outside my province. The hon. Gentleman asks for certain information in his question which I have got for him.

    BROADCASTING (LUXEMBOURG).
    Sir N. Grattan-Doyleasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that undesirable programmes in English are being transmitted on a stolen wavelength; and what steps are being taken to rectify the matter?
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): Representations have been made to the Luxembourg Government on several occasions, both in regard to the broadcasting of advertisements in English from the Luxembourg wireless station and to the use by that station of a wavelength which has not been allotted to it by international agreement. These representations have not so far been successful. Further representations concerning the advertising programmes were made to the Luxembourg Government in December last; but no reply has yet been received.
    Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: May I ask my hon. Friend what, in these circumstances, he proposes to do about it?
    Sir W. Womersley: Keep on with the negotiations.
    Mr. Groves: Will the hon. Gentleman recommend them to take their own bile beans which they advertise?

    WESTLEIGH COLLIERY.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Westleigh collieries, which closed down a few weeks ago, have not re-started; and, in view of the demand for coal now above the present supply, he will communicate with the owners of Westleigh collieries to find out when it is their intention to re-open them?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I have made further inquiry, and I understand that the negotiations between the management and the workmen, to which I referred in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member last week, are still in progress.
    Mr. Tinker: Is the Minister aware that from inquiries made, there is no truth in that statement, and that the owners have not attempted to negotiate, and can he do anything to get the two parties together?
    Captain Crookshank: As our information is contradictory, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have a word with me.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not possible for the Minister to get in touch with the Minister of Labour to see whether they cannot avoid the consequences of closing down the pit?
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Cannot the Minister get in touch with the trustees of the Nuffield Trust so that they can help this pit as they did at Whitehaven?
    Mr. Tinker: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, and the fact that 1,300 men are out of work, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Sir Joseph Lambasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that a large amount of foreign pottery was exhibited at the British Industries Fair camouflaged with part production of English manufacturers, the value of the articles from abroad being much more than the part made in Britain; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this perversion of the object of the Fair in future years?
    Captain Wallace (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The regulations provide that goods, to be eligible for display, must have been "manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire." If my hon. Friend will give me details of any specific instances which he has in mind where the regulations appear to have been contravened, I will have them investigated with a view to preventing a recurrence at future Fairs.

    SHOPS ACT, 1934 (PERISHABLE COMMODITIES).
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties experienced by traders selling perishable articles, which need a low temperature for their preservation, owing to the various decisions of local authorities in different parts of the country in the legal obligations imposed on shopkeepers to maintain a suitable and sufficient temperature in their shops; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure an equitable administration of the law throughout the country?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has received representations from certain trade organisations in regard to the operation, in the case of shops in which perishable articles are sold, of the provision in Section 10 of the Shops Act, 1934, which requires the maintenance of a reasonable temperature in every part of a shop in which persons are employed. The Section lays it down that "suitable and sufficient means" to this end shall be provided, but the expression "suitable and sufficient" is defined to mean suitable and sufficient having regard to the circumstances and conditions affecting the shop. Subject, in the case of dispute, to the verdict of the Courts, the question is thus essentially one for the discretion of the local authority in each individual case; and, after full consideration of all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend has made it clear to the associations who have communicated with him that the matter is not one in which the Department is in a position to issue any further guidance to local authorities, beyond the advice given in an explanatory circular issued in
    368
    December, 1934, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Williams: Can my hon. Friend explain why what the magistrates consider to be a suitable and sufficient temperature to preserve a haddock fresh in Birmingham should be different from what it is in London?
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the comfort of the shop assistant is very much more important than the care of the perishable goods in the shop?
    Mr. Macquisten: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the shopkeepers that if they would provide their assistants with proper cardigans or other warm wear they would not get cold?

    PROSECUTION (STRATFORD POLICE COURT).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Victor Punshon, of 125, Church Road, Leyton, was charged with theft at Stratford Police Court, on Friday, 12th February, and that the bench decided there was insufficient evidence to convict; whether he has examined the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence against him; whether he is aware that five witnesses are prepared to testify that the accused was engaged at his father's shop during the time of the alleged offence; and whether, in view of the legal expenses in which this man and his father were involved, he will see that the innocent man receives adequate compensation?
    Mr. Lloyd: Inquiries have been made about this case, and I understand an application was made to the Court on behalf of the defendant for costs and the application was refused. It does not appear to be a case for any action by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second case of the kind which has occurred in my constituency within the last few weeks: is he further aware that this particular accused person left the court, in the words of the bench, "without a stain on his character"; and as the man has been involved in an expenditure of some £15 to £20 is it not desirable that some compensation should be given to him?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think it is a general rule that persons who have been acquitted should have their expenses paid from public funds.
    Mr. Sorensen: Surely the hon. Member must realise that we want it to be appreciated that justice is done in this country, and that it will not be appreciated if some compensation is not paid.

    QUARTER SESSIONS (COUNSEL).
    Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal delivered on 24th February in the case of Rex v. Riordan; and whether he proposes to issue a circular as to the desirability of instructing counsel to prosecute at quarter sessions in all cases where the liberty of young persons is concerned?
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has seen a Press report of the judgment in the case referred to. As regards the second part of the question, he has no authority to issue a circular to courts of quarter sessions in the sense suggested, but I have no doubt that due note will have been taken of the dicta of the Court of Criminal Appeal in this case, and that suitable arrangements will be made to meet the criticisms to which it gave rise.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Sir James Arthur Salter, for the University of Oxford.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Half-past Seven of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6, any such Private Business may be taken after Half-past Nine of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

STANDING COMMITTEE A.
Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report relative to the Annual Holiday Bill.
Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

ANNUAL HOLIDAY BILL.
Reported, so far as amended, from Standing Committee A; to lie upon the Table.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.
Ordered,
"That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to Mr. Edward Cliffe Vigors, C.B., Principal Clerk of Private Bills and Private Committees, to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports."—[Sir Francis Fremantle.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the description of the persons with whom arrangements may be made under the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, for the dispensing of medicines." [National Health Insurance Act (Amendment) Bill [Lords].

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1935.
3.48 p.m.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move:
"That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Additional Days and Waiting Period) Order, 1937, laid before Parliament on the twenty-third day of February in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved."
The House will remember that under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, a Statutory Committee was appointed charged with the performance of statutory duties in connection with the Insurance Fund. One of those duties was to make an annual report upon the financial condition of the Fund. Since that time the House has received four reports from that committee. It would not be in order for me to discuss the details of those reports, except in so far as they have a bearing upon the Order which I now move. The first report was in the nature of a preliminary survey of the problem. In it the committee promised to present an additional report six months afterwards. That report was duly made, and recommended an increase of is a week in children's allowances, raising them from 2s. to 3s. In the following year, last year, the third report was made, and that recommended a reduction in the contributions all round by id., at a cost of £6,500,000 a year. The report on which this Order is based was presented 10 days ago as a result of the committee's survey of the working of the fund during the last calendar year, and it is as a result of their examination of the state of the fund that I move this draft Order to-day.
Let me outline the financial basis of this Order. The fact that we can lay such proposals before the House for its approval is eminently satisfactory. It is not merely an outstanding comment upon the wonderful industrial recovery that has been taking place throughout the country, and that has resulted in increased employment and a decrease of unemployment, but it is proof that the foundations of Part I of the Act of 1935 were well and truly laid. Not merely is there a surplus in the Fund, but the committee are in the position to recommend to the Government and to Parliament an alteration of the conditions
380
respecting unemployment benefit, but not by reduction of contributions or increases of benefit, as has been the case in the two previous reports.
I would point out to the House that the committee reported receipts for 1936 amounting to £65,707,238, that is to say, nearly £i,000,000 more than in the previous year, despite the fact that from 7th July of last year, or for nearly half a year, there has been a reduction of 1d. on the contribution from the employers, the workers and the State. The expenditure totalled £48,000,000, or £6,045,000 less than in 1935, a situation which is due to the increase of employment and the decrease of unemployment. The committee report that the unemployment rate fell from 16.1 per cent. in January, 1936, to 11.9 in August, 1936, whereas the average, instead of being 14.5 for the year as was expected, fell to 13 per cent. The broad result is that the committee were able to report a surplus during 1936 of £17,527,470, so that the cumulative balance at the end of the year was nearly £39,000,000, or £6,700,000 more than the committee had estimated in their previous report.
Those who have studied the report will have noticed that the committee have made three separate analyses of unemployment. They have made an analysis by industries, another by Ministry of Labour divisions—the areas into which the country is divided for the administrative purposes of the Ministry—and a most interesting analysis of unemployment by counties. About that, I would say one thing. The House will have noticed the comment pointing out the unexpected high rate of unemployment and, what is even more important from the point of view of the fund, the unexpectedly high percentage of unemployment ranking for benefit in certain counties, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland and the rural parts of Wales. On this matter there is an interesting passage which I cannot discuss now. I can say only that I have asked the committee to examine the problem further, which they will proceed to do.
My task to-day is easy. I have to recommend to the House to accept the recommendation of the majority of the committee. Two of the members of the committee express a desire for further reductions in contribution or alterations

381
in the manner of dealing with the debt. The Committee recommend two things, a reduction of the waiting period, which now stands at six days, as it has stood for some years, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, an alteration in the number of additional days which may be added to the period for which men who have had good records of employment may draw benefit. That will have a double effect. In the early stages it may prevent men from applying for unemployment assistance, and in the later stages it will keep them on benefit correspondingly longer, according to the number of added days to which their record of employment entitles them.
The financial basis of these recommendations is as follows: As I have already said, the committee realised a surplus of £6,700,000 over their estimate. As a result of their triple analysis of unemployment by industry, by Employment Exchange divisions and by county, they came to the conclusion that they would have a potential disposable surplus during 1937 of £12,275,000. The £6,700,000 of course, is already realised. As the House knows, the committee have examined all these problems with great vision and clearness, under the able chairmanship of Sir William Beveridge, and they came to the conclusion that it would not be prudent to take into account the full £12,270,000. They recommend that we should proceed on the basis of 8o per cent. of that potential surplus. That percentage means £9,820,000. Add to that the £6,700,000 and we get the figure £16,520,000. That sum, together with interest over the period of eight years during which it is to be spent, means a total disposable non-recurrent surplus of £17,250,000.
Hon. Members will recall from our discussion of the previous Order that the preliminary survey of the committee led them to the belief that it would be prudent and wise in all these recommendations to follow an eight-year cycle. They recommend that the sum of £17,250,000, the total disposable surplus, should be disposed over an eight years' cycle at the rate of £2,250,000 per year. Then they proceed to recommend, as I have told the House, that the surplus should be disposed of in those two forms, by taking three days off the waiting
382
period, and providing a certain number of extra additional days at the end of the period of benefit. On the latter point, the committee indicate that it would have been possible to add days of benefit in terms of two weeks additional to the standard period of 26 weeks, but they preferred this way, as being a much more effective and beneficial use of the sum of money. My recommendation, if the House passes, as I have no doubt it will, this Draft Order, is that the shorter waiting period should become effective as from the 25th March.
I do not think I need to labour the point. The committee are quite clear that evidence was laid before them showing a great body of opinion in favour of this reform. More than that; the position with regard to the waiting period is not quite the same as it used to be before the operation of the Unemployment Assistance Board under Part II of the Act of 1934. Previous to that, the argument always was that it was better for a man to have six waiting days at the end of a long period of employment, as the money thus saved could be used for extending the period of benefit. The man now goes straight to the Unemployment Assistance Board when he runs out of benefit, and the argument has not the same force.
Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Easter holiday count as these three waiting days?
Mr. Brown: I will look into that point and let the hon. Member have an answer before the Debate ends. I think that this reform will be universally approved by the House and I shall be indeed disappointed if the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who I understand is to follow me, does not agree with it heartily—that is the reduction of the waiting period by three days. There is another point on which I desire to say a few words. At the moment when a man has 30 contributions in two years he may draw 26 weeks' benefit, or 156 days' benefit; but if he has good employment over five years he may have three additional days added for every five contributions, less one additional day for every five days' benefit drawn. I think I can make it clear in another way. The right hon. Member for Wakefield knows that my statement is accurate, but the worst of all these things is that they are technical and involve a certain amount of insurance jargon.

383
Let me give two illustrations of a simple character which will make clear what this reform will do. You alter the ratio of days substracted from one in five to one in eight. That is the simple explanation. I have got out two cases which will show hon. Members precisely how the change will work out. A man with an average of 40 stamps a year, which means 200 stamps in five years, and who has worked zoo weeks, will have drawn an average of II weeks' benefit each year. Of 12 weeks of unemployment, one week will not count because it is a waiting week. He will have drawn 55 weeks' benefit. At present if he has worked 40 weeks for five years, that is 200 weeks, he will be able to draw 54 additional days. Under the alteration, altering the divisor from five to eight, instead of adding 54 additional days you add 79. It really is quite simple. The hon. Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths) now has it quite clear, I think. The effect of this arrangement upon a man who has worked on the average 40 weeks for five years will be that whereas now he gets 54 additional days added to the 26 weeks, he will in future get 79 days added.
But here is an even more striking illustration. If the average were 35 stamps for 35 weeks' work, with i6 weeks of benefit over the past five years, a man can qualify now for nine additional days, but under the new scheme he will qualify for 45 additional days, which means of course that he will have nearly six weeks longer of benefit. If he falls out of work then he will have six weeks longer on the fund than under the present arrangement. I think that on reflection hon. Members will see that that method of adding additional days will be much more effective and beneficial for those who have good records of employment than an all-round distribution would be. The three days off the waiting period will, it is estimated, cost £9,700,000 over the eight years, or £1,225,000 per annum; and the three days added to the additional days, taking a ratio of eight days instead of five, will cost nearly £8,000,000 over the eight years, or about £1,000,000 a year.
Mr. Duncan: Will those additional days be cumulative or must they all be
384
taken in one year? Can they be saved up?
Mr. Brown: They count, of course, against the man's record. So the thing is cumulative in that way. That, I think, is a clear explanation of the proposal and its effects, and I feel sure that it is satisfactory to hon. Members in all parts of the House. A Minister is always glad when standing at this Box to be able to recommend to the House on behalf of the Government of the day the things which, when he sat in Opposition, he used to argue in favour of, and that is my happy lot to-day.
Mr. Roland Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the number of men who will be affected by the proposals with regard to additional days?
Mr. Brown: I have not got the calculations with me at the moment.
4.7 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman in winding up his speech made a confession, because when this question was previously before the House I reminded him of the time when he stood on this side of the House, on the third bench below the Gangway, as the great champion of the unemployed. We have got rid of that illusion. To-day we find the right hon. Gentleman sitting next to the Minister of Health. To both of the right hon. Gentlemen I have had to reply within the last week, that neither of them understands the formula under which he is working. I will say this for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health: His formula is a statutory one; he is not a rubber stamp. The rubber stamp was put on by this House, and therefore I acquit the right hon. Gentleman. I said what I thought about him last week. The Minister of Labour has asked the House to accept the findings of the Statutory Committee. Is a Statutory Committee to become a dominating factor in this House? The last time it reported the Minister of Labour came to the House very meekly and said, "I, a Minister of the Crown, am the rubber stamp of the Statutory Committee." Now he comes and asks us to accept the findings of the Statutory Committee. I am glad he did it in this case; I am sorry he did it last time.

385
At the beginning I want to enter my protest against Ministers of the Crown meekly accepting the advice which is given to them. As the right hon. Gentleman has told us, these questions are of ten very technical. It is a common device of Ministers to try to baffle the House by saying, "Well, this is a very difficult question. There is a formula. There is something very complicated. There are very difficult regulations." But this question is not technical. It is dealing with people who are out of work, and it is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to come down to the House and talk about the divisor and subtracting additional days, which to me seems to be confused mathematics. The right hon. Gentleman has not enlightened us on what is the primary problem with which the House is faced. On the last occasion when he came to the House, again putting his rubber stamp on the report of the Statutory Committee, he came with a proposal that there should be a penny reduction in the contribution. That we opposed because, although we thought the rates of contribution are far too high, we said that a penny reduction per week was a penny wasted on the part of every insured person, and that millions of pennies per week kept in the pool and distributed to the unemployed would be something substantial. This time the right hon. Gentleman comes with the report of the Statutory Committee, and they have learned wisdom.
What are our suggestions for the surplus which is accruing going to the unemployed? In the report there is a long discussion because two members of the Statutory Committee disagreed with the majority about using the surplus for the reduction of debt. I remember speaking on a previous occasion and explaining that so far as we are concerned we should never agree to using that surplus for debt reduction, never. I object to the principle whereby the National Debt, all of it accumulated for war purposes, should be placed on the backs of the whole of the people, while a debt accumulated during a period of trade depression should have to be borne only one-third by the State and two-thirds by the people in industry. I am glad to think that the Statutory Committee finally disposed of the idea that any contributions should be used beyond the statutory 5,000,0030 a year, which seems to me to be an outrage—that
386
any funds should be used beyond that for debt reduction.
We do, of course, approve the shortening of the waiting period; there can be no doubt about that. I spoke upon that subject when this matter was last before the House. I am only too sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to apply that to agriculture. I think there has been some misunderstanding about it. I have the correspondence here, and if the Minister would like me to read it I will read it. It will be found in the report that the National Federation of Employers' Associations was asked to give evidence and the Trades Union Congress General Council was asked to give evidence. They gave evidence, and it has been made perfectly clear by the Trades Union Congress and by the organisation representing the agricultural workers that, when the Trades Union Congress said they were in favour of shortening the waiting period, that included agriculture. I think, therefore, that, in view of the type of scheme that we now have for agriculture, something of a gesture to these people might have been made by shortening the waiting period of them also.
While we welcome the shortening of the waiting period—it was a Labour Government that first introduced it and brought the period down to three days—we do not regard that as being too generous a contribution to the solution of the problem of the unemployed, though I agree that there are numbers of people who fall out of work and for whom the immediate urgency of money in the home is a matter of very considerable importance. There is a table in the Report of the Statutory Committee which shows how long unemployed persons have to wait before they can receive benefit. It is true, as they say, that a family may perhaps have secret hoards of wealth on which they can maintain themselves; it is true, as they say, that, if there is nothing of that kind, there is the Poor Law; but at the same time it is equally true that small wage-earners ought, when they fall out of work, to be able to enjoy their benefit without a long delay.
Of course we agree also to any lengthening of the period of payment to people who are out of work. The right hon. Gentleman has explained to us in the most convincing terms—as convincing

387
as those used by the Minister of Health in defining his formula last week—how this is going to work, and I thank the Committee for that. I think it is good that people who have been out of work and enjoy their benefit for 26 weeks should have that period extended. But I am bound to point out that what is being done under these proposals is not to help the people who have been out of work longest, but to do something for the people who have been lucky in the past. It is not for us on this side of the House to look the gift horse in the mouth; we are grateful for the fact that people are going to get more than 26 weeks' benefit; but we are bound to point out also that the people who are getting this extension, hard though their cases may be, are not the people who really ought to be the care of the Minister of Labour and the Statutory Committee.
I want to put some general principles to which we on this side of the House are committed. We opposed the reduction of contributions last time, and we shall continue always to oppose any proposals for the reduction of contributions until the unemployed are dealt with fairly. We would rather that our people paid their penny than that unemployed people should be dealt with in the miserly fashion which appears to be the idea of this Government. We oppose the whole basis of the proposals which are now in operation for making unemployment insurance a business proposition, which it can never be. It does not matter whether it is unemployment insurance, the Unemployment Assistance Board, or the Poor Law; the community somehow has to pay for the unemployed, and nobody will ever find a way of establishing an actuarially sound basis for insurance against unemployment; it cannot be done. We oppose this idea of putting the fund on an actuarial basis by turning people out of it, by shortening the period for which they can get benefit, and by increasing contributions, and we say that, the fund having been established, surpluses, where they accrue, should always go to the advantage of the people who are out of work, and should not be used either for extinguishing debt or for the reduction of contributions. I want the House to understand that, although working people are not well off, they would rather have surpluses used for the advantage of their fellows who are out of work
388
than have them used for microscopic diminutions in the rate of contributions.
Those benefits from the surpluses can be applied in two ways. The first is by an increase of benefits, and, having regard to what is happening to-day, having regard to the ramp which is going on now because of rearmament, having regard to the fact that there is every prospect of a rise in the cost of living, it is important that the Statutory Committee should consider very seriously the utilisation of future surpluses for raising benefits. When this question was last before the House, I gave the House the cost of raising certain benefits. The costs are not extravagant to the fund, but the value to the people who receive the benefits is inestimable.
In the second place, in addition to raising the rates of benefit to a level which will enable the victims of unemployment to live at a reasonable standard of life, we would ask that there should be an extended period of payment. At present it is 26 weeks, and now the right hon. Gentleman, for the very good boy, for the lucky boy, is extending that a little bit. Our desire is that the period of statutory benefit should be extended so as to diminish the chances of unemployed workers having to go to the Unemployment Assistance Board. We should like to see all unemployed workers, or anyhow the maximum number of unemployed workers, getting their payment by right, and not as a result of inquisition; and it is important, therefore, that this limit of 26 weeks per year, which had not been in operation for years until 1931, should be extended. It is all the more important because of the fact that, as hon. Members will see if they look at the report of the Committee and study the returns of unemployment from the various areas, those areas where unemployment has been most prolonged are the poorest. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say on a future occasion about the question of distressed areas, and I hope I may have something to say too, so I do not want to venture into that question now; but, if the Government mean to do something about the question of distressed areas, it is all the more important that in these very depressed areas where unemployment has been prolonged, where the agony is hopeless and the suffering is indescribable, we should do what we can to restore the self-respect

389
of the people by lengthening the period for which they can enjoy their statutory right to unemployment benefit without having to go to the Unemployment Assistance Board.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give to me and my friends two pledges. In the first place, although, as I lead the report, the reduction and extinguishment of the debt is a matter for the Board, I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that, so far as he and the Government are concerned, they are going to give no support on any occasion to any proposal to try to extinguish the debt more rapidly by penalising the people who are out of work. If the surplus is used for debt reduction purposes, obviously it cannot be used for the benefit of the people who are out of work. As the report points out, the only advantage that would come from that would come to people who are not yet in the field of industry; the people who will be penalised to-day will be dead by the time the advantage comes from this reduction of the debt. With regard to the second point, which I think is even more important, I would ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary—I do not want to be too friendly to this Government, but I think it would be good from their point of view to make their position clear—to say that, so far as the Government are concerned, the accruing surplus on the fund shall, as a matter of policy, be used in the interests of the people who are out of work—that is to say, that there shall be no talk in the future of debt redemption and there shall be no talk in the future of reducing contributions, much as we want to see the contributions reduced. We should like an undertaking that, so far as there are surpluses, they will be used for the people who are unemployed.
I am glad to think that speeches made on this side of the House on the last occasion have come true. We pleaded then for a shortening of the waiting period; we pleaded then for a rise in benefits; we pleaded then for a lengthening of the period of statutory benefit; and we were given a penny reduction, for which we offered the Government no thanks. On this occasion we have at least got two minor concessions, or, perhaps I should say, one major concession and one minor concession. We have got a shortening of the waiting period, for which we are all grateful, and we
390
have got, for some people, a lengthening of the period during which they can enjoy benefit. That is an acceptance of the principle that people ought to have unemployment benefit for a longer period than 26 weeks. I do not thank the right hon. Gentleman specially for what he has done for the few persons who will enjoy that concession, but I thank him for the acceptance of the principle that 26 weeks' benefit is not long enough.
In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for this in very moderate and restrained tones—because I am not too generous in my thanks, as he knows—I should like a declaration before we end the Debate on this matter of principle as to whether the surplus on a fund designed primarily in the interests of the unemployed shall in future always be used in the interest of the unemployed and not for ulterior motives, which may please employés and taxpayers, but which are not in the interests of the unemployed workers themselves. No working man or woman who contributes to the unemployment insurance scheme will ever complain when in work as to what the people who are out of work get out of it. They are only concerned for their fellows who are out of work, and for their own future if they should fall out of work. In that sense they are public spirited. In that sense they are generous. I have done my best in such feeble words as I can command to fling back the penny reduction last time in the right hon. Gentleman's teeth. We do not want pence. We want a fair and square deal for the unemployed, and the workers, within their limits, rather than see an injustice to their fellows who are out of work, are prepared to pay for it.
4.32 p.m.
Mr. Graham White: When my right hon. Friend last year commended to the House the recommendations of the Statutory Committee for the third period, we were obliged to oppose them and we urged proposals which are substantially comprised in the recommendations which the committee have now made, and which he in turn recommends to the House to-day. It has been my lot and that of my hon. Friends more often than not to oppose and criticise proposals made by my right hon. Friend since he became Minister of Labour and also by

391
his predecessor. It is, therefore, some small personal satisfaction on this occasion to find that there is something with which I can cordially agree, and I therefore have pleasure in saying so.
The House may congratulate itself on the form in which the report is made. The Minister is free to reject or accept the Committee's recommendations, and the House may or may not agree with him, but it is of very considerable assistance to have the facts placed before us in the concise and clear way in which they are set forth. There is no uncertainty as to the recommendations, neither is there any ambiguity in the statement of the reasons which led the Committee to make those recommendations. Of course, we welcome the proposal to reduce the waiting period and put it back to three days, as proposed in the Act of 1920. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) referred to the fact that in the Act of 1924 the waiting period was reduced for a time to three days, and I have a small personal interest in that matter. An Amendment moved by my friend Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, whose efforts on behalf of the unemployed will be remembered by all who sat in the House with him, by myself and by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), to reduce the waiting period from six days to three, was accepted by Mr. Tom Shaw, the then Minister of Labour. I regret that the Conservative Government in 1925 or 1926 put the period back to six days. No one who is acquainted with the working of the waiting period can but rejoice to see it cut down to three days. One is familiar with the argument that households are supposed to have sufficient money in hand to carry them over the period of six days, but people are apt to forget that the six days may be as many as 15.
That is a very serious matter and, in my observation, the cases in which help is needed are nearly always urgent cases. They often occur at the week end, and it is difficult, even with the good will of the public assistance people, in fact it is impossible in every case, to get real wants satisfied. I am by no means satisfied that the Minister may not find it expedient in the very near future to do away with it altogether. It is true that those who in future fall out of employ-
392
ment will have the right of going to the Unemployment Assistance Board to ask for any help that may be necessary to tide them over the period, but we have to bear in mind that there will be an entirely new situation after 1st April, when there will be coming on to unemployment assistance a number of individuals, 200,000, or perhaps nearer 300,000, who, without having paid a contribution to the Unemployment Fund in their lives, will be entitled to benefit at any time when they may be out of work without any waiting period at all. The Statutory Insurance Fund will have to face up, for the first time on a large and growing scale, to the competition of the Unemployment Assistance Board in this matter, and it will be very difficult for men coming to the same Employment Exchange to understand why other individuals who, perhaps less fortunate than themselves, or black coated workers and therefore unable to qualify, without having paid a contribution and without a waiting period get benefits equal to theirs, or perhaps even larger. This is a matter to which the Minister will have to give his attention in the very near future. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he was inviting the Committee to consider further the investigation that they suggested into the stabilisation of unemployment in the most favourable areas at a ratio of from 5 to 7 per cent. That is a figure which, in the present state of industry, we cannot accept. We ought by this time to be endeavouring to extricate ourselves from the fatalism associated with the idea of the trade cycle. I am sure that there is a necessity for an intensive study of that matter.
I should like my right hon. Friend to ask the Committee to pay particular attention to the question of long-term unemployment. There we have one of the gravest things in the unemployment problem to-day. Sir William Beveridge has rendered a public service by drawing attention to the terrible increase that has taken place in the amount of long-term unemployment. In September, 1936, as the Minister reminded us, the percentage of unemployment over the whole country was 11.9 per cent., and in September, 1926, it was 9.8 per cent. There has, therefore, been between those two dates an increase in unemployment of 275,000 persons. The terrible fact about that

393
increase of 275,000 on the live register is that it is less than the addition to the numbers of those who have been unemployed for more than a year in the whole period. That is a terrible figure. It is, therefore, true to say that at present there is much less unemployment of those who have been unemployed for less than six months, but there is no less than six and a half times as much unemployment among those who have been out for 12 months than there was in 1929. In dealing with the live register to-day, the Minister and his advisers should concentrate their attention upon what can be done with the long-term unemployed. Sir William Beveridge goes on to say, in the document from which I am quoting:
"The perpetual favouring of younger men, merely for their youth, in filling jobs within the competence of older men makes for unemployment. It is an anti-social act and should be recognised as such."
That rather suggests the line on which we should attempt to deal with the problem, and I hope the Statutory Committee will, at the instigation of the Minister if necessary, give full consideration to that. I also hope the Minister will consider whether it is not possible to make some special conditions for the employment of older men who have more than 12 months' unemployment in the allocation of work on Government contracts.
I am in substantial agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in his observations with regard to the repayment of the debt I shall continue to oppose any proposals for the reduction of the debt which are not accompanied by some substantial benefit to those at present on the Fund. There never was any justification for fixing that sum of £105,000,000 upon the Fund. We accept very gladly the proposal for the extension of benefits, though it brings into sad relief the lot of those of whom I have been speaking, the longterm unemployed. I hope that next year my right hon. Friend may be able to propose some further amelioration in the lot of the unemployed. I think in any further distribution of surpluses that may accrue it must be concentrated upon the improvement of benefit, and I think dependants' allowances should be the first consideration. We have to bear in mind the very unsatisfactory feature in these scales, both of the Unemployment Assistance Board and statutory benefit,
394
that they do not in fact supply the bare minimum required for help in families of three children and more. That is not a position which can be accepted by any Government which proposes to lead the country in a national campaign of physical fitness. That, I think, should be the foundation stone of any campaign of physical fitness, and if the Government put that to the country they would have overwhelming support for it. The Unemployment Assistance Board, when drawing up their scales, rejected the idea of relating them to the British Medical Association scale of bare necessities or the Ministry of Health scale, or even, I believe, the League of Nations scale, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend, in consultation with the Minister of Health, whom I am glad to see in his place, to take steps to see that there is a scale of minimum needs for health drawn up in which they would have confidence, so that this question of scales on one side or the other may be settled beyond the limits of speculation and conjecture. It is not fair in these days that the matter should be left in that way. It is a lamentable fact that the poorest people in this country to-day, whether they are in work or whether they are out of work, are in the main families who have three children or more and it is one which, I hope, will have some attention directed to it.
The Statutory Committee and also the Unemployment Assistance Board have asked that an inquiry should be undertaken—I do not know whether they are competent to undertake it themselves; I do not know that they are—into the relation between the scales of benefit, the unemployment assistance allowance and the lower wage rates. It is a matter of vital importance that close investigation should take place, and also that it should be related to the establishment of some scale of physical needs. I could do nothing more than indicate them here, but it may very well be that such an inquiry might lead to the conclusion that the only way in which the nation can do its duty to these people, who are the poorest in the land, the families with more than three children, is by some scheme of family allowances. The matter should be probed, and should be settled. The campaign of physical fitness can be little more than a mockery as long as something like 250,000 children are maintained on a

395
scale below the minimum needs of the physical requirements of health.
I am indeed glad that the Statutory Committee rejected the proposal for a further reduction of the contribution for the reason mentioned by my hon. Friend above the Gangway, and also for this additional reason. Unless I am mistaken, an increase in contributions to the Statutory Fund can only be made for the purpose of removing a deficit in that fund, and if further reduction had been made, it would have limited the field of manoeuvre open to Parliament and the Statutory Committee with regard to the increase in the general scale of benefits, which may, indeed, become a matter of urgent and practical importance, if the rise in the cost of living, which is already noticeable, proceeds much further. I hate to appear anywhere, least of all in the House of Commons, as a prophet, but it seems to me that the inevitable consequence of the damping down of civil industry which is taking place in this country to-day, accompanied by an increased distribution of spending power to the communities in the industrial areas, must have the inevitable results of sending up prices in general at a rapid rate, and this matter of the increase of benefits may become an urgent and practical matter before many months are over.
I have expressed the maximum amount of satisfaction that I feel with the proposals which have been laid before the House, and, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, we accept them, but I hope that the fact that the Minister has been able to make a satisfactory proposal to the House to-day will not cause him to feel that it exonerates him from further efforts. I would say, in particular, that I hope he does not feel that he is absolved from the necessity of carrying out the undertaking with regard to the raising of the age limit for black-coated workers and others. Some of us have been a good deal puzzled to know why we have not been informed of what is to be done in that direction. It may be the wish of the Minister to see the development of Unemployment Assistance Regulations after 1st April, before he decides, but I hope that it will not be long before he tells us what he proposes to do in that direction. My concluding words are that we are looking into a very uncertain future in
396
which we can see little more in the sky than question marks, but I express the hope that in 12 months' time we may not be in a less favourable position than that which we are in this afternoon.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. R. Robinson: It is a striking commentary on the success of the policy of the Government for the reduction of unemployment that for the second year in succession the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, in its report to the House, can tell us that the surplus which last year was £6,500,000 has increased this year to £17,200,000, I feel sure that the Minister, when Members from all sides of the House have spoken, cannot but be impressed with the fact that everyone is satisfied with the way in which the surplus is being disposed of to-day. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) had to express agreement with what was being done, though he was not, of course, generous in the way that he did it. Indeed he told the House that if possible he did not want to be friendly to the Government, but later he welcomed the proposals that came from the right hon. Member the Minister of Labour. I feel certain that if he had been the Minister and had been able to come to the House and make proposals such as we have heard to-day, the ranks of the party opposite would have cheered themselves hoarse, and we should have been told that Utopia was at last coming into being.
Generally speaking, I feel that the proposal for reducing the waiting time and increasing the additional days will meet with great satisfaction, because it will give help to the unemployed man when he needs it, at the beginning when he is faced with the period of transition and has to turn over his way of living from being supported by a good wage to the much smaller unemployment allowance. It is good to help him at that end because that is the time when his savings, if he has any, are probably exhausted. I invite the Minister to investigate a little further the one question which I asked him as to the number of people who will benefit under this proposal. He told me that the figures were not in his possession. I believe that the figures must be available, because the committee in making its recommendations gave the cost of the recommendations and

397
they must have got that cost from the number of people that they thought would be affected by the scheme. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to enlighten the House on that particular point.
I am one of those who for a long time have said that, in order to make the Unemployment Insurance scheme as satisfactory as it can be, it should have the widest possible extension so as to cover if possible the whole of the unemployed. That surely is the ideal at which the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee ought to aim. In that connection I am going to press upon the Minister once again the fact that he ought to try and do something to deal with as many as possible of the anomalies in the scheme. Last year I pressed upon him the case of the seasonal worker, and since then nothing has been done in order to mitigate that case. There is there a very real sense of grievance because you have men every year who, in their very short period of work, are paying their contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and then, when they are thrown out of work, as they must inevitably be at the end of the season, are told that they can draw no benefit which they have paid for because they have not had a sufficient number of weeks in work. I say quite frankly that the assistance that was given in this matter two years ago has been of very real benefit, which perhaps is not generally appreciated all over the country. On the other hand, the effect really has been to make what was a big sore into a small sore, and so long as that sore remains, there is bound to be a great deal of irritation on the part of the people concerned.
I hope that next year, when the Fund will be in an even better position than it is to-day, the committee will consider the position of the seasonal worker and remove that sore altogether. It is a point which has been felt all over the country. Certainly in every seaside and health resort in England there is almost a unanimous opinion that something ought to be done in this matter. Last year I was one of those who disapproved of the recommendations that were made by the committee, and I pointed out to the House that the committee had approached the question of Unemployment Insurance entirely from the wrong angle, and that in their report they had stated
398
that unemployment insurance was a tax on industry and was therefore to them an undesirable form of taxation. I say that it was entirely wrong that they should have preferred the principles of relief to the principles of insurance. So last year, believing that it was undesirable taxation, they took the step of recommending a reduction in the payments. The committee pointed out to the House that the choice between reduction of payments and increased benefits was a major point of social policy for which the responsibility rested on the House of Commons, and in approving the recommendations to-day I feel that the House ought to realise that it is making a major change in its policy with regard to Unemployment Insurance as compared with what was done last year. I agree with that change in policy. I believe that it has been proved that industry can bear the cost of Unemployment Insurance in both good times and in bad, and I hope that we shall continue to use the money for increasing the scope of the scheme, and that we shall have the foundation and the continuance of the finest piece of social legislation the world has known.
4.57 p.m.
Mr. Buchanan: I rise to offer a comment or two on the Motion which is before the House. The present Minister of all the Ministers of Labour seems to have all the breaks with him, and the others have had the breaks the opposite way. While no one can vote against this Motion to-day, there are one or two points of criticism which ought to be stated. I wish to make a point which I have made in previous Debates, and it is one which now is never mentioned, namely, that the unemployed have never had their cuts restored. I am surprised how easy it has been to forget that the unemployed are the only section that have not had their cuts restored. The Minister comes before the House to-day, and, from his point of view, prides himself on the two concessions which he is making in regard to the waiting period and the payment of more standard benefit for certain classes of people.
Let me remind the House that the unemployed were attacked from many angles when the cuts were imposed. Perhaps the greatest cut of all was when the unemployed had their standard bene-

399
fit cut for a period that could extend roughly to a year and four months. A person was entitled to standard benefit if he had 30 stamps in two years, which gave him a balance of a year and four months. That was cut down to 26 weeks as part of the economy cuts which were introduced, and it is the only economy cut which has not been restored. Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament, and the ordinary unemployed person with a special record, have all had their cuts restored, but the unemployed person, who is less fortunate, is the only person who has never had the cuts restored. When we are discussing improvements in trade and the marvellous figures of income and expenditure, when this year we can afford hundreds of millions for Defence or arms, we cannot afford to restore to the unemployed the cuts which the so-called crisis of 1931 imposed. Therefore, while we are priding ourselves, let us remember that the unemployed are still far from having their cuts restored. The system of requiring 3o stamps in two year was not merely the act of a Government but the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Commission, which was ultimately put into legislative form, and to-day we still refuse to restore the cut.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said that he wished people would not always accept the recommendations of committees. I, too, wish that they would not do so. When the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues held office I said that they accepted the recommendations of committees which I thought were indefensibly wrong in regard to the Anomalies Act. Some of the worst features of the Anomalies Act are still there. True, they have been modified, but I could wish that some of those cuts could be reconsidered. I should like, in passing, to protest against the idea that Sir William Beveridge is the one person to make the law of the land. It would appear that his recommendations are in fact the law in many cases. He supplies the law. He recommended the reduction in contributions. The same man whom we are praising to-day recommended the cut in contributions. What he recommended we accepted because of the feeling that when Sir William Beveridge and 'his committee meet in a little room in Whitehall and make recommendations, the House of Commons has
400
to accept them. I do not take the view that Sir William Beveridge is the last word in intelligence, but the idea does seem to be prevalent that he is the one man who can run a Government Commission, for he is appointed chairman of this, that and the other.
May I contrast the position to-day with that of last year? To-day we are reducing the waiting period from six to three days, and making certain minor adjustments of standard benefit, but will hon. Members please note the difference between this year and last year? Last year we had a surplus of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. That surplus was used up in the one year. We used it to give back contributions in the one year. This year we have a surplus of £17,000,000, but we are not using that surplus in one year for increases of benefit. The £17,000,000 surplus is to be spread over eight years. We are using only a little over £2,000,000 each year. Will hon. Members note the contrast? When it was a question of returning money to the State and the employers and a small sum to the workers, we used up the surplus in one year, but when it is a question of improving the benefits the surplus has to be spread over eight years.
It seems to me that Sir William Beveridge and his Committee think that this course is inevitable and that we cannot trust to using up the £17,000,000 this year in improving benefit but must spread it over eight years because a cycle seems to be inevitable. Why has that been done? The Minister says, and I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will say the same thing, that the reason is that once we have reduced the waiting period we do not want to have to go back to the six days waiting period, and that this proposal gives a guarantee for the next eight years that the waiting period will remain as proposed. It does give that guarantee, provided that for the eight years trade remains as it is. It gives no further guarantee, and it is possible that at the end of the eight years we may have to alter the waiting period. This year there are claimant demands of the unemployed to be met. The first is the restoration of the cut which has never been made.
Secondly, let hon. Members not forget that when we are talking about what happened in 1924 and to-day the man's benefit in 1924 was 18s. and the woman's

401
benefit 15s. The man's benefit is now only 17s. I can never understand why a woman should be paid 2s. less than a man. We hear very often about our standard of life for men, women and children, but the greatest tragedy is the lot of the single woman living in lodgings. It is a shocking tragedy in our great towns that in these days when we have a surplus of £17,000,000 we should ask the single woman to maintain herself on 15s. a week. It is a shocking disgrace. I think that we ought to have used all the £17,000,000 this year.
We are told that the debt must continue to be paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is still exacting his pound of flesh. In addition to demanding the repayment of the debt he is demanding that interest at the rate of 3⅛ per cent. should be paid. If we are to repay that money is there any reason why we should pay interest at that rate? Let hon. Members contrast that treatment with the Government's treatment of the armaments people. The debt of £105,000,000 was accumulated in a few years. If unemployment assistance had been based as it is now, that debt would never have accumulated. On no sense of decency can I see any justification for this sum being repaid. If the fund had not met that £105,000,000 of debt either the local authorities would have had to meet it or the State would have had to meet it. Somebody would have had to meet it, because no one could imagine that the unemployed would have to do without the money.
In 1929 I, with one of the hon. Members for Nottingham, was told that the waiting period could not be reduced because the people had money at the beginning and they did not need it then. Now we are told that it is at the beginning that they need it. They need it at the beginning and the end. Part of this is merely a saving to the national Exchequer. Under the Unemployment Assistance Act a large number of the unemployed had to be paid in the early weeks, particularly men who were working for a small wage with wives and families. I could never understand why there should be a waiting period at all. I think that when a man is unemployed he should be paid benefit, and I trust the time will come when the waiting period will be eliminated entirely.
402
We cannot divide against this Motion, although we may be critical as to the way the money is being spent. I think we should have used this £17,000,000 to wipe out the waiting period entirely, raise the benefits to single men and women, and also to wipe out the means test for larger numbers of people. As long as the Government propose to build navies and equip armies trade will be good, and the working-class people will benefit, but I fear what is to happen in the future, as does also Sir William Beveridge. I look forward with a good deal of foreboding to the days to come. While we accept this small sum we are not in any way satisfied with it, and trust that the working people of the country will not take it as anything like a satisfactory solution of the present unemployment problem, but will continue to press their legitimate demands for the abolition of the means test and the raising of unemployment benefit to a figure which will represent a much more humane standard than the present.
5.18 p.m.
Mr. Hayday: I want to support some of the criticisms which have been made with respect to these proposals. I feel that it is wrong in principle to place upon the surplus of the contributory Unemployment Fund the onus of having to wipe out the whole of a debt created at a time of national emergency. In 1920 and 1921 the Government of the day had to come to this House on three or four occasions for powers to raise money to meet the calls of those who were on unemployment benefit, and at that time there were thrown on to the Unemployment Fund large bodies not only of workmen but of ex-Service men for whom the State had accepted the responsibility for their weekly benefit. They were thrown on to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which had a surplus at its disposal. The Government of the day to ease their own responsibilities took the surplus from the Fund and created a very heavy debt, and they are now fastening that debt upon the shoulders of those who have been heavy contributors to the Fund. It will mean a drag being put on any possible surplus accruing when there are bodies of men and women in employment. I fear that as long as the Unemployment Insurance Fund is based on actuarial calculations we shall have these difficulties

403
periodically. I am very much concerned with one or two matters mentioned in the report. I should like the Minister to inform the House whether he has any right to veto or alter any of the recommendations which the Statutory body may make.
Mr. E. Brown: It is the duty of the Minister, if he disagrees with any representations of the Committee, to state his reasons and to lay them before the House. Indeed, on one occasion I disagreed with one of their recommendations, and it was not pursued.
Mr. Hayday: Does that power of disagreement also enable the Minister to question the basis upon which the disposable surplus is arrived at, or must he accept the actuarial figures supplied to him? Is there any ratio definitely set as to how much of the disposable surplus is to go for the benefit of the unemployed and how much is reserved for other purposes, including that of debt?
Mr. Brown: That is a statutory responsibility of the board.
Mr. Hayday: I notice that the accumulated reserve will rise from 21,450,000 to £37,950,000, out of which it is proposed to put £17,000,000 to benefits, leaving still £20,000,00 to be carried forward. That £17,00,000 represents the disposable surplus of two years' working of the fund, and that two years' surplus is to be spread over eight years. It is fair to assume that with the present rate of employment there will accrue certainly a further £9,000,000 a year. That is one reason why we are criticising, I will not say the shortcomings but the restricted scope of the recommendations of the board in suggesting that only three out of the six waiting days should be abolished and that there should be an extension of benefits only to those having a large amount of reserve credit standing to their name. I was one of the representatives from the Trade Unions Council before the board, and we suggested that if the disposable surplus would permit there should be a total abolition of the waiting period. I believe that if the amount of 17,000,000 available for disposal had not been spread over a period of eight years there would be ample surplus to enable the board, if they had felt so in-dined, to abolish the whole of the waiting period.
404
We were asked what was the order of preference we would propose, and we said, first, the abolition of the waiting period, and, secondly, an increase of benefits. Then we were asked, assuming that there was not sufficient to bring about any general increase in benefits, what would we suggest to enable benefits to be increased, and we said then, as I say now, that there should at least be an increase in the benefits for dependent children. Then other questions were put to us as to whether we really thought benefits should be increased to such an extent that the margin between the week's wage of a man at work and the benefit would be so small that there would be less incentive on the part of an unemployed person to secure work. Our answer to that, and our answer to the Minister to-day, is that if you withhold an increase of benefit for fear that it will clash with wages paid by employers who are sweating the workers you will be lending yourselves to a still further lowering of the standards of living.
We decline to accept that as a reasonable argument. Had the disposable surplus been restricted to a shorter period, it would certainly have made possible an increase in benefits, if not in general, at least to the dependants of unemployed persons. The argument was put forward that, if one takes the case of a man having a wife and five or six children and if one bears in mind that there are still some employed people who receive only 32s. or 33s. a week, such an unemployed man would be placed in a privileged position. That is an argument which I do not think any sane person will accept, for there is no logic about it. I wish to impress upon the Minister that in future, if there are disposable surpluses available, we shall ask that they shall not be spread over so long a period, but that they shall be made available for the immediate alleviation of distress among the families of the unemployed. As one hon. Member has already said, it is more a problem of the middle-aged than it is of the younger men. The prospects of an unemployed man who is over 40 years of age ever again securing employment are very remote. Employers are quite frank on this, and ask why they should take on men who are past 4o years of age when they can get men of 25 and 3o years of age who have all the virility of young

405
manhood. The middle-aged man is in the main the family man, and consequently pressure is hardest on the homes of those men who have only remote chances of being able to get employment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) called attention to the fact that, in the agricultural section of the report, there is no provision for a reduction of the waiting period. It is stated that no representation was made on that matter. I must inform the Minister, as I believe he has been informed already, that when we appeared before the Statutory Committee, we made a general request for the abolition of the waiting period. It is true that as long as there are separate schemes within the Act, there are bound to be anomalies, and it may be true to say that no one section was specially mentioned in connection with the waiting period, but the request was made applicable to all who come within the unemployment insurance scheme. On the question of extending the period, we submitted evidence and were questioned as to whether, as suggested in the report, it would be better to give an extended period to those with good records, or whether we would prefer a general extension of the period. We felt that a general extension would be right. The adoption of the first-mentioned method would mean that the men who had been at work longest would be those who would secure the longest period of benefit, whereas the unfortunate intermittent worker, having short periods of employment and long periods of unemployment, would be the man who would be unable to satisfy the extra qualification.
We are told—and I suppose we must accept it on the basis of these calculations—that there is only a certain amount of money available for disposal in these directions. If my memory serves me rightly, we were informed that it would be possible to extend the benefit only by one or, at the very outside, two weeks. Although that would have been acceptable, we realised the smallness of the extension; but I suggest that at some time or another the House must lay down a policy as to the ratio of allocations of disposable surpluses. It was not right that the amount of £105,000,000 should have been added. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that there has been no restoration of rights as
406
regards the restricted periods of benefit. In dealing with the unemployment problem, we now seem to be tied for ever to these statistical schemes. Not only have these schemes to be actuarially able to meet current responsibilities, but they must be so restricted as to provide for a measure of debt redemption for which the Fund was never responsible. These actuarial commitments do not belong to the Fund. I would ask the Minister what is the meaning of paragraph 29, which ends with the statement:
"Keeping our original estimates of unemployment in 1936–43 as ground-plan, it is as if we had started with an accumulated reserve, not of £21,450,000, but of £37, 950,000. That is the effect of the lower unemployment experienced in 1936 and in prospect for 1937."
Assuming that £17,000,000 is a two years' disposable surplus, what about the other £20,000,000? Is that a carry-forward surplus for emergencies? If that be so, seeing that we are told in the report that any such contingency is not likely to arise at least over a period of eight years and that debt redemption payments are being made, why could not part of that £20,000,000, which is at present included in the £37,000,000, be called a disposable surplus, and thus enable the Minister to abolish the waiting period, to give an extension of benefit and possibly some extension of the period? Apart from those considerations, I can quite conceive the Minister saying that the best possible use has been made of the restricted amount, but our complaint is that the amount has been restricted too much and that there has not been a full utilisation of the available surpluses which have accumulated to the credit of the Fund and which ought to be used at this stage to ease to some extent the position of those drawing unemployment benefit.
5.39 p.m.
Mr. Duncan: On more than one occasion this afternoon the Minister of Labour has been called a rubber stamp. I would like to point out to the House what is the exact position with regard to the recommendations of the Statutory Committee in order to show that neither my right hon. Friend nor this House is a rubber stamp. I will quote from the 1934 Act, since that Act was passed through this House and the 1935 Act was merely a consolidating Act. Section 17 of the 1934 Act says that if the committee at any time report that the Unemploy-

407
ment Fund is, or is likely to become insufficient to discharge its liabilities, and is likely to continue to be more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities, it shall make recommendations for amendment, and shall also make an estimate of the effect which the Amendment recommended will have. Within the period of two months of the committee having made its recommendation. the Minister, at the expiration of that period, shall lay the report before Parliament and shall lay the draft of an Order making such amendments as are duly recommended by the report, or, if and so far as any amendment so recommended is not adopted by the Minister, shall make such amendments as will in his opinion have substantially the same effect on the financial condition of the Fund. If and in so far as the amendments proposed by the Draft Order differ from the amendments recommended by the report, he shall make a statement of the reasons for the difference, and then if the House resolves that the draft of the Order laid be approved, the order shall be issued.
That means that the Minister has complete power to disagree with the recommendations of the Statutory Committee and to state his reasons in a Paper laid before the House, and that the House has the right to reject the recommendations, as indeed hon. Members opposite did refuse to accept recommendations last year. Consequently, the idea that my right hon. Friend is a rubber stamp is quite unfounded.
Mr. G. Griffiths: He is this year.
Mr. Duncan: A great deal has been said about the debt. I am not going to insure against the future, as hon. Members opposite have tried to do, but I will simply say that this debt was caused at the time hon. Members opposite were in office—[HON. MEMBERS "No !"] Most of it was, and it mounted up day by day until it reached £110,000,000. I would like to make the conjecture that if hon. Members opposite ever came into office again, they would be very happy to have this Fund solvent, because of the effects of their policy on the country. I rise chiefly, however, to support the recommendation which has been laid before the House by my right hon. Friend. I consider that the reduction of the waiting period is a very good thing and will
408
be of great benefit to many of the unemployed; but I would like particularly to emphasise the second recommendation as to the additional days' benefit for men having good employment records. I have come across many cases in my own constituency of older men with good employment records when they were young —lorry drivers and such people—who, after 30 years or 40 years with good employment records, have tended to drop out of employment because employers will not take on older men.
My right hon. Friend has given us one or two illustrations this afternoon, and I would like to ask him what effect this second recommendation would have in the case of a man with, say, a 30-years' good employment record. I think my right hon. Friend said that the maximum which could be given at present was two years less two days. This change should make a difference to some of the men with good employment records who are growing old. It should enable them either to continue in benefit or give them time enough to find another job so that they need not come under unemployment assistance at all. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some more information as to the effect of the second recommendation upon cases of this type.
5.46 p.m.
Miss Rathbone: I wish to register my disappointment with these recommendations. None of us will grudge the small concessions which are being made to the unemployed, but I suggest that there was an even stronger claim in morality and justice upon this Fund. I think it was the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who pointed out that women get 2S. less than men under the insurance scheme, and receive an amount which is inadequate for their sustenance. As he pointed out, it is a mistake to suppose that the needs of the unemployed woman, and especially of the unemployed woman who has to live alone, are less than those of the unemployed man. Often her need is as great as that of the man because if she eats rather less, her clothes cost rather more, and she finds it more difficult and more expensive to obtain respectable lodgings.
That, however, is not my real point. The scheme of unemployment insurance rests upon actuarial considerations, and benefits should be based on the just

409
claims of the contributors to a fair return for their contributions rather than on any kind of humanitarian appeal. I do not think the Minister can deny that in the unemployment insurance scheme the women contributors are not getting a fair deal. They are paying out of all proportion to the value of the benefits which they receive, and I challenge the Minister to deny that if the women's contributions were pooled separately and if they were given benefits based solely on the value of those contributions, the amount which they would receive would not only equal the corresponding amount in the case of men but would be considerably higher, because they have a smaller amount of unemployment. I think, however, women would not greatly object to receiving less than they are entitled to, if the Government would only consent to act upon one consistent principle in the matter. Let the Government either treat women as part of the general body of unemployed or treat them separately.
There is a case to be made out for pooling contributions and benefits and letting men and women share and share alike, but, if so, what is the necessity for the inequality between the rates of pay and rates of benefit of men and women respectively? What is the necessity for singling out one class of contributors which does make a heavy claim on the Fund, namely, the married women, and subjecting them to totally different regulations from those which apply to other contributors? The regulations under the Anomalies Act have the effect of ruling out a large number of women who have been paying regularly to the Fund without any chance of getting anything out of it. Wherever the Government can make a profit, either for the State, or for the employers, or for the men workers, by treating women as a separate class they do so, but wherever it pays to treat them as part of one community they are treated accordingly. The result of the present system is that women, regarded as a separate class of contributors, pay enormously more than the benefits which they receive are worth, but they are told that it would be a great shock to public opinion if men and women were charged the same rates of contribution and received the same rates of benefit.
I submit that the first claim upon this surplus ought to have been that of doing
410
justice to the women contributors, either by equalising the rates of contribution and benefit or, as could have been done at relatively small cost, by leaving the women's contributions where they are and raising their benefits to the same scale as the men's benefits. The Minority Report of the Statutory Committee recommended that the scales of benefit and scales of contribution should be alike for men and women. That would have cost a very small sum, and the reasons given against it were to my mind inadequate. They amounted, as I have said, to the plea that it would be a shock to public opinion if men and women were put on the same level in this respect. Women are less organised than men, and less articulate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the women workers are less articulate than the men workers, and everybody knows it. The woman worker is unselfish and patient, and if she stood up for her rights as effectively as some of the clients of the hon. Members above the Gangway, the organised male trade unionists, stand up for theirs, very different treatment would be meted out to her. As it is, advantage is being taken of her ignorance and her loyalty to the men workers.
Women continue to be charged these rates, which are out of all proportion to anything they get; they are still made the victims of the old game of "heads I win, tails you lose." I am very disappointed that with this large surplus at its disposal, the Statutory Committee should have contented itself with these recommendations. As I say, I do not grudge the concessions which have been made to the men, but justice ought to come before generosity, and the first claim upon this surplus was that of making restitution for what has almost been stolen from the women.
5.53 p.m.
Mr. G. Griffiths: I have never seen the Minister of Labour in a more happy frame of mind since I came to this House than he was in this afternoon. I have seen the right hon. Gentleman in some stormy scenes, but to-day he stood at that Box with the sunshine beaming upon him. But he was wrong when he made the statement that everybody in the House would agree with him upon this matter. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) who, having said his little recitation, has gone from the House, also claimed that everybody was satisfied with the disposal of the surplus, but I think

411
the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) showed that everybody is not satisfied. I notice that the Minister having said that everybody was satisfied immediately started a "grouse" himself about his own people, and said that seasonal workers ought to have more consideration, and that something ought to be done about it.
The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) spoke about the debt. As Mr. Speaker has said, it is desirable that we should have in this House the "cut and thrust" of debate, and the hon. Member for North Kensington having given the cut, I propose to reply with the thrust. He talks about the debt which the workers owe and which was borrowed from somewhere by successive Governments from 1921 onwards. It is true that the bulk of it was borrowed at the time when we had that great economic blizzard to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) referred. The right hon. Gentleman said that the situation which arose at that time was the result of the blizzard and not the fault of the Labour party, and he made that statement about ten minutes after we had gone out of office, and hon. Members opposite had got into it. The highest amount of debt accumulated under this head was £115,000,000. And remember that it was the debt of the men who had worked and fought during the War, and who had responded to the call to save their country. They came home and there was no work for them, and so they were put on unemployment payment and the debt accumulated until it reached the figure I have mentioned.
I was in the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to reduce the interest on this debt which then stood at 4 per cent. They brought it down to 3⅔ per cent., at which it stands to-day. That is interest on the debt which the unemployed owe. We have paid in interest this year £4,230,646 while the capital repayment was £769,000. We are paying interest to an amount which is about four times as much as the capital repayment, and it will take us until 1973, or 37 years from the time when we started, to pay off the debt. I expect that I shall be dead
412
by then, but children yet unborn will have to pay that debt. I suppose hon. Members opposite would say that it was a case of the sins of the fathers having to be visited on the children to the third and fourth generations. But that is not the case when foreigners borrow money from us. Italy owed us £608,000,000. A few years ago this country wiped off £528,000,000 of that and she still owes £80,000,000. We did not say to Italy, "You must pay 3⅓ per cent. interest on that debt." France owed us £600,000,000 and the present Secretary of State for Scotland came to that Table and announced a scheme by which it was funded somehow, so that £400,000,000 of it was wiped out altogether. If we can forgive the debts of these people who borrowed money from us during the War, why can we not wipe off this debt?
I come now to a question which has not yet been raised in this Debate. I refer to the case of 1.he boy who starts work at 14, who pays his contribution of 2d. per week while the employer pays 2d. and the State pays 2d., and who has to pay 104 contributions before he is entitled to any benefit in his own right. A person over 16 years who goes into an occupation is entitled to benefit when he has paid for 30 stamps. Suppose a lad pays in 30 stamps from 14 years of age to 14 years and seven months, and he is out of work from then until he is 16 years of age, unless his father is out of work as well as he, he cannot draw benefit. Take the mining industry. I know some fathers and some sons, the latter between the ages of 14 and 16, who are not working on the same shifts. The father works days and the lad works afternoons. I say that unless a lad and his father are playing at the same time, and the father claims unemployment benefit, he cannot get it for his son because fie lad is working. If the lad is playing and the father working, the lad cannot get anything because his father is working; and when they are on opposite shifts, and the boy is working on the day shift and the father playing on the afternoon shift, the father draws part-time unemployment benefit, but when he goes to draw that part-time benefit, he cannot draw for his lad, because that lad has had three days wages. I ask the Minister to remedy that flaw, so that when the father is playing and the lad has put on 30 stamps, the latter shall go on his own account and not depend upon his

413
father. At present you are victimising a lad like that. He has to pay 104 stamps before he can draw on his own account, whereas a male over 16 can draw when he has got 30 stamps on.
Another point that I would like to raise was referred to by the hon. Member for North Kensington when he spoke about the accumulated fund beside the debt. Anybody can make an accumulated fund if he puts sufficient on the shoulders of the people in the fund to make the accumulation, but the hon. Member did not mention that. The worker was paying 7d., and then the Government said he must pay 10d. He paid 3d. per week more, or over 42 per cent. higher, and that is where you got your accumulation, or a certain amount of it. He is now paying 9d., which is 28.5 per cent. higher than before. "Ah," says somebody, "but he is getting some benefit." Yes, he is. He gets 1s. addition if it is a case of a man, a wife, and one child. Instead of getting 28s., he gets 29s., and the percentage of the 1s. to the 28s. 1s 4 per cent. He gets 4 per cent. increase in his benefit, and he pays 28.5 per cent. increase in his contribution, and that is where the accumulation on the Fund arises. If he was not paying this 2d. addition, then the Fund would be less by something like £5,000,000 a year at the present time, and I ask that the increase of benefit should come where the increase of contributions has been paid.
The hon. Member for the Combined Universities was talking practical common sense. What is 28s. a week for a man with a wife and one child, when he has to pay 12s. 6d. a week rent out of it? There is no man in this House who would like to live on that, and I am glad that I have not to do so. When you face up to facts, 12s. 6d. for rent leaves about 17s. 6d. for three of them to live on—food, clothes, and everything else. Then you say, "We will have physical jerks; we want an Ai nation." You cannot get an A1 nation on starvation like this. Why do they not recommend that it should be increased above 26s.? I know. If the statutory benefit were increased above 26s. and the children's benefit above 3s., the Unemployment Assistance Board could not very well keep down the unemployment assistance scales, and they would have to be lifted up. Hon. Members opposite say that if you lift up the
414
scales of unemployment benefit very near to the level of wages, nobody will work. Do not take those hon. Members for your looking glass, because I have never met a man yet—and I have had thousands in front of me—who would not work if he had a chance of a job. In the districts where unemployment is so prevalent, if they hear talk of one job, they run for it as hard as they can, and it is a libel on these people to say that, because the unemployment benefit is very near the wage level, they will not work. You are doing well by your British working man when you begin to say that sort of stuff. I say that they will work, that what they want is a chance to work, and I ask the Minister to state why he did not ask the Statutory Committee to raise the amount from 26s. to 28s. or 30s. so that the people would be able to be fit for physical training when called upon.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. R. Acland: I hope I may be allowed to ask one short question arising out of the smaller report which accompanies the main report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee. The Minister will have noticed with satisfaction that for the two months for which we have figures, the rate of agricultural unemployment has been very substantially less than the anticipated rate on which the finances of the agricultural scheme were based. The figures, as he knows, were 3 per cent. in November and 4.4 per cent. in December, as against an estimated rate of 7.5 per cent. I appreciate very fully the following sentence in the report, that no very definite conclusions can be drawn from these two months' experience, but if the rate continues to be round about 4.4 per cent.—and, after all, December is likely to be one of the worst months—it is clear that we shall be able to keep the scheme solvent with a very much reduced rate of contribution as compared with that which we provided for last year.
The question that I want to ask is, whether the agricultural industry will have to wait until this time next year before a reduction is made in the rate of contribution? Would it be possible, would it be too much, to ask the Statutory Committee to give us an interim report by July? By then all the worst months of the agricultural year will be over, and if they based their figures on their experi-

415
ence from November to April, they would not be likely to err on the side of optimism. I do not suggest that as early as July it would be possible forthwith to adopt a rate of contribution which could be looked upon as permanent, but it seems to me to be possible that even as soon as July the Statutory Committee might feel that they had had enough experience of the working of the Act to justify them in making some recommendation for a reduction in the contribution from agricultural workers and their employers. If that could be done, I am sure that it would be welcomed by all in the industry, because they are paying a substantial sum out of the rather low remuneration which they receive.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Rowlands: Hon. Members opposite have commented upon the fact that the Statutory Committee has been called upon to report on the financial position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Personally, I think it is a very good thing, because, in the first place, it has enabled the Minister to have a recommendation from people free from the influence of party politics, and inasmuch as he made it clear that the Minister is not bound by the recommendations of the Statutory Committee, but can, if he likes, make recommendations of his own, if he differs from the Committee, I think the situation is very satisfactory. A great deal has been made of the fact that certain benefits were higher some time ago than they are to-day, and it has been stated that the unemployment insurance cuts have not been restored. The House will recollect that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed out that the amount of benefit for men in 1924 was 18s. and that at present it is 17s., but he did not tell the whole story. He forgot to tell the House that a husband and wife's benefit in 1924 was 24s., whereas at the present time it is 26s., and he also forgot to tell the House that In 1924 the child's benefit was 2s. and that it is now 3s. Another fact that he forgot to tell the House was that at that time there was an Amendment moved to the 1924 Insurance Act, which was brought forward by the Labour party, and that when the Amendment was moved that the 2S. should be
416
made 3s., it was strenuously opposed by hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Buchanan: I opposed them on that question, and everybody knows that I did.
Mr. Rowlands: I was going on to say that, although the Government of the day, which was a Labour Government, opposed that increase, the party to which the hon. Member for Gorbals belongs voted unanimously for the increase. But hon. Members who to-day are complaining that benefits ought to be a great deal higher are the very people who lamentably failed when they had the opportunity to improve them.
Mr. Batey: The hon. Member should tell the whole story.
Mr. Rowlands: If I am asked to tell the whole story, the whole story is this: Unfortunately, from 1921 onwards the Unemployment Insurance Fund has been in a deplorable state from an actuarial standpoint, and my sympathy has been with every Government in office which has wanted to pay the benefits which they thought the people ought to have. The position to-day is that, having placed the Fund on a sound financial basis, we are in the happy position of having £17,000,000 at our disposal. The hon. Member for Gorbals has criticised, as he is entitled to do—and there is a great deal of force in his argument—that a greater amount of the surplus was not being spent. I prefer the more conservative method of looking to the future rather than embarking on a policy which we might regret at a very near date, and which would make the position of the worker a great deal more difficult.
The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) referred to the unfair treatment of women, and said that women, according to their contributions, did not receive anything like the proportion that men were receiving. The single man has had to contribute towards the women from 1921. He has paid the same contributions as the married man, but he receives a paltry 17s., while the married man receives 26s., and, if he has one child, 29s.; two children, 32S.; and three children, 35s. There is a principle underlying this practice. All insurance societies

417
are based upon the strong helping the weak. A man who has been in employment pays a lot more than he will ever get out, and he should consider himself lucky that he has been in employment and is able to help his more unfortunate brother who has been unemployed for a large number of years.
I welcome the recommendation for reducing the waiting period. I am glad to find that the Minister has the right to alter the recommendations of the Statutory Committee. That being so, I should like to suggest that instead of the waiting period being three days in six, any three days within a given period should qualify for benefit. The three days' waiting period in six has hit people in the mining industry very hard. It has been possible to lose two days a week for months and yet men have been unable to qualify for unemployment benefit. I hope that the Minister will alter the Regulations so that any three days over a period of three weeks will qualify as the waiting period. The longer period of benefit will be a very good thing. It has been criticised on the ground that those people who have been longer in employment will get a longer period of benefit, but you could not lay it down that a man who has been working for six months should have a longer period of benefit than the man who has been working six years. I am glad that the new Regulations will make it possible for the man who has been in regular employment for a large number of years to draw unemployment benefit almost up to a maximum of two years. This will have an important effect upon the Unemployment Assistance Board. It will take a large number of men off the means test, because it will keep them longer without having any need to be submitted to a means test.
6.21 p.m.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Many of us spoke upon the report when it was presented 12 months ago, and the speeches that were made on that occasion would bear repeating on this report. I am more than ever convinced that the organisation that counts with the Government more than any other is the National Confederation. It is obvious that the National Confederation determines the policy which this Government should pursue generally, and particularly in regard to unemploy-
418
ment insurance. It is well known and generally accepted among business people that it is impossible to put unemployment insurance on an actuarial basis. Some of the biggest insurance companies in America have recently had expert actuaries on this question, and they have come to the conclusion unanimously that it is impossible to put unemployment insurance on an actuarial basis. If anyone on the Government side doubts that, I would point out that the Refuge, the Prudential and other insurance companies would have gone in for this form of insurance long before now had it been a business proposition.
I want to raise a question of administration. I was present last Saturday at a conference where there were a large number of representatives of people who will be affected by these changes. They welcomed them, but they are concerned about the administration. I understand that for purposes of continuity it will still be necessary for the three waiting days to be put in within a limit of 10 weeks. How will this affect us at holiday periods? We find that more and more employers are extending their holidays to enable them to get over internal difficulties, to make great changes inside their factories, and to carry out maintenance work. For these purposes holidays are being more and more extended. There is, in addition, the question of short time. The position has greatly improved in certain industries, and in the mining industry in certain districts and some parts of the cotton and pottery industries, a small amount of short time is worked. I understand that the divisional officers have come to arrangements with representatives of large factories and of industrial organisations which enable the work-people during these extended holiday periods or during short time to be excused from taking out their unemployment insurance cards.
If that arrangement can be arrived at between divisional officers and big factories, I want to ask, now that the waiting period is being reduced, whether the. Minister will consider allowing it to be made throughout the country instead of in only certain areas. These arrangements have been made for a long period where it suited the Employment Exchange or the divisional officer. For example, suppose a firm has been employing over

419
5,000 people. The firm with which I am familiar has been employing considerably over 10,000 people. In those cases it has been easy for arrangements to be made with the divisional officer which enabled the workpeople not to take out their insurance cards, with the result that they have got the waiting period in automatically. Now that the waiting period has been reduced, it will mean long queues at the Employment Exchanges unless this arrangement can be carried out throughout the country.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. Woods: I have been impressed with the lack of real optimism in dealing with this matter. The very fact that the surplus is to be distributed over a period of eight years indicates a lack of faith in the future. Small as the concession is, I think that Members on both sides and people throughout the country will be glad of it, no matter how small the alleviation it may mean in the lot of those whose fate it is to be unemployed. It has been complained that those who are hit hardest by unemployment will benefit least under this scheme. We should be happier if there had been some arrangement whereby those who had suffered longest the hardship of unemployment would have a greater degree of relief. There is one group whom I have in mind, and I shall be glad to know whether the Minister can hold out any hope of anything being done for it. It is that small group of people who are past 65 years of age, whose only benefit from the State is the 10s. old age pension. Instead of going on to public assistance in order to augment the pension, they still have sufficient sturdy independence to do one or two days work a week. In my constituency there is a considerable percentage of such old people, and, being near the city, they are able to get a day or two's work in connection with such an industry as the Sunday newspaper. They work from 12 to 15 hours at the week-end, and their average pay is about 6d. an hour. The Act provides that employers in such cases shall pay the whole of the premium, but, while that may be true, everybody must concede that the actual wealth produced is some sort of indirect payment by the individual concerned. These men, however, get absolutely no benefit under the scheme. If they fall ill
420
they are entitled to medical service, but if they fall out of work they have no claim on the Unemployment Fund. Such minorities, who are making their contribution and getting absolutely no benefit, are in a far worse position even than the women referred to by the hon. Lady representing the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). I think that with a surplus in the Fund this small group of those who have served faithfully in industry, and are now trying to maintain a sturdy independence by doing what further service they can, working usually at hours which are inconvenient to other workers, should receive some recognition. Although it would be a small thing for the Fund to make some allowance to them when they fall out of work, it would mean a tremendous boon to them. I hope the Minister will consider the position of this group, to see whether something cannot be done for them.
6.31 p.m.
Mr. Lawson: I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) disturbed the Minister when he pointed out that there must be some special virtue in him which had put him in the position of being able to make such a favourable showing to the House. To those of us who have for some years watched the Ministry of Labour—and had some experience there —and seen the constant procession of those who went there as strong and virtuous Ministers to begin with, but ended by not feeling quite so strong or so virtuous, who went into the Department with pride and came out with pleasure, the Minister this afternoon has presented a rather unusual sight. The other day one of my hon. Friends did what I have been trying to do for some time—actually made the Minister blush. He told him that he was one of the ablest Ministers and that he expected much from him, and that made him blush more than any of the hard things I have said to him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) raised a number of points, and one to which I should like to have an answer dealt with the future repayment of the debt. The fact that we are discussing a special surplus is a very significant one, and worthy of the close attention of all who have some interest in the future of employment conditions in this country. The Statutory Committee itself is surprised that there is such a surplus. It took the

421
advice of the Committee of Economic Information, I think they call it—the Cabinet's advisers—and that committee gave such advice about the years to come as led the Statutory Committee to believe that the mean unemployment over the year would be 14.5 per cent.—the real mean of unemployment is 13 per cent. The significant thing about the reduction in unemployment is the insistence of the advisers on this occasion—it is the underlying theme all through the report—that this prosperity is in the main due to rearmament. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary questions that or not, but I think there is real ground for that assertion. In page 6 of the report the Statutory Committee point out that 21 industries in which there is a reduction of unemployment are mainly, though not wholly, such as would be stimulated directly by the Defence programme.
In various parts of the report there is insistence on that point, and I am pleased that it is emphasised, because there is a tendency to believe—I can only hope that it will be true—that the improved conditions are due to normal trade prosperity. Even some of the economists say that apart from the Defence programme there is an improvement in normal industry. But it is very important that that point should be remembered, and while we cannot deal with it to any extent now it must be underlined for future reference when we come to discuss the Government's policy in respect to the long-term unemployed, who are concerned in this matter and who were mentioned particularly by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). One thing which has been remarkable in the past year or two is that, while there has been a reduction in unemployment the proportion of those wholly unemployed has increased by leaps and bounds in reference to the numbers unemployed. Out of 1,600,000 unemployed there are no fewer than 1,434,000 who are wholly unemployed—out of a job. I think the right hon. Gentleman and others who have come into contact with the figures will agree that that proportion is becoming alarming. As the hon. Member for East Birkenhead pointed out, there are more than 300,000 persons who have been unemployed for 12 months, and they form almost one-fifth of those wholly unemployed.
422
The significant fact to be noted is that at a time of prosperity, when there is a great boom in the South and in the Midlands, and here and there in patches throughout the country, there are good, strong, able, industrious men who cannot get work and do not appear to be likely to get work. They, unfortunately, will not be aided by the proposals in this Order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield rightly pointed out that while the reduction of the waiting period from six days to three will help quite a large number of the unemployed, and while the substitution of the eight days for the five will reach some, the change will not reach those who are most in need of consideration, and will not reach the worst-hit areas, either. The Statutory Committee comment in their report on the reduction of unemployment in certain areas like the mining areas, but they also point out that three-quarters of the wholly unemployed in Wales are, I think, in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. In other counties which, taken as a whole, show apparent reductions in unemployment, there is still great unemployment concentrated in the heavy industry areas, and, what is worse, the people there have been unemployed for years, many of them for two, three, four or five years. Those are just the areas where the operation of the means test is felt most, and, personally, I would rather see the whole of the money go towards such an extension of the period as would bring the largest number of persons within the ambit of unemployment insurance in preference to leaving them to Public Assistance, so keeping them out of the range of the means test. Those are the people who have had the longest stretch of unemployment, whole areas have been devastated, and they need most consideration.
I hope the Minister will not give any credence to the suggestion in the Minority Report that there should be a reduction of contributions, or—I believe the view is held among some members of the Statutory Committee—that the debt should be reduced; in fact, the Minority Report says that it ought to be reduced at a more rapid rate. I do not know why there should be this continual insistence on the reduction of that debt. Although we talk about making the Fund financially sound, this Government in the past five years have added—I have not looked at the figures—no less than some

423
£200,000,000 to debt in connection with unemployment, only they have called it "grants to Public Assistance." Sometimes £ 150,000,000 or more a year has been found from the Exchequer direct, but they called it a grant; under previous Governments it used to be called a loan and added to the debt. That is the only difference. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will answer that point, and I think I know the sort of little qualification that he is going to make, but it will not make any difference whatever to the general principle.
The crux of the situation is the large number of people who are outside the ambit of the insurance scheme, and also the large number of people who will miss even the smallest benefit which is being provided. I hope the right hon. Gentle-man will keep his hand firmly upon the Statutory Committee. It was only with very great hesitation in some quarters of the House that they were given their powers in 1934. There were misgivings, even on the benches behind the Government, at the setting up of such a committee. I agree with the criticism that there is a tendency to treat the committee as though their word were law and must be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman has power to refuse any recommendations that are made by them. I do not think he can alter the recommendations; he can either accept them or refuse them. I trust that the Minister, as the representative of this House and of the people, and particularly of the workers and employers who make the contributions, will make it clear to the Statutory Committee that this House is the master in this matter. I make the point, because I think that this House should make it clear on every possible occasion that the Unemployment Insurance Fund exists to succour and aid large masses of the people who are damaged by unemployment not only in normal times, but in extraordinary times. That being so, the first business of those who rule the Fund is to give human consideration to these people.
The right hon. Gentleman gave an explanation of the waiting period, and particularly of the five days and of the eight days. I was thankful that he was giving the explanation rather than I. He should do what the Minister of Health
424
did last time, that is, stick to his brief. It is a very complicated matter indeed. The Minister of Health told us that we could read it the next day and thoroughly understand it. I would repeat that the one concern of the Fund, particularly in regard to a surplus, ought to be its extension to the people whose need is greatest, those who have been out of work for a long period. When next the Statutory Committee have a surplus at their disposal, as I am certain they will if they are as wrong next year in their calculations as they have been this year, I trust they will give some attention to people who are outside the ambit of the scheme, in order to bring in a larger number of people, and to give help where it is most needed and where the largest number of long-term unemployed are concentrated. We welcome the reduction of the six days to three, and we hope that the Minister will bring to the attention of the Statutory Committee the point that has been so insistently raised, both in my own speech and in other speeches. I am alarmed at the note I find in the Minority Report, and at the misunderstanding and lack of understanding on the part of members of the Statutory Committee, who are responsible for the maintenance of the unemployed in their time of need.
6.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Lieut.-Colonel Muir-head): It is, perhaps, a tribute to the interest taken in the affairs of the Ministry of Labour that even when there appears to be almost unanimity, we can sustain a Debate of nearly three hours. I had intended to open with a few remarks on the subject of rubber stamps, but they have got somewhat: worn in the course of the Debate, so I will leave them alone. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) asked me to give, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, pledges on two subjects with regard to the future disposal of surplus. The first pledge was that none of the surplus would be applied to debt, and the second, that all the accruing surplus would be used for people who are out of work. If the right hon. Gentleman were in the position which my right hon. Friend holds, I do not know whether he would be prepared to give hypothetical pledges, not only on those points, but on points of

425
that nature which might be put to him. But that itself is a hypothetical consideration at the moment. I am safe in saying that whatever my right hon. Friend may decide in future—his freedom to reject the advice of the Statutory Committee has been well emphasised in the course of the Debate—I am sure that he is not prepared to prejudge the consideration and the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, which, so far, has done such excellent work and has given such excellent advice.
The right hon. Gentleman raised also questions with regard to the agricultural scheme, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). I would remind hon. Members, although I think they appreciate it well enough themselves, that contributions have not been paid for the period of a year and that benefit has been given for only about four months. It is obviously far too early to make any sort of suggestion or promise, however qualified it may be. It is clear there is no power at the moment to alter the scheme in regard to the disposing of surplus because, in point of fact, the Statutory Committee have not declared any surplus for disposal. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths)—I take notice of certain points which he raised—asked for information on the subject of the Easter holidays. He wanted to know how they would count for waiting days. The answer is that there is no change in consequence of the proposals at present before the House. Those holidays count as waiting days, but they do not count as benefit days. If the hon. Member bears that principle in mind, he will see how the holiday period applies in each particular case.
Mr. G. Griffiths: I suppose that the Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday, that is, the Easter holiday, will not count as waiting days, but they may count as linking-up days with the waiting days?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: They will count as waiting days, but they will not count as benefit days.
Mr. Buchanan: None of the four days will be paid for?
Lieut. - Colonel Muirhead: On the assumption that the holiday ends on Monday night, the Tuesday before Good Friday is the first day of which unemployment is proved, the first benefit day will
426
be the following Tuesday. If Wednesday is the first day on which unemployment is proved, the first benefit day will be Tuesday again. In the case of Thursday, the first benefit day will again be the following Tuesday.
Mr. Buchanan: None of the four days will count for benefit, although they serve as the waiting period?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: They do not count for benefit purposes, but only for waiting purposes.
Mr. Lawson: Is there an Umpire's decision on that point?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not know. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) gave these proposals his approval. Appreciating as we do the practical experience he has had and the work which he has done, I can assure him that that approval is welcome. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) asked what would be the number of persons benefiting by another day. The estimated figure would be 16,000 who would benefit on any one day, but he will understand that that does not mean that in the course of the year only 16,000 individuals would feel the benefit. The number would be far greater. He also complained on the subject of seasonal workers. I do not think I could do better than repeat to him the supplementary answer given to his Parliamentary question as recently as 18th February. It was as follows:
"Mr. ROBINSON: Can the Minister give any figures in support of the statement that the position of seasonal workers is improving?
Mr. BROWN: Yes, in the 12 months preceding that date the number of claims disallowed by the court of referees under the regulations was 18,435, and in the subsequent 12 months the number of disallowances was only 10,853. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1937; col. 1336, Vol. 320.]
That is some indication of the benefit to seasonal workers under the recent seasonal workers' Order.
Mr. R. Robinson: I think the Parliamentary Secretary rather misunderstood my point. I gave the Government credit for improving the position of the seasonal worker, but my argument was that the job is only half done. I wanted him to review the position and to hold out some hope that the job might be completed in, the reasonably near future.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: My experience is that very few jobs are fully done. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) had his periodical complaint against the chairman of the Statutory Committee. He complained also about our spreading our calculations, and therefore our payments, over the eight-year period. It is true that we could live from hand to mouth, spending a pound when it appeared. That course can be pursued in private finances, but it often ends in disaster. The Government have no intention of pursuing that type of policy in regard to the public finances for which they are responsible. They have no desire to try and gain popularity by putting forward benefits which they cannot see their way within a reasonable period to sustain.
Mr. Buchanan: The year previous, the whole of the surplus was used in the year.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That was not so. It was disposed of on the same principle of an eight-year spread-over as is adopted this year. The Statutory Committee Report for 1935, paragraph 31, says:
"In the light of the conclusion reached above, it becomes our duty to make recommendations for the disposal of an annual surplus of about £6,500,000 a year."
The money that was disposed of last year was not disposed of on any different principle from this year. If the hon. Member is trying to insinuate that on the basis of an eight-year spread-over we have this year £17,000,000 to dispose of he is wrong. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-day) tried to connect his remarks with those of the hon. Member for Gorbals. The hon. Member must realise that part of the money being disposed of now is an actual realised surplus, and part of it is money which we are dispersing in accordance with an assumption about next year. It is partly realised and partly estimated. When you go on a basis like that there is bound to be a good deal of diversity of opinion as to the basis on which you should make your calculation, but no one can say that at one and the same time you can have all the benefits of assuming that you are giving yourself a surplus in a particular year and avoid the demerit of spreading it over eight years.
Mr. Hayday: You estimate there will be £12,275,000 for 1937, and you estimate on the basis of 80 per cent. of that amount, which is £9,820,000. That is not eight years, that is one year.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: You cannot assume that your benefit will be the same for eight years. You have to take into consideration not only your estimated increases but also the estimated demands that are likely to be made. It is true there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about eight years, but on the fundamental principle on which the Statutory Committee works there can be no serious disagreement. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) asked what would be the benefit in the present proposals for people who had been insured for 30 years. Of course, nobody has yet been insured for 30 years, but taking a man who has been long insured, he will benefit to the extent of nine weeks extra benefit. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) I thought came in just before she spoke and went out again almost immediately afterwards. Her waiting period seemed to be negligible, but I see she has come in again for benefit. I cannot do better than take refuge behind the women members of the committee, who agreed with the majority report. As the hon. Lady said that women are less articulate than men, I will try to disprove her statement and say no more about it.
Miss Rathbone: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some reason to hope that the women's claim will be considered next time? The cost of the small alteration I asked for would be only £1,000,000 a year, and would not be a heavy additional claim.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The point has been discussed, and hope never did any harm. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith) said that the National Confederation of Employers' Associations dictated the way in which this money has been disposed of. He cannot justify that in view of paragraph 45 of the report, which states:
"The National Confederation of Employers' Associations urged that reduction of contributions should be regarded as a first charge on any surplus that might become available, until contributions have reached a level of 6d. a week from each party for an adult workman, as compared with the rod fixed in 1931 and the 9d. now in force."

429
That was the contention put forward this year by the Confederation, and it was not proceeded with. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) tried to make out that we were just as profligate on unemployment expenditure as his Government had been. The answer really is not a queestion of pounds, shillings and pence. It lies in the view that the people of this country and of the world take of the credit of the British Government, and on that there can be no argument. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that my right hon. Friend had all the luck. Napoleon once said that he did not want good Generals, he wanted lucky ones. I think he said that because what often appears to be luck is, in fact, efficiency.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Additional Days and Waiting Period) Order, 1937, laid before Parliament on the twenty-third day of February in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  REPORT [24TH FEBRUARY]
  Resolution reported,

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936, REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."
    Resolution agreed to.
    REPORT [9TH FEBRUARY].
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [24 th February] on consideration of Eighth Resolution,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,050, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Grants in respect of the expenses of the Managers of Approved Schools in England and Wales; the expenses
    430
    of Local Authorities in respect of children and young persons committed to their care; and the expenses of the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs in respect of Remand Homes."
    Which Question was, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Paling: I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether he can now answer the question to which we did not get a satisfactory answer before, and which was postponed on the understanding that an answer would be given at this stage.
    7.10 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I was asked where the recent new approved schools were situated. They are at Manchester, Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Staffordshire, Lincolnshire, Glamorgan, Kent and Birmingham. I can also say that the Home Office have to approve the appointment of the head masters of the schools. I am in a position to assure the hon. Member that this Supplementary Estimate does not mean in our view that there is a great rise in juvenile crime. On the contrary, it means something satisfactory rather than disagreeable. It may be due to the increasing use that the various authorities are making of the courts under the Children and Young Persons Act. As a result of that Act, many private people and also police authorities are more ready to bring juvenile cases before the court because they are more confident that they will be dealt with in a sympathetic manner and in a way which will help to improve the character and prospects of the children concerned. There was power given to send children to approved schools, or to put them in the custody of a fit person, even when an offence had not been committed, if the circumstances of the home were such as to justify the view that they were likely to be led into a life of crime.
    Mr. Bellenger: Has the hon. Member the figures of those who were sent to approved schools on account of home conditions?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have not got those figures, but there is a considerable increase in the number of care and protection cases. There are approved schools provided by local authorities or voluntary agencies,

    431
    but there is also in the Estimate provision for maintenance expenditure by local authorities. One of the innovations was to allow local authorities to act as fit persons for the purposes of having children in their custody. In the old days, private individuals had to assume onerous liabilities in respect of any child, but by enabling local authorities to become fit persons in the legal sense, they are able to appoint individuals to do the actual work of the foster parent while the local authority remains the legal entity which is the fit person. I can assure the House that this Estimate does not lead us to any gloomy reflection regarding juvenile crime. The reason why we have to present this Supplementary Estimate is that the expenditure depends on the use that the Courts make of the Act in a particular year, and it is not easy to foretell with great accuracy what use the Courts will make of the Act in any particular period. We do our best to estimate, but in actual fact more use was made of the Act than we expected. I believe, however, that that, so far from being a reason for gloomy reflections, is a sign of the increasingly humane way in which juvenile delinquents are being treated in this country.
    Mr. Paling: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is a greater disposition on the part of the magistrates now to send children to these schools and take them out of the care of their parents when the parents object? A few cases have come to my knowledge in which parents have been very much disturbed because they have thought that their children have been compulsorily taken from them.
    Mr. Lloyd: It is true that there is now an increased disposition on the part of police authorities to bring doubtful cases before the magistrates, and I think it may also be true that there is a disposition on the part of magistrates to send children to approved schools when they think it is really in the interests of the child and of the future of the child. I do not, however, think that there is any undue tendency on the part of magistrates to do that. From time to time I have had cases from hon. Members of this House, and have looked into them very carefully, but in most of these cases I do not think that even the Member himself has been convinced that there was
    432
    any real ground of complaint, although he may have put forward the case at the request of the parents.
    7.18 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: I am not satisfied with the very kindly answer that has been given by the hon. Gentleman. He tells us that the reason for this increased Estimate is that greater use is being made of tile Children and Young Persons Act. That means that greater use is being made of the Act in one respect, that is to say, that commitments to these approved schools are more common now than they were previously. I do not think the hon. Gentleman's responsibility in this matter runs across the Border, but there is a corresponding rise in the Scottish figures also.
    There seems to be an idea in the minds of magistrates that, when the name of these schools was changed from reformatory or industrial schools to approved schools, these places had become delightful little Etons and Harrows for the young delinquents of the slums; but they are essentially prisons. The fact that they are under the control of the Home Office rather than of the Board of Education is an indication that in the minds of the Government these youngsters are to be treated as prisoners. In former years, before the passing of the Children and Young Persons Act, the number of youngsters committed to reformatory and industrial schools was steadily diminishing; other ways were being found of dealing with them besides by imprisonment; but, now that we have these approved schools—the same institutions with a different name, under the same control, and with the same type of staff—the numbers committed to them are increasing year after year. Moreover, appalling sentences are given by magistrates—five and six years of imprisonment in these places. For the most trivial offences, like playing football in the streets and things of that description, youngsters are haled before the court, and someone comes forward and says, "This boy has been in trouble before; this is a bad case; he broke a window two months ago; we shall have to make an example of this little ten-year-old boy."
    I had a case in my constituency where a youngster 7½ years of age was committed and branded as a young criminal. He came out of a respectable home; his

    433
    father was a man whom I would trust to look after his children as I would trust to look after myself. It so happened that his wife was away in hospital at the time undergoing an operation, and when she came back she found that her youngster had been committed to one of these prisons for five years. The Under-Secretary says that we must not be disturbed by these increasing numbers, but it is happening all over the country; more and more youngsters are being taken away from their homes. I admit that occasionally the homes are such that they are better out of them, but I wish I was quite as sure that the conditions in the school are so immensely superior to those of the home. It requires an exceptionally fine institution to make up for family life and parental affection, and frequently the homes from which these children are taken are perfectly good homes. I had a most extraordinary case of a youngster 15 years of age who had been committed to one of these institutions for a couple of years, and whose parents subsequently found that he had been enlisted in the Army as a boy. When I took up the matter on behalf of the parents with the War Office, they told me that they had the authority of the headmaster of the school; the Army authorities took him as being in loco parentis. We talk about liberty and all the rest of it, but that seems to me to be going desperately far. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not feel, in regard to these schools, the complacency that he has expressed here today, but will go and have a look at them, and will send round some suggestions to the magistrates to the effect that they should not rush too easily to commit these children.
    7.23 p.m.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: I am sure the Under-Secretary will have gathered, from the questions which the Opposition put in the Committee stage and from the points which have been raised to-night, that the Opposition are concerned about the increased number of children who must be provided for as indicated by the new Vote. While we do not want to hold up the business, in view of the work that the House has subsequently to do, I think the Home Office representatives ought to be ready to go into this matter in much more detail when the Department's Vote comes before the House for consideration. The remarks which have been made on
    434
    the Supplementary Estimate are just a pointer as to the kind of information which Members want, in order that their real and genuine concern about this development may be satisfied.
    Years ago I had some experience on the staff of a local education authority, and I know a little about that type of school, which was sometimes a boarding school, where the children were taken right away from their parents, and sometimes was of the day-school category. The hon. Gentleman's answer has not given us sufficient information to enable us to gather exactly what is being done in regard to these newly provided institutions which are covered by the Supplementary Vote, and I hope we may have further information on that subject. I think the House ought to have also, when it goes into Committee of Supply on the Home Office Vote, figures showing what has been the total result of this administration of the Children and Young Persons Act on the boys—and girls, I suppose—who are sent to these institutions, so that we may have some idea as to whether the action of magistrates in this matter, admittedly from right motives, is of exactly the right character.
    Another point about which we are concerned, and on which we ought to have information, is as to the type of teachers now being appointed to the staffs of these schools, and especially as to the attitude which the Home Office take on the Report of the Departmental Committee with regard to the conditions, status and salaries of the teachers who are being appointed to schools of this class. In any case I think we shall have discharged very briefly a useful function if the Home Office will make a point, on the main Vote, of meeting our concern on this matter and giving us the chance of debating it.
    Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps, with the leave of the House, I may say that I quite appreciate the desire of hon. Members for information on this very important branch of social work. I will go thoroughly into the points which have been raised, and will be prepared to make a detailed statement on the whole subject at a later opportunity.
    7.27 p.m.
    Mr. Sexton: I cannot quite understand the replies which have been given on this Vote. The hon. Gentleman, when he

    435
    was asked whether the Vote was due to an increase in juvenile crime, said that it was not, but on the 11th June last year I asked the Home Office a question as to the number of juveniles between 14 and 16 who had been convicted of crime in the years 1933, 1934 and 1935. In reply I was told that, in 1933, 4,669 juveniles between 14 and 16 had been convicted of crime. In 1934 the number had gone up to 6,257, while in 1935, for which year the figures were not yet available, it was estimated that the number was 8,600. It appears to me, therefore, that one of the main reasons for this Vote must be an increase in juvenile crime.
    We have been told that in the case of these new approved schools so called —I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that they differ very little from the old reformatory schools of years gone by—the head teachers are appointed by the managers. I should like to know who appoints the other members of the staff, and I should also like to know something more about the managers—who they are and whom they represent. Further, I should like to know how many remand homes are covered by this Vote, where those remand homes are situated, of what type they are, and who inspects and reports upon them, because in my opinion some of the boys and girls who are committed to these homes and schools are being unfairly dealt with.
    I am very much concerned especially for these children between 14 and 16, because I believe that the right place for these boys and girls is in the ordinary schools, and not in industry. In my question of the 11th June last I also asked how many of the boys and girls who had been convicted of crime were still attending school, and the answer to that part of the question was that practically none of them had been attending school. As an old teacher I consider that those boys and girls between 14 and 16 ought to have been kept under the discipline of school rather than running about the streets, getting into trouble, and being convicted of crime. I hope that we shall have some fuller information on this matter on the Home Office Vote.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. George Hall: Is not the Minister going to give us any explanation with regard to the changes which have taken place in this Bill?
  The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): There have been no changes in the Bill.
  Mr. Hall: It is very unusual to pass the Third Reading of a Bill without some statement on behalf of the Government.
  Sir K. Wood: I shall be very glad to make a short statement. The Bill passed through its Committee stage without Amendment and I shall see that any undertakings given are carried out. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that it was the general desire that the Bill should now take the usual course, and I hope it will now receive its Third Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  7.30 p.m.
  Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
  My reason for moving this is the great concern that is felt by many people who are affected by the electrification of the live rail, which is inadequately protected. It will run through some of the most rural parts of England. A live rail in an urban district is very different from having it in an agricultural district, where it is much more difficult to prevent it being a danger to animal and human life.

  437
  There is no question of any illegality on the part of the railway company, but I see that no power is taken in the Bill to recognise the extra danger of the live rail rather than the overhead wire, which we all expected would be used. It is very natural that the people in these districts are very much concerned and are hardly comforted by the way they have been treated so far by the company. It seems to us that, if there is nothing in the Bill to ensure more adequate protection of the live rail, it is up to the Minister to frame regulations. I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend, who is a much greater agriculturist than I am, and who is a director of the Southern Railway Company, and I do not in the least want to exaggerate the danger, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) the other day asked a question and was informed that in 1934 five children were killed by live rails, in 1935, six, and last year 11 were killed and there were two other casualties. That shows a progressive rate of accidents and, as you electrify the live rail more and more over England, you will have that rate doubled, and so on, as you get on. The Electric Lighting Act, 1888, provides that, where an electric line is laid down, even on private land, in such a manner as not to be entirely enclosed, the Board of Trade may require that it shall be used only in accordance with such conditions and subject to such regulations for the protection of public safety as the board may require. We ask that some notice may be taken of that in the case of railway companies.
  There have been protest meetings, as the result of which we have represented our case to the Chairman and General Manager of the railway company. They received us with great courtesy and gave us a glass of sherry, but the answer that they sent us, and the Chairman's speech at the meeting last week, mean that our complaints were not listened to. We were nicely answered, but nothing was done. The only excuse they make is to plead expense and their inability to do anything to make the line safe. I am a considerable shareholder, though I was too busy to attend the shareholders' meeting and voice my opinion, but I feel that, if they are going to make money out of electrification, they ought at least to consider the interest of the people through
  438
  whose property they run. We got no satisfaction out of the company, so we appeal to Caesar and here we are. Since our interview with the Chairman and Manager, the West Sussex County Council have passed a resolution to make representations to the Minister of Transport, drawing his attention to the danger to persons employed in agricultural work and to animals, and urging the Minister to hold an inquiry into alternative and safer methods of electrification, and to insist that all possible steps are taken to protect the live rail in such a way that people and animals will not be liable to come into contact with it. I am entitled to say, therefore, that this is causing a great deal of concern, and we appeal to the Minister to help us if the railway company will not meet us.
  There are many little country stations —they might be called slum stations—which are not lit at night. I got out of a train a few months ago at a station where I had to change platforms and I had to cross the line. There was not a single light on the station and I had to get a porter to show me the way. The least that the Southern Railway can do is to build foot bridges over the line, as other companies do, but they say they will only do it in cases where there are a good many children. Farmers through whose property the line runs have been accustomed to drive their cattle across where there are gates. In some cases the electrification of the line has already provided an opportunity for removing public crossings and installing bridges. They say they are always prepared to examine the claims of farmers who want cattle crossings, but will they recognise that all the present cattle crossings should be made permanent? I am afraid we shall get no guarantee and, except where the company think it necessary, the crossings will be shut up. I see no reason why there should not be rabbit netting wire six feet high to stop children and animals and dogs or other things getting on the line and being electrocuted. The Post Office shows some signs of humanity in shooting districts by putting little blobs on their wires for the protection of birds. It is not too much to ask the Southern Railway Company to put up sheep or rabbit netting in the interests of safety. We private owners—and no one knows better than the hon. Baronet—have to fence our forest land plantations, and I

  439
  do not see why they should not fence their property in like manner.
  These points ought to be inquired into, and the Minister should adopt the recommendation of the West Sussex County Council. When we asked the Southern Railway, we were told that we were too late, that these millions of pounds were being spent, and they could not afford to do this kind of work. Why should our country folk suffer because of the Southern Railway's lack of judgment? Two committees sat, one in 1928, and another in 1931, and we were told that they recommended that the overhead system should be used, and not live ground rails. The Southern Railway started with the overhead system. The London and North-Eastern Railway and the London Midland and Scottish Railway say that they are going to use the overhead system. That is another matter which the county council have rightly asked should be inquired into. It really is time that a further inquiry was held. If the Southern Railway cannot adopt both systems at least some protection should be provided against the dangerous lines.
  I would draw the attention of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to the fact that the Southern Railway are electrified in one way, and that other lines are being electrified in other ways. You must have some steam trains, and I understand the Southern Railway are, on the advice of the War Office, having to keep a certain number of engines in order to draw those trains. We must have some system on the railways as part of defence in case of danger, so that trucks and everything else can be made interchangeable. The chairman of the Southern Railway, in the report which he sent to us and to all the shareholders, said that
  "The company would always take ample care to protect proper access to the line, but the public on their part must realise that a railway line, with its vastly increasing service of trains and with the additional danger of the electric current "—
  They admit that—
  "differs little in negotiability from a fast flowing river, and it should only be crossed where crossings are provided for the public."
  That is the very threatening answer which we received when we asked them if they could not meet us in some
  440
  way. I wonder what the public would say if the Minister of Transport issued the same sort of threat—[An HON. MEMBER: "He does"]—and said to pedestrians, "These are the crossings, and if you dc not use them, it is your own fault if you are killed." These are the fears of the country dwellers, many of whom live in cottages beside the lines, and they want protection from the dangers of these live rails. The amenities of the countryside will be very much worsened. I have talked about the amenities quite openly of hunting and shooting, but there are people like tradesmen who live upon the amenities and who may lose their trade if there is serious interference with those amenities. I hope that the Minister will take some notice of the resolution of the Sussex County Council asking for some sort of inquiry such as he has held before, to see whether some of these grievances cannot be easily adjusted and a great and powerful vested interest like the Southern Railway cannot protect the people they serve rather than their own shareholders.
  7.52 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), but before I make my few remarks on the subject of the live rail and its dangers, I would like to pay a tribute to the Southern Railway for their enterprise and for the progress they have made. Although they stand out as a pattern, in many respects, as a progressive railway, there is no doubt that their methods are becoming more autocratic as time goes on. They are, in fact, using what I would call a giant's strength in the countryside. There has been a steady flow of Bills providing them with more and more power and monopoly during the last few years; there have been something like six or seven Bills in the last 10 years. I am informed that when the live rail question was originally discussed by committees in 1927 and in 1931, the rural interests, whether public authorities or private interests, were not consulted. I refer to the National Farmers' Union and organisations such as the Central Landowners' Association. The hon. Member who preceded me read an extract from the speech of the chairman of

  441
  the Southern Railway, and I refer particularly to what was said in that speech in regard to taking every and ample care to prevent improper access to its line. I think I can show that the company neither take "every" nor "ample care to keep animals and human beings away.
  A considerable number of accidents have happened, and by comparison with the roads, the accidents on the railways are very minor affairs. It is entirely a false analogy for the chairman of the Southern Railway to speak of the vast flowing, unfordable rivers, except in particular spots, and comparing those with an electrified line. Anybody can tell if there is a river there. They can hear it, and they can see it. If one looks at a bare steel rail, one cannot tell that there is death in it, except by touching it. It appears the same to everybody. Why should we, except from the point of view of economy, which I believe is one of the guiding interests, and, in many instances, a very proper one, have a dangerous system in this country when all over the Continent the overhead system is used. I believe I am right in saying that there is hardly a live rail system anywhere on the Continent. The chairman of the company went on to speak of the accidents attributable to shock as having been confined to a few people who had climbed over fences for some purpose of their own. I do not care how long the world continues, but you will never prevent children from trespassing, and it is not fair to describe children as climbing over railway fences as though they knew all about it and understood the danger. It is not so. He went on to say:
  "A certain number of stray dogs and cats have been electrocuted."
  There are thousands of people living literally within a few yards of the line, and is it fair, when somebody's dog or cat, perhaps let out for a moment or two, wanders on to the line, that all the comfort they should get is to be told that they should keep their animals in? Why should animals such as foxes and badgers and otters die by this live rail or be terribly burned or injured? The animals do not know the crossings as we do, and even at crossings human beings are likely to make mistakes. Parents whom I know who live near are definitely frightened
  442
  regarding their children. I know farmers who have kept dogs but have now given up doing so because they could not prevent them from being electrocuted. It has been said—not in this House—that when the line was first electrified there were few protests. That is not true. There were a great many protests, and I believe that, if there had been more cooperation, more might have been done. It is now too late to enter a protest. The statement of the Southern Railway, which I have here and which has been sent to every Member of Parliament, says that the company is bound to fence the railway to prevent trespass and cattle from straying, and that on the electrified lines special fencing, with additional wires, is provided, and that in places where trespassing by children has actually occurred unclimbable fencing is even provided. To-day I travelled to Lewes, which is my constituency, and back again. I had not often looked at the railway fences, but I did so to-day, and I maintain that they are entirely inadequate to prevent human beings from climbing, and they certainly are not high enough to prevent an ordinary active animal from trespassing on the line, and certainly not sufficient to prevent any boy from doing so. In some cases the fences are actually broken away. I passed a place this afternoon—I noticed it on the way down, and again on the way up—where a flock of sheep could walk through the fence on to the line.
  Mr. Leslie Boyce: Will my hon. and gallant Friend kindly mention in what part of the line it was?
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: It was at Ditchling Common. I want to make one protest about fencing. It ought to be put up before the live rail is put down. On the way to Lewes and Eastbourne there are three or four different kinds of fencing, and in time I believe that it will be improved. I want to raise another point which is of extreme importance to me from the standpoint of being the Member of Parliament for Lewes and district, and in doing so I must refer to several Clauses in the Bill. There are the Clauses, "Power to acquire lands," "Period of compulsory purchase of lands," "Stopping up roads and footpaths without providing substitute, "and" Stopping up footpaths in case of diversion." There are other Clauses to which I could refer.

  443
  My point is that owing to the autocratic and monopolistic methods of the Southern Railway—naturally I suppose their tendency is to look after their shareholders—they have done a good many things which have caused intense dissatisfaction. To remain within order I would point out that the Sections to which I have referred will or could quite easily produce similar circumstances elsewhere. Therefore, what I am going to say is intended as a warning to other people who may be concerned in the future. The monopolising of road transport does not come in directly, but it does indirectly, and I should like to refer to the question of road transport and the prevention of access to the sea and harbours. There is very real dissatisfaction in one seaport in my constituency which suffers in that respect. As far as I have been able to understand from the correspondence, the railway company scorn utterly all local interests, and have done little or nothing about this dissatisfaction. Their correspondence may be described as evasive and unaccommodating.
  We have two ports served by the Southern Railway, and in the Bill another port is to be served. What is happening at the present time is that the port of Newhaven is suffering from serious unemployment, and would suffer even more were it not for a good deal of building that is going on at the present time. No road transport is allowed to approach the river and to load up from the steamers that come in. The result is trade of the port has fallen off tremendously. What they are allowed to do is to go and get whatever cargo there is that has been discharged, but they have to take it from the rail. The cargo is transferred from the steamers to the railway and is carried somewhere about half a mile to a station in the town, where the local road transport may take it away. Hon. Members will readily understand that the net result of this arrangement is that the cost at Newhaven is practically double the cost at Shoreham, only 10 miles away. I have the figures to prove that.
  Earl Winterton: That is a very interesting point because Shoreham is in my constituency. At Shoreham they refuse to give any facilities for unloading a ship and the result is that the whole of the
  444
  goods so unloaded are conveyed by road transport.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: That is an extremely interesting point and one which could be easily adjusted by a little generosity on the part of the Southern Railway. I have here the discharge rates. At the present time the local authority at the Port of Newhaven, in consequence of the great cost locally, have, in the interests of the ratepayers, to import their material from the Port of Shoreham. The costs at Newhaven are double because of the failure of the railway company to allow access to the steamers by the road transport. In saying that, I am not prepared to say positively that it is all the fault of the Southern Railway, but I do say that no matter how many times they are approached they never send a useful or helpful sort of answer and never have a real investigation in order to try and help. I am delighted at the electrification progress, but I do think that there has been a little too much of the autocratic methods adopted by the board of the Southern Railway, and I would ask them to do their utmost to look into this question and give us some sort of guarantee not only that the question of the live rail will be considered, but also the public and private interests in the country which they serve.
  8.5 p.m.
  Colonel Sir George Courthope: It falls to my lot to answer the criticisms which have been made against the Southern Railway system of electrification or the extension of electrification, by my hon. and gallant Friends. Before I go into the general subject of electrification and its dangers, and the exaggeration which has taken place in the public mind as to those dangers, I should like to answer two or three specific points raised by my hon. and gallant Friends. In the first place, I should like to reassure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) about the level crossings which scare him so much. There is not a single level crossing over a live rail.
  Brigadier-General Brown: We have to go across them over the live rail.
  Sir G. Courthope: You do not have to cross the live rail. The live rail is interrupted and does not cross it. It stops at

  445
  least nine feet from the side of the crossing and the current is taken in an insulated cable underneath the road. There is no live rail across any crossing. As far as the question of Faygate Station is concerned, I have looked at the plans for station improvements and I see that in the original plan there is to be an iron footbridge at that particular station.
  Brigadier-General Brown: I was not aware of that.
  Sir G. Courthope: If my hon. and gallant Friend had asked he could have been informed. I hope that I have made it clear that there is no danger whatever at a level crossing, because there is no level crossing with a live rail.
  Lord Ansley: Can any provision be made to safeguard the driving of cattle across these accommodation crossings? Very often water and meadows are on one side and the cattle have to be driven across twice a day over the railway. If the hon. and gallant Member has ever driven cattle across a crossing, he knows that they do not always go straight but are apt to stray. If it were a question of an ordinary rail it would not matter, but there is danger that they will go on to the live rail.
  Sir G. Courthope: Where it is intimated to the railway company that cattle have to be driven across a crossing, cattle grids are installed, which we have found completely successful. They are put on both sides of the crossing. I have a plan which the noble Lord may see if he likes. As far as I can ascertain, there is no case of a farm animal bolting up the line over one of these cattle grids. I do not say that they are safeguards for cats and possibly dogs, for I think they can cross them, but farm animals cannot.
  One further point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury, on which he was mistaken. There is not the slightest intention to remove all the steam locomotives from the Southern Railway. If the electric system is out of action owing to a war or anything of that kind, the steam locomotives will be there but, of course, not in such numbers as in the past. The lines will be available for steam locomotives over the whole system. The hon. and gallant Member also gave an analogy which was not applicable. He referred to a quotation
  446
  from the speech of the Chairman of the Southern Railway to shareholders at the recent general meeting and made an analogy between danger to pedestrians on the roads and danger on the railways. I would point out that the pedestrian has a right to be on the road but he has no right, without trespass, to be on a railway, except at the crossings. Therefore, there was no analogy. With regard to the speech of the Seconder of the Amendment, I should like to thank him for the pats of butter he handed out, but later he showed a different spirit by using a certain phrase about autocratic methods and death on the rail. I much regret that he should have lent himself to this exaggeration of words as applied to the third-rail system, which is approved by the Standardisation of Electrification Order, 1932. With regard to his specific complaint about Newhaven, I should like to remind him that if it was not for the Southern Railway and its very large expenditure, both capital and current, there, there would be no port facilities at Newhaven. His constituents at Newhaven ought to be extremely grateful to the Southern Railway that there is so much employment and that employment has not fallen off more.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the River Ouse was not made by the Southern Railway.
  Sir G. Courthope: And I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Port of Newhaven was constructed by the Southern Railway. The extension of electrification into rural districts, which is the cause of the main complaint made against us, is not being carried out under the Bill now before the House, but under powers already granted. The present Bill has no material bearing upon that question. Beyond taking powers to acquire small sites for transforming stations and things of that kind, the Bill is not essential to that particular work and does not seek powers for extending it. As the main burden of the complaint has been that there is danger to farm animals, to landowners and to hunting, it is rather a comic point that I am a landowner, a farmer and a hunting man, and that one of the projected extensions of the Southern Railway, which will be carried out in the next two years, intersects my estate, divides my largest farm in half, and goes

  447
  through the country of a hunt upon whose committee I serve. I do not want to talk about myself, but I say that deliberately for the reason that if the fears which actuate my hon. and gallant Friends were well founded, I should share them. I should have every personal reason for opposing electrification through my district and across my property, but it is because I know those fears to be unfounded that I welcome that extension.
  Let me deal with the general position. The third rail system, the conductor-rail system of electrification, is standardised to this extent, that the order which provides for standardisation lays it down that contact shall be on the top, and it also indicates the exact position of the conductor rail in relation to the running rail. The suggestion has been made that the public would be safer if the Southern Railway adopted other systems of live rail electrification. They cannot be considered because they would be outside our powers; they would be breaches of the standardisation order. It has been suggested that there should be a top cover to the conductor rail such as is found, I believe, on the New York Central Railway. That would not only be a breach of the order but is physically impossible, even if the Minister were to modify the order, because it would require a very much greater loading gauge than the rolling stock of the country has, and if rolling stock with a greater clearance was built it would mean that all the bridges and tunnels would be put out of action. We have to adapt the system of electrification to the conditions which exist on the railways, and to the rolling stock which runs over them.
  Let me come to the question whether there is any justification for the fears which have been expressed. I have referred to one sentence used by the hon. and gallant Admiral. I will mention just one more which has appeared in the public Press and is typical of the inadequate knowledge which induces many people to write on the subject of the live rail and the dangers which may attach to it:
  "The live rail on the Southern Railway system kills horribly on touch, and is unprotected."
  That is only one of many similar statements which have appeared in the public Press. I am not going to attempt an
  448
  answer from my own experience—I am only an amateur with no technical knowledge whatever—or from statements of high skilled electrical engineers who serve us on the railways, I propose to give an answer from an independent source. I have in my hand a paper which was read some years ago on the subject of electric shocks to the Institution of Electrical Engineers by Mr. A. P. Trotter, who was then chief electrical adviser to the Board of Trade. This paper was read in 1902 in the early days of the live rail, and it was his duty to inspect those railways which employed the live rail system:
  "Irresponsible correspondents have suggested in the newspapers that to fall on the electric rails of the Central London Railway is to be grilled alive; they knew no better. But when during the inspection of the last extension of the City and South London Railway I stood on the rails in wetted boots and sat on the live conductor and slapped the running rails with my bare hands, engineers, electricians, railway employés, and others who ought to know better, were surprised and spoiled the effect of my demonstration by suggesting that I was peculiarly insusceptible to shocks."
  He gives other examples:
  "To sit on the live rail without touching the running rails was easy, and I cautiously flicked the running rail and then touched it and then laid my hands fiat on it without the slightest sensation. While experience has shown that a person so falling may receive a serious and even fatal shock, this can only occur if he makes contact with both a live rail and a running rail with bare skin or thoroughly wetted clothes, and if he lie there for a time. As to the length of this time we know nothing, but so long as the fall has not injured the person so that he cannot rise it is very improbable that the shock would be maintained. A platelayer in the open yard of the Waterloo and City Railway once accidentally sat on the third rail and made the circuit through his feet on wet ground. He shouted and was pulled off by his mates; the contraction of his muscles prevented him from rising. He could probably have rolled over and so released himself. He was back at work again in a few minutes."
  There are a number of instances of that kind, and he sums up his conclusions at the end of his paper with this statement:
  "With sound dry boots hardly anybody can feel a shock when standing on the live rail of an electric railway with one foot and on a running rail with the other. With damp or wet boots a shock is felt but neither the sensation nor the degree of wetness of the boots can be measured accurately. It is not possible to receive a shock by sitting or lying on a live rail so long as the clothes are dry and continuous, that is to say so long as the live metal is not touched by the bare skin."

  449
  I only attach importance to these statements because they are those of an independent electrical engineer of great distinction, and they show that although there is undoubtedly a small element of danger in the live rail system it is very much exaggerated.
  Sir John Mellor: Will the hon. and gallant Member say what is the distance between the live rail and the running rail?
  Sir G. Courthope: It is laid down in the order, and my recollection is that it is one foot four and a half inches. Let me deal with the point regarding farm animals. Of course a number of farm animals are caught by trains at level crossings and killed by impact, but as far as I can ascertain, and I have taken some trouble to ensure that I have got all the information available, I find that during three years six horses or ponies, two bullocks and one pig are the total number of farm animals electrocuted on the 600 miles of live rail on the Southern system. Not one of these escaped on to the line by a level crossing, they were all cases of animals which were being entrained at the loading clocks, which escaped and bolted on to the open lines, and they were but a very small part of the total number of animals which did in fact bolt. A far larger number of the animals were not electrocuted but were killed by the trains. I am satisfied that there is no danger either to man or beast at our level crossings, and we endeavour—I believe successfully—to make it impossible for farm animals to leave the crossings.
  It has been suggested that we ought to fence the whole of the line in such a way as to make it impossible for children to reach it. I wish it were possible to do that, but it is not. It must be remembered that in the length of the railway line there are innumerable sidings coming in from factories, warehouses, goods yards and so on, and there is a large number of crossings which cannot be shut off from the rest of the line. In other words, there are innumerable places from which a child wishing to do so could get access to the open line, even though the fencing were put up. At some time all of us have been boys. Can any hon. Member suggest a fence that we could not have got over if we had wanted to do so? It is idle to suggest that any
  450
  useful purpose would be served by endeavouring to make it impossible for children to reach the line when we know the determination and ingenuity of young people and when it is impossible to close all the sidings and crossings which would give them access to the line.
  It has also been suggested that we might be able to fence the line so that small wild animals could not reach it. As far as we know, those small wild animals reach the line by going up the pipes which carry away the water, and we could not fence them. It is not a matter of fencing, and I think it would be vain to attempt to prevent children and small wild animals from reaching the line. Moreover, experience suggests that in the districts where the line has been electrified, the wild animals are learning the danger. We all know how animals, both wild and domestic, have gradually learned the danger of motor cars on the road. Those who were driving cars 30 or 35 years ago, as I was, remember the constant stupidity of chickens. We rarely went out without running over one.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: It was a question of the quick and the dead.
  Sir G. Courthope: No, it was a question of their learning road sense, and they learned it. Experience suggests that the wild animals are also learning rail sense, and learning to avoid the places where they get a shock from the live rail. It is certain that very large numbers of them must touch the rail and get something of a shock without suffering the death penalty for so doing. No one wishes to kill wild animals. I am greatly distressed when I hear of an otter or a badger being killed, but we can devise no means of making it impossible—
  Mr. Quibell: And foxes?
  Sir G. Courthope: Not many foxes are killed. Presumably the foxes go over the live rail, whereas the badgers and otters creep under it. One is glad to think that they appear to be learning that the live rail is dangerous, and are avoiding it. The Noble Lord asked why, on the Southern Railway, we adopted the third-rail system instead of the overhead system. Before the formation of the Railway, two of its component parts had electrified suburban lengths of line. The London Brighton and South Coast Rail-

  451
  way was using the overhead system and the London and South Western Railway was using the third-rail system. Consequently, there were opportunities of judging the usefulness, dangers and practicability of both in competition, and it was as a result of that experience that the third-rail system was adopted. The principal reason is that the third-rail system is adapted to the multiple unit system, which enables the maximum service to be given in rush hours to congested districts, whereas the overhead system is more adapted to use by an electrical locomotive which cannot give the same rapid service in a congested district.
  Earl Winterton: Why is it that the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway have adopted this system? Have they not adopted it in densely populated areas?
  Sir G. Courthope: I cannot tell the Noble Lord, but I can tell him that the experience on the component parts of the Southern Railway was that it was impossible to run as many trains with the overhead system as it was with the multiple unit system. There is no doubt in our minds that, for the dense suburban traffic, the third-rail system is the better in every way. There is another point I would like to make with regard to the dangers. We employ many thousands of platelayers, permanent-way men and others whose daily work is in these electrified districts. We have not had a fatal accident from the live rail—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are supplied with rubber gloves."] Yes, but our experience is that the majority fear the live rail so little that the gloves are not worn.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: Do they wear rubber boots?
  Sir G. Courthope: The permanent-way men do not. There were several fatal accidents within a comparatively short distance of overhead line on the London Brighton and South Coast Railway during the few years that that system was in use. The overhead line requires a very much higher voltage—1,500 is the one laid' down—than that which is necessary in the third conductor line, which averages approximately 600, although we are entitled by the Order to go up to a maximum of 750. If contact is estab-
  452
  lished with the overhead line there is much graver risk than there is with the live rail. I hope I have said enough to satisfy the House, first, that the danger of the third-rail system has been much exaggerated; second, that it has been constructed and is operated strictly in accordance with the statutory orders; third, that all and more than all the safeguards required by law for the protection of man and beast have been provided; and, fourth, that the danger to persons and to farm animals has not been increased by electrification. In the districts where there has been electrification, increased fencing has been provided which makes access by trespassers and animals more difficult. There is, in addition, the fact that the electric train can be pulled up with much greater rapidity than the steam train. A certain proportion of accidents is avoided by that means. The advantages of these two factors, in our experience, more than compensate for any additional danger which there may be in the third-rail system.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can my hon. and gallant Friend see his way to bring to the notice of the hoard of directors of the Southern Railway the suggestion that, in all fairness to the port of Newhaven, road transport should be allowed to deal with goods coming into that port? At present it is not allowed.
  Sir G. Courthope: I will certainly make that represent ation.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Montague: I do not know that Members on this side of the House are much concerned about the quarrel between the Southern Railway Company and the Kent and Surrey sportsmen. We have heard little about the deal motives behind the Opposition to this Bill, but there seems to be no doubt Mat the concern of those who have so successfully opposed this Bill up to the present and are still opposing it, is more of a sporting character than anything else. Certain figures have been given about the effects of the live rail on human life during a number of years. I think the figures of five fatalities and six fatalities, respectively, in two different years have been mentioned.
  Brigadier-General Brown: Eleven within a year.
  Mr. Montague: Hon. Members have not told us the extent of live rail covered by the figures or the circumstances accompanying those fatalities, and even the higher figure just mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member is nothing like the number of fatalities which occur upon any one road out of London with motor traffic. When it is argued that people are entitled to the use of the road but not to walk on the railway, that surely is a stronger reason for questioning the enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite about these fatalities, when we do not find the same enthusiasm on the question of safegarding the rights of pedestrians, including women and children, upon our roads. However, I am not so much concerned about that for the moment. I agree with the second part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) in which he referred to Clauses 13 to 15. I am sorry the last speaker in his defence of the Southern Railway did not deal with the point which was raised in connection with those Clauses. May I remind the House that Clause 15 provides:
  "Where this Act authorises the stopping up of a road or footpath or portion thereof without providing a substitute, such stopping up shall not take place except where the same is situate upon property of the company without the consent of the owners, lessees and occupiers of the houses and land abutting on both sides thereof."
  The Clause goes on to deal with the question of compensation. That seems a rather dangerous power to give to the Southern Railway Company. It is a point which ought to be watched because there are other interests besides those of the owners, lessees and occupiers of the property abutting on these portions of land. But I think those are Committee points rather than points which affect the general issues covered by the Bill. If the Bill receives a Second Reading and is sent to a Committee, I am sure that my hon. Friends on that Committee will watch carefully what powers are conferred upon the company in that respect. I have not consulted all my hon. Friends on this side about this Bill. It is a Private Bill, and there may be differences of opinion upon it even among my hon. Friends. But I, personally, hope that the opposition to it will not culminate in the defeat of the Measure. This question of the live rail is a comparatively small matter, compared with some of the other
  454
  questions covered by the Bill. On the question of danger to life we must remember that the Bill abolishes a large number of level crossings and substitutes footbridges, and I imagine that there we have, at least, the prospect of something in the nature of a quid pro quo for the other provisions mentioned. These are matters for earnest consideration by the Committee but are no justification for voting against the Bill.
  There is one point of serious importance which arises on Clause 31. That Clause enables the Southern Railway to carry out a project in connection with the extension of the Imperial Airways terminus on the Buckingham Palace Road site of Victoria Station. The intention is to provide facilities for air passengers making use of the railway system, particularly in connection with new developments in regard to Southampton and the Atlantic route. We have our own point of view about Imperial Airways, but whatever we may think about how civil aviation ought to be organised and conducted, the fact remains that that company is more than a private company. It is subsidised, it is supposed to represent an important public service, and there is Government representation on its board. It seems to me that this Bill ought to go to Committee in order that the question of the facilities required by new developments in civil aviation services from London should be considered.
  I am not sure whether I have been correctly informed but I understand that there is an objection to cutting the blank wall in Buckingham Palace Road opposite the coaching station, a proposal which is dealt with in this Clause. It refers to a small portion of that not particularly aesthetic wall but the Duke of Westminster, I am told, is opposed to the project and insists upon the Southern Railway providing a quid pro quo, if he agrees with this proposal—apart altogether from this legislation being carried—by erecting an entirely unremunerative garage for public vehicles, taxi-cabs and so forth, at a very great cost. To this the Southern Railway, so I am told, are not prepared to agree, for the one reason more than another that it would not be used on the part of the taxicab drivers and that there is ample accommodation for them at present in reference to the necessities of the passenger service.
  Earl Winterton: As I am a resident in the neighbourhood, may I say that this is a very old standing dispute, and I am not sure that the hon. Members opposite were not on our side in that matter when they were located in Eccleston Square. It is a dispute, not on the part of the Duke of Westminster, but of residents in the neighbourhood about the disposal of the taxicabs, which, it is contended, are a great nuisance to the inhabitants of Eccleston Square and neighbouring areas, not through any fault of the drivers themselves, but because of the railway company refusing to make accommodation for them on their premises. That is the essence of the dispute.
  Mr. Montague: I will not argue the matter with the Noble Lord, because, after all, it is quite a minor point. It is a difficulty that ought to be overcome, but I am told, from the taxi drivers themselves, that they would not think of using a garage in that connection. They want to be in the station and alongside the trains. Anyhow, whether that is so or not, it seems to me that points of that kind, where these vested interests come in—whether the Labour party in Eccles-ton Square were on the side of these vested interests or not, I do not know—I think that fact ought not to be camouflaged in this House. If there is any virtue in the points that have been raised, there ought to be opportunity to discuss the question in Committee and to come to an agreement. For these reasons, and particularly in view of the real importance of the new developments in the airways system, I hope that a Division will not be pressed and that the House will let this Bill go to Committee, where these points can be adequately, and, I hope, temperately and fairly dealt with.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Boyce: The speeches to which we have listened from the hon. and gallant Members for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) and Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), in moving and seconding the rejection of the Bill, had a ring about them that was very familiar in this House a hundred years ago. The same exaggerated fears and arguments as were advanced against the live rail to-day were then advanced against the steam system, on behalf of the landowners, the huntsmen, and the farmers, in opposition to Bills to authorise the construction of our
  456
  earliest railways. When the Great Western Railway Bills of 1834 and 1835 were before this House, they were vigorously opposed by the Provost and Headmaster of Eton on the ground that they were dangerous to the scholars and would corrupt the morals and discipline of the school. Several masters gave evidence that that famous school would be ruined owing to the proximity of the railway, and they succeeded through their evidence in having a branch extension to Windsor struck out of the Bill; and it was not authorised until many years later. Subsequently, in a more enlightened age, we find that Eton College on several occasions actually engaged special trains over that system to send their children home for their holidays. I suggest, without wishing to be at all offensive, that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury, who was a distinguished member of that historic institution, represents the attitude of mind of the Eton of 1835 and that the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who was also a distinguished member of that school, represents the later and more enlightened attitude of mind which resulted in the running of those special trains. On the other hand, we find that the same fears that were expressed to-clay were firmly rejected from the outset by Harrow, which is so brilliantly represented in this House in the person of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). If the opposition that we have heard to-day had prevailed a century ago, the railways which are the product of British genius, enterprise, and perseverance would not have originated in this country. It is because we in this country are the pioneers of the railways that we have been called upon to build and equip railways all over the world, and wherever we have done so British trade has immediately taken root and begun to flourish.
  Lord Ansley: Does the hon. Member realise that it is on account of this opposition to railways in the past from landowners and farmers that the railways in this country are the best provided with bridges and crossings in the world, with the result that they have an exceptionally fine permanent way and can maintain higher average speeds?
  Mr. Boyce: I cannot accept the contention of the Noble Lord. It is certainly

  457
  due to the opposition to the railways that Kemble Tunnel, which is 415 yards long, was unnecessarily built, because the Squire of Kemble—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I do not think that has to do with the present Bill.
  Mr. Boyce: No, Sir, but I did not know whether you were familiar with the locality of Kemble Tunnel. Unfortunately it was not this country which was the pioneer of electric traction as it was of steam traction. The application of electric transmission of power to the railways was first demonstrated by Dr. Siemens in the Berlin Exposition of 1879, and after that, as hon. Members know, electrification was rapidly developed in America, and the first electric railway worked in this country was, I think, the City and South London Railway, as lately as 1890. But—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Bill is solely concerned with the Southern Railway, and we must not wander over the railway systems of the country.
  Mr. Boyce: I was making the point, but did not get there quickly enough, that while we cannot claim to have been the pioneers of electric traction, the Southern Railway Company, who are the promoters of this Bill, by their progressive policy have given us the largest, the safest, and the most successful electrified suburban system in the world to-day.
  As a result of investigations carried out by the Kennedy Committee in 1921, the Pringle Committee in 1927, and the Ministry of Transport Order of 1932, and as we have been told by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, only two systems of electrification were legally open to the Southern Railway. They tried both systems. As a result of practical experience they decided, in 1930, to abandon the overhead system on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Section and to adopt the third rail system, which had been in operation over other sections of their system since 1915. I suggest to the House that it is reasonable for us to assume that those who are responsible for the direction and management of the Southern Railway know best which of these two systems suits their requirements.
  458
  The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) mentioned that the advent of the live rail in country districts was supposed to interfere with fox hunting and that he, like many others in this House, suspected that that fact carried a good deal of weight with those who were objecting to this Bill. If a fox which was hard pressed by hounds managed to get itself electrocuted, I suggest that it would be lucky rather than otherwise. There have been over 1,000 railways worked in this country as a result of Bills passed in this House, and during the past century the foxhunters have been very busy indeed. If you consult the old sporting books which were published at the time when the railways themselves were first being constructed, you will find there an almost universal prediction that foxhunting would cease finally and irrevocably in those areas in which railways were allowed to run. The expectation of traffic density at that time was infinitesimal as compared with the facts to-day, and yet we find that there is more foxhunting to-day in those very areas where the trains run than there has ever been before. Fears were expressed and opposition raised on behalf of the foxhunting community when the third rail system was being authorised by Parliament more than zo years ago, but experience shows that the danger to foxhunting was no greater under a system of electric traction than it was under a system of steam traction. By law the Southern Railway Company and all the railway companies are obliged to fence their track with an eight-strand fence. The Southern Railway, in fact, within the electrified area uses 10 strands, and if a particular hunt wish to have another type of fence, they can build one at their own expense, as has been done in certain cases.
  Because adults trespass upon a railway and receive electric shocks that is not, I suggest, a valid argument that can possibly be used against the railway company. It was interesting to hear from the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury that he had such a hair raising experience after a glass of sherry on a dark and stormy night when he arrived at Faygate and had great difficulty in crossing the line without being electrocuted. It transpires that to this day the electric line does not run through that station at all.
  Brigadier-General Brown: The sherry was provided by the Chairman of the Southern Railway at our interview. The dark and stormy night was another time, and I did not say that the line was electrified. I spoke of the difficulties of getting across the line even when it was not electrified, and of how much more dangerous it would be if it were.
  Mr. Boyce: I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on having so successfully crossed the line without being electrocuted when there was no contactor rail for miles around. The case of children, especially those of tender years, is an entirely different matter, and we take a different view of them in the House from the view we take of adults who wilfully trespass on the railway and get an electric shock. Much has been done and is being done by the Southern Railway in excess of the requirements of the Minister of Transport in order to protect straying children of tender years. On both sides of the House there are several Members who are specially interested in this problem in their capacity of members of county and other councils, and who will agree that the Southern Railway Company has shown a readiness to take reasonable steps whenever representations have been made to them in order to avoid dangers of this sort to small children. A railway track which everyone knows to be electrified is a much safer place than any public road, than any canal, than the cliffs at Dover or anywhere else. I suggest that the railways, which are rendering a great service to the community, are entitled to be treated reasonably when they bring forward a Bill of this kind.
  The question of the amenities of the countryside is perhaps relevant to this question. By merely adding a third rail you cannot possibly alter the appearance of a railway. If, on the other hand, the overhead system is adopted, it is a worse eyesore than the pylons which are erected by the Electricity Commission and which have caused so much adverse comment. Moreover, the danger to aviation, especially in times of fog, of having hundreds of miles of trip wire above the ground is far greater than anything that can result from having the third rail. If we reject this Bill we will not only be taking a reactionary and retrograde step, but we will reject a Measure the
  460
  main purpose of which is to render greater facilities to the public which are urgently wanted and which comply in every respect with the procedure and regulations which this House itself has laid down.
  9.0 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) is well known to be an enthusiastic supporter of the railways. So enthusiastic is he that at two railway company annual meetings recently he got up and paid profuse compliments to the management and directors. We are, therefore, interested to hear his views on the railway question this evening.
  Mr. Boyce: Does the Noble Lord suggest that those compliments were not fully justified?
  Earl Winterton: I do not say whether they were justified or not. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to put his point of view, but he is not an unbiased party in the matter. He is entitled to put the point of view of the railway stockholder, and those of us who are not railway stockholders, but who are concerned with the interests of the public, and, as in my case, with the views of the local authorities, are entitled to put our view; and I deprecate suggestions that there has been any exaggeration on either side. I rather take the view of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, with whom I do not often find myself in agreement, that this Bill ought to go to a Committee. I think, however, that meanwhile on the Second Reading stage, we who represent the districts through which the railway passes—in my case the only member representing a county which has actually passed a resolution protesting against the Bill—are entitled to make our voices heard. I rather regret the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who adopted an almost truculent attitude, and, in the most condemnatory manner, accused my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) and those who oppose the Bill of having been guilty of gross exaggeration. The day may come when he may find the support of hon. Members on this side of the House quite useful, for there are, I understand, members of the House who would like to see the railways taken away from the present owners.
  Mr. Ede: It is only a question of price.
  Earl Winterton: I will not pursue that subject now, for I would be out of order. I have received a letter officially from the County Council of West Sussex asking me to bring before the House a resolution that they have passed on this subject. It is as follows:
  "That representation be made to the Minister of Transport drawing his attention to the danger to persons employed in agricultural work, to farm stock and other animals likely to arise from the proposed extension of the electrification of the Southern Railway in West Sussex and urging that in approving the electrification the Minister will hold an inquiry into alternative safer methods of electrification; and that if the live-rail system is employed the Minister will insist that all possible steps are taken to protect the live rail in such a way that persons and animals will not be liable to come in contact with it particularly in the neighbourhood of occupation and other level crossings provided for the use of farmers and others whose properties are severed by the present railway line."
  I understand that that resolution was passed by a very large majority and was based upon resolutions sent to the county council by the local branches of the National Farmers' Union and of the Central Landowners' Association.
  I suggest that the question resolves itself into this: The Southern Railway are committed to this particular system of electrification. I was not much impressed by the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend or with the arguments of the chairman and manager of the railway, which they used when we went to them on a deputation, that it is the best system. It is a curious and interesting fact that other railways are not using that system; they are using the overhead system. We do recognise, however, that, for good or evil, the Southern Railway are committed to this system, and no one suggests that they should abandon it. I, at any rate, do not, and my constituents do not. What we ask is that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that the live rail is safe. The question resolves inself into two parts. Is it possible to board the line? We are told it would cost ego per double track mile.
  Sir G. Courthope: Over £400.
  Earl Winterton: The information given to us was that & is the figure. I took a note of it at the time. I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend did not deal with it in his speech, because that is one of the points on which we want informa-
  462
  tion. Is it or is it not possible to protect the live rail by boarding? We were told by the company that objection was taken to that method by the railway employés, whose interests should be a first consideration from the point of view of safety, but the information which has reached my hon. and gallant Friend and me in private conversations with railway employes is that they would regard it as a source of protection to themselves if the live rail could be boarded. That is the first point we would like to have answered.
  If it is not possible to board the live rail we come to the question of providing effective protection for children and wild and tame animals. The railway company has admitted that there is danger by erecting special fences at certain places near schools. It does not seem to be a matter of very great importance whether one child or a dozen children are killed by electrification, it is equally bad. Nor can I follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite when he said, as I understood him, "What is the use of worrying about a few deaths on the railway when you have all these deaths on the roads?"
  Mr. Montague: That was not my point. My point was that there is an explanation of the sudden enthusiasm for human safety on the part of certain Members of this House when it is a question of fox-hunting and not a question of motoring.
  Earl Winterton: I should be out of order if I pursued that point, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair debater, will accept my assurance when I tell him that I would have infinitely more stringent rules for the roads than we have at present. But because there is an appalling toll of deaths on the road—a death roll which ought to be a matter of shame to every Member of this House—is that any reason for making the railways less safe? I cannot see any sense in that argument. Some of the railways say, "Look how few people are killed on our railways compared with the large number who are killed on the roads." But what on earth has that to do with it? Unquestionably some people have been killed by this live rail system, and the question is: Is it or is it not possible—I would put that suggestion through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Committee which will eventually consider the Bill—to abate that danger? We

  463
  suggest that it is possible to do it by the use of fencing.
  An hon. Member referred to foxhunting and other field sports. That consideration does come into the question; it would be disingenuous to deny it, but the opposition of my farmer constituents has nothing to do with foxhunting. Many of them are not even foxhunters, and some of them may be opposed to fox-hunting. In my constituency there are a number of small farmers who are—I hope I shall not get into trouble with my constituents for using the phrase—what I may call peasant farmers, employing their own families to work their farms with, at the most, one labourer. Some of these farms are bisected by the railway, having two fields on one side of the line and two on the other, and those people are really frightened that their stock will be injured unless the railway company will take effective means of fencing the line. Every individual has to fence his property. It is the common law. Every agricultural Member knows that a man is supposed to protect his land with fences, and that should be done by the railway company.
  Even if it were solely a question of field sports I would not hesitate, because I have always tried to be frank with this House, to press for fencing. We are not here discussing the value or otherwise of field sports, but as long as they go on, and they have gone on for hundreds of years, there is no reason why innocent animals like hounds or retrievers should be subject to death by electrocution. It is not only a question of sporting dogs. An enormous number of cats are killed in the London area. Some hon. Members appear to regard that as humorous, but I am not sure that the owners of those cats would take the same view. Judging by the number of letters we have had lately on other aspects of cruelty to animals the public feel very strongly on the subject. The railway company have put out a memorandum—incidentally, I do not think it was particularly well-worded or impressive—in which they have suggested that the only damage caused by the third rail has been to a few cats in the London area. I understand that a large number have been killed, and certainly a number of dogs have been killed.
  There is one other aspect of the case which ought to appeal to the House.
  464
  There is no question that without effective protection much wild life is destroyed by this third rail. I am not referring to game animals like foxes or pheasants, but to animals like badgers, with which no one but ruthless people would interfere, because they are an interesting survival, and a number of birds, including some rare birds. It is interesting to note that in an area of Sussex where, as far as I know, the badgers are quite undisturbed, no fewer than 22 badgers were killed on the railway within six months. My hon. and gallant Friend says they will soon learn by expuience not to get killed. In other words, the Southern Railway want to run this third rail system through a purely rural district and say, "Well, if we do kill a few animals at first, they will soon learn not to be killed; they will learn not to go near the Southern Railway." All that those who are opposing this Bill in the interests of the countryside ask is, that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that the third rail does as little damage as possible. There ought to be more effective protection at certain spots. We wish all accommodation crossings to be maintained, because real hardship is done to a small farmer if his accommodation crossing is taken away. The ideal which we should like to see would be a form of fencing which would make it difficult, if not impossible, for young children, would-be suicides, any human being who wants to stray on the railway for any reason, or wild animals, to get on to the line. We ask all these things, and if we do not go to a Division we hope that will not mean that the Committee will not take them into consideration.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. Walkden: We on this side of the House would not wish to support a railway Bill if there were any evidence of real injustice, carelessness, culpable negligence or anything else that was reprehensible in the action of the railway company promoting the Measure, but so far, I suggest, no such evidence has come before the House. The petition against the Bill from a local authority, to which the Noble Lord referred, can surely be dealt with in the normal course if and when the Bill goes to Committee upstairs. I have risen to suggest that we ought to do nothing to prevent the Bill from going forward. We here are as much interested in the wild life of our

  465
  own country as hon. Members opposite, though we do not hunt wild creatures, and feel that the greatest suffering can be caused to an animal by hunting it. For animals to fight one another does not cause them as much suffering as hunting. I know nothing more horrible than the cry of a hare which is being hunted by hounds. But it is a little unfortunate that hunting considerations have intruded themselves into this Debate when we have just been considering the fate of hundreds of thousands of our fellow creatures who are unemployed and suffering acutely.
  To come back to the Bill, I have heard nothing in the statements about it so far which could not properly be dealt with in Committee or, if they are out of order in Committee, which would not be dealt with the Company's directors and managers if they were approached. As one having to deal with railway companies on questions affecting railway labour, I have pleasure in saying that the Southern Railway Company are certainly not the least reasonable of the railway companies. They are always ready to receive us and we always get a very fair hearing. Everybody's case is met. My hon. Friends on these benches know how true that statement is. I am not saying that the other railways have not the same disposition to-day. They have changed very much from the nineteenth century attitude of mind described by an hon. Gentleman who spoke from below the Gangway opposite. I am confident that anything which has been complained of can be dealt with in the proper way.
  The large consideration which the House should keep in mind is that electrical transport can be carried through much more rapidly and safely, because of the quicker pull-up which was so ably described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the railway companies. You can get pretty well three trains running with electricity as against two with steam. There is the tremendous public advantage that the people in the South of England can be transported much more rapidly by rail than by road. I use Waterloo Station every day, and I shudder to think what would be the state of the roads if only one-tenth of the passengers who now use that station had to go by road. The Southern Railway are performing a great public service in
  466
  accelerating their transport and enabling the enormous numbers of people who travel between the Metropolis and the South Coast to do so quickly by train in-8 stead of by road. That is the overwhelming consideration which we should take into account, and we should give to this railway company, in their enterprise in electrifying their railway, every encouragement to go ahead.
  9.17 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I am not going to intervene in this Debate for any length of time. Hon. Members have, I think quite rightly, taken the opportunity offered by the Bill to debate the subject of railway electrification. I welcome the Debate, and so do other hon. Members, as helping to clear away certain misconceptions and bringing to the notice of the railway companies the fears which are held by certain Members of this House. I need not remind hon. Members, because that has been done by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) that the Bill does not deal with the powers to electrify the lines in West Sussex. Those powers are conferred by previous Acts. Such matters of electrification as are dealt with in the Bill are to implement an agreement come to with the Treasury in 1935, and scheduled in the Southern Railway Act of last year, those agreements being part of the big scheme of railway work which was sanctioned by this House in 1935. I hope, as hon. Members on all sides and taking every view have said, that after the Debate is concluded the Bill may be allowed to proceed to Committee.
  As regards the controversy about the live-rail system, this, as the hon. and gallant Member for Rye has said, is one of the two systems of railway electrification approved by the Minister of Transport under the Railways (Standardisation of Electrification) Order, 1932, and has been adopted by the Southern Railway in regard to suburban lines and extensions of those lines where certain technical and traffic considerations exist, and the Minister has not thought it necessary to take objection to this system on the grounds of safety. It must not be assumed that this system would be regarded by the Minister as the most suitable or economical for new or further extensions of electrification, where different technical and traffic considerations exist

  467
  For instance, I would remind the House that the overhead system is now being adopted by the two northern companies —for example, the electrification of the Liverpool Street-Shenfield and the Sheffield-Manchester lines. Very careful attention has been given by my Department to this question of safety, and it is on the aspect of safety that practically all the Debate has taken place. Certain obligations are laid down as regards fencing under Section 68 of the Railway Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845. In practice, the railways go further than their obligations. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye gave certain illustrations of what they are trying to do.
  I can say that special attention is paid both by the railways and by the inspecting officers of my Department to places where trespass may be expected. Our inspectors are continually examining this aspect of the matter and trying to see that as few accidents as possible take place. Special precautions which my Department consider adequate are also taken at all the level crossings—and by level crossing I mean the public level crossing, the occupational crossing, the footpath crossing and stations—so that wherever persons and animals are allowed on the line the line is fully protected. There again, our inspecting officers do their best to see that proper protection is afforded. On any railway, whether it is electrified or not, there must be some element of danger, in spite of the precautions which are taken, if people make their way on to portions of the line where they have no right to be.
  The total number of fatalities due to contact with the live rail on the Southern Railway, during the five years 1932–36, was 21, of which 19 were trespassers. I would say in conclusion that we shall consider very carefully the suggestions which have been made to-night and the resolution to which the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) referred, in order to see whether any further safeguards are both necessary and practical.
  9.24 p.m.
  Mr. Amery: After listening to this Debate, I rather wonder whether we might not be guilty of gross irrelevancy,
  468
  when I remind the House that the primary object of the Measure before us is not electrification but the no less vital matter of aviation. The Bill aims at improving matters in aviation. It makes provision for adequate headquarters of that great national institution, Imperial Airways. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) pointed out that whatever criticism some Members of the House may wish to direct at this or that feature of Imperial Airways, as a national institution, it is important that it should be as efficient as possible. The other provision of the Bill is to afford railways access to an aerodrome which we believe to be the most valuable aerodrome in the neighbourhood of London and, more particularly, the safest aerodrome, lying as it does outside the fog area. When we are discussing the question of safety we should remember that the passing of this Measure and the opening up of that aerodrome may help to avoid a good many of the accidents which arise in aviation. Incidentally, too, that aerodrome may be of considerable national importance.
  Lord Apsley: Which aerodrome is it?
  Mr. Amery: Lullingstone. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), after a little preliminary praise, made a general attack on the Southern Railway for its autocratic behaviour and instanced that in the last few years it had introduced six or seven Bills. Those Bills made provision for Southampton Docks, the construction of a train ferry, the building of an extra tunnel for safety at Dover, and things of that kind None of those matters is evidence of an autocratic tendency. Those Bills, like the present, contained a number of Clauses with regard to sites which are common form. To come to the main case of the argument against the electrified system of the Southern Railway, I cannot help feeling that the main weight of the attack comes not from those who have had experience of electrification but from those who fear the unknown dangers which electrification may bring.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) gave what I suggest was rather a typical illustration of these fears. He described the perils in pre-electricity days of crossing on a dark and windy night the level crossing at his station and indicated how

  469
  much greater these dangers might be when electricity came. He was evidently under the impression that the live rail would go through the level crossing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) has pointed out that at every level crossing the live rail is discontinued for some distance on each side and that the electricity is carried underneath the level crossing in a cable, and that for the risks which the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury outlined to be real the hon. Member would have to get down on his knees, tear up the heavy creosoted beams, dig down to the cables, strip the cables of their insulation and, making sure that his hands were wet, and that his boots also were wet, would have to press his hands against the electric wires. The risk is of an infinitesimal character. But it does illustrate that in these cases 'there is a very human tendency to exaggerate the dangers of any new system. In our own lifetime the most extravagant fears were expressed of the disaster which would follow if motor vehicles were allowed to move at a speed of more than four miles an hour without a man with a red flag proceeding in front of them.
  Mr. Macquisten: Thousands are killed and mutilated by motor cars.
  Mr. Amery: Does anyone suggest that in this country we should go back to four miles an hour?
  Mr. Macquisten: We should make special roads for motors.
  Mr. Amery: That also is very desirable. The danger to adults of electrification is infinitesimal unless they are deliberately aiming at suicide. The danger to cattle also is infinitesimal. In six years six horses, two bullocks and one pig have been killed, not one of these as a result of straying on to a level crossing, but in loading or unloading from a train. The real danger is the danger to children who cannot read notices and make deliberate attempts to get over fences. I have looked at some of these cases where children have been killed, and the astonishing thing is the effort they have made in order to get on to the line. They have climbed six-feet fences. Two children have helped a third child of four over a five-feet fence. It is difficult to remove completely the element of danger to children, but I am certain that where it can the company will do its utmost to
  470
  remove such dangers. I do not think that the danger will go on increasing, but that children will learn that a railway is a dangerous thing. Even as wild animals have learned something, so accidents to children will be reduced.
  The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) admitted that it would be difficult for the Southern Railway to change the system which it has adopted. It is perfectly true that other companies have adopted another system, but when that system was adopted the Southern Railway had experience of both systems. It came to the conclusion from the experience it had that the third rail, enabling trains to be run on the multiple system, with power in each coach, gave much greater flexibility and much greater power in handling the unprecedented problem of suburban traffic in London, and any contribution in handling that problem by reducing pressure on the roads is a real contribution to the safety of the public. From the point of view of actual safety it is worth while remembering that the third rail is conducted on a comparatively low voltage, 660 volts, which is fatal only in particular circumstances. The overhead wire is conducted at the much more dangerous voltage of 1,500, and when by any chance, as in a snowstorm, a break occurs and the wire is down, the real danger is much greater. As a matter of fact, the fatal casualties on the overhead section of the Southern Railway before it was changed—I do not say that this is conclusive—were actually greater than the fatal casualties on the other section.
  Earl Winterton: There is considerable fear in some parts that with the new system, if we get a heavy snowstorm the railway will be put out of action for a considerable time. I understand that that is not likely to happen where there is an overhead wire.
  Mr. Amery: I was just coming to that point. Experience on the Continent and elsewhere has been, that the danger to overhead wires from snowstorms is considerable. There are other objections. There is the objection of the effect on the amenities of the countryside. There is the possibility of risk to aeroplanes, as well as the greater vulnerability of an overhead system to damage in war-time from projectiles and so on. My Noble Friend really admitted that it was im-

  471
  possible to ask the railway company, which has established with so much enterprise and at such vast cost its existing system, radically to change that system, but he asked for specific safeguards, and in particular he mentioned the safeguard of boarding the live rail, as is done at certain small sections immediately next to level crossings.
  The expense of that, I understand, is something in the nature of £430 per mile for each track, and not £90, as my Noble Friend mentioned. At the same time the main objection is not on the ground of expense, but because, first of all, it adds greatly to the difficulties of the work of platelaying and inspection; and, further, there is always some danger of paper and straw and other things getting under the boards and increasing the risk of fire from sparks; while, lastly, there is the point that my Noble Friend has just raised. One of the strongest objections to boarding is the danger, in case of a heavy snowstorm, of snow packing between the board and the rail and putting the line out of action. Otherwise, snow by itself is not a very serious difficulty in the way of the use of the third rail. These objections have been felt by the Southern Railway Company, after careful examination, to be really conclusive.
  It comes down to the fact that adequate and reasonable precautions should be taken wherever possible in order to avoid the risk of danger. Some element of danger, as the Minister has pointed out, must inevitably exist. The company have already done a great deal more than they are legally obliged to do in order to mitigate that danger, but they are ready to go further, and, wherever representations are made in a specific locality to the effect that danger exists, to look into the question and make an attempt to meet it. I do not think it is possible to go further than that and suggest a wholesale rearrangement or reconstruction of a great railway system, not on the ground of proved heavy losses, but mainly on the strength of fears which, I believe, experience will show are not realised. For these reasons I trust that a Measure so important in itself will be allowed to secure a Second Reading, so that any points that may be presented by the Measure itself can be dealt with in Committee.
  9.39 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman did not find time in the course of his speech to reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who raised one point which is causing very grave concern to those of us who have to do with the administration of rural highways in the neighbourhood of this railway. He has pointed out that for quite legitimate reasons, owing to the nature of the area served by the railway, and, may I also say, very largely through the enterprise of the railway company, the company have come to this House several times in recent years with Bills providing for the diversion or stopping up of footpaths. It is very desirable that as far as possible these footpaths should be continued along the existing line, and the railway company themselves have done a great deal, by their series of Sunday rambles, to persuade the people of London and its suburbs to use those footpaths. There are in the present Bill two instances of the kind alluded to by my hon. Friend, where, in or the case a bridle path, and in the other case a footpath, will, to my certain knowledge, be completely spoiled by the proposals in the Bill. One of these is near Godalming Station. I sometimes take lunch at the Winterton Arms at Chiddingfold—
  Earl Winterton: I hope that the hon. Member finds the beer quite good.
  Mr. Ede: I have never sampled the beer yet, but the port and lemon is excellent. I then proceed by footpath to Godalming Station—a very beautiful walk. There is a proposal in Clause Do that:
  "The Company may stop up and discontinue the bridle way and road crossing the Portsmouth direct railway on the level at the southern end of Godalming station and may substitute therefor a bridle way and road on the Western side of that railway extending from Westbrook Road to a point in New Way 290 yards south-west of Westbrook Road."
  I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman what that means to people who, like myself, use these bridle-paths for the purpose of walking. We can get down into Godalming town, on such a journey as I have mentioned, direct across the railway at this point, but the effect of the diversion will be that we shall have

  473
  to travel along the side of the railway for 290 yards, cross over it, and then come back another 290 yards to reach a point which is now only the width of the railway away; and may I say that 580 yards of the Southern Railway near Godalming Station is a very poor termination to an enjoyable ramble? I can only hope that in cases like that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the pedestrian public, who have been brought to the district, in most cases, by his own railway, have some right to consideration when these diversions are proposed. There is a similar one in connection with another footpath in the parish of Rusper in the rural district of Horsham, where it is proposed to divert the footpath so as to carry it away from the point where it now crosses the railway to an accommodation level crossing. This may quite possibly lead to the stopping up and failure to use one end or the other of the existing footpath, to the great detriment, I believe, of the comfort of people who desire to keep as far away as they can on Sundays and during the week-ends from the great roads on which motors are to be found.
  Earl Winterton: The local ramblers' society, of which I am chairman, have protested very strongly against this particular diversion, and I am in communication with the railway company on the subject.
  Mr. Ede: The next time I am in the Winterton Arms, I hope the Noble Lord will see that they treat me for having voiced a view that he might very well have voiced when he was speaking.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Another United Front!
  Mr. Ede: When the right hon. Gentleman takes from i,000 to 1,200 people into this district on a Sunday, it must be assumed that he does not do it at a loss, and it is surely in his own interest to see that these footpaths are preserved, when necessity requires them to be dealt with, so that the people's access to the countryside shall not be seriously disturbed. During recent years there have been several of these cases, and I hope that the railway company, when they promote other Bills, will see that as far as possible the line of the footpath is preserved—that it is carried if possible across the railway on some light bridge that will be no eye-
  474
  sore, but will enable people who want to follow the existing line of the path to do so. I am sure that in that way they will be serving their own interests as well as ours. I could have wished that the Surrey County Council had been as successful as apparently the West Sussex County Council have been in persuading the railway company to give us stronger fences when they bring their electrification to the side of a school playground. I think that when they do that they should take such steps as will prevent small children attending the infants' department of the school from crawling through these wire strands. I am sure it would not be a very expensive matter for it to be done. There may not have been many accidents but, with the number of accidents on the road and the fear of electrification on the railway, a good many mothers are seriously concerned about their children all the time they are absent from home. If some rabbit wire of fairly wide mesh could be placed along the fence very small children, who cannot be expected always to realise the danger, and who will try to get through to get a flower or something that they see on the bank, would be protected.
  I join in what has been said by several Members in regard to the enterprise of the railway company and their magnificent achievement in re-arranging the entrance and exit from Waterloo Station, whereby the suburban traffic to the South West of London has been improved by their new electrification. I hope that, as they carry it through, they will realise that, if their power is that of a giant, they will occasionally persuade us that even modern giants, which have neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be saved, can exercise their powers kindly.
  9.46 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Clarke: As a very young Member, I rise with considerable diffidence, knowing that I shall be accused by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House of being an Etonian of 1836, and I have to confess to hon. Members opposite that I am a fox hunter. At the same time, I am very fond of animals, wild and tame, and it is largely on their account that I am speaking. I am not opposing the Bill but I should like to express my deep hope that some of the suggestions that have been made for strengthening the fences alongside the

  475
  electrified line will be carried out, and not only along the line described in the Bill but also on that part of it that was electrified previously. I can quite see that a change in the system of transmission would not be possible or economic to-day, but I feel that something should be done in the matter of fencing. I live 2½ miles from the main London-Brighton line, which has been electrified for a good many years. During the last two years I have had the misfortune to be concerned in accidents in which four hounds and one other dog have been killed and a number of others injured. I am not going to suggest that those accidents are comparable with the human tragedies that we have been told of, but, all the same, they are very painful. It is quite wrong, too, to say that death caused in this way is instantaneous. In many cases it is not. I also noticed, when I was helping to pull some of these animals off the line, that the platelayers were extremely careful, and made me very careful, in touching them. They certainly appreciated that there was some danger there.
  In the summer of 1936 a branch line which goes within half a mile of my house and crosses my property was also electrified. This gave me a good deal of anxiety. I realised that, when a line which has not had a great deal of traffic on it is electrified, it takes some time for humans and animals to appreciate the danger. I realised that children would have to be watched because, apart from schools, there are isolated farms and cottages, the farmers' dogs would have to be kept tied up, hunting would be curtailed, sporting dogs kept on the lead, and practically every badger and otter would be killed. We once actually picked up seven badgers in a distance of about two miles. I therefore approached the railway company and asked if I might put up some extra fencing which would keep larger animals and small children off the line. I was met with the utmost courtesy and every facility was given me to put the wire up. It is about five feet high, turned outwards at the top, so that any animal that jumps against it is thrown back, and it is turned up a little at the bottom, too. It extends for about one and three-quarter miles on either side of the line and the cost was not excessive—I believe under £350. I, of course, used local materials and employed my
  476
  own workmen as far as possible, and the railway fence formed the basis and is an integral part of it. I am not prepared to say that it is perfect—in many ways it is a makeshift—but it is about as much as a private individual can do, and it has achieved its main purpose. The live rail is no longer a threat to hounds, small children and other wild animals.
  There is practically no fence that a good boy cannot get over and I feel that, before any permanent fence was made, it would be quite a good thing to consult authorities from Whipsnade or the Zoological Gardens, who are used to fencing in practically every sort of animal. One could get some good ideas from them as to methods of fencing, not very expensive, which could be put all along the line and which would keep children and grown-up people and animals off entirely. There are difficulties about sidings, but there are many miles in rural areas where there are no sidings, and access for platelayers and gangers could be provided by padlocked gates put into the fence. It would cost a certain amount of money but I imagine that the people who use the Southern Railway are mostly season ticket holders who go to London every day on business. I believe that, in order to preserve their amenities, they would be prepared to spend a fraction more on their season tickets if they knew that safety would be ensured to their neighbours both human and animal.
  I, and I expect most other Members, have received a good many letters in the last week or two about the Export of Horses Bill which comes on on Friday. That seems to indicate clearly the state of the public conscience in regard to animals being maltreated. It supports, too, what I say, that people would be prepared to spend perhaps a very small fraction more on their tickets to get safety for them. In conclusion may I say this: We in the South of England appreciate what the Southern Railway has done for us. We realise that we owe them a great debt. Is it too much to ask one more favour, that they will give us the most complete protection possible for man and beast from the electric line?
  9.55 p.m.
  Lord Apsley: There are three matters, two of which have not been raised at all and one which has been touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for

  477
  Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), to which I want to refer. The question of the actual wisdom, from the railway companies' point of view, of electrifying railways in rural districts has not been mentioned in any way. In the normal case this would be for the directors and shareholders to settle among themselves, but in this particular case the Southern Railway is spending money on electrification of rural areas which has been loane4 .10 it by Parliament. If it had not that money loaned by Parliament, it is extremely doubtful whether the Southern Railway would have thought of these various extensions. Therefore, it is right that Parliament should go into this question since these are public moneys loaned by the tax payer. Other railways are spending money received from Parliament upon improving the rolling stock, permanent way, and improving stations and on ordinary maintenance, which they would not have been able to do otherwise, but the Southern Railway has decided to commit itself to this adventure of electrifying rural lines. It is arguable that in an outer belt of a suburban area, which is likely to be built over, electrification can be justified, though even this is a "forward" or speculative policy; but when it comes to electrifying rural lines—and it is well known that there must be a certain density of population present before the capital expenditure for electrifying railways can be met out of future profits—it is extremely doubtful whether the Southern Railway should not take a more cautious view of the case before proceeding with the matter.
  I confess, like most other hon. Members, that I was not very much impressed by the arguments brought forward by hon. Members who represent the Southern Railway in this Debate. First of all they tried to make out that there was not very much danger, and that you could sit on a rail and it was very doubtful whether you got a shock at all. I do not think that hon. Members themselves would like to try it. I should hesitate very much before I would ask them to give us a demonstration. The figures go to prove that that cannot be the case. The figures of five children in 1934, six in 1935, and II in 1936 are not very large, it is true, yet they are frightening figures. If only one child were killed it is a matter that Parliament should consider.
  478
  There is another question which has not been dealt with at all. When a live rail on an electric line runs through rural districts it means that none of the farmers adjacent to the railway can run either pigs, poultry or ducks in any of the fields adjoining the railway. It means that all idea of this branch of farming must be definitely abandoned over a very large area, just because an electric railway happens to run through it. Of course their must be safeguards. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) to put it before his Board that they must take precautions, and I suggest that if they cannot, as in America, safeguard the live rail or, as in the North of England, adopt the overhead line, they should consider the question of fencing. It is easy to obtain fencing which no child can get over at all. Near my home the Great Western Railway have several very dangerous cuttings between tunnels which are death traps to children or animals. They have put up ordinary wire fencing reinforced with rabbit wire and the top hooped outwards so that no animal can possibly get over, I suggest that the advice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Lieut.-Colonel Clarke) should be taken to consult the Country Gentleman's Association or, as he suggested, Whipsnade on the cheapest form of fencing which would make the line completely safe for the rural population.
  Turning now to a matter mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook—and he was the only Member who spoke of it—that Clause 31 is adapted for the production of a new aerodrome for London, let me say I am very glad to hear that the Southern Railway are taking this step. At last it appears that we shall have an aerodrome which can be reached from the heart of London in a very short time by rail. That is the only possible way by which an air line to London can prosper. Every year the streets of London become more congested, every year traffic conditions become worse, and the railways are the only way by which you can get into the heart of London from an aerodrome. I hope that there will be a 20-minute or even faster service from central London to the aerodrome. I hope that the railway company will make that aerodrome free to all users including operators providing they

  479
  do not compete, and I also hope that private owners are given facilities at the cheapest possible cost and that they will not be driven away by high charges and red tape, as has been the case at Croydon.
  Lastly, let me mention another example of lack of co-operation. When the railway companies entered the aviation industry existing operators were very glad to see them come in. They saw the advantage of big concerns coming in with plenty of capital behind them, but when railway air services started operating, the existing operators found to their dismay that they were very severely handicapped by one unfortunate coincidence. The booking agents are used considerably by railway companies, and the railway services immediately made an application to the booking agencies that they must not book for any operating line except those run by the railways or by Imperial Airways. This has had the effect that no other companies except those particular groups can use the booking agencies in any way. Any individual wanting to travel from any air port in England to the Continent or to use an internal service in England, by any company other than Railway Air Services or Imperial Airways is unable to get any information from any booking office in the country. He has no means of knowing what the services are. I hope that in the interest of aviation this matter may be dealt with in a friendly way. All companies, where they do not actually compete on the same line, which would be foolishness, should be offered full facilities through the recognised booking offices, so that there should not be that attempt by one group to eliminate information about others.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD BILL (By Order).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
10.3 p.m.
Mr. Croom-Johnson: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
The reason I move the Amendment is because the Bill introduces a totally new principle with regard to the motor industry in the country. I want to make it plain at tl7e outset that this is an example of municipal training which those of us who doubt some of its manifestations regard as being mischievous in the extreme, but I also desire to commend the Amendment to the House for the reason that the kind of municipal training which is proposed in the Bill is of a very extraordinary type. Hitherto, whenever a Motion has been made in this House, for the purpose of handing over the transport of an area to any particular Board, all forms of transport have been included in the Measure. This Bill does not deal with all classes of transport. It provides, except quite inferentially in Clause 52, nothing in the way of coordination in the form of transport, and it deals with a very wide area, a very great deal of which is wholly rural in character. The Bill, therefore, is aimed at a principle which is entirely different from the principle which was attacked by this House under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) in the London Passenger Transport Bill of 1931. In the Debate on that Measure comment was made by the right hon. Member for South Hackney on attempts which had previously been made to deal with the problem of London Transport by means of Bills other than public Bills. He said, on 23rd March, 1931:
"It was a subject of essentially public policy that ought to have been dealt with by public legislation, on the responsibility of the Government of the day."
I and those of my friends who are supporting me think that a Measure of this sort is one the principle of which should be brought before the House for the House to determine, with a responsible Minister, who can lay before the House all the information we need, in charge of the Measure, so that we may have an opportunity of discussing a matter which we regard as of considerable importance in connection with the motor industry. An interesting thing is that in the very considerable number of com-

481
munications which I have received, not merely from my own constituents but from all over the country, are a very large number from small people owning only one vehicle who find themselves in a position of insecurity as the result of what is proposed in this Bill. Time is late, and I do not want to dilate too much on that aspect of the case, but there are two or three other aspects which are well worthy of our consideration.
The Bill proposes that 17 local authorities spread over 20 local government areas should have the whole of their transport conducted by a board. That board is to consist of 39 persons. Those 39 persons are to come as to a majority of them from two local authorities, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under Lyme. The rest of the local authorities, except three, are to have a single member each, and the other three are to have no representation on the board. The individuals who are to comprise the board are to be members of local elected bodies. I say nothing at all against these individuals who give up their time in order to do the work of local administration on these bodies, but none of them at present owns any transport whatever, or no public transport of the kind to be taken over by this Bill, and none of the individuals who are to comprise the board, as far as we can discover, has any knowledge whatever of transport problems, and none of them is a specialist on the matter. If I might put the comment which I desire to make on that aspect of affairs in the words of the right hon. Member for South Hackney, on the London Transport Bill of 23rd March, 1931, I should put it in this way:
"We desire upon this Board the best business brains that we can secure for the purpose, and the Bill does not exclude from consideration for membership somebody associated with local government in London possessing the necessary business ability. But we must insist upon all the members being persons of business ability and capacity. It is obvious that the people in charge, certainly the Chairman of the Board, must have great industrial, managerial ability, and we must be prepared to pay what is necessary in order to secure that ability, if the undertaking is to be efficient and if the ordinary working people in the industry are not to be let down by incompetent management at the top." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1931; col. 59, Vol. 250.]
There is another curious thing about this Bill. As I have said, it covers the area of 20 local authorities, but in the
482
middle of that area there are two islands, as it were, two local authorities, whose transport is not to be taken over, within whose area under the Bill, the board would have no power to run vehicles, and these two little authorities will find themselves isolated from the transport facilities which are to be offered by the board. There is an even greater objection, and it is this. In recent years in regard to transport this House has conferred jurisdiction upon the Traffic Commission. The traffic commissioners have had a most difficult task to perform, and I think the House will agree with me that in general they have performed that task fairly, with ability, and with a great deal of satisfaction, and the result is that the various forms of transport in the areas are being co-ordinated by the Commission. They are taking into account, as they must do under the Act of Parliament, the railway and other traffic facilities which are offered.
This proposed board will, to a large extent, be supreme. As I read one of the sections in which there is a direction given to the traffic commissioners, they are to take into account with regard to this board something which they apparently have not to take into account with regard to other owners of motor vehicles. We shall find the traffic commissioners' duties in this area being interfered with. The traffic commissioners who operate in this area, the West Midland Area commissioners, are men of great ability and great experience, and when I tell the House that they are the commissioners who are responsible for the traffic in the whole of the Birmingham area, including the city of Birmingham, they will appreciate that the work which they are doing is work which is not to be done by a set of amateurs.
We think that this is a new system, a new proposal which ought not to be left to be dealt with by a Committee upstairs, which usually deals, and rightly deals, with the details of such proposals, but this is a new proposal upon which the House is not only entitled to pronounce, but ought to have an opportunity of pronouncing. It is a proposal which we suggest cuts into the Regulations and the schemes which the House itself has laid down in recent times as part of legislation as a whole by the introduction of traffic commissioners. We are of opinion that the management of traffic in a rural

483
area covering such a large district ought not to be conferred upon a board which is to be nominated from individuals on local authorities, some of whom may from time to time lose their seats after they have acquired some knowledge of the problems with which they have to deal.
There is one other curious feature about this Bill. There are two traffic systems in the United Kingdom where an ad hoc authority has been brought into existence to co-ordinate the forms of traffic and to own public transport vehicles. One is in Northern Ireland and the other is the London Traffic Board. In both instances Parliament has laid it down that these boards are to carry on the business so that they must pay their way. This Bill eliminates even that safeguard. It provides that two of the 17 local authorities, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, are to guarantee out of their rates any losses on the undertaking. It is true that in subsequent years these losses may be made good if they are so fortunate as to run the show at a profit, but the difficulty is that pressure may be brought to bear on representatives of public institutions when the awkward moment comes and they have to raise fares in order to make both ends meet. After all, one can well understand the individual objecting when he find that incompetent management by a board, due perhaps to inexperience, has resulted in an increase in these fares.
Let me read one more passage from the speech of the right hon. Member for South Hackney, a speech which is filled with good sense. I commend it to the attention of hon. Members opposite when they are visualising the possibility of putting this power into the hands of a board which is to consist of unpaid representatives of local authorities. On 23rd March, 1931, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"We ask ourselves whether this vast business task is necessarily appropriate for politicians with electoral minds at all, for politicians trying to win elections with concessions to electors upon questions of fares, wages and salaries."
That is a very potent question to ask, and the right hon. Gentleman answered it.
"When we know how Members of this House are squeezed upon this or that subject at elections, and sometimes submit to the pressure, I began to think twice whether we want these undertakings to be run by the ordinary political mind along ordinary political lines.
484
I say, quite frankly, that I have come to the conclusion that on the whole, the politician as such is better outside the function of management, unless he qualifies for membership as constituted in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1935; col. 55, Vol. 250.]
There are many other arguments which I could advance on this matter, but may I just deal with one reason which is given in support of the Bill. There are, apparently, a large number of people in Stoke-on-Trent who have been licensed to run public vehicles. The difficulties about the competition which results from that, and the unevenness with regard to fares and timetables and other things, have all been ironed out by reason of the operation of the Traffic Commissioners. With great respect to those who drafted the case for the promoters of this Bill, it seems to me that they have not really owned up, as they might have done, to the fact that the very people who are there, with their local transport vehicles running to such numbers, are the people who were originally licensed by the Stoke-on-Trent authority itself in the days before we had to go to the Traffic Commissioners in order to get a licence to run vehicles on the public roads.
I hope the House will forgive me for not going in greater detail into the objections to this Bill at this hour and after the time that has already been occupied on private legislation this evening, but I submit with Confidence that this matter is one which ought not to be dealt with in a Private Bill. It is not a principle which the House should be asked to accept more or less by chance in a Private Measure, and accordingly I ask the House to support the Amendment which I have moved.
10.22 p.m.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. and learned Friend has covered very fully the objections to this Bill. The House may indeed be surprised that a Bill involving such a revolutionary change is brought forward as a Private Bill. The Bill proposes to set up a board composed entirely of the representatives of local authorities, and that board is to buy up the major portion of all transport undertakings, not only in the area of the two big corporations of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, but in a far wider area embracing

485
great parts of the three counties of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire. If this undertaking is run at a loss, it is, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, to be made up from the rates.
We hold that this is pre-eminently a subject for national and not for local legislation, and that if there is a case for a change of this kind, Parliament, by a general Bill, ought to bring in a change in the general law. I think the reaction of the average Member to this Bill is that this type of problem was properly met by the Road Traffic Act, 1930. If I may anticipate the speech which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will probably make in defence of this Bill, I would like briefly to recapitulate the lines which I am sure he will adopt. He will tell the House that this area is a particularly difficult one for transport undertakings, and that the only way in which the local authorities can meet the present chaotic conditions is by some legislation of this sort. I have two answers to that charge, if he makes it. The first is that the Road Traffic Act, which set up commissioners, gave them just the sort of powers that can properly be applied to such local difficulties. They are required, under the general law, to consider the local needs, the general needs of the area, and how far existing services meet those needs.
I would like to point out that under this Bill, and particularly under Clause 52, the discretion of the Traffic Commissioners is being, for the first time in our law, very seriously fettered. They are to be required, by Clause 52, to give a Statutory preference to these corporations over all other undertakings which may apply for licences. I would remind the House that one of the sanctions by which the Traffic Commissioners have been enabled to secure adherence to their regulations has been the threat to withhold or to suspend the road service licences. If this board remains the only local undertaking, it will obviously be impossible for the Commissioners to exercise that sanction. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the conditions in these counties are chaotic, we are entitled to ask why are they chaotic and who has made them so? They are chaotic chiefly because of the policy of the Stoke Corporation, which has enormously increased the number of local undertakers
486
—I do not suggest with a view to legislation of this kind, but with some purpose which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will disclose, and all the efforts of existing undertakers in these counties to rationalise their transport have been systematically met by difficulties put in their way by the local authority.
If the right hon. Gentleman cites the case of London, I would, as my hon. and learned Friend has done, remind him that seven expert men, appointed by trustees and obliged to make the service pay, are running London transport, but 39 local politicians, changing no doubt at every election, ignorant of the difficulties of transport, and responsible only to their political supporters, are to dominate the board in this case. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to show that this board will be constituted in a very satisfactory way. Of the 39 members, as he knows, 21 are to be provided by the two councils of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke, and there is to be no representation for the three rural areas of Congleton, Cheadle and Stafford, and no provision whatever for transport in at least two urban areas in the district. One would have thought that a board applying for amazing powers of this kind, greater than any other board has ever received with the exception of the London Passenger Transport Board, would have experience in the running of transport, and I am lost in amazement at the courage of the local undertaking in being prepared to saddle itself with a responsibility of this kind.
There are one or two other provisions to which reference ought to be made. The corporations will have the power, notwithstanding Clause 101 of the Road Traffic Act, to carry on a contract carriage business, which has always been specifically excluded from the powers of local authorities. Parliament has excluded it in the general law. Why should we now be asked to introduce it by Private Bill legislation? If hon. Members are doubtful as to how far the Bill goes, I refer them to Clauses 47, 48 and 51 as an example of Socialism by the backdoor. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will conclude by saying that all the arguments that we have used justify sending the Bill to Committee, but the object of a Second Reading is to decide on the principle of a Bill and the object of a Committee stage is to decide how far a

487
principle, already conceded shall be given effect to in a particular case. I believe the majority of hon. Members are against the principle of the Bill and this is the time to show that in an emphatic way.
10.29 p.m.
Mr. Hollins: This is not the occasion for one in my position to follow the hon. Members who have spoken in a discussion of the Clauses of the Bill. The details of the different Clauses are better left to the Committee, and if we have no greater difficulties to meet than are presented by the arguments of the previous speakers, then, it seems to me, we shall have an easy passage for the Bill in Committee. I speak here in three capacities—as Lord Mayor of the City of Stoke-on-Trent, as a magistrate of Stoke-on-Trent and a citizen of Stoke-on-Trent. It is obvious that neither of the two hon. Members who have opposed the Bill know the area with which this Bill is concerned at all. The North Staffordshire area has always been considered as a unit of itself, and hon. Members who have been there have seen that for themselves. Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, which are dovetailed into each other, are in the centre of that area, and all the passenger services radiate from it into the rural districts. It is a fact that there are 15 other authorities which will be brought into the Board, and at the moment we have their whole-hearted support. I may be able to disabuse the minds of hon. Members opposite, and particularly the last speaker, when he said that this was a backdoor method of introducing Socialism. There are 112 members of the city council of Stoke-on-Trent, and they are there in equal proportions—50–50—Independent and Labour party members, and the Bill has the support of a unanimous vote. Newcastle-under-Lyme has an overwhelming majority of Independents, and we have had our statutory meetings. The one which we held in Stoke-on-Trent was attended by over 1,200 people, and the necessary Motion was declared carried by the Lord Mayor by a majority of nine to one, while I believe that at the Newcastle meeting there was only one dissentient.
The reason which has prompted this Measure is that the coach service in the North Stafford district is most unsatisfactory and is not being run in the interests of the public. The hon. and gal-
488
lant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) said on the previous Bill that the monopolistic instincts of the Southern Railway had scorned local interests, and the same thing has been happening in our district, but we have got our mandate from the councils of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent with Independent majorities on those councils, not because of any Socialist idea behind the Bill, but because of the necessities of the public that we represent. There are 500 buses, controlled by 58 proprietors, operating in the area covered by the Bill, and that excessive competition has no counterpart in Great Britain. This state of affairs has on numerous occasions been strongly criticised by the West Midland Area Road Traffic Commissioners, who have stated that they would prefer the transport by road to be in the hands of one undertaking.
Mr. Lennox.Boyd: Is it not the fact that the only criticism made by the Road Traffic Commissioners is a general statement, with which no one can quarrel, that it is more difficult to deal with a number of people than with one or two people, and that their criticism was not of the adequacy of the services.
Mr. Hollins: That is what I said. We have 58 opera:ors. I am sure the Minister of Transport would be of the same opinion as we are that we should bring all these 58 operators under one board. The existence of 58 operators in an area such as North Staffordshire should alone convince the House of the desirability of a unified and co-ordinated bus service. The whole purpose of the Bill is to co-ordinate the services. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that there is nothing in the Bill which allowed us to co-ordinate them, but it is the very purpose of the Bill to do that. Since the Bill has been deposited, agreement has been reached with 52 operators out of the 58.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: How many vehicles are involved?
Mr. Hollins: The vehicles number, I think, about 238. Since that tentative agreement has been come to with these operators an offer has been made by the big opponents of this Measure, namely, the Potteries Motor Traction Company, which is the controlling factor owning half the 500 omnibuses. We should

489
naturally expect that their interests would be protected by hon. Members opposite. Although this company is working on its own, it is at the same time closely allied to other big interests. The real question we have to decide is whether we should give over this unified control to the Potteries Motor Traction Company, or whether we should give it to the transport board mentioned in this Bill. Since the tentative agreement has been come to with 52 of the operators, the Potteries Motor Traction Company have enhanced their price considerably. If there were not the control of the transport board as proposed in the Bill, there is not the slightest doubt that in the next few years there would be a monopoly created by the Potteries Motor Traction Company. In the last few years they have gradually been buying up the little man. The omnibus people had to combine to protect themselves against that particular company.
We have had experience of the Potteries Motor Traction Company when it was known as the Potteries Electric Traction Company. Prior to 1929 that company had control of the tramways in Stoke-on-Trent, and constantly the city was asking them to improve their services, to give better facilities and to lower fares, but could not get a single thing done when they had that monopoly. The city had no power to run an omnibus or a tram, and that concern had an absolute monopoly up to 1929. We could not get any complaints about overcrowding, the scarcity of trams or high fares remedied. We asked the company to sell out to the corporation, which they were willing to do, but there was the question of price between us. If they were willing to sell out then, why are they not willing to sell out now? We know the reason. Since the introduction of the new transport arrangements their shares have gone up from 10s. to £2 12s. 6d. If the House will give us a Second Reading for this Bill, there is not the slightest doubt that we shall break a monopoly in our city, and, as has been said, where there is a monopoly there is no concern for local interests.
I appeal to the House not to allow control to pass into the hands of this company. It was mentioned that a transport board would be to a certain extent a new principle, but there is nothing novel or new in boroughs or
490
cities having control of their buses or trams. A further point is that there will be no confiscation of the buses under this proposal. A general offer to pur chase has been made and has been accepted by 52 owners, subject to the passing of this Bill. An hon. and learned Gentleman opposite remarked that the House had been told nothing about profits. We have had the services of Mr. Collins, one of the most eminent experts in this department of finance, who has advised us that there will be substantial profits to be made at the price which we are offering and which has been accepted tentatively by 52 owners, and that those profits can be used for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the loan, for the reduction of fares, for the provision of transport facilities for school children, which is an ever growing problem with us in our city, and for the introduction of special travelling facilities in connection with the new housing sites to which we have had to take our people outside the city. We should like to alleviate the hardships of those people. Instances have been given to me where as much as 25s. to 30s. has had to be laid out by a family in fares. We hope, by the economies which can be effected through the centralisation, co-ordination and control which a united service will introduce, to bring some measure of relief, to these people who are compelled to live in the suburbs. Hon. Members opposite must realise that with a centralised service there can be considerable savings combined with greater efficiency; there will be lower overhead charges and more economy and less waste generally.
I know that time is dragging on, but I want to mention some of the difficultieS that we encounter in our area. We have in Stoke-on-Trent what is known as the main road, which is 12 miles in length from the northern end to the southern end of the city, and on that road 22 different proprietors are operating, their vehicles sometimes lining up behind each other, jockeying into position and some-, times cutting in and creating dangerous positions. We have not been able to get: these people to put on the proper number of buses. Complaints have constantly-, come from our workpeople, who wish to be carried from one end of the district to the other at particular times of the day, that they have had to stand in queues and have been left waiting.

491
Another complaint made by the public in our district is that omnibus shelters should be provided. The proprietors have turned to the City Council and asked them to provide these shelters. That charge should be on the service.
If we get permission for the Second Reading of the Bill I am sure that we can remedy many of its weaknesses in subsequent discussion. I would call attention to one of the conclusions of the Commission, which I hope most hon. Members have read. They say:
"The matters raised by the Bill require investigation and consideration, and are not such as are capable of being adequately or Conveniently dealt with upon the Second Reading stage. … If the Bill is not justified it will be rejected by the committee, and such rejection would indicate the deliberate and considered mind of Parliament; … on the other hand, rejection without a hearing is contrary to British principles."
To convince the House that this is an all-Party Measure I would like to read the report of a speech of the Chairman of the Independents upon the City Council, an ex-Mayor, made at the statutory meeting. The report states:
"Alderman Harvey, seconding the resolution, said he was confident that the Corporation could come to an agreement with 50 per cent. of the bus owners. It was because of the reasonableness of the price that he seconded the resolution. The matter was one which affected every one in North Staffordshire, and he believed they were the more likely to get the Bill through because they had the co-operation, not only of Newcastle, but of the other local authorities. They were endeavouring to do the best thing possible for the travelling public in North Staffordshire. The difficulty hitherto had been the price, but he thought that any reasonable-minded person who read the statement in the "Sentinel" last night would agree that the proposed price was a reasonable one, and that, therefore, the Bill could be supported whole-heartedly."
A suggestion was made by an hon. Member opposite, who said that the board were supreme and were taking control out of the hands of the Commission. At the same statutory meeting a question was put, whether, if the buses were taken over, the Transport Board would be subject to the control of the Traffic Comissioners in the same way as the present operators. The Town Clerk said, "They will be subject to exactly the same control as the persons operating now."
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Clause 52.
Mr. Hollins: We have to take our legal advice from our legal adviser, and he said that. I hope that the House will be fair to the North Staffordshire area, and will give a Second Reading to the Bill, for which a good case has been made.
10.52 p.m.
Colonel Wedgwood: The senior Member for the City of Stoke (Mr. Hollins) has stated the case for this Bill, and Stoke may congratulate itself on the Debate it has produced. I would congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment for the brevity and eloquence of their orations. But I have heard words that were strangely familiar. I heard them 30 years ago in this House, uttered by prophets of evil whose prophecies have been falsified by events. It is too late now to say that local authorities are incapable of managing business. We have only to look at Glasgow, Manchester and Sheffield to see public bodies, larger in number than Stoke-on-Trent, conducting public services even more complicated than this which is now put forward. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment spoke in English, but it was the voice of Germany. The alternative to government by local authority is government by burgomaster. The burgomaster is an elected permanent official.
Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that the burgomaster is appointed by the central government?
Colonel Wedgwood: I believe he is now, but in the old days he was an elected person appointed afterwards. The essence of the matter is that you can believe in autocratic rule, or you can do as we have done and gradually develop self-government. Our local authorities throughout the country have taken on one branch of public service after another which, though they managed them badly at first, they have learned how to manage. If we are to say at this stage that a public authority cannot manage things, and that we must hand them over to experts, we are running contrary to the whole course of progress and contrary to British traditions. I do not say that this board of 39 persons will be a perfect body, but it will be just as good as other unpaid bodies who are managing throughout the country and the Empire such services as this.

493
As to the other famous old difficulty, that we are creating another precedent, we have been creating precedents every year that I have been in the House at the rate of half-a-dozen a minute. In this country we slowly broaden down from precedent to precedent. We have before us not merely the example of London, where there is a different sort of management, but the example of Bradford. Sometimes I have been called over the coals by Bradford, but they have their own service, and they do not manage it so badly. If it is not well managed it is the fault of the Bradford people—
Mr. Holdsworth: Bradford have never had the impudence to say that no one shall run out to their area, as is proposed here.
Colonel Wedgwood: Bradford runs out through other people's areas. I could never hope to emulate the eloquence of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I ask the House to believe that I approach this Bill with more feeling and more desire to see it put on the Statute Book than any other Bill I have ever supported in this House. I am not thinking merely of Stoke. These are my people. It is not merely Stoke that is in question, but the whole of North Staffordshire. Unemployment is terrible in North Staffordshire. You talk about the Special Areas, but I could take you down to districts in my place where unemployment is worse. The mines have all been closed down in the North, whole districts are derelict, and the only way in which these people can get work is by going long distances daily in order to find a pit where they can be allowed still to do their work. Owing to the fact that most of the men are out of work, their wives and the boys and girls are going out trying to make a living, wandering as far afield as Stafford and Leek and Congleton, and even Macclesfield, in order to get a job in the textile factories or in the brickfields, which are now so much within a child's labour.
These people are having to pay anything up to 10 per cent. of their wage in fares week after week, and therefore traffic is a question which touches the really vital interests of the people of North Staffordshire. Factories are shifting out into the country, and our people have to go outside the borough of Stoke-
494
on-Trent in order to get to their work. You have all the difficulties of transport to work, which are acute enough all over the country, accentuated in Stoke-on-Trent. Stoke-on-Trent itself is a long, straggling, dirty town 12 miles long. That is where the people work, but they live outside in increasing numbers, and daily they go backwards and forwards through the mud and the rain. Just think what it would mean here if every omnibus that we took stopped at the Marble Arch, or Hyde Park Corner, or Victoria Station, and we had to get out and change omnibuses and fight our way into another overcrowded omnibus. It would not be so bad in London, because the omnibuses stop where the other omnibuses start, but I am thinking of Longton, where the omnibuses stop under the railway arches, and the people have to get out of crowded omnibuses into the rain and wander across two dangerous crossings, getting wet, and then have to sit and wait—there are no shelters—for an omnibus which may be a quarter of an hour late, with the omnibuses running at half-hour intervals, to take them to their homes. At every exit from Stoke-on-Trent you have this deadly block, with an average delay of 10 minutes every day for everybody in getting to and from their work. The people are tired. I pass them in my motor car and see them seated in ill-lighted omnibuses, cold, wet and hungry, all because the traffic is the worst in the whole of Great Britain. It is easy enough for Bradford. In North Staffordshire there are 57 different companies or persons owning omnibuses and the traffic commissioner is helpless in dealing with such a problem, because you have these competing people all owning licences all of different values—because a licence on one road is different from another—and the hope of a traffic commissioner getting agreement among all these competing companies is visionary. We have long sought a way out at Stoke-on-Trent. This is the only way we can see.
There is every reason why we should make any number of alterations in the Bill. I am not at all certain that I shall not vote against the Third Reading, for the very good reason that the compensation proposed in it is higher than it ought to be. That is a question for the Committee. It is a question what are the failings of the Bill, how we can improve

495
the representation of districts outside, how we can get more skilled management, how we can regulate finance so that the undertaking shall meet its expenses. All these matters are questions for the Committee. There is another point which is essentially a matter for the Committee. The question of safety in the streets of Stoke-on-Trent is becoming daily more urgent—competing buses cutting in ahead of each other, the most dangerous thing you could have in these narrow, child-infested streets, stopping places blocked up—at every one of the exits from Stoke the whole bus has to be emptied—the length of time it takes going from work to home driving people more and more to use push and motor bicycles. You have in that city the possibility of tragedy, because it is ever growing as more and more people go outside and come in daily, congesting the traffic. These things are eminently suitable for consideration by a Committee. There is no new principle whatever involved, either of management or of the problem to be considered, and the same old financial questions to be worked out by four honest Members of Parliament instead of the vested interests concerned in the Bill.
May I state again what is in question here? There are in this area 500 buses owned by 57 different companies. With all the privately owned companies—that is nearly half the buses—an arrangement has been made to buy them up at a certain figure, and that figure is £4,000 a bus. I do not wonder that that figure startles the House, but it is too low for the public company, the Potteries Electric Traction Company. I ask hon. Members to think what that means. These buses, worth apparently £4,000 on the road, are written down in the books to £600, £500 and £400. They are selling from eight to ten times that amount. Why? Because they have a licence. There you have an admirable example of what has happened in this country. We passed a Traffic Bill four years ago. The Act has only been in operation three and a half years, and in that short time the value of a licence granted by the Commissioner has risen, if we take into account the garages and other assets in addition to the buses, up to £3,000 a licence. Here we are proposing in this Bill, for a population of, 450,000 souls, to buy up 500 buses at that
496
figure. That will mean, if the Potteries Electric Traction Company comes in on the same terms as other owners, £2,000,000. There are 450,000 people_ in North Staffordshire, and if you multiply that number by 100 you have the population of this country, roughly speaking. If there is any relation between buses and population, there will be not £2,000,000 value in the licences, but £200,000,000, so that in these few years we have built up a gigantic monopoly value. Every additional licence granted, on the average, means £3,000, and the total value of the licences of the companies running these buses amounts to no less than, I will not say £200,000,000, but £150,000,000. How are we to deal with a proposition such as that?
Take the shares in this one company here referred to. Four years ago they were 9s. 6d. a. share, and now the shares of the same company are 52s. 6d., and if you reject this Bill to-night, I will buy them to-morrow, but I shall not get them for less than Every time you make a present of a licence to the company, you are increasing not its assets, but its power to tax the public. The price we are offering is immense. It is eight times the value, and I do not know whether next year it will be not be 10, times the value. We do not know, we cannot tell whether, if in 20 years we seek to buy up this monopoly, we shall not be paying far more. It is time that the House took it into account and realised whence has come those 219 names on the Order Paper. Never before have we had so many names against a Private Bill, and the reason for that is the vital and enormous financial interest in stopping the Bill. Think of the precautions taken in all other cases by the Government when they confer monopolies, in the case of every public utility company in the country, every gas company, electric light company. Their shares do not go up like this. They cannot go up. Every increase in profits is accompanied in the public utility company by a reduction in the price. The Government safeguard the public against that form of exploitation and, therefore, why do they not safeguard us or allow us to safeguard ourselves against similar exploitation on the part of any other utility service?
My own borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, perhaps inspired by right ideas,

497
long since bought up all the suburban land within its area. They have been able to town plan and to make their town planning compulsory, a thing which no other local authority in the country has been able to do. That was foresight, of course. They paid too much for the land. They bought up all the agricultural land at a high building price, just as we are proposing to buy these buses, at a high economic price. They made a good job of it, and they have been glad that they did it. Every house that goes up there is an asset to the town. The town is laid out to plan and is a thing of beauty. Whenever I go there I look at Newcastle-under-Lyme and say to myself, "That is what a little foresight can do." Buying up that land has resulted in making a garden city instead of a slum. That is what we want to do in this case. We want to buy up this monopoly before it gets above the sky.
I should like to know whether hon. Members who wish to stop this question going before the Committee upstairs realise that this matter is of great importance not merely to Newcastle-under-Lyme and to North Staffordshire but to the country generally. This growth of monopoly value is a matter of vital importance. Why do hon. Members object to this matter going before a committee of ourselves? Is it due to a desire on their part not to give evidence before that committee, lest their profits should be exposed?
I shall be told by hon. Members that all that is wrong in the transport of North Staffordshire can be remedied by the Traffic Commissioners, that fares can be adjusted, that workmen's fares can be granted and that all the necessary changes can be effected without this Bill. Take the question of fares. If these companies are making profits on a bus value of £4,000, it is obvious that, on the real value of that bus they could make a profit out of a lower fare than they charge to-day. If one goes to the Commissioner and points out what I have been saying to-night, he will say at once: " I have to fix the fares at what is reasonable." What is "reasonable"? Reasonable from the point of view of the public or nom the point of view of the person who bought shares when they were 52s. 6d.? To ensure that the present income and the present possibilities of increment on in-
498
come shall go on, you must base your fares on quite a different basis from the competitive basis which would be produced if it was possible to run an unlimited number of buses instead of a limited number. If we say that the fares are unreasonable the answer will be that they are reasonable. Is it not fair that those who complain of the fares should be able to see the accounts and ascertain what profits are being made? We have asked for this, and have been refused. Under the Bill it is not compulsory that they should be made known. If we are to have any control over these public utility services we must be able to see what profits are being made.
You could not have a stronger case for a Bill going to Committee where such matters can be decided after sworn evidence has been taken. The real charge against the Measure is that it is a Socialist Measure. That is the reason why they will go into the Lobby against me, in spite of the fact that I am always right. I am about the only real individualist in the House. Nobody has been a stronger defender of private interests than I have been, defending private owners against large combines which have wanted to swallow them for years. I have always been a strong supporter of private enterprise and the right of free competition, believing that free competition was the best means of getting good service and keeping down prices. The Bill will stop free competition and create a monopoly.
Sir Ronald Ross: It is a Socialist Bill; it was passed by a Socialist Government.
Colonel Wedgwood: I am not concerned with what Government passed it; all Governments are equally Socialist. The same question arose in London. We tried to prevent the pirate omnibuses being absorbed by the London General Omnibus Company. We were beaten, and you have a monopoly in London. I am not against public management where free competition can have free play, but where there is a monopoly it ought to be in public hands and under public control. The essence of a monopoly is that it takes from the consumer not a fair price for the article but all that the consumer can pay. Wherever you have monopoly you have robbery of the consumer by the man or institution which owns the monopoly. I do not like that robbery; I do not like

499
monopolies but if there is to be monopoly and robbery then let the robbery go into the public pocket. It would be a good thing for big business if that rule held good, and the public conscience urges that it should be adopted. It has been adopted in some cases otherwise the Government would not have limited the profits of public utility companies. I have come to consider that it is desirable, for instance, to nationalise the railways. I have come gradually to consider that nearly all municipal services which are monopolies should be public companies simply because, if there is to be a monopoly, the public, who are the victims of that monopoly, should have a voice in the control of it. I do not think this is Socialism. I should say it is common sense and common honesty.
I am sorry to take up so much time, but, after all, this is a matter which is of vital importance to my people. Unlike the hon. Members who moved the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, I have complete confidence in my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I would not even except the Front Bench opposite. I think Members of Parliament make better judges on all matters of public interest than can be found elsewhere. I go even further, and say that Members of Parliament make the best Governors. I suggest that the Colonial Office, the Dominions Office and the India Office should pick their Governors, their Chief Justices and their Attorneys-General from people who have been in the House of Commons and who have had some experience of public affairs. I am sure they would be the best, for they have a sense of public responsibility.
I know of no better body to judge questions such as we have been considering this evening than the Private Bill Committees of the House of Commons. They are not always unanimous, but they are much nearer agreeing when the matter has been discussed than they were when it started. In the whole of my 30 years in the House, I have never heard one whisper against the complete altruism and uprightness of those Committees and their Members. Why cannot hon. Members opposite allow these questions to go before them? What is their objection? They say it is a new principle. It is not; there is nothing new about it. What they
500
are afraid of is the publication of the facts. What we want to get is the facts, and on those facts, justice. This House has no right to rob my people of the privileges enjoyed in the comfortable and prosperous South. You who control these matters for Middlesex, Essex, Surrey and Kent have no right to deprive us of the same rights that other places have. You have no right to rob my people, who are poor enough already.
11.24 p.m.
Captain Hudson: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if, very briefly, I gave the views of the Government on this Bill. In the first place, I should say that on general grounds we would view sympathetically any sound scheme for co-ordinating passenger traffic in a well-defined area, and incidentally, I agree with the two hon. Members who moved the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill and also with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that a substantial measure of co-ordination of passenger transport has already been achieved, and is being achieved, in the area by the Area Traffic Commissioners set up under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I thought much of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a plea more for the amendment of the 1930 Act than for the passage of the Bill. The question of whether or not a monopoly is set up by the licensing system would not be put right in the slightest degree by the passage of the Bill. In regard to schemes for the co-ordination of traffic, it is, in my opinion, essential that such a scheme should be sound both as regards finance and administration. Normally the procedure of this House on Private Bills is to send them upstairs to be examined by a Select Committee, and I think it right to tell the House that should this Bill receive a Second Reading the Minister of Transport has a number of criticisms of the Bill which he would have to lay before that Select Committee in his report.
The first criticism concerns the size and constitution of the board. It is to consist of 39 members elected by local authorities in the area. They must themselves be members of the local authorities and are liable to recall at any time. If they lose their seats on the local authorities they lose their seats on the board. We do not feel that a large body so constituted is the appropriate body to carry

501
out the complicated business of transport. We believe that the transport board should consist of a much smaller number of persons, including those with knowledge and experience of transport, and we think that the chairman certainly should devote the whole of his time to the work of the board. This part of the Bill will need very drastic alteration. Secondly, there is grave objection to the proposal that any losses should be made up by the rates. This, we feel, may weaken the board's sense of financial responsibility, and I think, myself, that any sound scheme of co-ordination should be self-sufficient financially. The last of the major criticisms is that there appears to be no proposal for co-ordination with the railways. The L.M.S., the L.N.E.R. and the G.W.R. all operate in the area, and all are providing passenger transport and I should have thought that such co-ordination was essential to a proper area scheme. There are other points, more detailed, to which we should have to draw attention in the report. I would say, incidentally, that such criticisms of the

Division No. 98.]

AYES.

[11.30 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Hayday, A.

Parker, J.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Parkinson, J. A.

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

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Adamson, W. M.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Potts, J.

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

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Price, M. P.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pritt, D. N.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Keeling, E. H.

Ridley, G.

Banfield, J. W.

Kelly, W. T.

Riley, B.

Bellenger, F. J.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Ritson, J.

Benson, G.

Kirby, B. V.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Bevan, A.

Lathan, G.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Broad, F. A.

Lawson, J. J.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Bromfield, W.

Leach, W.

Sanders, W. S.

Brooke, W.

Leckie, J. A.

Sexton. T. M.

Charleton, H. C.

Lee, F.

Silkin, L.

Cluss, W. S.

Logan, D. G.

Silverman, S. S.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Lunn, W.

Simpson, F. B.

Dalton, H.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Sorensen, R. W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

McEntee, V. La T.

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

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McGhee, H. G.

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

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

McGovern, J.

Tirker, J. J.

Dobbie, W.

MacLaren, A.

Walkden, A. G.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Maclean, N.

Walker, J.

Ede, J. C.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Watkins, F. C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Watson, W. McL.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Mander, G. le M.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

Markham, S. F.

Welsh, J. C.

Frankel, D.

Marshall, F.

Westwood, J.

Gardner, B. W,

Mathers, G.

Whiteley, W.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Messer, F.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Gibbins, J.

Milner, Major J.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Grenfell, D. R.

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

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Oliver, G. H.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Owen, Major G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hardie, G. D.

Paling, W.

Mr. Hollins and Mr. Ellis Smith.

existing scheme as have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) would have to be examined by the Committee if the Bill goes upstairs. This is a private Bill, and it is for hon. Members to decide whether it should have a Second Reading or not. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he demanded a Second Reading for the Bill. Whether it should be read a Second time or not is in the hands of hon. Members. If the House wishes to throw out the Bill, it can do so, and it will not be doing anything against the normal procedure of Parliament. There is, I can see, a big divergence of opinion. I am not trying to influence the House in any way. What I say is that if the Bill is sent upstairs, my Ministry will give any assistance in its power for which the Committee may ask in order to try to make it a workable Measure.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, io8; Noes, 163.

NOES.

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

Ellis, Sir G.

O'Conner, Sir Terence J

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P G.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

Emmott, C. E. G. C

Patrick, C. M.

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Penny, Sir G.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Percy, Rt. Hen. Lord E.

Apsley, Lord

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

Perkins, W. R. D.

Assheton, R.

Everard, W. L.

Petherick, M.

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

Fleming, E. L.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Atholl, Duchess of

Foot, D. M.

Porritt, R. W.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Furness, S. N.

Procter, Major H. A.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

Goldie, N. B.

Ramsbotham, H.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Ramsdsn, Sir E.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Grant-Ferris, R.

Rankin, Sir R.

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

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Bird, Sir R. B.

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

Rayner, Major R. H.

Bossom, A. C.

Grimston, R. V.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Boulton, W. W.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Remer, J. R.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Boyce, H. Leslie

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Brooklebank, C. E. R.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

Rowlands, G.

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

Hepworth, J.

Scott, Lord William

Bull, B B.

Holdsworth, H.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Carver, Major W. H.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Somerset, T.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunter, T.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

Jonas, L. (Swansea W.)

Storey, S.

Channon, H.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

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

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

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Latham, Sir P.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Colfox, Major W P.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

Colman, N. C. D.

Levy, T.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

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

Liddall, W. S.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

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

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R, L.

Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

Lyons, A. M.

Turton, R. H.

Craven-Ellis, W.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Crooke, J. S.

M'Connell, Sir J.

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

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Warrender, Sir V.

Cross, R. H.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Crowder, J. F. E.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Wayland, Sir W. A

Cruddas, Col. B.

McKie, J. H.

Wells, S. R.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

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

Dawson, Sir P.

Macquisten, F. A.

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

De Chair, S. S.

Magnay, T.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Denville, Alfred

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

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

Wragg, H.

Dodd, J. S.

Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Doland, G. F.

Moreing, A. C.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Morgan, R. H.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Duggan, H. J.

Munro, P.

Mr. Croom-Johnson and Mr.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Nall, Sir J.

Lennox-Boyd.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Words added.
Second Reading put off for six months.

ESTIMATES.
Ordered,
"That Mr. Brocklebank be discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates, and that Captain Ramsay be added to the Committee." —[Sir G. Penny.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Ordered,
"That Mr. Brocklebank be added to the Committee of Public Accounts."—[Sir G. Penny.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

TRANSPORT.
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION (COMPENSATION).
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION (COMPENSATION).
  EDINBURGH-PERTH ROAD.
  EDINBURGH-PERTH ROAD.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROAD SURFACES (SAFETY).
  ROAD SURFACES (SAFETY).
  SPEEDOMETERS.
  SPEEDOMETERS.
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (LICENSING).
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (LICENSING).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL NAVY (ACCIDENT, WHALE ISLAND).
  ROYAL NAVY (ACCIDENT, WHALE ISLAND).
  THE CORONATION.
  THE CORONATION.
  BRITISH COLONIES (COAL PURCHASES).
  BRITISH COLONIES (COAL PURCHASES).
  PALESTINE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  PALESTINE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  EAST AFRICA (AGRICULTURE).
  EAST AFRICA (AGRICULTURE).
  CIVIL SERVICE (MARRIED WOMEN).
  CIVIL SERVICE (MARRIED WOMEN).
  DEFENCE SERVICES (LAND PURCHASE).
  DEFENCE SERVICES (LAND PURCHASE).
  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.
  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.
  FOOD IMPORTS (TRADE AGREEMENTS).
  FOOD IMPORTS (TRADE AGREEMENTS).

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PUBLIC HEALTH (DRAINAGE OF TRADE PREMISES) BILL, [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the discharge of trade effluents into public sewers of local authorities, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PORTSMOUTH AND GOSPORT GAS ORDER, 1937.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templemore, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, the 23rd February, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, the 23rd February, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ALLOA AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1937.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, again on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templemore, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, the 23rd February, be approved, with an addition.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, the 23rd February, be approved, with an addition.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRISON CONDITIONS.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL had the following Notice on the Paper:—To draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the conditions obtaining in His Majesty's prisons and to ask whether any reforms are contemplated; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it usually falls to my lot, when I have any Notice on the Order Paper, to speak at about seven o'clock, when most noble Lords have already gone away, no doubt to perform other duties, so I count myself exceptionally lucky this afternoon in that this Motion comes on so early, especially as it deals with a question which I regard as of the greatest importance. I should like at once to ask whether the idea of imprisonment to-day is partly one of revenge—revenge against the person who has broken the social code—or one of the reform of the prisoner. I have recently read a book, which I have no doubt some of your Lordships have also read because it has had fairly wide notice in the Press, and I believe in one Sunday newspaper it was printed as a serial. It is called "Walls Have Mouths," and is by a gentleman named Mr. Macartney, who is an ex-convict. If the statements in that book are true—and as far as I have been able to discover they have never been denied—anybody who has read it must think that if the object of prison is reform, then a great many reforms are necessary.
To start with, he deals with the time when he was on remand in Brixton Prison, before he was convicted. He says that he had considerable difficulty in obtaining writing materials in order to communicate with his solicitor, and that anything that he did write was first of all censored by the Governor and, if it contained anything of use to the prosecution, the information was given to the prosecution. I think that in the case of a person who is on remand and has not yet been convicted, if he is allowed bail he has free access to his solicitor or anybody else whom he wants to see; he is presumed to be innocent until he is convicted. If, on the other hand, he is not so fortunate as to be able to get bail, then he appears to be treated very much as if he were already guilty. I think that some measure of reform is certainly necessary here. You cannot have two positions; you cannot presume that a person who is allowed bail is not guilty, and
436
presume—or almost presume—that a person who cannot get bail is guilty.
The author then goes on in this book to describe his experiences in Wands-worth Prison before he was sent to Park-hurst convict establishment. While he was at Wands-worth a man was hanged, and he says that you could hear the noise of the drop all over the prison. If that is so, surely it is barbarous. He also describes the ribald remarks which were shouted out by prisoners in their cells immediately that happened. I know that in Dickens one reads of that kind of ribald remark in the prisons of a century or so ago, but surely to-day it is a barbarous thing to allow other prisoners actually to hear the death sentence carried out and (as would naturally happen in a prison) to have that kind of remark made. It seems to me sheer barbarity.
He goes on to say that certain warders—and I am not saying a word against warders—in their conversations are rather curious. There is one particular passage which I shall quote to your Lordships showing what actually happened to him. When he got to Parkhurst he was put in the tailor's shop, and he says he was asked to stitch up the strap fasteners of a strait jacket, which he refused to do, as apparently prisoners have a right so to refuse to do. The principal warder came up to him and this conversation took place:
"'Do you refuse to work, Macartney?'
'No, I only decline to do this particular job, and I am acting within my rights in declining,' I answered.
'How's that? Convicts have no rights! was the comforting reply.
'This is an article of restraint, and there is a Standing Order that no prisoner can be made to work upon such articles if he doesn't wish to. The job should be done by the instructor,' I replied …"
Warders have no right to talk to a prisoner in that fashion. Even if a man is a convict he surely still has some sort of rights left to him. I think there is room for reform there.
He goes on to say that up to 1934 there was no electric light in the prison. The real reason for that, I think, was that the authorities could get no money to put in electric light. It seems to me ridiculous that up to three years ago no electric light was in this prison; and even to-day there is no running water. Surely, we are out

437
of date. We do not want to go back to the castles of two or three hundred years ago in which prisoners were locked up, yet that is what we seem to be doing. Dartmoor Prison is an example of that. In the Du Parcq Report it was stated quite freely that the gaolers and all the officials objected to the prison. It is really a beastly prison, yet nothing has been done about it. It has been stated that the cells were very damp, but I understand that that is not so to-day. But the prison is definitely out of date and should be done away with altogether. He says also a word on the strong cell arrangement. I do not want to say much about that, because it was raised in another place, but he says that at Park-burst in the strong cells there are no windows or heating, and men occasionally put in a winter without a blanket and mostly with only a shirt on. I do not think that in the winter one would treat an animal in that way—put it in a cold cell with only a blanket to lie on. It seems to be going beyond the bounds to treat convicts in that way.
Another thing that struck me in reading the book was the unnecessary amount of duplication that goes on as you pass from one prison to another. You come up before the medical officer and have to give your whole medical history—indeed, your whole history—over and over again although it is all written down in the form in front of him. That seems to me an unnecessary waste of time, and also it must be very galling to the unfortunate convict to have to keep on repeating his previous history, convictions and so on. That sort of thing could be cut out. Another thing that must get on the convict's nerves, as I am sure it would get on the nerves of any of your Lordships who had the misfortune to be sent to prison, is the unnecessary amount of nagging that goes on by warders in the form of orders to "Shut up," and "Keep in line," and that type of thing. When nobody is doing anything there seems to be a gramophone record requesting the convicts to "Stop talking" and "If you don't you will be reported".
I can well understand that that type of thing drives a person nearly insane after any length of time in prison. It must be terrible. Surely that need not go on then the long hours of confine-
438
ment must be perfectly dreadful. Take Saturday and Sunday. On Saturdays convicts are locked up for twenty-three hours with just one hour for exercise, with no one to talk to and very little reading matter supplied to them. Can you wonder that after a year or two of that a man eventually breaks out, loses all reason for the time being, and does what is called "smashing up" in his cell, breaking everything in the cell, tearing all the clothes up, and acts of that description? Surely, that treatment is unnecessary. There again it is a question of money. The Government will not spend money on having more warders; that is what it comes to. These people have to have a week-end off, and the only way they can do it is by keeping the unfortunate convicts locked up. The Government are willing to spend £1,500,000,000 on armaments, but will not spend even a few hundreds to remedy a position of this description. If one only looked upon prison as a place of reform instead of as a place purely of revenge it would do something to reform them. These long hours of solitary confinement must be perfectly terrible to anyone undergoing them.
The next question is the question of food. I am not suggesting that convicts should be fed on caviare or anything of that description, but if one gets exactly the same breakfast every morning for months one will eventually get so sick of it as not to be able to look at it. Medical men say that monotony of diet over a long period is deleterious to health. In Macartney's book it is stated that the prison doctors at Parkhurst find it necessary to put convicts in hospital for a fortnight and give them hospital diet in order to get away from the routine which they undergo—every two years, I think it is. It does seem to me that the food might be varied a little so that people may be saved the terrible monotony that now exists.
Another thing that struck me as very hard indeed is this. He describes in the book that when his mother and sister were dying he was not allowed to see them. Surely, one can allow a long-time convict out with a warder to say good-bye to a sister or mother or wife. It does seem to me unnecessarily harsh not to do so. He also describes cases of

439
flogging in prison. Apparently one is flogged with a cat-o'-nine-tails in all cases of assault on a warder. I can well understand that as the result of the nagging that goes on a prisoner's brain may suddenly snap, and he may get so out of hand that he darts out of the line and smashes the person who is nagging in the face. I can well understand that happening. In civilian life if one assaults a policeman—and it happens quite frequently—he does not receive the penalty of flogging but gets off with a fine of fifty shillings or so; but if you are a convict and assault a warder you get flogged for it. That seems to me unnecessary brutality, and I do not believe brutality does any good. It is not even a preventative. When a man loses his reason for a moment no amount of fear of flogging is going to stop him doing it again. Macartney quotes cases of men who have been flogged several times, but flogging has not deterred them from doing it again. All that it has done it to make them more like brute beasts.
He describes the punishment cell in which he was once or twice, when his diet was only 8 oz. of bread in the morning and 8 oz. of bread in the evening, with three pints of water per day. He was allowed from 11.30 to 1.45 to read an old magazine, and the rest of the time he was locked up in solitary confinement. I ask your Lordships, whether that is going to do anybody any good. If prisoners have been refractory is that kind of treatment going to reform them and make them a better type of prisoner? I do not think it is. It will have precisely the opposite effect. It will make them feel that they are enemies of society, and that they have a grudge against society, so that when they get free again they are likely to become worse than they were before; indeed I am certain that is so. I would like to make a suggestion. Smoking apparently is one of the great things that prisoners miss. After four years, if you are a convict, you get on to what is a special stage, and you are allowed to smoke at certain intervals. Tobacco apparently has become more valuable than gold in prison. According to this book, with tobacco you can buy practically everything. Instead of depriving people of smoking to start with, why not allow them to do it at first and take it away
440
from them if they should turn out to be refractory prisoners? That seems to me a much more sensible way of doing things.
I want to turn for a moment to the question of mental defectives in prison. Personally I take the view that nearly all people who are convicts have a mental kink. I do not say they are mentally deficient, but that they have a mental kink. I think that at any rate 90 per cent, of them would be far better treated by psychologists than they are by means of prison treatment. I find that where people have been sent in for observation because their behaviour was somewhat peculiar they have been kept in the observation landing for years until they have been let out, and when let out they have been promptly discharged to the county asylum. It does seem to me utterly stupid, when quite clearly it must have been known over a number of years whether a person was mentally deficient, to keep him under sentence and then discharge him to a mental asylum. There is surely a great need for reform there.
With regard to visits, the prisoner, after two and a half years I think it is, is allowed a visit every two months, and after four years he is allowed a visit every month, but a great many questions are gone into if he asks anybody to visit him. Inquiries are made about the persons he has asked to visit him, whether they have a criminal record and so on. If they have a criminal record they are not allowed to visit the prisoner. The police are asked to find out the circumstances. In most cases the criminal is not a rich man living in a society which would not know much about the visits of police. These prisoners usually come from the working class, and all working-class homes distinctly dislike any policeman calling at the door even if the occupants of the houses themselves have no connection with criminals. It puts a black mark against them in the eyes of their neighbours, and it seems to me very hard that a number of convicts should not be allowed to see any of their friends for the simple reason that their friends are too frightened to have these inquiries made by the police. It places them in an awkward position, and they would rather keep away from seeing their friend who is confined to prison. It seems to me, again, that unnecessary inquiries are being made, and I do not

441
know why they should be. The time of the prison visit in the case of an ordinary prisoner, I understand, is for about twenty minutes, and if the prisoner is in a convict prison it is half an hour. If you have to travel, say, from Sunderland to Parkhurst, that seems a very short time to allow. I think half an hour once every two months to see any one is too short a time.
Before I come to an end I am going to refer to another book, one about prisons in Russia. I know it is anathema to say anything about Russia to some noble Lords, but for all that I am going to refer to it. These restrictions seem to me unnecessary, and I do not see that they can do any good at all. Before that, however, I want to refer to the question of books. When you first enter a convict establishment you are allowed two novels and two miscellaneous books a fortnight. After you have been there some time, say four years, you are allowed as many books as you want, in the discretion of the chaplain. There seems to be no encouragement at all for convicts to read any particular type of book; indeed they seem to be discouraged from reading books. Macartney in his book describes how he had to fight the authorities to get books, though he did not want books to which anybody could possibly object. Why there should be this official idea of keeping books from convicts I cannot understand. I should have thought that the one thing that might do some good to a convict in prison would be to allow him to read good books. Such books would probably improve prisoners' minds and show them how to be decent citizens when they are eventually let out. I cannot understand the idea of keeping books away from them. It does not seem to me a sensible thing to do.
As I have taken up quite enough of your Lordships' time I will only refer to one other point before I sit down and that is the question of money. Apparently a convict is allowed to be sent one pound for special purposes such as false teeth, spectacles, or something of that description, but if a pound note is sent to a convict and the person who sends it does not enclose his name and address the money is; sequestrated. Why should the convict be deprived of that pound because some friend who wishes to remain anonymous has not disclosed
442
his name and address to the authorities? It seems to me that that is grossly imposing on the convict and also on the person who sends the pound. It does not seem right, and I cannot see any reason for it. Before I sit down I just want to contrast what is said by a gentleman who went to Russia with what is the case here. He wrote a book called "A Physician's Tour in Soviet Russia." This shows how different in many respects is the treatment of convicts in Russia to that accorded in this country. Let me quote what is said:
"The prison, or correctional Colony, of Levortovski, was formerly a military prison with 205 cells for solitary confinement. The cells are arranged in four long galleries, each of three stories, radiating from a centre. It now houses 615 prisoners, three in a cell. This particular ' Colony has been running for two years …
"Each cell is fitted with a radio loudspeaker above its door. The beds are clean and comfortable. The barred windows are large. The doors of the cells are left wide open, except between one a.m. and six a.m., so that prisoners can visit each other freely. One cell, which we passed, had been padlocked on the outside by the prisoner himself. Presently he turned up, opened the padlock, and welcomed us to his cell. He was a stout elderly gentleman, who informed us that he had been sentenced to ten years confinement for embezzlement of 71,000 roubles from a sugar trust. He is leaving to-day in high spirits, having, by his industry and good conduct, served exactly six years, ten months and seven days. He told us that he has secured a secretarial post in the office of the Commissary of Trade at a salary of 700 roubles a month, and will take up his new duties forthwith.
"Meals are served to the prisoners in their cells, but a comfortable communal dining room will presently be built. Each prisoner is expected to work eight hours a day, knocking off for a meal. There are two separate shifts of workers. If he is illiterate, this defect must be 'liquidated,' and he must learn to read and write, being instructed by fellow prisoners who were teachers in civil life. Non-illiterate prisoners are employed in one or other of the various prison factories, chiefly in spinning, weaving, tailoring, and embroidering. For this work the pay is from 30 to 35 roubles a month. This amount is placed to each man's account, to be handed to him on leaving. He is allowed to spend a certain proportion on clothes, tobacco, &c., but not on alcohol. He has a week's holiday in his own home after one year; this is increased to a fortnight in subsequent years, and if he is a peasant he may be allowed to stay at home for three months to help in getting in the harvest. His friends and family can come and visit him in prison every ten days during the first year and every five days in subsequent years …

443
"Each work-day performed by the prisoner cuts more than a day off his sentence, two days' work corresponding to three days' remission of prison."
I will not read any more, for the quotation is a long one, but it illustrates my point. In Russia they are really trying to reform convicts. It is not just a question of society taking revenge upon them. I have nothing more to say except to express the hope that we shall hear that some measures of reform in this country are contemplated. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I confess that I am in some difficulty in answering the noble Earl. His credulity as far as remarks made by members of his own Party are concerned is so great, that I feel that his disbelief in any remarks made by me is certain to be very much greater. In my short experience in your Lordships' House I have never heard a speech containing so many allegations based on one book by one convict without any attempt whatever to produce evidence from outside sources. I cannot possibly—indeed I think it would be waste of time if I tried—go in very great detail into the allegations which Mr. Macartney made and which have been repeated in your Lordships' House. I will take two obvious misstatements which occur in the book. Nagging by warders has been referred to, and I suppose the passage to which the noble Earl referred is this:
"Saturday afternoon exercise was hell in 1928. Assaults on jailers were the feature of the exercising ring. Convicts exasperated beyond control would step out of the circulating ring and assault the jailers."
It may interest your Lordships to know that assaults on the officers of Parkhurst in 1928, 1929 and 1930 were two, three and nine respectively. Then we heard something about the long hours that prisoners spend alone in their cells during the week-end. I have here a list of hours which I shall be glad to furnish to the noble Earl. It shows that the ordinary prisoner is out of his cell for at least nine hours over the week-end and many men are out for very much longer periods. I will take upon myself the responsibility of telling the noble Earl that the story of hearing the drop fall is pure nonsense and complete imagination. It is not possible to hear the drop fall at Wandsworth.
444
In view of the fact that the noble Earl's speech was really based on what he himself must admit is an ex parte statement, I think the best thing I can do is to give your Lordships a short review of what has actually been done in the way of prison reform during the last few years. I will preface my remarks by quoting from the Commissioners' Annual Report of 1922–3, which seems to me to show what should be the object of prison reform. They say:
"It is not to make prisons pleasant, but to construct a system, of training such as will fro the prisoner to re-enter the world as a citizen. To this end the first requisite is greater activity of mind and body, and the creation of habits of sustained industry. Longer hours of work are therefore the first item in our programme. Next comes the removal of any features of unnecessary degradation in prison life and the promotion of self-respect, and education on particular lines calculated to rouse some intelligent interest, and to raise the mind out of a sordid circle of selfish broodings. Finally, we endeavour to awaken some sense of personal responsibility by the gradual and cautious introduction of methods of limited trust."
Those were the ideals of prison reform in 1922, and I believe that the results have proved that those ideals, even though they have not been completely satisfied, are directed rightly. In 1910 the prison population of this country was just under 21,000. At the present moment it is only 10,000. Of all the persons recently received into prison for the first time for serious offences during the years 1930–33, 80.7 per cent, so far as is known had not returned to prison a second time up to the end of 1935. Therefore it does seem that we have made reforms—even if the noble Earl thinks we have not gone far enough—in the right direction of keeping people out of prison and preventing people who have been in prison from being forced back into criminal life.
What are the reforms which we have been successful in introducing during the last twenty years? In the first place the principle of solitary confinement, which was in former days the great principle of the penal system of England, has been practically done away with. For both convicts and prisoners serving hard labour separate confinement was finally abolished in 1931. Every prisoner now, unless there is some medical reason, works from the very beginning of his sentence in association with other prisoners. It is quite obvious, however, that association with other prisoners has

445
dangers within itself. Contamination may only too easily follow if all sorts of prisoners are allowed to mix freely together. Therefore the object of our reforms has always been to classify prisoners as clearly and definitely as is within our power. The first and obvious classification has been the institution of Borstal, which has at one stroke taken one-sixth of the prison population and put them into places where they cannot be contaminated by older and more vicious criminals. Apart from Borstal it is obviously very difficult to have a system of classification within the prison itself. It is very difficult to have one set of prisoners having one sort of treatment and another set having another sort of treatment. It is quite clear that if you are trying to create some sense of responsibility in them and to give them training your efforts will be hampered if you have different classes; of prisoners in the same prison. Therefore it has been the policy of the Commissioners to reserve certain establishments for certain particular classes of prisoners.
Wormwood Scrubs since 1925 has been reserved for prisoners serving a first term in the Metropolitan area; Wakefield has been reserved for selected prisoners in the Midlands since 1923; and Chelmsford-the latest, I think—has been reserved since 1931 for younger prisoners of criminal habits. Furthermore, the Commissioners have developed the policy—and the very right policy, it seems to me—of collecting as far as possible -those young prisoners between sixteen and twenty-one who are serving very short sentences. At first only people who were serving more than three months were collected, but now I am happy to say that those who are serving as short a sentence as one month go to these collecting centres. But I should like to emphasise—and I am very glad, on behalf of the Government, to have the opportunity of doing so—that, however hard you try, you cannot in these collecting centres give the same training as you can give in a Borstal institution.
The Prison Commissioners have frequently drawn attention to the fact that magistrates and those who have to administer the law should think twice, think thrice and then think again before they send young people to prison, particularly those who have not previously been guilty of offences. Thirty-eight per cent, of the
446
boys who were sentenced to imprisonment in 1935 had not previously been convicted of an offence, and it is the firm conviction of the Commissioners and of His Majesty's Government that in many of those cases probation would have met the case far better, and that in the remainder of the cases a longer term of Borstal imprisonment would have done the boy far more good. The only consolation that one has is that whereas in 1932 a total of 2,653 boys received sentences of imprisonment, the number had fallen to 1,608 in 1935.
I have already dealt with Macartney's allegations about the length of time that prisoners were kept in their cells over the week-end, but I should like to emphasise that it is the firm policy of the Commissioners at the moment to reduce to a minimum the period during which the prisoners are locked in their cells. They do that for the very obvious reason that if you want to fit a man to go out and take his part in life again, it is important to approximate as far as possible the conditions of prison to the conditions of human association. Of course all this depends on money, and I am happy to say that since 1934 it has been possible very greatly to increase the staff of prison officers available to look after the prisoners. I have not the exact figures with me, but I should say that with a reduced prison population the staff has increased by one-fifth. This increase has, of course, had the double advantage of enabling things like hair-cutting, washing and suchlike to be done in the evening hours instead of interrupting the work in the shops.
I propose to deal very briefly with the remaining reforms which have been accomplished during the last two years. We have started an experimental system of wages in Wakefield, and that has been extended all over the Borstal institutions since 1929. Evening classes, with the object of improving the mind, have been steadily increased and, not least, the prison library system has been vastly improved. I can assure my noble friend that the insinuations which he drew from the book which he was quoting were not accurate, and I should have thought that it was quite obvious that they were not accurate, in so far as on one page you find Mr. Macartney complaining that no books of a political character were allowed to him, and on the next you find that

447
in fact books on Lenin and on Marx were in his habitual possession, as apparently the Prison Governor allowed him access to them. It seems a little unfair that he should take the fullest advantage of all the political literature he could get and at the same time complain that no political literature is allowed. The prison libraries are being steadily increased and a new system of cataloguing has been introduced which enables a prisoner to say exactly and with the greatest ease what book he requires. It is quite untrue, as I think was suggested in at any rate one book on prisons, that the prisoner is handed a book on a plate and told that he can read that or not read anything at all. That is not the principle which is animating the Commissioners at this time.
The only other item of prison reform to which I should like to draw your attention is the weekly news bulletin which is now being produced and which I believe is doing an immense amount of good. Not merely does it give the prisoner something to talk about and something to think about, but it ensures that when he comes out, having read those bulletins, he is not suddenly handicapped all through the first year after he has come out by people referring to events which he never knew had taken place.
I think I have said enough to show that the spirit of prison reform is very much alive at the present moment. The Commissioners are doing everything in their power to fit these people for the new life they will have to take up when they come out. But no one is more aware than they or the Government that all these reforms are quite valueless unless they are accompanied by a very careful selection of the staff who are going to implement them. The Commissioners are fully alive to the importance of the selection of warders, and they are very fortunate in so far as the conditions of service are sufficiently good to give them a very wide choice indeed of the type of man they select. The candidate after an interview has a nine weeks' course of intensive training in all his duties. He then, I think, has another interview. At the end of that between 25 and 30 per cent, of these men who have had the course are rejected and not admitted to the service.
448
I think that gives the noble Lord some idea of the strictness with which warders are selected, and I think that much of that nagging of which he complained, which I can well understand, if it did take place, might lead to very unfortunate results, is a memory of the past. That no longer exists, and the present type of warder is quite different from the type upon which Mr. Macartney drew for his imaginary pictures. He will not forget that, despite all those strictures on warders in general all through that book, whenever Mr. Macartney mentions a warder by name he says, "He was not a bad sort"; "he was a good chap." Therefore it was more the general conception of the warder rather than the individual of which the noble Earl, I think, was speaking and of which Mr. Macartney wrote. I have made a long speech, I am afraid, and I have tried to give some sort of account of what the Commissioners have done during the last two years. But I should not like the noble Earl to think that on that account, because reforms have been made, we are complacent or the Commissioners are complacent. We are fully aware and they are fully aware that there is still much that can be done, and, if I may say so, I am very glad that the noble Earl has raised this matter before your Lordships' House, because it is one which should be continually before the consciousness of the public and of your Lordships.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, in thanking the noble Marquess for his reply I am very pleased indeed that some of these allegations of Macartney's have now been denied, because they have never been officially denied before. I was, if I may say so, very gratified indeed to hear from the speech of the noble Marquess that these reforms are taking place and that more reforms are in contemplation. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1. PROVISION OF LUNCHEON AFTER THE CORONATION.
The Earl of Lucan, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department,

449
submitted the following report by the Sub-Committee on Catering Arrangements for the Coronation:—
Report by the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department on Catering Arrangements for the Coronation.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department have considered the provision of meals in the House of Lords on the day of the Coronation. They propose that a buffet luncheon should be provided in the Royal Gallery at a cost of 10s. 6d. per head for Peers and Peeresses who attend the ceremony in the Abbey to consist of light dishes which can be eaten with a fork, sandwiches of all kinds, a variety of sweet dishes, cakes, etc., with tea, coffee and lemonade. It is proposed that Peers who wish to avail themselves of this buffet should take tickets beforehand, which will be forwarded by the Clerk of the Parliaments. Wines, spirits and mineral waters will also be available in the Royal Gallery for which cash payment will be taken at the time of ordering.
The Committee have been asked by the Earl Marshal to provide breakfast for about 400 Officers of State at 5.30 on the morning of the Coronation. This breakfast can be provided in the Royal Gallery before the buffet is set out.
The Committee have also been asked by the Master of the Household to provide a buffet luncheon for about 200 minor royal personages after the Coronation, It is proposed to provide this buffet in the King's Robing-room and to supply the same dishes as those supplied to Peers in the Royal Gallery.
The menu of the buffet luncheon will be available for inspection at the meeting of the House of Lords' Offices Committee.
It is proposed that the catering should be undertaken by Messrs. A. J. Carpenter (London) Limited, who hold the contract for catering to the House of Lords.
The Peers' dining-room and the Library will not be used for refreshments and will be available as sitting-rooms for Peers and Peeresses.
11th February, 1937.
The Report of the Sub-Committee was agreed to.
The Committee expressed their approval of the proposal of the Earl Stanhope, First Commissioner of Works, to provide buffet refreshments in Westminster Hall for persons occupying certain stands in Old Palace Yard.
2. PROVISION OF LAVATORY ACCOMMODATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE CORONATION.
The Committee approved proposals laid before them by the Lord Great Chamberlain for providing temporary lavatory accommodation on the day of the Coronation.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE MESSENGERS.
The Committee sanctioned the inclusion of the post of Messenger attending the Registry among the posts which can rise to the £215—£240 scale.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and agreed to. In doing so perhaps I should say one word on paragraph 1. Your Lordships will see that my noble friend Lord Lucan has made arrangements for an excellent luncheon to be provided, but there is nothing to say how your Lordships and your ladies will be able to proceed from the Abbey to the House and I think that is an important matter which your Lordships would like to know about. There is a general idea that there should be a covered way, where the annexe is. They would then come up here. I thought I would say one word on that because the first question that would be asked probably would be: "How are we going to get to the House from the Abbey?" There will be facilities for cars to be parked for those coming here and for those going straight home. The arrangements are not quite complete, but I hope they will meet your Lordships' convenience.
Moved, That this Report be now considered and agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, this is a very short Bill with really only one operative clause, but it is of considerable importance and, we hope, likely to be of more importance in the near future than at the present day. The main object of the Bill is to extend for a further fifteen years the Empire Settlement Act of 1922, which comes to an end on the 31st of May next. If nothing were done it means that the Government would be unable to provide any arrangements for the Fairbridge Farm Schools. Emigration as a whole has come to a stop, apart from one or two movements of that kind and the union of families which is still going on in some parts of His Majesty's Dominions. That is the main object of the Bill, to allow the Secretary of State to continue to assist emigration for a further fifteen years.

451
There are two other points in the Bill. The first is that under the previous Act of 1922 the Secretary of State was not allowed to expend more than 50 per cent, of any contribution which was made on behalf of emigration. The remainder had to be found either by a private society or private organisation or by a Government in one of His Majesty's Dominions. Now, under subsection (2), the Secretary of State is given the power to contribute up to 75 per cent, instead of 50 per cent., primarily to private organisations and voluntary societies. As your Lordships will see, there is a proviso to that to say that he shall not be allowed to contribute more than 50 per cent., instead of 75 per cent., in regard to a land settlement scheme, or "a scheme towards the expenses of which the Government of a part of His Majesty's oversea Dominions have agreed to contribute." The reason for these two provisions is that we felt that a development scheme is quite as much a benefit to the country where that development takes place as it is to us here in sending our people to them, and therefore we felt it only right that at least 50 per cent, should be contributed by the country concerned. Similarly, in regard to schemes in which a Dominion or a State Government takes a share, I think your Lordships will all agree that the very last impression we wish to give is that of desiring to push people out to the Dominions if the Dominions do not wish to have them, and therefore the principle is maintained that the Government concerned in the Dominion shall contribute at least 50 per cent, of the cost.
One further point, which was taken a good deal of notice of in another place, is that under the previous Act of 1922 the Secretary of State was allowed to contribute up to £3,000,000 sterling a year. Under the present Bill it is proposed that that sum should be reduced to £1,500,000, half of what it was before. That does not mean, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions made quite clear, that we have half the keenness that we used to have in regard to emigration. It is merely bringing the contribution that the State is asked to make somewhere more in accordance with the fact. The fact is that even in 1926, 1927 and 1928, the peak
452
years of emigration, the expenditure never exceeded £1,282,000. That was the peak figure in 1927. In 1926 and 1928 it was slightly less. The Government feel that a sum of £1,500,000 is ample to cover the expenditure that is likely to be incurred. At the same time my right honourable friend made it clear in another place that if a really suitable land settlement scheme was brought forward which we and the Dominion Government concerned thought should be supported, he would not hesitate to come forward and ask for a grant from Parliament to cover such a scheme.
He said also that he had not a great belief in these land settlement schemes. Nor indeed have I, particularly after reading what has happened in the past. Not many of them have been a success. In fact some of them have been a bad failure and actually the number of emigrants who went out on land settlement schemes in the ten years before 1931 was only 3 per cent, of the whole. The then Secretary of State, Mr. Amery, expected that out of £3,000,000 at least £2,000,000 would be spent on land settlement and only £1,000,000 on assisted emigration. In point of fact the figures have worked out almost exactly the other way round. Therefore it does not seem very likely that a land settlement scheme would be brought forward. Should such an expenditure be asked for, the Government hold themselves free to recommend it to Parliament if it is thought a wise measure.
I think there is little further I need say to your Lordships at the moment. Inquiries have been made from the Dominions whether there was a likelihood of emigration being started in the near future. There is some slight hope from Australia but very little hope from the other Dominions. Even from Australia only two of the six States thought emigration was at all possible and they were asking chiefly for young farm students such as the Fairbridge Farm School boys or for women to go into domestic employment. So that at present it does not look as if there was a likelihood of any emigration starting again. My right honourable friend felt, however, not only that he ought to be empowered to continue these fine schemes such as we all approve of, like the Fairbridge Farm Schools, but that at any rate we in this country should have everything ready so that, once emigration

453
starts, there should be no delay whatever in assisting any scheme which may be brought forward. I hope therefore that your Lordships will approve this Bill and will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I intend to say a word or two only on this Bill, but if I might venture to widen the scope of the discussion for two or three minutes I do not think it would be by any means a waste of time. We have reached a stage in the world situation when the question of oversea settlement of unoccupied areas is of very great importance. It is of great importance in view of the very debate which has been occupying your Lordships' House during the last three days, because one at least of the claims of certain of the powers is that we are not making use of the unoccupied spaces of the British Empire, that we do actually have areas such as Australia, which is greater in area than the United States of America, or Canada, which is equally greater in area than the United States of America, both of which have only two or three people to the square mile, compared with a hundred or more in the United States. There is a feeling—whether it is justified or not, it is very difficult to say—that the Dominions are not altogether helpful in this matter, and their present lack of population may be used as a weapon by other countries who claim that they are over-populated and that we are not making use of the lands within the British Empire. This is a serious matter. We have in the past done things to remedy the situation. The noble Earl referred to the failure of certain land settlement schemes, and everybody will have in mind the Victoria settlers' experiment, which was a ghastly failure and which evidently was undertaken with insufficient inquiry beforehand as to the possibilities of success.
I do not think that the claim of the over-populated countries is quite as real as some speakers imagine. In the first place it is a fact that the rate of increase of the population of these over-populated countries is diminishing; Japan, for example, will have a stationary population somewhere about 1960. The rate of increase of the Japanese population is diminishing so rapidly, by reason I suppose of the use of birth control appliances
454
or from voluntary abstinence or other reasons, that though Japan may be said to be anxious at present for a population outlet, the necessity will diminish as the years go by. But it is the immediate problem that has to be faced, the problem of the next few years. I would therefore suggest that it might be worth the consideration of the Government that rather more energy should be put into this question, and perhaps a broader examination made of the whole problem of the density of population in the various Dominions. We know that the claim by Germany for Colonies has been put forward for three reasons. I need not go into the reasons of raw materials and markets, but the claim has been put forward for Colonies for population reasons, and we cannot deny that full use is perhaps not being made of the land which is under our jurisdiction. I gather that the attempts made to increase the population both in Germany and in Italy have not been a great success in spite of the propaganda efforts of the Governments. Nevertheless the actual increase of population, even at a diminishing rate, is sufficient to give some force to the claim of those countries for more land for their peoples.
Then we come to the question, which I do not think has ever been clear in our own minds, as to whether in fact we want young men and women to emigrate from Great Britain. Somehow it always seems to me that there is a contradiction in our own minds. We want the best of our people—the finest workers, the most energetic, and the strongest of these young men and women—to remain in our own country, and yet we have a responsibility to the Dominions to send our best to help them in their development. I cannot help thinking that we ought really to think out a little more what we really want. Perhaps the noble Earl would say that we do not press this too much because we do not want to lose these fine young men and women. At the same time we do not want to stop them going if they wish to do; we desire, in fact, to give them some help. But that is not quite enough. I cannot help thinking that the matter is worth consideration from a broader point of view than that of Great Britain. The Empire is vitally concerned in this question of the redistribution of our population, and I would like to see it made much more easy, if possible, for

455
people to move about the Empire in order to try out whether they like the conditions, say in Australia or Canada. I am convinced that if this matter were treated on rather broader lines, we should find that the possibilities of Empire settlement are diminishing every year. They are diminishing because our population is increasing at a very diminishing rate. There is less and less possibility of a surplus population. I am not speaking about the unemployed, because that is not the core of this problem. It is not a question of unemployed or unemployable people, it is a question of the young, fit, fine men and women, and I am inclined to think that we shall find that it is increasingly impossible to take any large part in the population of those parts of the Empire which have not been adequately populated.
The inquiry which I have suggested might help us to meet one other problem which is facing the world—a problem which personally I have very much at heart because I am interested in minorities—and that is the possibility of settlement in various parts of the Empire of those Eastern European Jews who are good workers and good citizens but who, owing to economic conditions, are utterly unable to get a living in places like Poland, where the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have recently told us that they have a surplus population of something like seven or eight million, Jews and non-Jews. Some of these at least might make valuable citizens under the influence of the leadership of those who are governing so well our oversea Dominions. I am inclined to think that this would be worth some inquiry in connection with the matter we are discussing.
That brings me to my final point. Your Lordships will know that we are facing considerable difficulties in one of the British Mandated Territories—Palestine—and one of the problems there has been the enormous pressure on Palestine to take more and more of these Eastern European Jews who do not know where to go and cannot live in their own country. If we could relieve the pressure on these people of Palestine by finding for them some other area within the Empire it would diminish the difficulty we are having owing to the Arabs' resistance to the increase of immigration into that country. We might thus be
456
able to make a valuable contribution to a solution of the difficulties which this House has been debating for three days, in helping a large number of human beings in their great difficulties in Eastern Europe, in helping our own Dominions to find, a valuable source of new population and new workers, and in helping to deal to some extent at any rate with the Palestinian problem which is of increasing and not diminishing difficulty among the problems facing Great Britain to-day.
LORD STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I seldom enjoy the luxury of agreeing with so much of what noble Lords on the other side of the House say. Indeed, I was getting quite nervous until I comforted myself with a quotation from a speech made by the very able Premier of New South Wales when he was discussing this question of migration before the Empire Parliamentary Association. This is what he said:
"I am going to take the risk of suggesting that the problem, which I would not call migration, but would rather describe as Imperial development, is much bigger than any one of these schemes ever can be."
That, I think, is thoroughly endorsed by the noble Lord opposite, and I fancy it is also endorsed by all your Lordships; but I am bound to say I was disappointed in two things in the speeches of the Secretary of State in another place and in the speech of my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
My noble friend referred solely to land settlement. The title of the Bill is "Empire Settlement," and I agree wholly with what the noble Lord opposite said, not merely as to the desirability, but the vital and imperative necessity, of attacking this great Imperial question from a much wider standpoint than it is dealt with in this little Bill. We ought to notice that the reduction in the sum which is made available for assisting migration is am indication of the failure of the system of assisted migration. What I was disappointed at in the speech of the Secretary of State in another place—and a similar speech was made by my noble friend—was that the Government seem content to sit down under that failure, and show no indication of realising the seriousness of that state of affairs and the appalling need in the Imperial interest—for reasons given by the noble Lord opposite and for other reasons as well—of finding a solution of this vital question.

457
I am not impressed with the complaint of Germany that we have got too much land and she has got too little, because the Germans are excellent colonists in countries which are not ruled by Germany, and there are some places that we all know in Australia where there are most striving German communities who are not only very good Australians who did extremely well in the War, but who are doing equally well in peace. Indeed, so good are these communities that you almost know when you get into one of them because of the state of the housing and the land which they farm. But that is only by the way. The question is how are we going to get not so much migration as the redistribution of the white people of the Empire which is so badly wanted. That must be the result of a process of attraction. It cannot be the result of propulsion. This Bill is mainly propulsion—that is, you endeavour to persuade somebody to go oversea on the understanding that it will cost him nothing and he can try his hand.
The first limitation you must get rid of is the idea that land settlement is the only way to redistribute population. The noble Lord opposite, if he will forgive me for saying so, fell into an error very common in respect to Australia. Australia, it is true, is very nearly 3,000 square miles in extent, but one-third of that is not inhabitable. It always has been uninhabitable, and it always will be, because of the great irregularity of the rainfall. Another third also suffers from such irregular rainfall that it never will be thickly inhabited. I remember asking a man in that area what he considered a living area for a settlement. He said, "40,000 acres." And it was true, because in that district bad seasons were the normal, and a man had to have a sufficient area to get over five or six bad seasons running. Then he would have a boom year and a carry-over. You have also to take into account that 40 per cent. of Australia is inside the Tropics. But you have got 650,000 or 750,000 square miles of magnificent country and glorious climate obviously capable of holding a very much larger population than that country now possesses.
It was agreed, and wisely agreed, at Ottawa that secondary industries must be encouraged in the Dominions, and it is quite clear that by merely increasing the number of people who are producing
458
either agricultural or pastoral products you are going to make the situation worse rather than better. Each of these great Dominions—I can only speak with any slight authority about Australia—is determined to be a real nation, a perfectly legitimate ambition and one which all are capable of achieving. But does not that mean that we ought to consider rationalising Imperial industry as a whole? Even agriculture is capable of being rationalised. We are wisely, I think, concentrating—this is not a Party question, all sections of the community are concentrating—on improving nutrition in this country. As one example out of many, we could produce here all the liquid milk and all the manufactured milk that we require, and we could get from Australia and New Zealand all the butter that we require. It is easy to give an example of that kind. It may be quite impracticable, but it is a suggestion worth going into. Secondary industries are far more important because you can absorb far more people in secondary industries than in primary industries, and by increasing the number of people engaged in them you are going to increase your number of customers. There again the question of rationalisation comes in. We here, with our long experience and large amount of capital and wonderful equipment, can produce the more complicated articles of secondary manufacture. There are many things that Australia, with her great resources in ores, coal, water power, and so forth, can produce, but it is necessary that we should agree what we will produce and what Australia will produce.
In that way you will induce people to go overseas, by the only inducement that ever is effective—namely, the knowledge that they are going to enjoy the kind of life that they will like. Things are quite different from the old days when the "gold rush" attracted so many people from this country, because no man can leave this country now without forfeiting a tremendous amount of rights in the way of social services, and, quite rightly, they are not inclined to forfeit these rights. But for the reasons given by the noble Lord, and for many other reasons, it is not sufficient to leave these great Dominions so thinly populated as they are now. My only complaint, so far as the Government are concerned, is that I have not seen any indication in the speeches either

459
of the Secretary of State or of my noble friend of their taking advantage of the failure of these Empire settlement schemes to put all their energy into devising something that is likely to be more successful.
In the year 1926, after the Imperial Conference, the very able Prime Minister of Australia, the present High Commissioner here, took great pains to collect a Commission of four business men of very high standing to go out to Australia and report to him. These were the terms of reference:
"To confer with the Commonwealth and State Governments, with the Development and Migration Commission and the leaders of industry and commerce in Australia, on the development of Australian resources, and on any other matters of mutual economic interest to Great Britain and the Commonwealth, which may tend to the promotion of trade between the two countries and the increase of settlement in Australia."
I think the time has come when that work requires to be done over again, and if your Lordships will bear with me for a minute I should like to read an extract from the General Conclusions of this highly qualified Commission, which consisted of the late Sir Arthur Duckham, Lord Hirst, Sir Ernest Clark, who is now Governor of Tasmania, and Mr. D. O. Malcolm, whom many of us know.
The General Conclusions were as follows:
"Our terms of reference, it will be observed, lay emphasis on the problems of the promotion of trade and commerce between Great Britain and Australia and of the increase of settlement in Australia."
All these are things of vital interest to the Empire to-day.
"It early became clear to us that these problems should be approached from the point of view of what is best for Australia herself in the belief that the increase of Australia's prosperity and productivity is an essential condition of increased trade with Great Britain. Given the maximum possible prosperity and wealth production in Australia, the ties between Australia and Great Britain are sufficiently close and the sentiments of common loyalty which bind the one to the other are sufficiently strong to secure that the maximum commercial intercourse will follow. Given the maximum possible power of absorbing population in Australia her determination to remain the most British community in the world is sufficiently strong to secure that it will be from Great Britain that the flow of immigration will come. But if the desired conditions of Australian prosperity and power to absorb population are not present, artificial means of promoting trade with and migration from Great Britain must fail."
460
That was written in the peak year of assisted emigration into Australia. It only amounted to 31,000 even then. That is quite inadequate.
I wish that I had much more influence with your Lordships and with the Government than I can possibly claim, but I suggest that now is the moment when they ought to put their best men on to examining the very questions that we were examining in 1926, here in this country, not in Australia so much. We have got this Report on Australia, and it is quite easy to get into touch with Australia. What is necessary is that our great manufacturers here should get a clear idea of what it is that they can profitably make and what it is that Australia can profitably make, and thus rationalise the resources of the two great countries. No doubt the same is equally true of New Zealand, of Canada and of South Africa. I think it is very important that the whole problem should be treated as one Imperial problem, not playing one Dominion off against another. Of course, nobody would do that deliberately, but it might appear to be done. It should be treated as one great Imperial problem. I suggest that there is no time to waste and that the question ought to be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. There can be nothing more important, and everybody knows that a Conference for which inadequate preparation has been made had much better not meet at all, for it is bound to end in failure and misunderstanding and may even produce very grave results. I suggest, therefore, with all the energy I command, that nothing is more urgent than that the Government, in the short time which intervenes between now and the meeting of the Imperial Conference after the Coronation, should take advantage of the strong Imperial spirit which will pervade the country and the Empire at that time, to try really to get something which will prevent them ever again coming to Parliament with so inadequate a measure as this, which is such a confession of failure, not of their efforts but of the efforts of the country as a whole to tackle our most important problem.
There is more than that. Yesterday one of your Lordships asked what was really meant by collective security, and everybody's face and the back of everybody's head that I could see on this side of the House indicated complete

461
blank and ignorance. Nobody could describe what was meant by collective security. If you have collective development of the Empire collective security will follow with it, and I believe that is the only form of collective security which it is possible to achieve. Every other form is merely a phrase. By achieving collective security of the Empire you are going to contribute more to the peace of the world than by any other single step you can take. I trust, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will find it possible to put in hand this inquiry. The time is short, but it is better to take full advantage of a short time than not to do it at all. I believe that if they approach the Dominions in this sense and put their best men on to the job, there is a prospect of getting more advantage out of the forthcoming Imperial Conference than has been got out of any Conference that has been held hitherto.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I do not often intrude myself upon your Lordships' attention, but I take such a deep interest in this question that I should like to add a few words to what has been said. This is a burning and vital question, much more so than most people imagine. In the first place, I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Marley, that from the point of view of the world it is a most dangerous thing to have an empty Empire in the midst of land-hungry peoples. This dog-in-the-manger policy of keeping the land and failing to fill it with people is a most dangerous one. I do not see any answer to that argument. I regard this question of Empire settlement as a way out of our difficulties at home, not as a way out of our unemployment difficulties but as a check to that miserable propaganda of birth control which I believe to be doing a tremendous amount of mischief. When we came away from the Lambeth Conference with that really misunderstood resolution the Bishop of Athabasca said to me: "We want more children in Athabasca; we want them all the time." The idea that we are to have less and less population here is all wrong, and we are beginning to find out the mischief of it. We shall presently see that our deaths will be greater than our births. This birth control propaganda, which has been carried on for so many years now, is the greatest possible mistake.
462
I have just come from Canada. In Canada—and those who know that Dominion will agree with this—their overhead charges are so great that they cannot pay their way. The railways cannot pay their way because they are fitted for 25,000,000 people and there are only about 10,000,000. If they had a greater population the railways would pay and their industries would pay. A leading railway man said to me: "What we want is 10,000,000 more Britishers here." When I was speaking at the Press Conference at Toronto this summer a speaker said they wanted to bring more American money into Canada and make Canada a playground. I burned with indignation at the idea that our great Dominion of Canada should be turned into a playground for the United States. So I stood up and put the other side. I said: "What you want are 10,000,000 more Britishers." I am glad to say I got a rousing cheer.
The great danger is that the Empire may not remain British. In Edmonton thirty languages are spoken. I do not want to prevent people coming in from other nations but we must not have the Empire swamped by foreigners. Of course there are enormous difficulties. My old host in Australia, who spoke before me and gave me such a kind reception, will remember the labour position. Men who had £4 10s. wages were mortally afraid of more people corning in to lower the standard of wages. Mr. Lang, who was then in power, said to me: "We want no more interference from another island ten thousand miles away." I asked him: "Who keeps you safe day and night from the Japanese Fleet?" He had no answer to give. There is that strong labour position. Even in New Zealand, where you get such a wonderfully cordial reception, a man said something to me which was rather disquieting. I had been speaking about their great open spaces and he replied: "Are there no open spaces in England? What about the great parks of your noblemen? Are they all filled up? "Another man said that they had a very nice bit of the world's surface and meant to keep it to themselves. In 1881 when a woman went out with her family to Australia she was hissed in the streets and told that they had quite enough people already. Therefore there is the double difficulty of the fear of wages going down

463
and the feeling that, having a nice place, they do not want any more people in it.
There is a further difficulty that there is a certain amount of unemployment although it is very small as compared with unemployment in England. What is still worse is the want of markets. As my train left Melbourne they shouted after me: "We will have your people if you will have our plums" I had been round the irrigated land. The more you irrigate the land the more fruitful it becomes; but who is to buy the fruit? That is an important point to realise. There are two more difficulties I want to mention before I make an appeal to the Government. There is the steady opposition at present of the Dominions to taking more people. Of course we cannot do anything about that. They are self governing, and they are suffering from misfits in the past. It was distressing to see in Canada in 1907 the notice: "No Englishman need apply." That is the result of sending out the wrong people. We are suffering now from what has happened in the past and from the wicked system of steamship companies dumping people of all sorts into Canada.
The appeal I would make to the Government is for a more sympathetic attitude. I had a two-hour interview with the Minister for Migration in Australia—a very good man—and he said: "You must realise, Bishop, that development of the country must go hand in hand with migration." Of course that is so. It is no good having a lot of people unless you develop the land. What I cannot help feeling is that we are spending about £100,000,000 on keeping people alive in England and that part of that sum might well be devoted to giving them a happy life overseas. In Canada, New Zealand and Australia, I met a number of people who, when I asked if they would go back to England, replied: "Oh, we would like to see the old place again but we would not go back to stay." I have sent thirty-five nephews and nieces to Canada and four to Australia, and I think we all ought to send our young people out in the spirit of adventure. If the representatives of the Home Government and the Dominion Governments would talk the whole matter over, they might find a way of spending money in developing the country and getting people settled in the Dominions. I hope the Government
464
will approach this question in a more hopeful spirit in order to make the Empire more than ever the brightest jewel of the British Crown.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I listened with keen attention to the speech made by the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of this Bill here and also to the speech of the Secretary of State for the Dominions in another place. We are all familiar with the great difficulty when approaching this problem of avoiding attaching one's remarks to any particular Dominon; but it is very difficult to get any view which is general to all the Dominions. Your Lordships will be familiar with the Report issued by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Migration Policy and with other reports which have been issued by various bodies since. There is no lack of recognition of the importance of this problem. It is fortunate that the present Secretary of State for the Dominions has himself made a world tour and that the Under-Secretary has recently paid a visit to two of the leading Dominions. The Government, therefore, have access to full information as to the current position.
I think there is little in the speech of the noble Earl with which one could disagree, but it seemed to me to display a lack of imagination and a lack of realisation of the widespread and intense feeling that here is a problem that demands immediate close examination by the Government. I regret that the opportunity was not seized to give to your Lordships some encouragement to believe and hope that the Government are going to address themselves more energetically to this problem. I also regret that the proposals include a suggestion to reduce the amount of the Vote. On that point, however, it would be not easy to say for what purpose we should keep on the Estimates an amount which in no circumstances, as the mover has said, could possibly be used even in a peak year of emigration; and he gave the additional safeguard that in the event of further sums being needed the Government would undertake to make the necessary provision. But at the moment when this question of the redistribution of the white population of the Empire is receiving so wide an attention, is it not a little unfortunate that the Government should give opportunity to the Press throughout the world to suggest that the British Government, in a counsel of despair, are ad-

465
mitting that there is no hope of employing so meagre a sum as £2,000,000 sterling for this purpose? The figures are immaterial; the principle is the thing to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Marley, for suggesting that the scope of the debate might with profit be enlarged. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we are fortunate in the intervention of the noble Lord, a former Governor of Australia, who spoke with great authority and knowledge particularly with regard to Australia, with which he is so well fitted to deal. The right reverend Prelate who intervened just now drew attention to Canada. He reminded your Lordships of what you have all heard, those of you who travel: how much the financial stability of Canada requires additional population. Look at the railroad system, which was built for twice the population that uses it to-day. I lived in the United States for the greater part of six or eight years before the War; I lived on the Eastern seaboard, and saw the inflow, ship after ship, and realised what immigration meant. Your Lord ships will remember that the average figures for the four years before the War were between 800,000 and 900,000 immigrants a year into the United States. Can it be denied that this immense inflow gave a tremendous impetus to the plant expansion which was required for the service of so rapidly growing a population, in addition to the enormous growth of prosperity which it brought to the population?
You know how rapidly the population of the United States grows now. I mention this because it has been suggested by the noble Lord opposite that the territory of Australia, for instance, is greater than that of the United States, and he was very rightly reminded by the noble Lord the former Governor-General of Australia that if you apply the same rainfall area to Australia as you have in the reasonably populated parts of the United States, it is only equivalent to one-third and not to three-thirds. Therefore in the United States and in Canada we see, as in Australia, how great would be the development of secondary production if one could assist the inflow of immigrants. That is a point which needs to be emphasised. To-day emigration contemplates not only primary production
466
but more particularly secondary production, the development of which ensures the consumption of primary produce. If one remembers that in Australia to-day about two out of every three head of cattle and three out of every five head of sheep which are killed in Australia are consumed locally, one realises the intensity of that problem. But I return to the United States. That great inflow of population into the United States to-day means that if you deduct deaths from births, emigration from immigration, you have a net increase of one every thirty-seven seconds. That Continent to begin with obviously had a small population, but it has grown.
The question of defence is one which comes very properly into this debate. Surely the defence value of the people of the Dominions is obvious. One should always remember, also, that Britishers oversea are bigger potential consumers than if they remained in the United Kingdom, because in most of the Dominions the standard of living is higher. Reference has also been made to the demand from other nations for a bigger proportion under their jurisdiction of the more thinly settled parts of the world. That demand is not absent from the minds of those who feel that this question is emphatically one which needs to be dealt with, and I refer to the hope that there will be less lack of imagination in the Government.
Let us just think for a moment of the question of cost. It is always said that schemes that have been attempted in the past have been failures, have been costly, and that no attempt ought to be made to repeat them. I turned up to-day, as nearly as I could find it, the amount which this country has spent in the distribution of unemployment relief benefits under the contributory scheme—in more homely language, what we have paid in the last eight years to enable people to do nothing. The figures which I was given, and which I think are approximately accurate, amount to over £600,000,000 since 1928, to say nothing of what we spent before. It is hard to believe that Imperial statesmanship could not have devised some means of providing that some of the inescapable developments which have taken place in our Colonial Empire should absorb some of the people who have received that money. It must be admitted that the money spent in the

467
United Kingdom on the "dole" all goes into circulation and is spent in various ways to the advantage of this country, but if one regards the Empire as one family one realises that, to take shipping services alone, the carriage of emigrants would materially contribute to lessening unemployment in the shipping industry.
I should like the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill to give, if he can, some indication of whether there is any current examination of the possibility of compounding and making transferable to the different British Dominions where social service legislation already exists the benefits which have accrued, or ought to accrue, to those who have paid contributions under the social service schemes in this country. It is perfectly obvious that unless and until some provision is made for the transfer of the individual with retention of the benefits which accrue from the payments that are made, the inclination of people of the right kind to emigrate will be slowed down unless they can be positively assured of their living in the Dominion of their choice.
In speaking of Canada there is a point which is puzzling that was relatively small. A part of the capital available for the development of industry in Canada has been provided by the United Kingdom. I do not refer to transportation—the railroads, which are so lavish—but in industry itself it would seem that the fact that so large a part of the activities of Canada are carried on by capital provided outside the Empire is a thing which deserves attention. We see appeals for capital for industrial purposes regularly in South Africa. They come rarely from Australia or New Zealand, but that question of Canada is something it is difficult to understand. Perhaps the freer investment of British funds in the Dominions would help. Mr. Bruce has already called attention to that on more than one occasion and has emphasised how important it is.
Of the various industries the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven, referred to the primary productions in Australia. We realise, as is frequently said, that Australia travels on a sheep's back. We can see that the sheep population of Australia to-day is above where it was in 1891 but the wool production is just
468
about doubled. The moral to be drawn from that is that increased and improved husbandry can increase the value of land. The same applies to a larger part of the territory of Australia where, by planned improvement, that is the improvement of herbage and much denser sheep or cattle, population can be carried, and that is the real point of closer settlement. Closer land settlement will come best from the Australian authorities rather than from those abroad. The secondary industries would be better developed by immigrants from this country. I realise that in the case of Australia the big pastoral companies, which represent so large an amount of British capital, have done a great deal in the development of Australia. It seems unfortunate that when there is this machinery of the big pastoral companies, more imagination could not have been used by those directing such funds to collaborate and take a part in this closer settlement. They have access to information, they have the staffs with knowledge and they have the past records and experience. It would have seemed that if instead of working individually they could have studied the collective interests of the Empire they could, without any great sacrifice on their part, have shown the Dominion Governments and the United Kingdom Government what could be done to develop more rapidly what is agreed to be of so much importance.
Remembering that in the case of Australia initiation must come from the States, endorsements must be given by the Federal Governments and a conference mist take place with the Imperial Government, it will be realised that the machinery is very complicated. There are all sorts of by-roads which may be used and give reason for neglect of doing anything, but it is to be hoped that the Government will not take cover in these various by-roads. Would it not be possible to apply to Empire migration the principle of private enterprise? By that I mean that private gain would not be excluded. It is right to assume that some machinery could be used which would be based on private enterprise. I am loth to suggest as examples the great chartered companies and corporations which in the past received grants and subsidies or concessions, but they were al based on the idea of personal gain. Is it wrong that the same thing should

469
be applied to Empire migration? In each Dominion there could be some corporation which would charge itself under privileged conditions with the problem of the redistribution of the population as regards that Dominion. I know that proper safeguards would be required and they would be accepted—safeguards that not more than a certain amount of profit should be made. It is often suggested: "Oh, but such an idea of private enterprise could not be allowed"; but is there very much difference between the composure and resignation of the moment to the generous current profits on armaments—profits conceded to individual shareholders out of the necessities of the nation—and the fact that private profits might be made by those who assisted, under proper safeguards I repeat, in the proper redistribution and migration of population? The Overseas Settlement Board has been an official recommendation of various Committees that have sat. The various recommendations of that Board cover a very large part of the ground. There has been no lack of examination of the problem.
In conclusion I would again appeal to the Government to recognise that there is this widespread interest in the need of something being done. To suggest nothing more than is suggested in this Bill seems to be an implied admission of failure. If one compares the figures quoted and the object with the lavish generosity and resolution of the current armaments problem, one would think that more could be suggested. What better rearmament than a flash throughout the world that Britain's intensified development of her family and her Imperial possessions is determined on? We have the intense patriotism of the Dominion leaders, we have the loyalty to the Throne, we have for instance in New Zealand, where there is a Labour Government for the first time, the fervent faith of Mr. Savage in the Empire heritage. Surely we want to refute the suggestion that there is no desire to emigrate. There is still a spirit of adventure, adventure in business and in emigration. That is what we must maintain, and because of that I am willing to hope that His Majesty's Government will realise that an opportunity still exists for acting on the clear suggestion of my noble friend the former Governor-General of Australia, that there is time between now and the
470
assembly here of so many Dominion authorities in connection with the Coronation, for something really to be done.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, on this occasion at any rate my sins have been those of omission rather than of commission, because apparently I did not make clear to some of your Lordships matters that have been raised by other noble Lords during the debate. May I set at rest at any rate the fears expressed by more than one speaker that nothing is being done in this matter? The Overseas Settlement Board has the problem under the most serious consideration and is examining every aspect of it. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are at any rate doing all they can at this end.
That brings me to the point I desire to make. I was amazed to find that in almost every speech, with the exception of that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, this matter was treated as if it were one for the Government in the United Kingdom. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. Everybody in this House knows that His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions are the people who are responsible. It is no good our shipping the best of our people off to the far ends of the earth, only to find that when they arrive in Australia or New Zealand or other parts of the Empire they are not admitted. The reason was given by the Bishop of London when he said that at any rate a good deal of the opposition arises from the fact that there is already a certain amount of unemployment in the Dominions, and the trade unions in particular are anxious that their wages, which are extremely high, should not be under-cut by the existence of a surplus of labour. That does not mean that the Governments there do not realise the necessity for emigration, still less does it mean that His Majesty's Government in this country do not. It is quite clear that there is a danger to the Empire by having wide open spaces with so thin a population. That is a matter which we are taking up, and have been taking up, with the Dominions consistently, but it is for them to say when the moment has arrived when they can take more people without increasing their unemployment and the difficulties which exist there. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, referred to the amount spent on unemployment

471
pay in this country, but if you put a man on board ship and send him to Australia, he does not thereby become employed. He may equally be unemployed when he arrives in Australia.
That brings me to the question of markets. The whole of this question of the re-allocation of the population of the Empire is so immense that in view of other matters coming before your Lordships I must be brief. But if we could extend the markets between this country and the Dominions, and still more between the Dominions and this country, we should go a long way towards solving that problem. But the problem is not quite so simple as that. Noble Lords know—those who are interested in agriculture know it only too well—that the amount of produce sent to the home country from the Dominions has increased by an enormous tonnage and percentage during the last few years, largely as a result of the Ottawa Agreements. The question of markets has to be very carefully watched. If a flood of produce comes to this country greater than we can consume, down goes the price, and not only does the home producer suffer, but so also does the producer in the Dominions. And that is, in fact, what has largely happened. One of the reasons why there has been unemployment and difficulty in the Dominions is that the cost of primary products has fallen so materially in the past few years. That is beginning to right itself, and prosperity is beginning to reappear in the Dominions, as it is here. There is a bigger consumption, and therefore a bigger market, both here and in the Dominions.
That of course reacts on the secondary industries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven, referred, and the Government in this country have more than once stated their cordial agreement with the view that to strengthen the Dominions it is essential not only to get population there and to employ that population on primary products, but also largely to increase their secondary industries as well. One of the difficulties with regard to increasing the population of the Dominions is the improved methods of agriculture, which have enabled a much larger production to be made on the same acreage, and unfortunately with less labour than was previously required. Therefore you
472
are faced with the difficulty of a steadily rising amount of primary products, and a smaller number of men being required to produce them. That reacts on the secondary industries, as the smaller number of producers require less of the products of the secondary industries. Thus, the question of markets enters into this matter very closely and largely complicates the question.
I have briefly indicated some of the difficulties. It does not mean that we think they are insuperable, it does not mean that the Government are not extremely anxious to get a better distribution of the population, or that we are any less keen than members of your Lordships' House in pushing forward emigration to the utmost possible extent compatible with the benefit of the individual as, well as of the country to which he goes. I should like to question a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, who suggested that we ought to show much more energy in pressing young people to go out.
LORD MARLEY: No.
EARL STANHOPE: I have got a note that the Government do not press young people as much as they ought to do.
LORD MARLEY: I did not say that. What I said was that we must not press them to go out, but we must make it possible and easy for them to go out if they want to do so.
EARL STANHOPE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I have been connected with an emigration society for a great many years, and what we have done consistently is rather to emphasise the hardness of conditions in the Dominions, and to tell young people that if they go there they will have to put their backs into it and work extremely hard. We have thus tried to eliminate those who are not really keen and suitable, and the proof of the practice is that we have had very few failures. We have sent them out to Canada and to other parts of the Empire and, with very few exceptions, they have done extremely well. We are proud of them and we think that is the right method. We have sent only the best and most suitable emigrants, and if the best only are sent, you get rid of the cry referred to by the Bishop of London, who said that notices were put up stating that no Englishman need apply.

473
That brings me to the question of emigrants from Eastern Europe, raised by Lord Marley. This raises an extraordinarily difficult question, particularly in regard to Australia and Nov Zealand, where, as the noble Lord knows, the standard of living is very high, and where they are very sensitive to the danger of its being lowered by people coming in who have been accustomed to much lower wages than have long prevailed in those two Dominions. Also, I think most of us would agree that, so far as possible, the more we can keep the Dominions British by sending out a big proportion of British subjects, rather than the subjects of other countries, the better it will be for the Empire, and probably for the general security of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, asked a question as regards the compounding of social service schemes. I may tell him that for some time the contributory widows' and orphans' and old age pensions scheme has been carried overseas to other parts of the Empire, but as regards other schemes there are so many differences in the social schemes in force in different parts of the Dominions that so far it has not been found possible to do anything of the kind. The noble Lord realises that the contributions as a rule do not amount to a very great deal, because, speaking generally, they are mostly young people who go out to the Dominions, and therefore the number of contributions they would have made would not be very great. Thus the amount that would be taken by them to the Dominions in support of any social scheme would obviously not be a very large one.
LORD BARNBY: Among those who migrate would be men of the artisan class who are the kind of skilled workers who would be needed in Canada and the other Dominions if we were to send out workers for secondary industries and use them as consumers of primary products in their new country. Unless they have some means of maintaining the advantage which should accrue to them in the way of benefits for contributions they have made, they would be more reluctant to migrate, and it all depends on the development of the social services organisation in the Dominions. That is why I would like to know whether there has been any attempt to arrange for an interdepartmental examination of this question.
EARL STANHOPE: So far it has only been found possible in respect of contributory old age pensions. That, I think the noble Lord will agree, is what a man would think about most. He is, at any rate, justified in thinking he will not require anything to cover him in respect of unemployment, because he will hope to be employed permanently and without intermission overseas. I am glad to find that every noble Lord here warmly approves of this Bill so far as it goes. What happened in another place was rather the opposite. There the Government were being criticised for spending Government time in bringing in a Bill of this character at this time. A great deal of criticism was directed at my right honourable friend from that point of view, and I am glad to find it is not shared in your Lordships' House. It only goes to show once again how much superior this House is to another place.
LORD STONEHAVEN: May I ask whether there is any prospect of this matter being taken up energetically at the Imperial Conference and if adequate preparations are being made for it?
EARL STANHOPE: The whole matter is being gone into very thoroughly. I am not able to say whether it is one of the many matters down for discussion fully. I know it is one of the subjects down for consideration, but whether it is one of the main subjects I cannot at the moment say.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Debate again resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, made by Lord Arnold on Wednesday last, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to British foreign policy and to the need for a change therein which will bring it more into accord with the realities of the existing situation.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, I think it will be universally admitted in your Lordships' House that this debate has aroused the greatest possible interest and has been sustained by a series of speeches of quite remarkable brilliance. The few remarks I should like permission to address to the House will be, I hope, of a very definitely constructive character. Therefore, I do not want to take up too much time in passing observations on the speeches already made. But I should like to join in the tributes which have been paid to the noble Lord who opened our discussion for a speech which appeared to me, at any rate, to be one of the most lucid and remarkable I have been privileged to hear in your Lordships' House. I only wish that the constructive character of that speech had been as remarkable as the lucidity with which he expressed his point of view. I cannot help but feel that speech after speech that has been delivered in this debate has been of a negative kind, and that had there been present in this House, or reading our debates, some representative of a nation which might have been considering aggression, that representative would have derived great hope and satisfaction from the course of the debate in your Lordships' House.
Speech after speech was delivered which proved that this country, at any rate as expressed in the points of view represented in this House, had very little to say by way of opposition to any potential aggression which might take place in Europe. That was confirmed, unhappily, by observations made in a speech otherwise remarkable and inspiring by the noble Viscount who leads this House, at Southampton, confirmed also by the Prime Minister himself in speaking in the debate on Defence in another place, in which both of them underlined—I think not altogether discreetly—that anyhow until our rearmament was complete, our use of that rearmament for the purpose of repressing aggression would not be very likely to take place in certain areas. I feel that to announce in advance your intention not to use your armaments, and to confess to the weakness of your armaments, must be very encouraging to certain nations at the present moment, having regard to the condition of Europe.
With regard to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Lothian, he delivered
476
as he always does a delightful and eloquent discourse on the question of sovereignty. Over and over again he has pointed out in this House and elsewhere that national sovereignty is a great impediment to the organisation of peace, and he told us that there were twenty-six nations in Europe operating under that national sovereignty. Who denies it? We all know perfectly well that national sovereignty is an impediment. I waited and waited to hear from the noble Marquess his constructive proposals as to how, in the year 1937, we were, notwithstanding that disadvantage, to promote the peace of Europe, and I am bound to confess that the more I listened to his delightfully phrased and charming speech the more confused intellectually I became. I understand my noble friend is in favour of what is described by himself as a procedure of non-intervention, and he referred to America. He then proceeded to ask us to honour our obligations under Locarno. How you are to maintain a procedure of non-intervention and to honour your obligations under Locarno certainly passes my comprehension, and I think it will pass the comprehension of some of the countries in Europe.
My noble friend then went on to make a most startling remark. He said that in his judgment it was the economic frontiers of Europe which were the dangers to-day, and that there were nations which were prepared to go to war with regard to economic frontiers but not to go to war with regard to political frontiers. A remark more in entire contradiction of the atmosphere of nationalism in Europe I can hardly imagine. If there is one thing outstanding to-day it is this, not that economic frontiers are not difficult and are causing confusion, but that in Europe the spirit of nationalism and nationalist ambitions with regard to political frontiers have never been a more outstanding characteristic than at the present moment. I am therefore bound to confess that the speech of my noble friend both confused me and charmed me as all his speeches in recent times have done.
So far as the speech of my noble friend Lord Arnold is concerned, I do not want to enter into disputation with him as to whether it is possible for this nation to be armed and to go into isolation and remain free from the entanglements of

477
Europe. That speech has been dealt with by subsequent speakers. I would point out to my noble friend that in his opening remarks he made it clear that he did not propose to discuss pacifism. Had he done so perhaps he might have had a stronger case for isolation, but to say, as he did say, that it was permissible to fight in defence of this country or to go into isolation fully armed, in my judgment is to invite an armaments race which in due course can only contribute to the factors that make for war. If nations are allowed to remain armed and each is to go into isolation, that can only result in an armaments race, each nation resorting to armaments for the purpose of its own security, and nations arming one against the other will ultimately lead to the position constantly described by Lord Lothian. The volume and momentum of scientific armaments in the world to-day will itself overturn all your efforts at conciliation, and when the order for mobilisation is given that order for mobilisation will make all attempts at the preservation of peace completely impossible. As I listened to my noble friend's speech I could not help feeling that whatever else he had done he had made no contribution whatever to the two objectives for which foreign policy stands, or should stand, the objective of the prevention of war and the objective of the reduction of the amount and the danger of armaments. On neither of those two subjects had he any contribution of any kind to make.
Now may I be permitted to address to the noble Viscount who is to reply a few questions which I hope are not indiscreet—if they are I am sure he will not reply to them—and to offer a few constructive suggestions? May I first of all say this? I feel that one has no right whatever to make a speech on foreign policy, at the present moment, unless one is prepared to state one's point of view with regard to the Government's rearmament proposals. I want to say quite frankly and without any qualification whatever that I support the rearmament proposals of His Majesty's Government. I regret that the pacifist policy has not been adopted. I know perfectly well that there is no prospect whatever of pacifism being adopted as a political policy in the immediate future so far as this or any other country is concerned. In those circumstances I venture to think
478
that, whatever we may feel about the past and however we may believe that the present rearmament might have been avoided, we are compelled in the name of peace to support the rearmament proposals of His Majesty's Government. I believe that it is absolutely useless continually discussing the mistakes of the past. If you wish to make peace you have to take the position as it is year by year, and under the conditions of to-day I believe the rearmament of this country will make not for disorder but for the pacification of Europe.
I believe it is impossible to read with any care either the newspapers of other countries or the speeches that are made by their statesmen without knowing perfectly well that the decision of this country at this moment to rearm, and to rearm in a startlingly dramatic fashion, has brought confidence to some of the smaller countries of Europe, and may indeed introduce an element of some caution into the policies of dictatorial countries which have tended to become increasingly irresponsible. I believe, even judged from an economic point of view, when those nations come to compare their economic resources with our own, and when it is realised how the value of the raw materials which are necessary to rearmament may rise under the rearmament of this country, that even this realisation may contribute an element of caution, leading possibly to a restraint in armaments which would not otherwise have occurred. I feel I should not be honest in making such comments as I have to make on foreign policy unless I were to say that perfectly frankly with regard to the subject of rearmament.
Now as I understand the position of the Government it is this. They believe in the League of Nations. I read with the greatest interest the speech of the noble Viscount at Southampton and I read also the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth. I personally understand the position of the Government to be this: We believe in the League; we believe even that it may be necessary under that League that armed force should be used; but our opinion is that the League at the present moment has become weak; it may become strong; its membership is less complete than it was, and we do not believe that in those circumstances we can place upon the back of the League the responsibility that we

479
would like to have placed upon it, and that we hope one day we may be able to place upon it. That I understand is the frank position of the Government now. I accept that position. I do not happen to share it, but I fully understand it. If, therefore, whilst we are rearming, it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to reconstruct the League, to rebuild it so that it may later on become powerful enough to carry the responsibilities that we desire to place upon it, what is the policy of His Majesty's Government so far as rebuilding the League is concerned?
Here I would like to address a direct question to the noble Viscount if he would be gracious enough to consider whether he can respond to it when he replies. The first attempt of the Government in the course of rebuilding the League is to create, as I understand from the speeches of the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, what is called a system of regional pacts. That has been made quite plain. I want to question that method. I can perfectly well understand a system of regional pacts, but what I cannot understand is one pact. I can quite understand that if in Europe to-day the Covenant of the League applied and if the League was respected and was strong, it would be possible by means of a system of regional pacts to underpin the League, to strengthen it in certain areas. But that is not the position, and I cannot understand how His Majesty's Government imagine that by the creation of one regional pact, not by the creation of a system, they are going to rebuild the League. You could underpin it, but you cannot rebuild it. Indeed I will go so far as to say that the creation of one pact at the present moment might even lead to insecurity in Europe instead of security.
To me the meaning of the regional pact is this. You find an area within which two conditions apply. The first of those conditions is that the nations composing that region have amongst themselves the will to peace. The second of the two conditions is that within that region there is a capacity for preponderant power against any one nation in that region that may possibly become an aggressor. It is possible that in Western Europe you may have an area—like Mr. Eden, I
480
say "may" advisedly—in which it could be said there is the will to peace, a very doubtful proposition but one which I can understand. You may even have an area in which it is possible to say that there could be preponderent power against any aggressor which may desire to break the law. But in what other area of Europe does any similar region exist? Does anyone believe that in Eastern Europe or South-Eastern Europe there is at the present time the remotest possibility of a pact in which there is the will to peace or preponderent power against a potential aggressor? If that is not the case all that would happen unless we are extremely wise would be, by making one pact which we have not yet created but which we might possibly get in the West, we should bring security to the West but disorder and insecurity to the East. I cannot for the life of me understand how it is expected that you are going to rebuild the strength of the League by means of creating, not a system of regional pacts, but one pact.
I think both Mr. Eden and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it abundantly clear that you cannot divide Europe in this way, and I venture to ask permission to read the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own words. He said:
"… you cannot divide peace in Europe. Under the League we are interested just as much in the preservation of peace in the East of Europe as we are in the West, and our obligations under the League will apply equally whether aggression takes place in the Eastern or Western parts of Europe."
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said:
"We must neither mislead others nor be misled ourselves by any of those comfortable doctrines that we can live secure in a Western European glass-house."
Therefore I put it to my noble friend that under the conditions of Europe to-day if the policy of His Majesty's Government is to rebuild the League through a regional pact and not regional pacts there is very little prospect of the League being rebuilt.
The other difficulty of regional pacts is that a regional pact may possibly create strength but it cannot achieve the one objective which Europe requires at the present moment, that is, the remedying of grievances. You cannot remedy grievances by means of a regional pact. The noble Viscount will be perfectly

481
entitled to turn to me now and say: "Then what is the way of rebuilding the League in order that it may be strong enough to carry those burdens that we feel ought ultimately to be placed on it?" I will put it in as few sentences as I can. I believe that we have had in this debate, and that we have in general far too much discussion of the League of Nations as an instrument of force and far too little discussion of the League of Nations as an instrument of justice. I suggest for the moment that our primary need is not for further amplification of what we will fight for and where we will fight, but for a much more precise and definite invitation than any we have yet made to Germany to join in the discussion of her grievances and to negotiate a new settlement for Europe. We have never yet approached Germany in the right way. We have never approached her with a friendly, frank, public invitation to join in a discussion of all her grievances and to come to the conference table on a basis of absolute equality. That is the only way of being fair to Germany and clearing the road for the protection of peace. By that means we can either relieve the tension in Europe or prove who is on the side of peace and who is determined for war.
It is by making clear our intention to use the League as a means of promoting justice that we can justify our determination to give it precision as an instrument of force. I am quite convinced that the noble Viscount will now turn round and ask: "Is not that exactly what we are attempting to do? Are we not attempting to negotiate with Germany? Are we not attempting to create a situation under which a general settlement for Europe can be come to?" I am sure that is the intention of the Government. I only say that the procedure is open to criticism. Every invitation extended so far to Germany has been an invitation which has arisen either out of some isolated crisis or out of some isolated subject or in some isolated geographical area. Germany occupied the Rhineland. Instantly out of that isolated crisis we proceeded to try to patch and then to negotiate a general settlement. Failure resulted, or has done so until this time. Why? Because the approach to Germany is psychologically wrong. It arises out of crises where her dignity and past memories are involved. There is no starting point of equality.
482
Then we try to negotiate out of some separate subject such as raw materials. We know that Germany says she has a grievance with regard to raw materials, and so we set up a Commission under League auspices to go into the question of access to raw materials. What happens? Germany declines. She will not come into the discussion. And why? First, because the Commission is set up under the auspices of the very League with which she is in disagreement, and secondly, because the subject was being dealt with in isolation. It does not necessarily deal with Colonies at all, and Germany is not coming into a discussion—I am not saying whether she is right or whether she is wrong, I am only trying to state facts—which deals with some separate subject and does not deal with the inter-relations of one subject with another.
Now comes the question of Colonies, and I hope when I am dealing with that that my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth will not think me too critical. I can imagine nothing more disastrous in Europe to-day than that this nation and Germany should become locked either in short distance or long distance discussion separately upon Colonies. I read the speech of the German Ambassador, who seems to negotiate in this country at one moment and make political utterances in Germany the next, and I read the speech of my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth in reply to the Motion of Lord Noel-Buxton with the greatest interest. I cannot conceive any speech more likely to contribute to ill-feeling in Europe at the present moment than the non possumus position taken up by my noble friend in that reply. When dealing with the question of Mandates the noble Earl went so far as to say—I have his words here:
"Instead of the work being done by a few distinguished gentlemen of long experience, such as my noble friend Lord Lugard and his successor, Lord Hadley, who are prepared to devote a few weeks during each year, it would … require the organisation of a large international staff in constant employment throughout the year."
Why not, my Lords? Is it to be our argument at this moment, with Europe in its present dangerous psychological state, that the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, or his successor cannot give more than a few weeks every year to the organisation of peace, but that we can spend £1,500,000,000 on rearmament? When

483
it is asked that Colonial administrators should give a whole year instead of a few weeks to a task my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth says that that sort of thing is administratively undesirable!
I do put it to the Government that they will never achieve the foundations upon which a settlement can come unless Germany is approached with an invitation which covers all subjects and which starts for the first time since the War from the standpoint of absolute equality. I am not asking, as the honourable member Mr. Grenfell asked in another place, for an unwieldy world conference. I do not believe an unwieldy world conference is wanted at the moment. We have had far too many such conferences. What we want is not an unwieldy world conference but a general invitation to Germany frankly including every point. And then, when that invitation has been issued—and accepted, as I hope—you can create for the purpose of examining each one of these technical subjects—raw materials, disputed territories, Colonies—Commissions of a more expert character, and those Commissions can in due course ascertain the facts and report back to the diplomatists. Then it will perhaps be possible to bring together some kind of peace conference which shall take the place of the war conference of Versailles under whose ægis we are still living.
I hope I have not taken up too much time in trying to plead for this constructive approach to the psychological difficulties of Europe at the present moment. I cannot believe that what we need now is an over-emphasis of the discussion of the League of Nations as an instrument of force and an under-estimate of what might come to Europe if only we could reach into the heart of nations which, rightly or wrongly, think they have grievances. Unless that is done we make no headway. On the question of Colonies, we use arguments of the most unhappy character. We proceed to point out that the Colonies are of no value to anybody, either from the population point of view or from the trade point of view, and, having pointed out that Colonies are of no value, we then proceed to make it most emphatically clear that we will keep all that we ourselves possess. We go further than that. Lord Stonehaven made a speech which I felt was one of the most
484
helpful speeches in the debate that took place a little while ago. He said many things which I thought were wise, but one thing in which I could not agree with him. He said—I hope I am not misinterpreting him—"We cannot consider the readjustment of Colonies, because of their strategic value." How much longer do we expect to go on occupying Gibraltar, occupying Malta, perhaps quite rightly, for strategic purposes; keeping Colonies that were once Germany's for their strategic value and then turning to the Germans at the present moment and saying that for strategic reasons they cannot have any adjustment of the situation? Unless we can reach some kind of technique which will either reveal what Germany intends or do her justice, I see no hope whatever of rebuilding the League in Europe.
I know it is usually thought that you must not have world invitations and you must not have world conferences until you have explored the position diplomatically. I have been in some of these discussions. You must find your agreement before your invitation is issued. I understand that rather more discreet and private diplomacy, but I do not agree with it. But to say that you believe in the international diplomatic exchange of more discreet persons than politicians finding your measure of agreement, and then let them make these speeches from the housetop from nation to nation, seems to me an absolute contradiction of the very technique which the Government say they desire to employ. But I do not believe that that is the way to the heart of Germany to-day. I believe that the technique of cautious diplomacy and of this subtle handling of countries is wrong, and I beg the Government to consider whether the tension in Europe to-day may not require a bolder initiative. The taking of the risk of making a public and more generous approach to the nations defeated in the last War has, I submit, been too long delayed. I have not asked that Britain should be weak. I have supported the Government's point of view so far as rearmament is concerned. I only ask that we should confound and outwit ambitions that may be unjust by offering the same justice as we claim for ourselves and for our own country. In Europe to-day the spirit of understanding might prove a more formidable check to

485
the aggressor than the piling of commitment upon commitment to resist his aggression. I earnestly hope that the noble Viscount, when he replies, may be gracious enough at least to say something on that side of the approach to a new settlement for Europe.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down always commands more than attention and respect for the depth and courage of his convictions and the lucidity of his utterances, but in the multiplicity of subjects which this debate opens he will forgive me if I do not follow him. I should like, however, to say how warmly I agree with what he said about the force and cogency of the speech of Lord Arnold in opening this debate, a speech with which in many respects I and other Conservatives have the greatest agreement. At the same time I cannot follow him in his proposal that we should immediately drop the understanding that we have with France. In the first place, that will mean abandoning Belgium. I do not see how it can be otherwise, because we alone, in the circumstances that we may have in mind if Belgium were attacked, could not save Belgium entirely. For that reason I could not follow him even if it were that alone. But I think it is not that alone. I believe that the French understanding at the moment is in fact a great guarantee for the preservation of peace, even with the complication of the Franco-Russian Pact.
Suppose, at its worst, that the Franco-Rusian Pact were in full play and a war broke out between Germany on the one hand and France and Russia on the other. I know it was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, that in that event the Germans would concentrate all their force, according to the dictum of their military advisers, on the Western front and attack France. My Lords, I find it almost incredible that they should do so. The Schlieffen plan, which involved the violation of Belgium and the attack upon France, brought ruin to Germany last time, just as the Plan 17 of the French very nearly brought ruin to France. If it is possible to learn any lesson of strategy in history, it will be that neither country will repeat those mistakes. Even if France were alone on the West, I believe the attempt to attack her in that way would be subject to the
486
gravest risks. But why should the Germans, in the conditions about which we are thinking, take a step that would immediately bring a new enemy against them—namely, ourselves? I think many strategists are of the opinion that last time, if the Germans had been on the defensive in the West and had attacked Russian Poland in the East, they could have done all that their ambitions desired, and that is what their own interest, if no other reason, will dictate to them again. Indeed, you may take it the other way: that by our agreement with France the French in turn will not make an attack upon Germany, because in that instance we should never help them. I believe and hope that the very pact with France itself sterilises the Western danger-zone from the bacillus of war.
But having said so much, I do not believe that our understanding with France is a thing enshrined, so that no word of hostile criticism or even of friendly criticism by one country of the other should be allowed. Neither do I believe that it is something which needs continual reaffirmation or needs buoying up with the flowers of rhetoric. I have constantly seen expressions of this kind—"the two great democracies of the West" and "the twin pillars of Western Europe." I do not know if your Lordships are acquainted with the works of M. Tardieu, but I think that the bracketing of our institutions and theirs is, to say the least, inappropriate. Then, why should criticism be silent? Is the understanding so brittle that we dare not say a word of criticism about France? For example, we have rightly called attention to the contributions to the Civil War in Spain from Germany, Italy and Russia. But from the very first there was a continual stream of volunteers through, and from, France—it has been going on the whole time. Because, I suppose, the French Government might not like it, our Press, up till lately, has been strangely silent upon it. The understanding with France was based upon interest, and has been cemented by honour, but it must not bind our freedom, either of criticism or of action beyond its scope, and if it be possible to make such an overture as the last speaker has suggested, to Germany, that can be done, I believe, with perfect loyalty to the obligations we have taken on ourselves.

487
If I turn to Germany, of course no one can deny how difficult the German internal policy makes it for those who wish to be friends with the Germans. It seems to us amazing that a nation can get greater strength from racial discrimination, and when a nation is engaged in a struggle with the Red Revolution it is no less amazing that it should be estranged from the forces of organised religion. Signor Mussolini has done differently. In Italy Jewish officers go to synagogue in uniform, and he has made a pact with the Church which, at any rate, has been a splendid bargain for the State, whatever it may be for the Church. I do not think all this should affect our policy with Germany. Many of us may dislike, intensely dislike, the system in Germany, but many of us dislike even more the system prevailing in Russia, but there is a difference between the two, because the Germans do not seek to propagate their doctrine for use in other countries and to subvert the institutions of other countries. No evidence has reached me at present that there is any subterranean and submarine communication between Berlin and Nuremburg and the headquarters of Sir Oswald Mosley. If such an action could be proved, I might revise my opinion, but at present it appears to me that any agreement we make with Germany can be, and ought to be, done without looking into their internal affairs, and while we think that, do not let us be too particular as to the past.
I agree very largely with what my noble friend Lord Stonehaven said, but I wish he had not brought in that matter of Mein Kampf, because surely a man's past, and far past, may be ignored in a case like this. After all, Germany's frame of mind is the result of terrible sufferings, greater sufferings, I suppose, than any country outside Russia has suffered. I do not know whether any of your Lordships heard the speech of Lord Melchett the other day, in which he pointed out that the economic troubles of the last few years were the final blow that destroyed the attempt at constitutional government in Germany. But that economic distress was by no means the first. There was another and a worse one in 1920–24, when the savings of a lifetime were dissipated in a moment. I am afraid that the Germans have got
488
into the position where they feel they can get nothing by remonstrance, and get nothing unless they take it, and although one wants to say as little as possible about an unhappy man who had a tragic fate, still I believe that the refusal of M. Barthou to make any accommodation on arms in Germany was almost the turning point of whether a successful arrangement or not could be made for many years. All these things we have to remember, and I do trust that we shall not approach that part of this great problem in what I may call any nagging of vindictive spirit.
It is sometimes said that what we have to fear is the danger of war breaking out in the East. It is very difficult to envisage such a war without involving the violation of Poland. Of course, on the map it would be possible for an army to march through Latvia and Lithuania, but the front would be so narrow that they could never effectively deploy. Therefore, Poland is a vital factor in any Eastern obligation, and it is of the first importance that we should do nothing which would drive Poland into the sphere of Russian policy. You may say it is unlikely, but you never know what a Government will do under great o stress and fear. There is that curious Slav mentality which makes it easier for Poles to understand and be mutually understood by the Russians, after all their differences, than it is by the Germans. That is what I think my noble friend Lord Lothian mentioned, but it is too often ignored.
I have little more to say, but are we ready for a general settlement? It seems to me that until we are ready for it, it is of no use to talk of mandated territories and the like, and at the same time the League is far too weak to bear the burden of any such settlement now. I trust that it may be stronger in the future, but to rely on any such settlement through the machinery of the League now is I think, a vain dream. Of course we always have difficulty in talking about foreign affairs because we know only in part, but I cannot help thinking that we have all along been too eager to attempt large general settlements and have not pursued the humbler part of making partial settlements of particular difficulties as we went along. That is why I think the Naval Agreement with Germany was a real piece of successful statesmanship. I trust that other partial agreements may

489
follow upon that, and they can be brought about with perfect loyalty to our obligations to France and Belgium.
I believe at present the danger, or the twin dangers, are fatalism and fear. If a large body of public opinion really believes that war is coming, that is the way to make it come. If every indiscreet speech is broadcast and magnified, if every unfortunate incident is made the most of, that undoubtedly is the way of danger. And equally fear brings about the same danger. I think it was Mr. Burke who said that fear was a greater evil than revenge, and I see indications of a temper which would precipitate the very evil that is apprehended. I have seen strange symptons of an unpleasant disease in the most unlikely places. I do not like to call it by the name of blood-thirst, so I will designate it by the name of philaemic neurosis. I will give two examples of it. One is a very distinguished man, a great supporter of the League of Nations, who lately strongly advocated intervention on the side of the Spanish Government, not the least on the merits of the quarrel, but because he was afraid of Italy. If a policy to consort with Spaniards because you dislike Italians is not the best kind of Bismarckian Realpolitik I really do not know what is; and it was a remarkable suggestion to come from a lifelong peace-loving Liberal. Then there was another case. I observe a gentleman writing to advocate an alliance of ourselves with Russia for the purpose of fighting Japan, Germany and Italy, and this man is a distinguished economist who has long and faithfully written for the Liberal Party.
What we want in all the madness of the world are steady nerves and a strong arm. Both of these, I suggest, are given by rearmament. I do not believe in the theory that guns go off by themselves. I believe on the contrary that you may make (although you cannot prove it) a very strong case that the peace of Europe was maintained for decades by the strength of our Navy and of the German Army, say from the year 1880 to 1911. I trust it may be possible to revive the League and use it to good purpose, but for the moment I am glad to agree with the last speaker that our power alone is the greatest guarantee of peace, and it is on our strength and our wisdom that the future of Europe hangs.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, if any excuse were needed for this long debate, it would be that the subject is infinitely important, and that it is a good thing to have to review our position in these matters from time to time. It is necessary also because the Government, like all Governments, tell us as little as possible about their intentions in the foreign field. And it is necessary from time to time to remind the Government that Parliament itself has some responsibility in these matters. The information that we have been accorded so far has not been extensive, and not particularly reassuring. We have had some amiable references to the League of Nations, but singularly little about well-defined policy for the future. I confess that the debate has depressed me a great deal, because it has shown very little faith in the good will of mankind, and none at all in the possibilities of what we roughly call collective security. We have retreated on insular prejudices, and our main outlook is a preparation for war through rearmament. As I understand what has been said, arms are to secure us peace and so on, and the organisation of international good will is a futile dream that we shall have to abandon. I believe I am right in saying that militarism has failed a thousand times, and yet we have an almost childlike faith in it. On the other hand the League of Nations has not wholly failed. There are a great many things to its credit, and yet everybody almost is ready to denounce it and to renounce it. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his interesting speech, speaking of the League of Nations, said that we were the only people who believed in it.
LORD NEWTON: Well, who else does believe in it?
LORD SNELL: Well, if nobody else does, that shows that we have already the isolation of sanity in the matter. We are to judge international questions, according to that outlook in life, in the terms of our own interests. Japan could do as she liked in Manchuria, cut slices out of the side of China because it was no concern of ours. Abyssinia was to be sacrificed to the white angel of civilising peace on the part of Italy because no interest of ours was touched. Well, that is the authentic voice of Toryism, but it is not to me a voice that we ought to listen to too attentively.

491
The question of rearmament has of necessity loomed large in this debate. The little sum of £400,000,000 has to be accounted for and excused in some way, and we notice that the first results of it have already begun to appear. We reply with armaments, presumably to Germany, to the extent of £400,000,000. Italy immediately replies to us with an amount she has not yet specified. It is obvious that our view as to armaments is not shared by people in other countries. We regard armaments in other countries as provocative and dangerous, and we regard ours as harmless, necessary furnishings in the temple of peace. Well, other nations do not think so. We notice a second result of a fall in the credit of the nation. A fall in securities, a great amount of which is held by working class organisations and friendly societies, is a very severe loss to people in this country who cannot well afford it.
I rose only to try to put in a few words what I conceive to be the policy of the Labour Party for which I speak. We support the armament plan of His Majesty's Government to the extent that it will enable us to fulfil our proportionate obligations in an attempt to secure world peace, provided always—I ask that that should be taken into account—that it is accompanied by a clear-sighted policy of appeasement amongst other nations. We have had no clear explanation from His Majesty's Government as to why this particular degree of armaments has been decided upon, and I want to ask what assurance the Government are able to give us as to the future. Perhaps the noble Viscount will be good enough to tell us in a few minutes. I only register my own opinion that the subject is so immense and so desperately urgent that we ought to make a contribution to the general good will in a large way. Small contributions are of no good at all. John Stuart Mill said:
"Against great ills small remedies do not produce small effects: they produce no effect at all."
That is the position we are in to-day. This new armament race is a great ill, and small remedies will not do what we require. Therefore this expenditure could be justified only if it were associated with remedies equal to the measure of the evils, and we frankly do not see these remedies on that scale.
492
There is something to be said for a policy of complete pacifism. There is something to be said for a policy of isolation. There is something to be said for a more vigorous endeavour, through the League of Nations or in other ways, to organise the good will of mankind. But there is nothing to be said for a lukewarm policy of support of the League of Nations while at the same time piling up armaments and erecting tariff barriers. Something has been said to-day about regional pacts, and some of the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, were valid, but at the same time, whilst the Labour Party would look for a world acceptance of conditions that would secure world peace, it may be that the problem could be approached in detail with some chance of limited success. Some advance might be made. I agree that one regional pact would perhaps be dangerous, but a system of regional pacts where the thing could be specialised might have some advantage. For instance, to illustrate, tale the Pacific. If a regional pact for that area could be arranged, you might have some of the hesitancies, say, of America abolished. She would know her maximum commitments, and that would count for something, with some loose relationship to Geneva, the Pact of Paris, and so on. If the Government have any views on that matter, perhaps the noble Viscount will tell us in a minute or two.
I shall not delay the House long, but I should like to trepass upon its patience to say a word about isolation. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in acting as the apostle of that faith, seemed to me to express an old faith out of which I thought both he and I had grown some time ago. Isolation was possible in the old invasion-proof England. It was possible when we had a system of free trade. But it does not seem to me so attractive after the scientific developments of the last generation and after the experience of the Ottawa Conference. I do not believe there is any particular virtue in isolation as a theory. I do not believe that the monastic life is any better for a nation than I think it to be for an individual. My noble friend was fortunate, or unfortunate, in that he was at once hailed as a new prophet by Lord Beaverbrook. I am quite sure he did not deserve that painful embrace. I have just one other tiny quarrel to settle with him, and that is that he went out of his way to throw

493
bouquets at the Government, and said it had kept us out of war so far. I do not mind throwing a single flower of neighbourly good will to His Majesty's Government, but I like my enthusiasms to be restrained. The Government is quite capable of putting all the beauty spots on itself that it requires.
I would, before I conclude, just say this. Much has, of necessity, been said about Germany. I shall not go into that to-night, but personally I have never been unfriendly to Germany. I owe her teachers far too much to be unmindful of all she has meant in the civilisation of the world. I have never believed that she alone was responsible for the World War. To that extent I am sympathetic to her. But I do not take all the statements made in Germany at their face value, and I thought some speakers in your Lordships' House who have done so showed an innocence that most of us have lost. What I believe we ought to do is to try to have a good-neighbour policy of proper relationships with Germany as far as possible. The world will not be healed by hatred or by large armaments. It will be healed by understanding and give-and-take. Let us remember, in criticising Germany, all she has gone through. I am not concerned with her system of government. I frankly confess I would prefer rather to die than to live under it, but I have not to live under it, and if Germans are satisfied with it that is their business; but I do think the time may have come when the Government might in that large way suggested by Lord Allen make an inquiry as to what accommodations are required and whether an understanding can be reached.
If the Government cannot do it, it may be possible for an unofficial examination to take place. It is just twenty-five years since I had the privilege of organising in London a great English-German Understanding Conference. It assembled at the Guildhall and we spent three' days in very close examination. Sir Frank Lascelles, our late Ambassador in Berlin, was our President, and a distinguished German committee and a very distinguished German delegation came over here and for three days we sat and discussed these difficulties between the two nations. The result was a great clarification, but the unfortunate incidents of 1914 prevented that Conference from having a
494
lasting effect. I feel that if I were twenty-five years younger I would like to start that business again, and see whether anything could come from it. In conclusion, I want to ask the Government if they can tell us more, if they have anything to say about Spain, and if they have anything to tell us about the result of Mr. Runciman's visit to the United States. If they have, your Lordships will be glad to hear it. What I do feel, however, is that peace will not come through isolation; it will not come in a mechanical transference of our affections from France to Germany; it will not come in a rearmament policy unaccompanied by a clear and planned policy of peace, and it will not come in an aimless drifting in regard to America; but probably will come only in a large-scale effort to remove the causes of irritation, and in a foreign policy which recognises our share of the responsibility for the peace of the world.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, you have come to the end of a three-day debate. In the course of that debate a great number of speeches have been delivered, sincere and thoughtful speeches, and each one, I think, characteristic of the man who made it. I owe an apology to the noble Lord who initiated the debate for having been perforce absent on the first day of it, but by all I have heard, and by what I have been able to read, I am conscious that I was the principal loser by not being able to be in my place to hear the noble Lord's speech, although, as I say, I have informed myself of it through the Press. In all those speeches I think it has been remarkable that there has been, with perhaps some slight exception in the last speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Snell), a very little trace of Party sympathy in the strict sense of the word, and it was, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, the more remarkable that, in his own characteristic and charming fashion, he should have, in banter, resorted to that, because he happens to lead a Party that, in this debate, has, I think, been responsible for expressing not less than three different opinions upon the matters which have engaged our attention.
Nothing I think has been more significant than the frequency with which these debates recur in Parliament. That is a measure of the new national interest that

495
is gathered round foreign policy and foreign affairs, and, as such, it has to be welcomed, though the House will not fail to appreciate the difficulty that it imposes upon any spokesman of the Government who has to reply for the debate at the end of three days. He must either say the same thing as his colleagues have said here and elsewhere, which is apt to be dull, or he must run the risk of saying something different, in which case he is exposed to the higher criticism of Lord Snell and Lord Ponsonby. Well, that we cannot or do not, all of us, succeed in saying anything new, is not, therefore, to be attributed to our fault, but is I suppose the consequence of this, that the main elements of the problem are not always changing from month to month, and that when, as my noble friend Lord Stonehaven said, we pull up the plant from time to time to see how it is growing, we are anxious to do so tenderly in order not to damage the general prospects of the ground.
The main burden of this debate has been the examination of the relationship in which this country ought to stand to the obligations and the theories of the League of Nations. With all respect to my noble friends Lord Allen and Lord Snell, I do not think that this debate, even if that were all that it had produced, would have been so unconstructive as they appear to think. It is perfectly natural that those issues, lying, as I see them, alongside the old international obligations, should excite thought and should in many cases give rise to some anxiety, and during these three days more than one of your Lordships have examined what, in regard to these matters, are the possible directions in which a course may most wisely be steered over seas that are necessarily stormy.
Pacifism has claimed its advocates, although more than one of them has, with the great candour that we always associate with Lord Allen, explained that he does not regard pacifism to-day as practical politics. I only make one observation upon that head. I understand and I respect the attitude of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, and from the Christian point of view, as he got into clash with the most reverend Primate, I would say this. I do not think there is any subject
496
that needs to be more constantly searched by Christian thought, and although this is not the place to argue that, if I could see my way to a general pacifist system in which all nations would resolutely and finally abjure war I should be glad, for that, of course, is what we all want. But I cannot myself believe that for a single nation, in the conditions of the world to-day, to forego both the will and the power to defend what it believes to be right, is either politically practicable or morally imperative.
Then some of those who have spoken have referred to the alternative of the automatic invocation of military force against all infractions of the Covenant and of peace. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, rather unkindly but perhaps not untruly, immortalised certain persons as victims of the bitterest disappointment if there was a war anywhere and they were not in it. If I were quite sure that such an interpretation of collective security would in fact keep the peace I would naturally support it, but I venture to think you cannot be quite sure, and it is because you cannot be quite sure that it is important to define what you are willing to fight for. Otherwise you are, as I see it, participating in a huge bloc and there is a real danger that, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said, what might be a local war would become a world war. The most enthusiastic supporter of the League of Nations would not admit that it was any business of the League to promote that end. The opposite alternative which has been discussed is to say that in no circumstances will you fight unless you are attacked—isolation. The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches drew our attention yesterday to the political dangers of isolation. He may be right—I think he probably is—but in my view it is only small countries that can with any assurance claim the privileges of isolation, and I am quite certain that the centre of a great Commonwealth such as ours, with interests in all parts of the world, could not in fact isolate itself. On the moral side I should certainly feel that no great country has a right, even if it could, to throw away its power and its capacity to exert influence on the problems that lie at its door.
Therefore, having exhausted those possibilities, I come to the position of His Majesty's Government which the

497
noble Lord opposite deems to be indefinite and uncertain. It has in fact, of course, been repeatedly defined by the Foreign Secretary, and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating that definition here. It rests, as you know, upon the drawing of a distinction between cases for which arms would certainly be used and other cases of possible disturbance of peace in which this country would be free to judge of the merits and the circumstances at the time subject to our Covenant obligations. That is not disloyalty to the League. When the noble Viscount said that my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth had in the course of his speech said that he would only fight for vital interests, I think he unwittingly did my noble friend less than justice. What he did say was:
"I venture to say that nations cannot be expected to incur automatic military obligations except where their vital interests are concerned."
Your Lordships will observe that that is a very different thing.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said that he thought my right honourable friend's speech at Leamington was wise and statesmanlike but that subsequently the landscape had become a bit blurred. Others have suggested that His Majesty's Government's policy is therefore to that degree uncertain. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, even charged us with vacillating indecision and I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also used language not dissimilar. The future is always and unnecessarily uncertain but so far as it is possible to be definite I suggest that His Majesty's Government's policy is crystal clear. I would make this assertion without fear of contradiction, that as far as I have had the opportunity of reading history—over which the noble Marquess, if he will allow me to say so, led us rather a fairy dance yesterday—I should be prepared 1o maintain the position that never in the eighteenth or nineteenth century was British policy so clearly defined in advance as it has been by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in recent months.
I know perfectly well, and indeed I largely share, the anxiety to which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, and the noble Marquess and others have given expression in this debate of the possibility of what I may for brevity term an Eastern entanglement. I am not oblivious to that
498
and I am not oblivious to the anxiety of those who see indirect but grave danger to the West of Europe from possible complications in the East linked, as in the judgment of many observers East and West are, by the Franco-Soviet Pact. I do not know whether your Lordships have in your minds a question and answer in the House of Commons on February 8 last. Mr. Lambert asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:
"whether any commitment exists whereby under the Franco-Russian Pact Great Britain could be involved in a European war; and, if none does exist, has this fact been made clear to the French and Russian Governments?"
That question was answered by Viscount Cranborne. He said:
"The answer to the first part of the question is No, Sir. As regards the second part of the question I think the French and Soviet Governments are fully aware of the position."
I think that is a pretty definite Parliamentary answer to one side of the kind of question that the noble Lord who initiated this debate had in his mind.
I would go a little further than that and I would say that unless you are prepared on the one hand to say, "I will fight in every case on behalf of peace, which is one and indivisible," or on the other hand to say, "I will only fight when I am myself the victim of attack"—unless you are prepared to take one of those two positions there is an inevitable no-man's-land of uncertainty lying between which is quite incapable, as I think, of antecedent definition. Therefore it is that if we are unable to define beforehand what might be our attitude to a hypothetical complication in Central or Eastern Europe, that is not to say that we disinterest ourselves in the fate of those parts of Europe. We have repeatedly maintained our determination to carry out to the best of our ability our obligations under the Covenant, and if those obligations are not capable of prior definition with precise exactitude that is a feature—and I venture to think not an accidental feature—of the Covenant itself. If it is true that the League itself is crippled, as indeed it is, by the defection of important Members, that does not mean that this country is without influence and authority which she would use in endeavouring to prevent such a conflict arising. I suggest that that influence and autho-

499
rity will be greatly reinforced, as Lord Allen, indeed, himself recognised, by the steps that we have now decided to take in the matter of rearmament.
Lord Allen asked me if I had any views on the question of one regional pact. I followed, of course, what I understood to be his thought—namely, that if you have one regional pact immunising, isolating, keeping in permanent peace one area, you will be likely to leave to the greater danger of disturbance the other parts of Europe. I hope that what I said a few moments ago will have assured him that that is not the way in which His Majesty's Government see the problem with which we are concerned. The regional pact is not in competition with the League, nor is the pact the instrument to which we should look for the remedy of injustices which we, not less than he, would desire, when opportunity offers, to see remedied. I have seen it suggested that the best guarantee, or a guarantee, against war would be that immediately on the outbreak of war, whatever the merits, the Prime Minister should be hanged, somewhat on the principle by which I understand the Chinese ceases to pay his doctor when he ceases to be well. I should not greatly mind that being done if everybody conformed, especially if a war synchronised with the advent of a Labour Government to office—which indeed, to judge by many speeches that have been made by Labour orators in the last six months, might very well be the case!
But the real guarantee against war, or against war for any but the clearest and most overwhelming of reasons, is that which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, referred to in his speech when he said that it was impossible for any democratic Government in these days to make war unless it could count on the overwhelming support of the country behind it in doing so. That is true. And what is not less true, but I do not think the noble Lord mentioned it, is that it would be impossible for any Government in this country to decide on a declaration of war unless they were morally confident that not only this country but also the whole Empire was associated with them, or prepared to associate itself with them, in their decision. Our judgment and our expectations in these matters no doubt vary
500
according to our several temperaments, and I can only repeat that His Majesty's Government do not desire in regard to European peace to be ranked among those prophets of fatalism and fear to whom Lord Rankeillour referred and of whom I agree with him that there are all too many. I confess that I rubbed my eyes and my ears when I heard Lord Ponsonby say that the Government was responsible for the talk about war.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am sorry to find that he is unrepentant, because I and, as far as I know, most of my colleagues spend most of our time saying exactly what I have just said and endeavouring to discount the influence of what I may call the unrelieved pessimist. Therefore, if Lord Ponsonby has honestly thought that up to this moment, I hope that from this moment he will change his view. It is of course quite natural that the nerves of Europe should have been frayed when so many things have happened so quickly and so differently from what people would have anticipated. It is also true that new danger-spots are constantly in process of manufacture. Spain has been mentioned, and if I may do so in parenthesis, I would answer two or three specific questions that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, put to me yesterday. He asked how the Non-intervention Agreement was going to work and what was to be done about the naval cordon; what security there was that a food-ship would not be arrested by German or Italian ships. The answer is that the ships of the Navies taking part in the supervision scheme will have no powers of arrest or any right of search. Their duties will be confined to establishing the identity of all ships proceeding to Spain in order to verify whether they have or have not conformed to the obligation imposed upon them—namely, of taking supervisors on board—under the Agreement. Apart from that, the position remains unaltered—namely, that we make ourselves responsible for the protection of our own shipping. He further asked whether there would be officers of another nation on board, for example, a German ship. I am advised that the answer to that question is that, in view of the zones which have been provisionally allocated to the four Powers concerned, it is not

501
considered necessary to post on the ships of the various Powers, officers of another nation.
While I am on that subject, perhaps I might mention that it will be the duty of the Government in this House to bring before your Lordships at an early date a short Bill giving power to bring this Agreement into force, a Bill which I hope, when it comes, your Lordships will be prepared to treat as an emergency measure. I can hardly leave the question of Spain without adding my word of tribute to the persistent and persuasive patience of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, to whom I think we all owe a real debt of gratitude for the way in which he has pursued his task.
I am not one of those who do not think that there is more than one reassuring element in the present situation. I think it is something which we can be pleased to learn that the Chancellor of Germany should have assured us on January 30 last that the era of surprises was over. The second thing that I ponder with some degree of satisfaction is that, so far as I can judge, any nation who wanted it could have had a war any lime they liked during the last six months over Spain. They have net had it, though if they had wanted it they could have had it. Therefore it is that I disagreed with Earl Russell when he said that rearmament meant that the Government foresaw war as likely. We have no such gloomy anticipations, and I would state my feelings in terms exactly the reverse: that in our view, as in the view of others who have spoken, the programme of rearmament is calculated to make war far less likely. At this stage of international adjustment I do not believe that this statement is capable of challenge—namely, that the stronger this country is the less likelihood there is of war.
I go the whole way with all noble Lords who have deplored the waste of money on armaments. I go the whole way with them when they say that rearmament in itself is no solution. It is only a means to an end. But it may be the only means to an end, and that end is not selfish nor aggressive but is the end of securing for this country due weight in European councils, and I do not believe that any loyal Member of the League of Nations anywhere in Europe would disagree with that assessment of
502
the situation to-day. I would like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, if he would, to re-examine the process of thought that leads him to state that our purpose in this matter is, as he suggested, not defence, but preparation for attack. Really the noble Lord must take it from me that that opinion is one wholly without foundation.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I explain to the noble Viscount that in saying that I meant that defence in the air does mean preparation for attack.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I think if the noble Lord had made that point in his speech it might have been better, because I think the words he used were liable to considerable misconception. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked whether the Government had given up disarmament. I can assure him most emphatically no. But he will not, I think, disagree that the prolonged trial that we made of unilateral disarmament had no other result than to convince us at least of its futility. The one lesson that we have learned has been the impossibility of getting other people to make sacrifices and come down to a low level, when we had already made sacrifices in advance, and had therefore proportionately less inducement to offer to other nations to follow our example. The writer of the fable of the fox and his brush had a great deal of human wisdom stored up.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Viscount who refused to bring down their Navy to the level of the British Navy?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I think the noble Lord is endeavouring to lead me on to the dangerous swamps of generalities. I think I am right in this. The difficulties, such as they were, about the Navy—and as he knows it was not there that the principal difficulties arose—arose principally from the definition of several categories, and if the noble Lord refreshes his memory by looking at the Disarmament discussions at Geneva I do not think he will find that we were on any point of substance the obstacle to any reduction in quantity or quality.
LORD STRABOLGI: Very successful, up to a point.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The time may come, and we hope it will come, when

503
it is possible to negotiate with more success reasonable equilibrium in armaments, and I would emphasise this, at a much lower scale than at present we are being compelled to build. The settlement of all these problems depends, as I say, on two things: first, the intrinsic elements in the problems themselves—racial, economic, political and the like—and secondly, the spirit of approach that all countries can make to the problems and the degree of understanding that they can bring to them. Those who heard it will not have failed to be moved by the speech that my noble friend Lord Addington addressed to the House last night. Those who heard Lord Allen to-night, whether they agreed or disagreed, must have felt much of the conviction he felt when he spoke on the same part of the subject.
It is too often suggested that rapprochement with one country must involve estrangement from another. That is not our conception. A great deal is said, as I said just now, about collective security. That, if it means anything, must mean reality, and if it is dangerous to be deluded by phrases that do not correspond to reality, it is not less dangerous to bury our heads in the sands of isolation, which the first gale will blow away. When Lord Ponsonby spoke of his mistrust of regional pacts which he saw in the terms of a Pact between A, B and C, subsequently inviting D and E, but knowing that D and E would never, in his view, come in, I am entitled to remind him of the continuous efforts that this Government have made for the last twelve months to make the Five-Power Pact inclusive of all the nations concerned. The essence of collective security is that we do not believe in exclusive alliances, which, as Lord Lothian and the Marquess of Crewe said, are the only effective alternative before us. We seek always the method of co-operation as opposed to any plan that would divide those whom our whole policy is to bring together.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, complains that we have never invited Germany to the council table on terms of equity, and he answered in advance the reply that I should naturally make, that that is exactly what we have been seeking to do, as I have said, for the last six or twelve months. He himself would prefer what
504
he called a more constructive approach, not indeed by way of a world-wide conference, but by way, as I understood him, of a small conference in which all questions of possible difference would be brought into the arena of free discussion. But as he spoke I said to myself: "Who would be participating in such a conference? Russia?" He would know well, presumably, the difficulties an invitation of that sort might encounter. There are other people whose interests might be affected, because we know the only people who would wish to participate in such a conference, if it were ever held, but whatever might be my first judgment about such a proposal as that, I can certainly assure him that any talks at any time that might seem likely to lead to fruitful results or better understanding, would always secure the sympathy and the good will of His Majesty's Government. That is, indeed, the spirit in which they are constantly seeking to approach European problems, and the same spirit in which we should always welcome the co-operation of the United States, of which the noble Marquess spoke yesterday. I do not think I have anything more to add in reply to what Lord Stonehaven asked about Mr. Runciman's visit than has already been said publicly on that, but I will convey what he said to him.
The other thing I want to say is this. I want to emphasise the point made by Lord Rankeillour, which I think is profoundly true, that though we believe that the cause of peace is in fact one, it may well be that an approach to a general settlement may be advanced by the solution of particular questions, which can be treated separately, although they must ultimately form part of a larger whole. It is for that reason that we have been attempting to bring the five Western Powers together. It is for that reason that we took the initiative in the proposed raw materials inquiry, and it is for that reason that His Majesty's Government would welcome any agreement anywhere that was honestly devised to promote the cause of peace.
I hope I have said enough to show that, in my view at least, the policy of His Majesty's Government is not negative, is emphatically not the policy of despair, and is not one which leads us to feel with Lord Snell that international good

505
will is no more than a futile dream. We still, retain our faith in the ideals of the League of Nations and in the possibility of finding means to make those ideals prevail. Whether the world will or will not succeed in that—with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Newton who, I see, is not in his place—no one here and now can say, but it is quite certain that we can make no contribution to that end unless we are in a position to play our part. And therefore it is that all the efforts of His Majesty's Government, diplomatic, military, industrial and all other, will be subordinated to the single aim of endeavouring to build peace upon a foundation of justice, that can alone support a durable structure under which all the nations of the world can be at peace.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, your Lordships were good enough to give me a patient hearing during the long speech with which I introduced this Motion, and I shall certainly not make any protracted remarks now. It is obviously quite impossible to deal with all the issues which have been raised in these three days' debates. So far as my own speech was concerned—and may I say how deeply I appreciate the kind references which have been made to it by various noble Lords?—the main reply was made by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth. But I hope he will forgive my saying that it seems to me clear that his speech in reply to mine had been prepared before he heard my speech and was not altered after he had heard my speech, because he really did not deal in detail with the main arguments which I advanced, and for the most part his observations consisted of vigorous assertions that the Government's policy was the best of all possible policies.
That, of course, is the question at issue, and perhaps he will allow me to say, with respect but with emphasis, that assertion is not argument. Neither is evasion discussion, and the noble Earl did evade many of the points, no doubt difficult points, about which I should have liked to have some information. For instance, I told him in advance, in response to his request, that I should raise in a very definite form the difficulties and dangers of the Franco-Soviet Pact, and yet in his reply he never mentioned the Franco-Soviet Pact, did not say one syllable about it, although in my speech I had devoted a good deal of attention to it.
506
The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, has said something about the Franco-Soviet Pact, but I will not discuss that very delicate matter now. All I should like to say to the noble Viscount is that I hope he will bear in mind what was said by The Times. As he was not here when I quoted it, perhaps I might quote again three or four lines from an important leader in The Times, which said:
"No Englishman in German shoes would consent to accept the commitments of a new treaty while the Franco-Soviet Pact … is still in force."
The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, also asserted vigorously that isolation is impossible, but he did not reply to various arguments which had been advanced on the other side. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, did go rather more in detail into that policy, but I found his arguments against it unconvincing, and one or two of them, if I may say so with respect, impossibly fantastic. The noble Earl may think isolation is impossible, and the Government may think it impossible, but I would very much like to know what they really think of certain aspects of isolation.
However, their attitude is that, at any rate for the time being, it is impossible. But the fact remains—and I have no doubt about this—that there is a large and a growing body of opinion in the country which does not take that view, which holds that, so far from isolation being impossible, it is the policy which should be adopted. And, after all, isolation over a long period of history has been the traditional policy of this country, and I dealt in my speech with the changes brought about by air warfare and so forth. I have made most careful inquiries, and the fact is that the people, or many of them, are getting sick and tired of these Continental commitments. I do not wish to attach any very great importance to my own small experiences, but it may interest the noble Earl and the Government to know that, as a result of my speech, I have had messages in very large numbers from all parts of the country, strongly approving of the kind of policy which I endeavoured to outline, and in a great many instances assuring me that the writers of their own knowledge can affirm that such views are widely held in their own particular neighbourhoods. Those

507
are, I think, factors which have in a small way at any rate to be taken into account.
I emphasised last week—and there must be a good deal of agreement about this—that no Government can take this country into a war on the Continent unless it has behind it the support of at least go per cent, of the people. I think it is quite clear, in view of the large body of persons supporting isolation, that the Government cannot get 90 per cent, unless this country is attacked. I do not believe that that is going to happen, and therefore I hold that there is every prospect that, if there is a next war, Great Britain will be kept out of it. It has been said that isolation does not give an absolute guarantee. The noble Viscount or some other speaker suggested that this country will be kept out of war. But under isolation the chances of this country being kept out of war are, I think, very great, and the risks of its going into war are enormously reduced; in fact they are reduced to a minimum; whereas under the policy of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and his friends they are at a maximum. Under that policy, whatever the war is, wherever and whenever it is, you are certain to be in it. Of the two policies, for my part I prefer the one which I ventured to outline. I think it is infinitely less risky for this country.
I thank the noble Viscount for his very careful and long reply. He will not expect me to be satisfied with it, but I thank him. It did not go as far as I wanted, but although the noble Viscount has not said very much, he has said something, and I hope, if I may say so with respect, that he will think the more. I hope also that the Government will, as time goes on, still further change their policy away from commitments. They have done something in that direction. Their policy has changed. It is not what it was. There has been a material alteration, and I urge upon them that they should do more. Let them move away from this so-called collective security, the definition of which, by the way, was still further whittled down by Lord Cranborne in another place last night—further reservations and qualifications.
I do not want to use strong language, but I do not think it is an over-statement
508
that this unfortunate phrase has really become a farce, and I suggest it is undesirable—to use no stronger word—to reduce an important definition of grave international issues to farcical conditions. May I say this? In the recent by-elections everybody has been struck with the smallness of the polls. I have no doubt that one reason for that is that there is a large number of people who, on this question of foreign policy—which is the major issue of the day and what people are thinking about and talking about—do not find their views represented either by the Government candidates or by the candidates of the Left, and a large number of them are abstaining from voting.
Finally, I want to say something which is not very easy for me to say but which I ought to say in all honesty. I incurred, apparently, in a mild way the displeasure of my noble friend Lord Snell for, as he said, throwing a bouquet at the Government. I was not aware I had gone as far as a floral decoration, and I do not think I really did, but I must be fair though the heavens fall, and on the occasions—not very frequent—when I can say something in favour of the Government I do not mind doing it. Even at the risk of still further incurring the displeasure of my noble friend, I must say something more. My admiration of your Lordships' House has always been restrained. It continues to be restrained. In fact, to use a phrase of my noble friend Lord Snell, it is "under strict control." I have been a critic of your Lordships' House, and I am still a critic, both as regards its composition and its powers, but it is only fair to admit that your Lordships' House is a platform for expressing independent views. I feel impelled to say that because it has been pointed out in the Press in the course of this debate that under Party affiliations and so forth it would have been very difficult for a member in another place to have given expression to the independent views which I endeavoured to voice in introducing this Motion. It is right that I should admit that.
If I may be permitted to conclude with a further personal reference, I would say this. Again and again I have been asked—in the last year particularly—why is the kind of policy which I endeavoured to outline in introducing this Motion not placed before Parliament. Again and

509
again I have been assured that vast numbers of people are thinking that way. I say that I have been asked why are these things not said in Parliament; so at last, as they do represent my strong convictions—and not hastily formed—I said, "Very well, if no one else will say these things, I will say them myself," and through the medium of your Lordships' House I have done so. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.
Message from the Commons for leave to Mr. Edward Cliffe Vigors, C.B., Principal Clerk of Private Bills and Private Committees, to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on Publications and Debates' Reports appointed by them on the 16th day of November last.

—

Total Imports.

of which from:—

United Kingdom.

France.

Belgium.

Germany.

Italy.

Japan.

Kenya and Uganda:

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

Proportion of Total Per cent

1933

4,818,757

1,815,984

60,975

90,642

153,077

54,895

633,007

13

1934

5,583,238

2,055,547

62,811

95,739

198,465

61,796

856,219

15

1935

6,522,032

2,379,131

70,615

117,752

294,853

35,474

1,007,382

15

Tanganyika:

1933

1,946,687

567,021

24,907

24,118

197,775

14,193

416,846

21

1934

2,343,185

645,767

28,792

34,108

230,022

14,039

522,797

22

1935

2,989,600

865,960

27,548

40,240

317,719

12,050

655,825

22

Nyassaland:

1933

629,245

341,484

3,791

3,454

15,941

9,219

77,125

12

1934

518,146

250,111

4,382

2,390

8,860

7,439

115,375

22

1935

628,499

279,461

5,065

5,269

13,422

8,730

178,252

28

Zanzibar:

1933

809,678

113,780

4,009

4,058

12,549

4,872

85,675

11

1934

707,405

130,254

5,410

2,846

8,939

3,664

84,564

12

1935

915,241

152,325

5,639

6,400

13,440

3,937

129,963

14

Belgian Congo:

Thousand Belgian Francs.

1933

389,359

52,561

12,256

168,489

25,264

3,534

22,019

6

1934

377,606

51,291

11,868

156,885

18,801

3,077

37,693

10

1935

524,592

73,616

15,629

201,077

24,932

4,693

67,837

13

Ruanda-Urundi:

1933

23,279

1,630

594

3,800

1,337

370

8,531

37

1934

26,610

2,283

652

4,914

1,780

221

8,967

34

1935

34,108

3,431

696

6,599

1,791

53

10,196

30

Leave given accordingly, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  CONGO BASIN TRADE.
  CONGO BASIN TRADE.
JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the One hundred and sixty-eighth Volume of the Journals (26th George V and 1st Edward VIII, 1935–1936), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding Volumes of the Journal have been delivered.

HASTINGS EXTENSION BILL, [H.L.]
CARDIFF EXTENSION BILL.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Kent Electric Power Bill
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill: Read, and agreed to.

KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
FOLKESTONE PIER AND LIFT BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL, [H.L.]
The Order made on the 23rd of February last, appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
WESSEX ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.

TOTTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That the Petition which was presented against the Order having been withdrawn, they are of opinion that no further inquiry by a Select Committee is now necessary; that they have considered an addition to Clause 5 which has been agreed to between the parties and recommend its adoption to the House; and that there is nothing further in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BILSTON GAS ORDER, 1937.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (ADDITIONAL DAYS AND WAITING PERIOD) ORDER, 1937.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that they have considered a report, dated the 5th February, 1937, of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee made in accordance with Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935; that in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle; that they comply with the terms of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent, inasmuch as other Orders have already been submitted for the approval of Parliament under Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that

515
no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EVESHAM AND PERSHORE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (PORT OF MANCHESTER) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.