Sitting of 9 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 Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
London and North Eastern Railway Bill.
Newquay and District Water Bill.
Southern Railway Bill.
Bills committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (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 Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Margate Broadstairs and District Electricity Bill [Lords].
Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Nottinghamshire Joint Hospital District) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    CLERKS (TERRITORIAL UNITS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allenasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to abolish full-time clerks to Territorial units?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): The provision of clerks for Territorial Army units is the responsibility of Territorial Army associations, whose grants include provision for a full-time clerk if, in the light of local conditions, one is considered necessary. From the evidence available, I do not think there is sufficient orderly room work in Territorial Army units, in general, to justify the employment of a full-time clerk throughout the year. It has, however, been laid down that for Anti-Aircraft Brigades, Royal Artillery and Anti-Aircraft Battalions, Royal Engineers, a full-time clerk is necessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen: What difference is there between the Anti-Aircraft Brigade and the Field Brigade, so far as orderly room work is concerned?

    CORONATION (TERRITORIAL ARMY REPRESENTATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel Mooreasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to utilise Scottish Territorial troops in connection with the Coronation celebrations; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. Cooper: As I have previously announced, it is intended that all Territorial Army units in the United Kingdom shall be represented at the Coronation Parade in London, and shall be treated on an equal basis.
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that Scottish Territorial units are interested in this question, and that they are, as we all know, among the most efficient in the Kingdom?

    GOVERNMENT FACTORY, IRVINE (GERMAN SPECIALISTS).
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to ensure the employment of

    943
    British labour, or the tuition of British labour, in the armament construction work now being done by German specialists at Irvine, Scotland?
    Mr. Cooper: Government technicians have been in constant touch with the construction of this chemical plant at Irvine with a view to establishing the necessary technique in this country for the erection of further plant entirely by British labour.
    Mr. Davidson: Have the Government any definite knowledge of this process, and have opportunities been given to British technicians on this job to acquire the knowledge that the German specialists have?
    Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. I understand that these Government technicians are learning from the German specialists and are teaching British workmen.
    Mr. G. Hardie: Is it not a fact that the foreign technician has an opportunity of seeing what you do not want him to see when he is here?
    Mr. Davidson: Can the House be assured that these German specialists will not be dismissed in the same way as were the Admiralty Dockyard employés?

    MARRIED QUARTERS, ALDERSHOT COMMAND.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War the number of families in married quarters in the Aldershot Command who are awaiting larger quarters in which there are no present vacancies?
    Mr. Cooper: The number of families in married quarters in the Aldershot Command to whom a larger quarter would be allotted were it available is 184.
    Mr. Day: Does the Minister consider that that position is satisfactory, and are the Government considering the provision of larger quarters?
    Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir; we are providing more quarters.

    CAMOUFLAGE EXPERIMENTS.
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for War (1) in view of the large increase in Army mechanisation, what steps, if any, are being taken in the
    944
    camouflaging of vehicles by disruptive painting for the purpose of concealment from the air;
    (2) whether a grant was given last year by his Department for the purpose of experiments on camouflage against air attack; and whether it is proposed to increase the grant during the current year?
    Mr. Emmottasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make upon the results of experiments in camouflage of troops, guns, and vehicles against air attack conducted during the Divisional Manoeuvres held last year?
    Mr. Cooper: Experiments in methods of protecting troops, guns and vehicles from air and ground observation, including concealment by disruptive painting, were conducted last year in all commands. The valuable information so obtained is now under examination, and extended trials, for which an increase in the financial provision involved is proposed, will take place this year.
    Sir William Davison: Has my right hon. Friend asked his experts to consider carefully the disruptive camouflage of the plumage of the ordinary common snipe, and will he see whether they can derive a lesson from it?
    Mr. Emmott: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the result of the experiments satisfactory, as far as they have proceeded?
    Mr. Cooper: There is ground for further experiment.
    Mr. Thorne: Is not the Secretary of State aware that during the last War there was any amount of camouflage that did not make the slightest difference to the bombing?
    Mr. Donnerasked the Secretary of State for War the amount spent by Russia, Germany and Japan on camouflage of troops, vehicles and guns against air attack during the years 1935 and 1936, respectively?
    Mr. Cooper: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
    Mr. Donner: Can our own efforts up to date be regarded as satisfactory in

    945
    comparison with, and in the light of, the enormous endeavours made by foreign countries in this connection?
    Mr. Cooper: I have dealt with that aspect of the matter in reply to a previous question.
    Mr. Davidson: Cannot the House have an assurance that the Government, from their past experience, are fully alive to the value of camouflage?

    CONTRACTS (TENTAGE).
    Mr. N. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for War how often the firms of Waring and Gillow and Maple and Company have tendered for contracts for making tent covers for the War Office since 1918; and how often have contracts for tent covers been placed with them since that time?
    Mr. Cooper: Since 1918, Waring and Gillow have tendered for tentage on eight occasions, and contracts for portions of the quantities for which they tendered have been placed with them on four occasions. During the same period, Maple and Company have tendered on nine occasions, and have received contracts on two occasions, one of these being for a portion only of the quantities for which they tendered.
    Mr. Maclean: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that firms who have tendered from the depressed areas for these contracts have been refused and that the contracts have gone to the firms mentioned in the question; and will he take steps to put into operation the Cabinet promise that, all things being equal, the depressed areas would receive preference for any contracts placed by Government Departments?
    Mr. Cooper: I am not aware of any tender having been received from the depressed areas.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that tenders were received from Glasgow?
    Mr. Cooper: Glasgow is not a depressed area.
    Mr. Maclean: Have not the Cabinet stated, through the Minister of Labour, that, for the purposes of Government contracts, Glasgow is to be scheduled as a depressed area, and does not the Minister
    946
    know that, as he has a copy of a letter which I communicated to him from the Minister of Labour?
    At the end of Questions:
    Mr. Maclean: I wish to give notice that, in view of the reply given this afternoon by the Secretary of State for War, which is a direct contradiction of a statement made in a letter by the Minister of Labour, with regard to the depressed areas, I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    REMOUNT DEPOT, MELTON MOWBRAY.
    Mr. Everardasked the Secretary of State for War, (1) how many employés at the remount depot at Melton Mowbray are under notice to leave; and whether, in the case of those still employed, preference has been given to ex-service men and men at present serving in the Territorial Force?
    (2) What steps the War Office are taking to find employment for the men discharged from the Melton Mowbray remount depot?
    Mr. Cooper: Forty-three employés at the Army Remount Depot at Melton Mowbray are under notice to leave on 31st March, 1937. Of those to be retained only two are not ex-service men. The men under notice will be given preference in filling vacancies at other military stations, and steps are being taken with a view to absorbing some of them at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Nottingham.
    Mr. Everard: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the last part of my question relating to men who are serving in the Territorial Force? Will he say whether those are to be retained and whether special steps can be taken, in view of the fact that these men are discharged just at the end of the hunting season when they cannot get any other job in their ordinary occupation?
    Mr. Cooper: Every effort will be made to obtain employment for them. The question of the Territorial Army did not arise as the men in question did not belong to it.
    Mr. Hardie: Why could not the Hunt keep men like this, since they depend upon them? Why could not they give them full service all the year?
    Mr. Everardasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to close down the remount depot at Melton Mowbray; and, if so, where the new remount depot will be established?
    Mr. Cooper: The matter is still under consideration. I will communicate with my hon. Friend when a decision is reached.

  SCOTLAND.

    BLIND PERSONS PENSIONS.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state whether a Bill is to be introduced to reduce from 50 to 40 years the age at which pensions may be paid to blind persons?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): The answer is in the affirmative.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1929.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the desire on the part of the Convention of Royal Burghs for an inquiry into the working of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and that this is now supported by several county councils; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to set up a committee to inquire into and report on the working of the Act as promised by the Lord President of the Council on 10th July, 1929?
    Mr. Elliot: The request of the Convention of Royal Burghs for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the general working of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, was fully considered by my predecessor, who informed the Convention on 17th August last that he was unable to accede to it. I have again considered the position, but I regret I am unable to depart from the decision previously reached. I should add that, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the inquiry into the financial working of the Act, the results of which have just been published, was carried out in consultation with the associations of local authorities and took full account of the position of the burghs and of the representations made on their behalf.
    Mr. Westwood: Is the Minister aware that the negotiation carried through so
    948
    successfully with the right hon. Gentleman has nothing whatever to do with the actual administrative work of the 1929 Act, that there is a good deal of friction in Scotland that might be removed if the committee were to be set up, and that the setting up of the committee is supported by some of the county councils—quite a new point, worthy of consideration by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider meeting Scottish Members on this point of the dissatisfaction which is very widely felt in Scotland?
    Mr. Elliot: I am always ready to meet Scottish Members.

    SHALE OIL (GLASGOW CORPORATION CONTRACT).
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion, if any, of the contract for 1,500,000 gallons of oil, recently placed by the Corporation of Glasgow in this country, went to the Scottish shale oil companies?
    Mr. Elliot: I am informed that 75 per cent. of the oil will be supplied by the Scottish shale oil companies.
    Mr. Mathers: What proportion of the petrol order, which was referred to some days ago, would have been supplied from the same source?
    Mr. Elliot: I could not say without notice.

    MARRIAGE LAWS.
    Mr. Crowderasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended to introduce legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into the marriage laws of Scotland; and when, in that case, it is proposed to take the necessary action?
    Mr. Elliot: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave to similar questions by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) on 28th January last and by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), on 2nd March, to which I have nothing to add.

    JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, GLASGOW.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he has received any report of the investigation promised into the question of juvenile crime in Glasgow;

    949
    (2) whether he has made any inquiry into the high rate of convictions and fines in the Maryhill Juvenile Court; and, if so, whether he has anything to report?
    Mr. Elliot: The general question of juvenile delinquency in Glasgow was, as I have already informed the hon. Member, taken up with the Corporation some time ago. I am sending him a copy of a letter indicating the steps which they are taking to deal with it. As regards the position in Maryhill, I have communicated with the Corporation, who have remitted the matter to a sub-committee for consideration.

    LAND DRAINAGE (KELVIN VALLEY SCHEME).
    Mr. T. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present stage in the proceedings in the Kelvin Valley scheme under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act; and when he expects to be in a position to announce the commencement of operations?
    Mr. Elliot: The Department of Agriculture are on the point of publishing the settled scheme and issuing copies thereof to parties affected, as required by Subsection 3 (4) of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1930. The exact date of the commencement of operations depends on factors outwith my control, such as due opportunity for objections and for Parliamentary review, and I regret, therefore, that no reliable forecast can yet be made.
    Mr. Johnston: Could the right hon. Gentleman send a copy to any Scottish Member who is interested?
    Mr. Elliot: Certainly.

    LIVESTOCK MARKETS.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average number of livestock markets in Scotland during each of the following periods: 1880–90, 1890–1900, 1900–10, and 1910–20, and in each of the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936?
    Mr. Elliot: I regret that it is not possible to reply fully to my hon. Friend's question. There are about 100 markets in Scotland where sales of livestock are regularly held, and a considerable number where sales take place infrequently. There are, however, no annual returns of these numbers.
    Mr. Stewart: Has not the provision of efficient auction markets in Scotland automatically reduced the number of redundant and inefficient markets?
    Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir, I think that is so, to a great extent, at any rate.

    MENTAL HYGIENE (OUT-PATIENT CLINICS).
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of outpatient clinics functioning under the Board of Control for the use of persons conscious of incipient mental trouble; and whether they are open continuously or at separate advertised periods?
    Mr. Elliot: There are nine mental hygiene out-patient clinics in Scotland—four in Glasgow, three in Edinburgh, one in Paisley and one in Perth. Seven are attached to general hospitals, and all are under the direction of psychiatrists from mental hospitals. They are open at advertised times.

    UNIVERSITY GRANIS.
    Mr. G. A. Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the application from the Scottish universities for a grant from the Education (Scotland) Fund; and, if so, what decision he has reached?
    Mr. Elliot: I am giving my careful attention to this application, which has been made in terms of Section 16 (1) (b) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

    WATER POLLUTION RESEARCH (DAIRY EFFLUENTS).
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total sum paid to the Water Pollution Research Board by each of the milk marketing boards in Scotland; and at how many of their respective establishments have plants been installed for the treatment of waste water and effluents?
    Mr. Elliot: Contributions amounting to £550 have been paid by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research towards the cost, in the programme of the Department's Water Pollution Research Board, of investigations of methods of purification of effluents from dairies and milk products factories. No new plant for the treatment of waste water or effluents

    951
    has been installed by the Milk Marketing Boards in Scotland at any of the creameries purchased by the boards.
    Mr. Leonard: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to install any such plants?
    Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I could not say.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is it proposed to amend the Public Health Act to deal with effluents?
    Mr. Elliot: I am not acquainted with what is going on in the sister Kingdom, but I will make inquiries.

    SHARE-PUSHING.
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Lord Advocate what was the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court in February, 1936, against Thomas Charlton, proprietor of a paper called the "Financial Express," for share-pushing frauds?
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): The accused was committed for trial and liberated on bail of £600. The completion of the necessary investigations, which have proved to be of great complexity, has been unavoidably delayed by reason of certain civil proceedings before the English Courts; but the preparation of the case is now practically concluded.
    Mr. Johnston: Are we to understand that this man, accused of serious offences in share-pushing, has actually been out on bail for over a year?
    The Lord Advocate: Yes, Sir, that is so.

    AFFORESTED AREAS (FOXES).
    Colonel Clifton Brownasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what steps are being taken in Scotland to destroy foxes in the afforested areas in order to minimise losses among sheep flocks during the lambing season?
    Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): To keep down the number of foxes in their afforested areas in Scotland the Forestry Commissioners make payments to their employés for foxes killed, invite the co-operation of sporting tenants in fox drives and subscribe to vermin clubs.
    Colonel Brown: Do these foxes come from small areas or from the large planted areas?
    Sir G. Courthope: I cannot answer that question. The planting of large areas gives opportunities for the increase of vermin of all kinds.
    Miss Wilkinson: May I ask whether the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer meant that the Forestry Commissioners actually pay for foxes to be shot?
    Sir G. Courthope: We give a small reward for the killing of foxes and other vermin in the districts where foxes are vermin.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller: Will my hon. and gallant Friend enlist the support of the Anti-Blood Sports Society who, apparently, wish to destroy all the foxes in Great Britain?

  DEFENCE.

    FOOD SUPPLY.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland is seeking a lead from the Government in regard to the best way of organising food production in relation to Defence plans, he can state what advice is being given?
    Mr. Elliot: The question of appropriate measures to secure the food supply of this country in time of war is under close examination, but I am not in a position to make any further statement on the subject at the present time.
    Mr. Stewart: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the sense of frustration that exists among farmers at the lack of a plain policy which could be really understood by agriculture in these perilous times?
    Mr. Paling: Does the new policy involve any more subsidies?

    ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS.
    Miss Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade the specific information given by his Department to the Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defence regarding essential requirements in the event of war, for the supply of which there is no provision in this country?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman): Such information covers a very wide field and relates in the main to raw and semi-manufactured articles of a kind, which, for natural reasons, cannot be economically produced in this country.

    RAW MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Major Oscar Guestasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the requirements of raw materials by manufacturers in connection with the Government's rearmament programme, he will take steps to prevent persons, whose business is not connected with the commodities and metals concerned, from dealing in forward contracts by way of speculation which enhanced their cost unjustifiably?
    Mr. Runciman: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and as at present advised we do not think that the action suggested is necessary or desirable.
    Mr. Alexander: Is it not always desirable that a corner in raw materials should be prevented?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    RAGLAN COLLIERY, HEOLYCYW, BRIDGEND.
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will take steps to bring about a restart of Raglan Colliery, Heolycyw, Bridgend, Glamorgan, which ceased working last year and rendered idle 600 persons?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The previous owners of this mine, the Raglan Collieries, Limited, went into liquidation some time ago, and the assets of the company were purchased from the receivers by the present owners, the Meiros Collieries (1931), Limited. I understand that there is a possibility of the mine being reopened later on, but that at present it is waterlogged. I am afraid that I have no powers in the matter.

    SHALE PRODUCTS, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will furnish information as to the annual production of petrol, Diesel oil, and crude oil, respectively, from Scottish shale deposits; and whether it is the intention of the Government to
    954
    extend operations in the shale field as part of their defence programme?
    Captain Crookshank: For each of the past five years, the output of crude oil and naphtha from Scottish shale has been about 30,000,000 gallons. The production of petrol and diesel oil in that period has varied according to market requirements, petrol production varying from 6¾ to 14⅓ million gallons, and diesel oil from about 4½ to 11½ million gallons. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to pages 17 and 97 of my last annual report. As regards the second part of the question, the position of the Scottish shale industry as a home source of oil supplies has not been overlooked.
    Mr. Mathers: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me the particulars for each year with respect to the variations in gallonage which he has indicated?
    Captain Crookshank: Not now, Sir.

    HYDROGENATION.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary for Mines the annual production of motor spirit at Billingham?
    Captain Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 19th January last to two questions by the hon. Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow (Mr. Hardie), which contained figures of the production of motor spirit at Billingham for the calendar year 1936.
    Mr. Paling: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say now whether it is intended to put down any other plants?
    Captain Crookshank: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hardie: Since the previous question was put and the answer to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred was given, has there been any further information with regard to the accuracy of the figures then given, because on the face of it they were wrong to start with?
    Captain Crookshank: The figures were those for the annual production last year, and that has not altered.
    Mr. Hardie: Yes, but these figures are wrong.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Arising out of the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), does he mean that the Government say definitely "No" to any further plants, or does he mean that he does not know?
    Mr. Paling: Have the Government reached a decision as to whether the plant at Billingham is a success or not?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

    ACCIDENT, ST. HELENS.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to a fatal accident at Clock Face Colliery, near St. Helens, that happened at one o'clock a.m., Wednesday, 24th February, and that the man who was killed went on his work at three o'clock p.m. on the day previous, should have completed his shift at 10.30 but was called upon to work overtime; and what action his Department will take in the matter?
    Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I understand that, on the night in question, the coalcutter machineman was absent owing to illness, and, as the fireman did not consider that the assistant machineman was sufficiently experienced to turn the machine, he asked the deceased to stay for that purpose, and it was during this operation that he lost his life. In these circumstances there does not appear to have been any contravention of the law in regard to overtime, so that, while I deeply regret the accident, there is no special action called for on the part of my Department.
    Mr. Tinker: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman urge His Majesty's inspectors to pay close attention to this question of overtime? Probably this case may not have been due to overtime, but a lot of overtime is being worked, and we are desirous of trying to prevent it.
    Captain Crookshank: I think the hon. Gentleman and the House know my view on that subject, but it does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Does not the Minister think the time has arrived when men who are employed on this responsible work of operating machine cutters should be prohibited from working overtime?

    INLAND CONTRACTS.
    Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary for Mines on what date the National Committee of Investigation, set up under
    956
    Section 5 of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, first received a complaint with regard to the direction of the Central Council of Colliery Owners that no inland contract should be made beyond 31st March, 1938; whether the committee has yet reached a decision upon this subject; and, if so, on what date and to what effect?
    Captain Crookshank: The complaint was received by the National Committee of Investigation on 13th January. The Committee has not yet reached a decision in the matter, as the reply of the Central Council to the complaint is still under consideration by the complainants.
    Sir J. Mellor: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend consider that the delay, expense and trouble of proceeding before this committee are such as to deter consumers from going to the committee, with the result that the committee is no longer an effective check upon the activities of the Central Council?
    Captain Crookshank: The delay does not rest there. My hon. Friend will perhaps be interested to know that the reply of the Central Council was sent on 30th January, and the complainants have been considering it ever since.

    CENTRAL SELLING SCHEMES.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement on the operation of the central selling schemes; and what will be the policy of the Department in the event of a scarcity of any kind of coal?
    Captain Crookshank: I do not quite appreciate what statement the hon. Member desires, but if the reference in the second part of the question to a scarcity of coal is intended to suggest that any present tightness in supplies is due to the operation of the organised selling schemes, the information in my possession does not confirm that suggestion.
    Mr. Batey: Surely the Minister would agree that it would be a good thing to have a report on the operation of central selling schemes?
    Captain Crookshank: If the hon. Member has in mind a general report, I promised that when the central selling schemes were introduced. I said that a report would be published, and that will be done.
    Mr. Batey: When may we expect it?
    Captain Crookshank: I could not tie myself down at the moment because, as I said at the time, I want a certain amount of experience of the working of the schemes to produce a report which will be of any value at all.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a scarcity in many parts of the country of domestic coal and that the price has risen sharply? Can he state the reason?
    Mr. E. Smith: In the event of a scarcity of any kind of coal, will the Department take immediate steps to see that production is increased?
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Having regard to the fact that nearly 20 per cent. of the miners are unemployed, why should there be any shortage of coal?
    Mr. Shinwell: Cannot we have an answer to these Supplementaries, which are of the highest importance?
    Captain Crookshank: Supplementaries are not all relevant to the original question. I have already answered that, in so far as there is any scarcity or tightness of supply, it is not, in my view, due to the central selling schemes.

    WELSH ANTHRACITE COLLIERIES, LIMITED.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the appointment of a receiver for the Welsh Anthracite Collieries, Limited; and, as this company owns a number of collieries giving employment to about 2,000 workmen, what steps he proposes to take to secure that the collieries are kept working, and the employment of the men and the livelihood of several communities are safeguarded?
    Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand, however, that no change in the matter of employment has resulted from the appointment of a receiver for this Company. Of the four pits owned by the company, three, employing about 1,000 men, are still at work. The fourth, which normally employs about 290 men, was and still is standing on account of lack of trade. I am afraid that the matter is not one in which I have any power to assist.
    Mr. Griffiths: While appreciating that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has no actual power, is not his Department taking an active interest in the matter, and will he not take steps in time to prevent collieries closing down?
    Captain Crookshank: If the hon. Member can suggest how I can prevent a colliery closing down when it has decided to do so, I shall be interested to know. I have no power to deal with the matter.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries into the circumstances in which this colliery has been put into the hands of a receiver?
    Captain Crookshank: As far as my information goes, the closing of the pit is on account of lack of trade.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IRON ORE INDUSTRY, WEST CUMBERLAND.
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government have under consideration any plans for developing the production of iron ore in the West Cumberland district?
    Captain Crookshank: As the hon. Member is aware, the haematite iron ore industry in Cumberland has already received substantial benefit from the great improvement in the position of the iron and steel industry which has been made possible by the Government's tariff policy, and the new orders required for defence purposes have also had a beneficial effect upon the demand for high-class steel manufactured from haematite ore. The possibility of further developing the resources of the West Cumberland iron ore fields is at present the subject of examination by the Cumberland Development Council in conjunction with the Commissioner for the Special Areas, the Geological Survey Board and my Department.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Would not the Secretary for Mines agree that the tariff policy of the Government has had much to do with the contraction of the export of ore?

    FOODSTUFFS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. Liddallasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the imports of essential foodstuffs of all

    959
    descriptions, other than beer, wines, and spirits, is imported from British and from foreign countries, respectively?
    Mr. Runciman: During the year 1936, imports into the United Kingdom of food and drink (excluding beer, wine and spirits) consigned from British countries were approximately equal in value to corresponding imports from foreign countries.

    BRICKS (IMPORT).
    Mr. E. Dunnasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that approximately 200,000,000 foreign bricks per annum continue to be imported into the South of England, notwithstanding the import duties of 10 per cent., while the brickmakers in this country can more than produce the whole of the bricks required; and whether he has any proposals to make to remedy this?
    Mr. Runciman: The total imports of bricks into the United Kingdom in 1936 amounted to nearly 208,000,000, which represents only a small proportion of the total consumption of bricks in this country.
    Mr. E. Smith: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of the huge success of the new process of the manufacture of bricks from slag heaps and similar heaps of that character and, in view of this success, will he consult the Minister of Labour with a view to the adoption of this new process in the Special Areas?
    Mr. Runciman: A question of that nature ought, obviously, to be put upon the Paper.
    Captain Strickland: In view of the fact that the Opposition are now Protectionists in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to protect this industry to a greater extent than he has done up to the present?
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition are not Protectionists in this matter?

    DEAD FOWLS AND EGG PRODUCTS (IMPORT DUTIES).
    Major Dorman-Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any existing trade agreement precludes the making of an order under the Import Duties Act increasing the existing duties
    960
    on dead fowls and on egg products imported from foreign sources?
    Mr. Runciman: No trade agreement precludes increased duties on liquid eggs or on egg products, or on dead poultry other than dead guinea fowls. The duty on these latter is limited to 10 per cent. ad valorem by the agreement with Poland.
    Major Dorman-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman pass that information on to the appropriate quarters with a view to something being done immediately for the poultry producers?

    UNITED STATES (CONVERSATIONS).
    Mr. Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether negotiations have yet been entered into with the United States of America for a trade agreement; and, if so, what progress has been made?
    Mr. Runciman: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Dorset, East (Mr. Hall-Caine) and South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on 9th February, and by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green on 23rd February.

    COMMODITY PRICES.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is prepared to take by intervening on behalf of consumers to prevent profiteering in any case where the price of any commodity has increased by 100 per cent. within a few months, due to demand exceeding supply, or any other cause?
    Mr. Runciman: I presume the hon. Member has in mind certain raw materials, the world prices for which have recently risen considerably. I fear that any attempt to fix prices here below world levels would tend to divert supplies from this country.
    Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, where the price does increase very rapidly, and the article is one consumed in all parts of the country, the Board of Trade have any power to intervene on behalf of the consumers when it is known that profiteering is taking place?
    Mr. Runciman: First of all, we have to ascertain the facts. I shall be very glad to have the assistance of the hon.

    961
    Member in bringing to our notice any particular commodities to which he refers.
    Mr. Williams: Now that the matter has been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, are any steps being taken, and, if not, will steps be taken to restrict profiteering?
    Mr. Runciman: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to a particular commodity, that matter does not appear in this question, which covers the whole range.
    Mr. Williams: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I brought to his notice a week ago the fact that in five months the price of pure glycerine increased by 100 per cent., and since the Board of Trade are now aware of the fact, are they taking steps to deal with the matter?
    Mr. Runciman: We are looking into that specific case.

    COAL AND STEEL INDUSTRIES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. Hardieasked the President of the Board of Trade how many coal mines, steel plants, and blast furnaces in Scotland are idle or closed down in the past four years?
    Mr. Runciman: During the four years ended 31st December, 1936, 56 coal pits in Scotland, employing 10 men and over, have been closed and have not since reopened. I am informed that no blast furnaces or steel melting plants in Scotland have been closed since 1932. Indeed, in the period 1933–36, the number of blast furnaces in Scotland increased from two to 15 and the number of open hearth steel furnaces from 18 to 28. Three rolling mills have been closed in Scotland since 1932.
    Mr. Hardie: Why do not the Government take further measures to open up more of these vacant premises in Scotland—these coal mines and steel plants which have been closed down?
    Mr. Runciman: The hon. Member is presuming that the Government have power to open such premises. That is not so.
    Mr. Hardie: Why do not the Governrnent take powers to revive trade? Is it not for his Department to see that these things are done?
    Mr. Hardieasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give
    962
    any explanation for the shortage of raw steel for the purposes of re-rolling in Scotland?
    Mr. Runciman: As stated in the recent report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, the world demand for steel has been tending to outrun the supply. I am not aware that the position in this respect is more difficult in Scotland than in other parts of the world.
    Mr. Hardie: Is it not the fact that we have the plant for this purpose in Scotland, and why do not the Government make the steel industry, which has been given protection by the Government, do its duty in this matter?

    FILM INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade what changes have taken place during the previous three years in the composition of the advisory committee appointed under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and when the appointments of the present members terminate?
    Mr. Runciman: During the period named two changes have occurred among the independent members of the committee, and one among the representatives of film exhibitors. Existing appointments have been made until January, 1938.
    Mr. Day: Were the trade representatives consulted before these appointments were made?
    Mr. Runciman: No, Sir. We choose the best persons we can obtain.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will announce the intentions of the Government in regard to the establishment in Great Britain of the multi-lingual film industry; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to give effect to the same?
    Mr. Runciman: I am not clear what industry the hon. Member has in mind, nor why it is necessary for the Government to pass legislation for it to make a start.
    Mr. Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman have this question considered before the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, is amended?
    Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is

    963
    aware that an agreement has been made between Gaumont-British, Limited, the leading film company in the country, and General Film Distributors, Limited, which involves the closing down of important British studios, the extinction of the productive and distributive organisations of Gaumont-British, Limited, and consequent widespread unemployment of trained British technicians, and that the decision to take these steps was strongly opposed by four out of nine members of the board of Gaumont-British, Limited; and what action, if any, he proposes to take?
    Mr. Runciman: My attention has been called 'to Press reports of the agreement to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I have no power to interfere in the internal affairs of these companies.
    Sir A. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the management of Gaumont-British, Limited, is in the hands of three persons, one of whom is an unnaturalised alien, and that their holding of 5,000, nominal, of voting shares in the Metropolis and Bradford Trust enables them to control share and loan capital in Gaumont-British, Limited, totalling nearly £12,000,000; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of taking power to dissolve the Metropolis and Bradford Trust in order to restore control of Gaumont-British, Limited, to the British shareholders who are anxious to co-operate with American producers in making the film industry in this country efficient?
    Mr. Runciman: According to the most recent documents filed with the Registrar of Companies, the directorate of Gaumont-British Picture Corporation, Limited, consists of 12 persons, of whom 10 are of British and two of United States nationality. Three of these persons (all British subjects) hold a controlling interest in Metropolis and Bradford Trust Company, Limited. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to initiate the special legislation suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir A. Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that British interests as apart from those of the shareholders are being watched by his Department?
    Mr. Denville: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why the offer made by Ostrer Brothers was turned down by the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Runciman: I could not answer that question without notice.

    FOREIGN GREETING CARDS.
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that foreign imports of greeting cards and picture postcards into this country need not be marked with the country of origin and that, in view of the fact that, to conform with the requirements of the Dominions, it is the practice of the trade in this country to mark all their greeting cards "Made in England," producers here are placed at a disadvantage with the foreign producer; and will he take steps to have foreign imports of greeting cards into this country marked with the country of origin?
    Mr. Runciman: The United Kingdom manufacturers have made an application under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, for the marking of imported picture and greeting postcards. In accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act this application has been referred to the Merchandise Marks Committee which will hold a public inquiry on 22nd March.

    CHEMICAL INDUSTRY.
    Miss Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will survey the imports under the chemical groups to ascertain those imports for the manufacture of which there is no provision here; and whether he will subsequently consult with the chemical manufacturers as to how far it is practicable to commence manufacture here?
    Mr. Runciman: Many kinds of chemical products cannot, for natural reasons, be economically produced in this country. I am satisfied that the chemical industry are well aware of the potentialities of this market, and are constantly increasing the range of their products.
    Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the chemical industry whether they can produce any other products here and consider the possibility of manufacturing them?
    Mr. Runciman: We are constantly in touch with the chemical industry and interchange information as to what is taking place. We are, of course, prepared to discuss the matter with them.
    Miss Ward: Would it not be a good idea for the right hon. Gentleman to move first, and not wait until the manufacturers come to him?
    Mr. Runciman: We move simultaneously.
    Mr. Garro Jones: What would be the effect on British manufactures if every foreign country took a survey of the goods it does not manufacture and took steps to manufacture them?

    IRON AND STEEL SCRAP (EXPORTS).
    Mrs. Tateasked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage of scrap-iron exported from this country in the year 1936 and for the first two months of 1937; to which countries it has been consigned; and whether, in view of the probable shortage of such material in this country, such exports are to be controlled?
    Mr. Runciman: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given on 8th February and 25th February to the hon. Members for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), to which I have nothing to add, except that exports of iron and steel scrap and waste in January amounted to 33,000 tons and imports to 35,000 tons: the figures for February are not yet available.

    TIN.
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the International Tin Research and Development Council have published any information about the production and consumption of tin for 1936; and what was the average cost price of standard tin in January, 1936, and the price for January, 1937?
    Mr. Runciman: Estimates of the production and apparent consumption of tin in 1936 are given in the February issue of the Statistical Bulletin of the Intern national Tin Research and Development Council. The average price in London in January, 1936, was £209 18s. a ton, and in January, 1937, £229 los. a ton.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of tin last
    966
    Saturday jumped up by £10 10s. per ton?
    Mr. Runciman: I know it has been jumping about a great deal.
    Mr. Hardie: Are the Government going to protect the country against the swindle that is going on?

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION).
    Mr. McGheeasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in any alteration of the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, he will ensure that the existing native franchise on the common roll will not be abolished, and that the Constitution will not contain any lessening in the power of the Secretary of State to disallow any Bill containing discriminatory legislation?
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 18th December, there is no proposal before me at present for any alteration of the provisions of the Southern Rhodesia electoral law, nor is it proposed in the amendments of the Constitution which are now contemplated to alter in any way the provision with regard to discriminatory legislation.
    Mr. Paling: Is it not a fact that the qualification is now so difficult that very few of them get on.
    Mr. MacDonald: The qualification for natives is the same as it is for Europeans.
    Mr. Paling: Is it not a fact that very few do get on?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think there are about 58.
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will give details regarding the draft Bill embodying constitutional changes in Southern Rhodesia, and, in particular, as to what provisions are being made for the representation of native interests?
    Mr. MacDonald: Drafts of the proposed amendments of the Southern Rhodesia Constitution have been published in Command Paper Cmd. 5218. No provision is included for the separate representation of

    967
    the natives in the Legislature, but, as explained in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) on r6th February, natives are entitled under the electoral law of Southern Rhodesia to be registered as voters on the same terms as Europeans.
    Mr. Watkins: Does that mean that natives have no representation on the Legislature at all.
    Mr. MacDonald: Those who are on the electoral roll are, of course, entitled to vote for their representatives.

    ALBERTA (FINANCIAL POSITION).
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement on the present financial position and indebtedness of Alberta; what is the present position of British stockholders; whether any financial assistance has been rendered by the Canadian Government; and whether any special financial benefits have been generally issued by the present provincial administration?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the first part of the question, the latest information which I have received goes to show that, while there is a small surplus of ordinary revenue over ordinary expenditure during the present financial year, the cost of unemployment and other relief measures have increased the total funded and unfunded debt of the Province to approximately $160,000,000. As regards the second part of the question, the Provincial legislation affecting the interests of the United Kingdom bondholders has been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Alberta. It is understood that the Government of Alberta intend to appeal against this decision. As regards the third part of the question, I understand that the Alberta Government have received from the Dominion Government their share of grants-in-aid to Provinces and other contributions in respect of relief and public works. I am not aware that any special financial benefits have been generally issued by the Provincial Administration.
    Mr. Lyons: Is Alberta still issuing "prosperity notes"?
    Mr. MacDonald: There is no new issue of any kind. Certain notes have been issued some months ago, but, as far as I am aware, there has been no new issue.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Alberta Government is experimenting with a system known as social debit?

    SUGAR PRICES (SOUTH AFRICA AND AUSTRALIA).
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how the internal price of raw sugar in South Africa and Australia compares with the world price of that product; and what is the estimated cost to consumers in these Dominions of maintaining their sugar production at its present level?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am informed that the wholesale price paid for raw sugar consumed within the Commonwealth of Australia is approximately £19 per ton and that the price in the Union of South Africa is slightly under £15 per short ton. The latest figure of the world price for raw sugar is 6 12s. 6d. per ton. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, no reliable estimate is available.
    Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the statement of one of his colleagues the other day that there was no subsidy having regard to these figures?
    Mr. MacDonald: There is no direct subsidy; I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Member about words. Certainly the arrangement is of considerable assistance to producers.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    IMPORTS (CARRIAGE).
    Mr. Liddallasked the President of the Board of Trade the proportion of the imports into the United Kingdom from British countries carried in British ships; and whether he will give similar information as to the imports from foreign countries?
    Mr. Runciman: This information is not available in respect of any year prior to 1936 and the particulars for that year,

    969
    which are now being compiled, will not be ready until after Easter. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the desired information in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it becomes available.

    COASTWISE TRADE.
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are placed on foreign shipping plying for coastwise trade in this country; and whether British shipping is accorded on the coasts of Europe the same facilities for coastwise trade as are accorded to foreign shipping trading on the coasts of this country?
    Mr. Runciman: Foreign vessels are free to engage in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom on the same footing as British vessels. The coastwise trade of the following European countries is open to British vessels: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden.

    OVERLOADING (BLYTH).
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information in connection with the overloading of the motor vessel at Blyth, Northumberland, on 21st January; and whether he is aware of the statement made by the Newcastle-on-Tyne magistrates about the overloading?
    Mr. Runciman: I assume that the question relates to the motor vessel "Actuosity," detained at Blyth by a Board of Trade surveyor on 21st January, who ascertained that the appropriate load line was submerged to the extent of three inches. The Board of Trade instituted proceedings against the master under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1932, and the summons was heard at Newcastle on 3rd March, when the master pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined £25 and costs. I am aware of the statement made by the magistrate in this case.

    LOCATION OF INDUSTRY.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to set up a Royal Commission to consider the question of controlling the location of industry?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer
    970
    which the Prime Minister gave yesterday in reply to the same question by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher).
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Does not the hon. Member realise that the House is prepared to leave this question in the hands of the Government?

    TYNESIDE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Miss Wilkinsonasked the Prime Minister when the report of the committee on the unification of Tyneside is likely to be published?
    Sir J. Simon: The report of the Royal Commission will be published shortly.
    Miss Wilkinson: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us anything more definite than that in view of the great uncertainty that is caused, particularly among local government officials at Tyneside, while this thing is in the air?
    Sir J. Simon: I appreciate the importance and urgency of the matter, and I hope it will be possible to make an announcement within a very few days.
    Miss Wilkinson: Is it not a fact that the report has been in the hands of the Government for an exceptionally long time?

    WILLS (PRESS PUBLICATION).
    Sir W. Davisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider if any useful public purpose is served by the publication in the Press of private details of the wills of individuals, which are not matters of public concern, seeing that the information can always be obtained on personal application to Somerset House?
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have been asked to reply. As far as legal administration is concerned, I know of no useful purpose which is served by the publication referred to.
    Sir W. Davison: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman be very angry if I were to ask him to tell me what he proposed to leave to his wife or brother—
    Mr. Speaker: That does not seem to arise out of the question.
    Sir W. Davison: May I put it in this way? Why should the Press, in order to gratify idle curiosity, be entitled to publish information on my hon. and learned Friend's death which he would be very angry if it were asked for while he was alive?
    The Attorney-General: I think that I have answered the question on the Paper. The question as to whether there should be a prohibition on the Press of publishing information which is available to the public is, of course, a much wider question, and I think that it is true, quite apart from this particular matter, that many private details appear in the Press which do not, in the terms of the question of my hon. Friend, serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. T. Williams: How should we know how much money people have lost in their lifetime unless we know how much they have left?
    The Attorney-General: You cannot find out how much money they have lost by reading their wills.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    DEATH DUTIES.
    Sir W. Davisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the general dissatisfaction at the unduly high valuations placed by Government valuers on the unrealisable assets of a testator when valuing for Death Duties; and whether, in fairness to the taxpayer, he will arrange that, in the case of disputed valuations, the Treasury will accept such assets in payment of Death Duties at the figure placed upon them by the Treasury valuer?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction in this matter, and, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, there is a statutory right of appeal in cases where it is considered that a valuation is too high. I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion made in the second part of the question.
    Sir W. Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say in what way the Treasury would be damnified by taking over property in payment of Death Duties at the value which they themselves have put upon it?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I should prefer that my hon. Friend put that question upon the Paper.

    INCOME TAX.
    Captain Stricklandasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is satisfied with the present method of assessing manual weekly wage earners for Income Tax purposes on a half-yearly basis; and whether, in view of the difficulty which is caused by this method in making claims for repayment when the total annual income falls below the minimum, he will consider the alteration of the system for that of an annual assessment?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the system has worked satisfactorily and I do not think that any change is called for. The difficulty to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is readily met in practice.
    Captain Strickland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the lack of knowledge on the part of these manual workers of the procedure to adopt in order to make their claims for repayment?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The half-yearly assessment was adopted to suit the wage-earner, and I have no general evidence of complaint about it. In fact, apart from one letter which my hon. and gallant Friend sent me, I have no evidence of complaint at all.

    MUNICIPAL BANKS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the public advantages derived from the Birmingham municipal bank, he will introduce legislation whereby other local authorities may be enabled to establish similar institutions?
    Mr. Chamberlain: Legislation of this character would, in the opinion of the Government, be best left to private Bills.
    Mr. Adams: Are we to understand from that answer that, in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the benefit of this excellent socialistic institution should be restricted to Birmingham?
    Mr. Chamberlain: That is not a fair deduction from my answer.
    Mr. Johnston: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman, when the Birmingham Bill was being promoted, had extraordinary difficulty in getting that private Bill through this House?
    Mr. Chamberlain: No, I do not think that that is the case.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Birmingham Corporation promoted the Bill they had many friends in this House?

    SHARE PUSHING.
    Mr. Johnstonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any estimate of the number of individuals who are engaged in running share-pushing enterprises in the City of London; whether he has received any report as to the estimated annual profits taken from the investing public by these individuals; and how many prosecutions for share-pushing frauds have been instituted during the past 12 months?
    Mr. Runciman: The answers to the first two parts of the question are in the negative. With regard to the last part, I am informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that since 1st January, 1936, six public prosecutions in connection with the matters referred to have been instituted and completed and that three such prosecutions are now pending.

    SPANISH SHIPS.
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information in connection with the number of ships that have been transferred from Spanish to German ownership?
    Mr. Runciman: I have no information as to the number of ships that have been so transferred.

    WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements the Government have made for providing indemnity, by insurance or otherwise, for loss or damage to property in this country arising out of acts of war both prior to and subsequent to a formal declaration of war?
    Mr. Runciman: I cannot at present add to the answers given on 3rd February and 2nd March to the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. C. Wilson).

    AFFORESTATION.
    Colonel Clifton Brownasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the present area of planted land, both public and private, is greater or less than in 1914, and what is the difference in acreage?
    Sir G. Courthope: The present area of planted woodland is undoubtedly less than in 1914, but adequate statistical data do not exist for making a close comparison. It is estimated that the difference is not less than 200,000 acres, and may be considerably greater.
    Colonel Brown: Is a survey being taken? Should it not be taken in order to assist matters?
    Sir G. Courthope: It could only be taken at considerable expense, and would take a long time. I doubt whether it would serve any useful purpose.

    TELEGRAPH SERVICE (LIVERPOOL AND LONDON).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allenasked the Postmaster-General the number of telegrams between Liverpool and London which took over two hours to deliver during the last convenient month?
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): Information in the form sought by my hon. and gallant Friend is not available; but a snap-check of telegrams between Liverpool and London taken last October revealed an average time from acceptance to delivery of about 45 minutes, and in no case did the time reach two hours. If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any such cases, I shall be glad to make inquiries if he will furnish me with particulars.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen: Does the hon. Member realise that the business community in Liverpool consider that the telegraphic service is far too slow and unreliable?
    Sir W. Womersley: If the hon. and gallant Member will bring any cases of slow delivery to my notice, I will inquire into them.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FOODSTUFFS (HOME PRODUCTION AND IMPORTS).
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the consumption of essential foodstuffs in Great Britain, other than beer, wines, and spirits, is home produced; and what proportion is imported from overseas?
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. As the answer includes a table of figures I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table shows in respect of certain foodstuffs the approximate proportions of the average total supplies in the United Kingdom in the years 1934 to 1936 represented by home production and imports, respectively.

    Proportion of Total Supply represented by:

    Home Production.

    Imports.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Wheat and Flour (a)

    24

    76

    Meat (including Rabbits and Poultry). (b)

    50

    50

    Sugar (c)

    28

    72

    Milk

    100

    —

    Butter (d)

    9

    91

    Cheese (d)

    28

    72

    Potatoes (a)

    96

    4

    Fruit, raw (e)

    32

    68

    Eggs(d)

    56

    44

    (a) Total supplies for all purposes.
    (b) Average of two years, 1934 and 1935.
    (c) Average of two years ending April, 1936, and excludes sugar contained in imported articles. (Extracted from H.M. Customs and Excise Annual Report.)
    (d) Based on figures extracted from publications issued by the Imperial Economic Committee.
    (e) If fruit of kinds not produced in the United Kingdom is included, the proportions are 63 per cent. home produced and 37 per cent. imported.

    WORKERS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware
    976
    that farmers in different parts of the country are alarmed at the growing shortage of labour due to the extensive exodus which continues, and that the total numbers of workers, regular and casual, in 1936 had fallen to 640,000 as against 673,000 in 1935, and 688,000 in 1934; and what steps are being taken to end this serious situation?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the continued decline in the number of agricultural workers. With regard to the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member 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. Adams: Could the Minister send me a copy of that?
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the output per person in certain areas in this country between 1930 and 1935 increased by 40 per cent., and does he expect to keep the men on the land?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: That is no doubt partly the result of mechanisation.
    Mr. Thorne: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to hand that reply to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence?

    WIRELESS RECEPTION (ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE).
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Postmaster-General whether it is intended to introduce legislation to improve the law with regard to the interference of electrical apparatus with wireless reception in this country?
    Sir W. Womersley: This question is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to announce a decision.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. Thurtleasked the hon. and gallant Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he will approach the Treasury with a view to getting the annual subvention to the Refreshment Department which was withdrawn in 1922 restored, in order that the

    977
    tipping system at present in vogue might be abolished?
    Sir John Ganzoni: The answer is in the affirmative, but the committee cannot undertake, if successful, to earmark the whole sum or any specified amount for the abolition of tipping, owing to the loss that has now been made for many years upon the annual accounts.
    Mr. Thurtle: Does the hon. Baronet agree that, if this subvention be obtained, at least he will be able to devote sufficient of it to dispensing with the practice of tipping?
    Sir J. Ganzoni: We will deal with that matter when the contingency arises.
    Mr. Hardie: In view of the fact that many Members cannot afford to go to the dining room, could not some other arrangement be made as an in-between? Why should Members of this House go outside when they have the best kitchen in the world, and every appurtenance they require?
    Mr. Thurtle: May I put this point to the hon. Baronet? Is he aware that I have not asked him to apply for this subvention in order to utilise this money for other purposes?
    Sir J. Ganzoni: I can only inform the hon. Member that the idea of applying for the restoration of the subvention had occurred to the committee before the hon. Member put his question. His point will certainly be considered.
    Mr. Hardie: Why should there be a subvention? It is inefficiency.

  AVIATION.

    FOREIGN AERO ENGINES.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that it is proposed to manufacture Isotta-Fraschini engines in this country; and whether he proposes to buy these engines for either the Royal Air Force expansion scheme or for civil aviation?
    Commander Southby (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I understand that a British firm proposes to manufacture fluid-cooled aero engines under licence from the Isotta-Fraschini Company. The policy of the Air
    978
    Ministry with regard to aero engines was fully stated in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend on 9th December last. For the reasons stated in that reply it is not the policy of the Air Ministry to purchase foreign engines in quantity when equivalent and equally suitable types of British designed engines are available.
    Mr. Perkins: Could the answer that it is not proposed to buy foreign engines appear in the forthcoming prospectus?
    Commander Southby: I will pass that question to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that it is proposed to manufacture Isotta-Fraschini marine engines in this country; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to buy any of these engines?
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No negotiations have taken place with the firm on the question of purchasing these engines.

    GATWICK AIRPORT.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the reason for the recent transfer of British Airways services from Gatwick Airport to Croydon Airport?
    Commander Southby: I understand that the transfer was necessary as the Gatwick Aerodrome had become so wet, as a result of the exceptional weather conditions, that heavy aircraft such as those used by British Airways cannot for the time being be operated there.
    Mr. Perkins: Would it not be possible to continue the flooding of this airport in order to make it a terminal air base for the new flying boats?
    Commander Southby: If my hon. Friend really thinks it would be suitable for flying boats, perhaps he will put another question down.

    CORONATION OATH.
    Mr. Manderasked the Attorney-General whether it is proposed to intro duce legislation in connection with the changes in the Coronation Oath, in view of the fact that an alteration in the law

    979
    touching the Royal Style and Titles is involved requiring the assent of Parliament under the Statute of Westminster?
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir. The changes made in the Coronation Oath are not changes in the law touching the Royal Style and Titles, and the hon. Gentleman's question is therefore framed on a misunderstanding of the position. The law touching the Royal Style and Titles is to be found in 17 Geo. V. c. 4 and the Royal Proclamation made thereunder.
    Mr. Mander: Is not "Defender of the Faith" a Royal Style and Title? Is not that affected?
    The Attorney-General: No. The hon. Member's question is founded on a misunderstanding. The alteration made in the Oath has nothing to do with the Royal Style and Titles. They are in quite a different context. The Royal Style and Titles, as determined under the Statute to which I have referred, are quite unaffected by any change in the Oath.
    Mr. Logan: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that, in regard to the title "Defender of the Faith," if it is right to make it modern, the best way would be to get rid of it altogether?

    COAL ROYALTIES (TRIBUNAL).
    Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the negotiations which have been proceeding with the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee on the compensation to be paid to the owners of coal royalties in the event of their unification?
    Mr. Chamberlain: Negotiations have been proceeding for some time between His Majesty's Government and the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee, but I regret that it has been found impossible to reach agreement on the amount of the compensation to be paid in the event of the statutory unification of coal royalties. However, both parties are agreed that the proper basis of compensation would be the fixing of a global sum equivalent to the value of the whole property to be acquired, which would be divided proportionally among the various owners, according to the relative values of their property. His Majesty's. Government
    980
    have therefore decided, in agreement with the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee, to appoint a tribunal to determine the value of the whole property concerned, on the basis of a sale in the open market by a willing seller. The members of the tribunal will be:

    Lord Justice Greene (Chairman),

    Mr. Justice Clauson, and

    Lord Plender.

    With regard to the objects to be served by the Tribunal's decision, it is agreed that the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee will accept the decision as representing the compensation properly payable to the owners for the property in the event of His Majesty's Government proceeding with their present proposals for its acquisition. But it is also agreed that His Majesty's Government shall have the right at any time within six weeks after the delivery of the decision of the Tribunal to give notice to the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee that they are not prepared to accept the decision of the Tribunal, in which event the Government will not proceed with their proposals for the purchase of the property, except at some global figure determined by agreement between them and the Committee. If notice is not so given, the Committee will be entitled to assume that the Tribunal's decision is acceptable to His Majesty's Government and that they will introduce during the present Session of Parliament a Bill to acquire the property on the basis of the Tribunal's decision.
    I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a Treasury Minute, dated 2nd March, 1937, appointing the tribunal and specifying their terms of reference.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does that reply mean that, in view of the breakdown of negotiations, the Government's legislation for the unification of coalmining royalties will now be indefinitely postponed?
    Mr. Chamberlain: When the hon. Member has an opportunity of reading what I said, I think he will see that that is not so.
    Mr. T. Williams: May I ask whether, if the Government do accept the proposals of the tribunal, we are to understand that they will be beyond amendment in this House, and that the House will have to accept the proposals once the Government have accepted them?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I do not think it would be true to say that it would he out of the power of the House to amend those proposals, but I suppose that in some respects it might be out of the power.
    Mr. Williams: May I ask whether, before any step is taken by the Government, they will safeguard the interests of this House at all events, and that whatever decision they may reach as a Government, will not prejudice this House and the opportunity of this House to make amendments?
    Mr. Chamberlain: It is always possible for the House to reject a Bill if it disagrees with it.
    Sir Percy Harris: Would it be in order to move a reduced amount?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I do not think that is a question which should be addressed to me, but to whoever is in charge of the Bill.
    Mr. David Grenfell: Are we to assume that the Government have already committed themselves to regarding the findings of the tribunal as an award in this case?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I explained what the arrangement was. The Mineral Owners' Joint Committee has agreed to accept the tribunal's award, but the Government have the right to say whether they will accept it or not.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that this House has already, this Session, by a substantial majority, rejected a Bill embodying the principles of the announcement which he has just made?
    Mr. Batey: Will the right hon. Gentleman put on the Order Paper a Resolution setting up the tribunal and give the House a chance of expressing its opinion as to whether it should be set up or not?
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to assume that if the State purchases these royalties, it will be a charge upon the industry; and if so, does not that vitally affect the position of the workmen in the industry; and is it proposed to consult the Mineworkers' Federation on this procedure?
    Mr. Chamberlain: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the circulation in the
    982
    OFFICIAL REPORT of the Treasury Minute and then he will see exactly what the proposals are.
    Mr. Attlee: Before the Government decide on acceptance of the award of the tribunal, will this House be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I do not think I could give an assurance of that kind at the present moment.
    Mr. Hardie: Are the royalties now proposed to be taken over, based on the coal in situ or the coal brought to the surface; and are the Government going to bring forward a Bill to say that we have to pay royalties on coal for all time?
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is it the case that the right hon. Gentleman has just refused to give the House an assurance that before he commits the country to spending £100,000,000, he will consult the House?
    Mr. Chamberlain: No, Sir. The country is not committed to anything by what I have said. If the Government decide to proceed with their proposals, of course, those proposals will have to be brought before the House to receive its assent.
    Following is the Treasury Minute:
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer states to the Board that he has been in negotiation with the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee in regard to the amount of the compensation to be paid in the event of the statutory unification of coal royalties in Great Britain. In order to facilitate the determination of this amount, he proposes, with the agreement of the Committee that a Tribunal should be set up with the following terms of reference:

    1. The Tribunal is to determine the amount which the fee simple of all unworked coal and all mines of coal in Great Britain and certain rights agreed to between the parties as being ancillary thereto might be expected to realise if sold in the open market by a willing seller.

    2. In order to facilitate the reference it is agreed that the average net annual income derived from such property during the seven years 1928 to 1934, shall be taken at £4,430,000.

    3. The Tribunal is to express its decision in the form of stating the appropriate number of years purchase to be applied to the aggregate figure of £4,430,000 but, in determining the appropriate number of years' purchase, shall take into account such variations, if any, in the amount of the net income as may reasonably be expected in the light of its source or otherwise.

    983

    4. The Tribunal shall not make any allowance on account of the acquisition being compulsory, nor shall they take into account any increased value based on the fact that the property will be in the hands of the State, or the fact that the distribution of the compensation will involve expense.

    5. Cases are to be exchanged before Monday, i5th March. Replies to Cases are to be exchanged not later than seven days after the receipt of Cases. The Cases and Replies are then to be lodged with the Tribunal.

    6. The Government and the Royalty Owners Committee may appear by Counsel before the Tribunal. Without prejudice to the right of the Tribunal to require further witnesses to be called, neither of them shall call more than three witnesses.

    7. Subject to the above the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer further proposes that the Tribunal should consist of the following members:—

    Lord Justice Greene (Chairman).

    Mr. Justice Clauson.

    Lord Plender, G.B.E.

    My Lords agree.

    Let the necessary directions be given accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Home Secretary, as Deputy-Leader of the House, whether he has any statement to make with regard to Friday's business?
Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir. The House will appreciate that the Parliamentary programme is very congested, as it usually is, at this time of year. The Easter Recess is little more than a fortnight off, and we have yet to complete the major part of the essential financial business. The Government, however, are prepared to set apart Friday of this week for the conclusion of the discussion on the Special Areas Money Resolution, on the clear understanding, in all quarters of the House, that the Committee stage of the Money Resolution will be obtained by four o'clock on that day.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Folkestone Pier and Lift Company to sell by agreement the undertaking of that Company; and for other purposes." [Folkestone Pier and Lift Bill [Lords.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  FOLKESTONE PIER AND LIFT BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SPECIAL AREAS [MONEY].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to continue the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and to make further statutory provision for—

(a) enabling the Commissioners, for the purpose of inducing persons to establish industrial undertakings in the special areas, to let factories in those areas for the occupation of such undertakings and to contribute for periods not exceeding five years towards the rent, income tax, and rates payable in respect of industrial undertakings hereafter established in places approved by the Commissioners within those areas, notwithstanding that any such undertaking may be carried on for the purpose of gain;

(b) enabling the Commissioners to make grants towards expenses incurred by local authorities in the repair or improvement of streets in any special area which are certified by the Minister of Transport as being wholly or mainly required for purposes other than those of through traffic, and to contribute towards expenses incurred by owners or occupiers of agricultural land in any special areas in connection with the execution of works of field drainage notwithstanding that the land is occupied for the purpose of gain;

(c) enabling the Treasury to give financial assistance for any area outside the special areas, as to which the Minister of Labour certifies that there is and has been for a considerable time severe unemployment in the area, that without such financial assistance there will be no immediate likelihood of a substantial increase in employment in the area, and that employment in the area is mainly dependent on one or more industries which are unable to provide sufficient employment by reason of general depression in those industries:

Provided that such financial assistance shall only be given either by means of subscription to the share capital of site-companies incorporated for the purpose of providing factories in such areas with a view to inducing persons to establish industrial undertakings therein, or by means of loans to such companies, and the assistance provided to any such company shall not exceed an amount equal to one-third of its paid up share capital exclusive of any share capital held by the Treasury;

(d) enabling the Treasury to provide financial assistance, not exceeding in the aggregate two million pounds, by way of loan to persons carrying on industrial undertakings which are hereafter established in any special area or, in the case of industrial undertakings occupying factories provided by site-companies, in any such area as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph of this Resolution;

998

(e) the payment of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required for the purposes aforesaid; and

(f) supplementary and consequential matters.

In this Resolution the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them—
'Commissioners' means the Commissioners appointed under the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, and 'special areas' means the areas specified in the First Schedule to that Act;
'Site-company' means a body corporate established for the purpose specified in paragraph (c) of this Resolution, being a body which does not trade for profit or a body whereof the constitution forbids the payment of any interest or dividend at a rate exceeding such rate as may be for the time being prescribed by the Treasury."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Ernest Brown.]
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Batey: On a point of Order. There are over 20 Amendments on the Order Paper. Are we to understand that all these Amendments are out of order? I wish to direct attention especially to the first Amendment in my name—in line 4 after "of," to insert:
"re-opening coal mines in the Special Areas and in any areas outside and of."
It seems to me to be almost impossible for the Chair to rule that Amendment out of order. The Resolution in line 4 makes provision for
"enabling the Commissioners, for the purpose of inducing persons to establish industrial undertakings in the Special Areas"
to do certain things. All I am seeking to do is to include the re-opening of coalmines among the purposes of the Commissioners, and it seems to me that that could be done without contravening the Standing Order.
The Chairman: The hon. Member's Amendment proposes an additional method of expending the money which is outside those covered by the King's Recommendation.
Mr. Batey: I thought, Sir Dennis, that that was what was in your mind, but the Amendment does not do any such thing. No extra cost is involved in this Amendment. As a matter of fact, one or two big collieries have been re-opened in Whitehaven without a penny of expenditure by the Government.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is now proceeding to argue a point which is entirely outside the Ruling I have

999
given. I said that his Amendment proposed expenditure on an object which is not covered by the King's Recommendation. That is the reason why it is out of Order.
Mr. G. Hardie: Paragraph (a) of the Resolution refers to the establishment of industrial undertakings in the Special Areas. Is a mine not an industrial undertaking; and where is it specified in the Resolution that mines are outside the objects which may be undertaken by the Commissioners? Is it your Ruling, Sir Dennis, that a mine is not an industrial undertaking?
The Chairman: I am not called upon to give a Ruling on the point which the hon. Member has raised.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I followed the Debate yesterday, and from it I understood that Amendments would be in order provided they did not cause any additional cost.
The Chairman: I do not know what the hon. Member may have understood from the Debate, but on this point he is to understand that there is a decision of the Chair which I have, I think, stated quite clearly.
Mr. Batey: Do not let us be in too great a hurry about this. Your Ruling on this point, Sir Dennis, is narrower than any Ruling I have ever heard before on these matters, and it is a serious Ruling. It means that we cannot go outside the Money Resolution, that we must accept the purposes set forth in that Resolution, and that we shall have to accept a similar restriction when we discuss the Bill. Some of us who come from the Special Areas are not going to accept that position. We are here to represent the Special Areas and we are going to discuss the Special Areas, and we want the opportunity, either on the Money Resolution or on the Bill, of seeking to increase the purposes for which the Commissioners may use this money. I hope, therefore, Sir Dennis, you are not going to rule as narrowly on this point as you have indicated.
The Chairman: I have given my Ruling in accordance with the well established practice of the House. It is the repetition of a Ruling which I gave at
1000
considerably greater length on the Resolution in reference to the Bill of 1934. I cannot do otherwise than repeat that Ruling.
Mr. James Griffiths: In conformity with that Ruling would an Amendment to extend the scheduled areas and to include areas not now scheduled be ruled out of order?
The Chairman: There is no question about it. It would certainly be out of order.
Mr. Griffiths: Is it not possible to extend the areas already scheduled? Would such an Amendment be ruled out of order?
The Chairman: I am sorry that hon. Members do not seem to understand the basis of the Ruling with regard to the King's Recommendation. It is not a question of increasing the charge. Parliament can vote money only on a Recommendation from the Crown and when the Crown recommends the grant of money for a particular purpose, subject to certain conditions, it is outside the Recommendation to say that that money shall be used for other purposes or under other conditions. It is not a question of the charge at all; it is a question whether the Amendment goes outside the Recommendation on which the Resolution is based.
Mr. Griffiths: The Amendment on the Paper in my name referring to one area will not change by one comma the object of the expenditure but will merely change the boundaries of an area. Do you rule that an Amendment to change a boundary is an Amendment to change the purpose of the Bill and is out of order?
The Chairman: A Ruling which was given and accepted by the Committee to that effect was given in 1934—exactly the same Ruling as I am giving now.
Mr. Batey: In December when it was proposed to include the Special Areas Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill we made a strong stand against the proposal, because we come from the Special Areas and we know that nothing has been done. We did expect that we would have a chance of amending the new Bill and of getting something done. Seeing that your Ruling prevents us from doing that and makes this Debate

1001
futile, we would do far better as a party by leaving the House altogether. As the Debate will be so futile to us under your Ruling, I beg to ask leave to move "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," in order that the Government may reconsider the position.
The Chairman: No, I cannot accept a Motion to report Progress as a result of a Ruling which has been given by me and by others in the Chair repeatedly. It is not as if this was a new question at all. I am not in any way responsible for the position in which the hon. Member finds himself. It seems to me to be a question which the hon. Member can raise in Debate. His particular grievance, if I may put it in that way, is not a grievance against the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am not speaking personally. It is not a grievance for the moment against the procedure of the House. Therefore, it is not a matter to raise on a point of Order with the Chair.
Mr. Dalton: Further to the point of Order. It is a grievance against the Government because of the way they have drafted this Resolution. The very clear Ruling you have now given and which of course we accept, has brought out even more clearly the very restricted and indeed ridiculous scope of the Debate. Is my hon. Friend not in order in making his protest against the way in which the Government have drafted the Resolution?
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well from his experience of the House the object of a Motion to report Progress. In view of the Debate which took place on this matter last night I cannot accept a Motion to report Progress.
Mr. N. Maclean: I wish to ask for guidance for myself and others who had proposed to take part in the Debate. If in a district where in the past coal mining has been the principal industry an effort is made to induce someone either to sink or open a coal mine, do we understand from your Ruling that such an individual will be debarred from participating in any of this Fund?
The Chairman: That again seems to be a matter for Debate and not for the Chair.
Mr. Maclean: That exactly is what the position will be if your Ruling is carried into effect. You have already stated that there is ruled out of Debate any coal mining undertaking that is to receive financial assistance, and now the Amendment of my hon. Friend is ruled out of order and cannot be debated.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The fact that an Amendment is out of order does not mean that the contention of that Amendment, if I may put it in that way, is a thing which cannot be debated. Those matters can be debated on the Resolution, but it is not in order to move Amendments to that effect.
4.9 p.m.
Mr. Garro Jones: Without in any way impugning the impartiality of your Ruling, may I draw your attention to the fact that although this matter was discussed yesterday it is only your very clear Ruling this afternoon which has brought the House up against the extraordinary position that hon. Members are not only not allowed to move Amendments to the finance of this Resolution, but they are not allowed to propose any Amendments which alter in any way the purposes and conditions which are laid down in this Resolution. That being so, although this matter was discussed at great length yesterday, the House quite clearly finds itself in a perfectly ridiculous position, because although these points may be discussed, discussion without Amendment is absolutely futile; it enables the Government to say, in reply to all these proposals, that they are quite useless because they are out of order and that the Government, therefore, are not able to do anything upon them. We are merely wasting our breath if we discuss these things. I submit that although it may bring the Government into a fresh difficulty that is not our object on this occasion. Our only object is to secure adequate discussion of a matter which is of immense import to everyone on these benches. Complaint has been made not only from these benches but by every impartial hon. Member that the Resolution is too restricted. Therefore, without in any way impugning the impartiality of the Ruling you have given, I suggest that it brings the House into an impossible position, and that in order that the House may examine the position in which

1003
it finds itself you should accept the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chairman: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement as to the effect of my Ruling. With regard to the rest of what he said, I see no reason to alter the decision that I have given. At this stage I cannot accept a Motion to report Progress. Perhaps I may add, though it is only repeating what I have said in answer to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) that some hon. Members seem to be still under a misapprehension as to the possible scope of the Debate. The Ruling I have given does not limit the scope of the Debate. It does not limit the arguments of hon. Members or the statement of their reasons why the House should not pass the Resolution. I want to make that quite clear.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Suppose that we take part in the Debate and suppose that we put up a convincing case for certain changes to be made and for certain areas to be brought in, will it then be permissible to move our Amendments upon the Bill when it is brought forward, or will the Amendments be governed entirely by this Ruling. Will you give a Ruling as to whether the Amendment in the name of myself and several other hon. Members, on page 1611, calling for the appointment of a Minister of Cabinet rank to take charge of this work, is to be ruled out of order?
The Chairman: The hon. Member's first question was whether if he put forward an absolutely convincing case an Amendment to carry out that upon which he convinced the House could be moved to the Bill. The answer to that question is, "No." I hoped I had already made it clear that if hon. Members convinced the House that this Resolution was not a satisfactory one, they could persuade the House not to pass the Resolution. That is the position. In such circumstances it would be open to the House to pass some other Resolution, but, as the hon. Member knows, such a Resolution could be introduced only by the Government. If the hon. Member were to succeed in convincing the House on the matter the Resolution would presumably be defeated and a new Resolution brought in to carry
1004
out what the hon. Member had convinced the House was the right course.
Mr. Grenfell: Assuming that we get the broad freedom of debate that you suggested just now, suppose that the House does not debate the general question but certain points of criticism which the majority of Members are convinced should be embodied in the Financial Resolution on their merits, is it competent then for the Government to withdraw their own Financial Resolution and to introduce an amending Resolution?
The Chairman: Certainly. The hon. Member is only repeating in other words what I have said. If the Committee defeats the Resolution or the expression of opinion is so strong that the Government withdraw the Resolution, of course the Government can then introduce another Resolution. The hon. Member asked another question which I have not answered. He asked me for a Ruling with reference to the Amendment to provide for
"the appointment of a Minister of Cabinet rank to be directly responsible for the administration of that Act, and for further Measures for the economic development and social improvement of the Special Areas."
That Amendment is out of order because of the latter part of it, which prevents me having any doubt on the subject. If the Amendment had stopped at the word "Act," I should have felt no doubt about it, and I should probably not have ruled it out of order.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Will you accept a manuscript Amendment containing the first part and leaving out the latter part?
The Chairman: The hon. Member will perhaps make out the Amendment and hand it in. I would like to see it in writing.
Mr. Lees-Smith: With regard to the Ruling you have given as to your acceptance of a Motion to report Progress. I gather that you cannot accept it arising directly out of a Ruling from the Chair, but if in the course of the Debate it becomes apparent that the Debate is very restricted on account of the circumscribed nature of the Financial Resolution, I would ask you whether the Ruling you have given would necessarily preclude a Motion to report Progress?
The Chairman: That is a hypothetical question. I should never say before a

1005
Debate has commenced that I would never accept a Motion to report Progress in the course of the Debate. Indeed, when I refused to accept that Motion a few minutes ago I distinctly used the words, I think, "at this stage" or "at this time." That was before the Debate had commenced.
Mr. Batey: You rather put me in a quandary. You ruled my first Amendment out of order because you said it did not come within the Money Resolution. Now you tell my hon. Friend that he can move the first part of his Amendment although it is not within the Money Resolution. If he can move his Amendment, why should not I be allowed to move mine? We are getting into such a mess with this Resolution that it would be far better to allow us to move our Amendments.
The Chairman: I should be very sorry that the hon. Member should find himself either in a quandary or in a mess, but, as far as I am concerned, I do not find myself in the slightest degree in a mess. I see no reason to alter my rulings. At some later stage I may have an opportunity of explaining them at greater length to the hon. Member, but at the moment I can only say that I have given them as clearly as I can and that I must adhere to them.
Mr. Hardie: The question here is what is to be understood as industrial under-takings—
The Chairman: The hon. Member had better wait until we come to that question.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown) rose—
4.21 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I should be glad if you can make it clear what will be the position if we convince the Committee on the correctness of an Amendment and that there is a possibility of the Bill being defeated, although it will not be possible to get the House to agree to defeat it. That would mean a defeat of the Government. We might get the House to agree in a general way that the idea that we are putting forward ought to be accepted, but find that the Government insist on getting their Measure through. Does that mean
1006
that, however desirable a proposal is, we shall be unable to get it put into the Bill?
The Chairman: The hon. Member is now going into the question of merit, which is outside any point of Order that can be raised at this moment. If there was a point of Order in what he said, it was one which has already been put to me and about which I have already given an answer, namely, that the Amendments which are out of order on the Resolution would be equally out of order on the Bill. It was on that point that I suggested, in reply to another hon. Member, that the only course was to convince the House of the advisability of not passing the Resloution.
Mr. Gallacher: Is it not permissible for me to draw attention to the fact that we are being put in an absolutely impossible position?
The Chairman: It is not permissible for the hon. Member to draw attention at this time to facts which would be more properly dealt with in the Debate.
Mr. Gallacher: I will put it in this way. If it is felt in the House that we have made an exceptionally good case for an Amendment and the Government refuse to do anything but use their Whips in order to insure the carrying through of the Bill, can we have any recourse between now and the coming in of the Bill to get that proposal accepted?
The Chairman: The hon. Member is asking me to reply to him on matters which are entirely outside the duties of the Chair. I really think that I cannot have any further points of order or any more discussion on points on which I have given rulings.
Mr. Garro Jones: The House has found itself, as a result of the discussion in the last few moments, in a fresh difficulty. Hon. Members have asked whether, if a suitable case is made out, the Government themselves will adopt the initiation of the charge proposed by hon. Members on this side. Several right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench nodded eagerly in acceptance of that proposal. The question I should like to have elucidated is how is the Front Bench to know whether there is a sufficient

1007
volume of opinion to warrant them in accepting that new proposal and initiating the necessary charge?
The Chairman: If the hon. Member considers for a moment, he will realise that his question is an abuse of the right—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—perhaps hon. Members will allow me to continue—an abuse of the right to raise questions of order. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that when the House has a question before it, it is for the House to decide in the usual way according to its usual procedure. There is no question of order arising in such a matter as that.
Mr. Garro Jones: You have failed to appreciate the force of my point, which I must repeat because it goes to the root of the soundness of the procedure of this House, and the Committee ought not to leave it until the matter is settled. I am asking whether, if proposals are brought forward and a case is made out for them, the Government will adopt them. Members of the Government have indicated by nods that they would adopt them, and I am asking how the Government are to decide whether a case is made out or not if no vote is to be allowed? Is it to be decided by the loudest Member—
The Chairman: Order! Really the hon. Member must allow me to say that that is not a point of Order at all. It is a question the answer to which he must discover if and when he gets the opportunity in the course of the Debate. I certainly cannot give anything in the nature of a Ruling as to what is going to be sufficient to persuade the Government or to persuade hon. Members in any part of the House. Mr. Ernest Brown.
Mr. Hardie Mr. Hardie rose—
The Chairman: I must now ask the Committee to proceed with the business. I cannot have any repetition of these points of Order. I have given my Rulings and other matters had better be left until they arise in the course of the Debate.
Mr. Hardie: May I ask your guidance why this Financial Resolution is not accompanied by an explanation of the word "factory"?
The Chairman: The hon. Member is asking me a question which has nothing whatever to do with the Chair. It is not the first time he has done it, and I must ask the Committee to proceed.
4.27 p.m.
Mr. E. Brown: I now rise to speak on the Financial Resolution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take it away."] Its object is to give further aid to the Special Areas and to some areas which are not in the present Act. The Bill which will follow will be almost wholly concerned with financial matters. We are asking the Committee to pass the Resolution so that the Government may bring in a Measure which will have the following aims—to continue all existing arrangements under the Special Areas Act until 31st March, 1939; to give the Commissioner power to encourage new industrial enterprise in the Special Areas; to provide financial assistance for new undertakings in the Special Areas; to enable the Commissioner to assist certain road, street, and field drainage works in the Special Areas; to provide financial assistance for the provision of factories in certain other areas suffering from heavy and prolonged unemployment; and finally to enable the Treasury to provide financial aid to new undertakings both within and without the Special Areas—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) will wait until I have stated the case, when he will find that there is more aid than he thinks.
Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. At this stage—I do not really know the procedure of the House—I want to ask, in view of the fact that we will not be able to move Amendments and that we must either reject or accept in toto the Resolution, whether it would be possible to take a vote of the Committee now without any further discussion.
The Chairman: That matter has been dealt with already.
Mr. Logan: But, Sir Dennis—
The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat. I have refused to deal with his point as a point of Order.
Mr. Logan: I have a right as a Member of this House to ask—
The Chairman: If the hon. Member wishes to put another and quite different

1009
question of order to me, which is not one on the subject that I have already dealt with, I will hear him. Although he has a right to rise to points of Order, there is no right to disobey the instructions of the Chair in regard to points of Order.
Mr. Logan: I am not disobeying your instructions. I have listened to your Ruling, and I express no dissension, but in regard to the time of the Committee, and understanding your Ruling, I ask, from the point of view of expedition, which is a different question entirely, is it not possible to save the time of the Committee, seeing that we must accept your Ruling, to put the question to the Committee without further discussion?
The Chairman: Mr. Ernest Brown.
Mr. Brown Mr. Brown rose—
Hon. Members: Divide.
The Chairman: I must ask hon. Members at least to give the Minister a chance to state his case.
Mr. Mainwaring: On a point of Order. Since the attitude adopted by the Government renders our presence here this day utterly valueless, are we not in order—
The Chairman: Order.
Mr. Logan Mr. Logan rose—
The Chairman: I have already stated that I cannot deal further with other points such as those which have lately been made. [An HON. MEMBER: "I move that the Question be now put."] I am afraid now that it is my duty, in order to do my best to preside over the conduct of this Debate, to say that I must ask hon. Members not to continue to interrupt the Debate by such points as those which have been raised for the last 10 minutes or more. If hon. Members decline—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide"]—to accept that intimation from the Chair, I am afraid that I shall have to put in force the ordinary powers of the Chair and to ask them to resume their seats.
Mr. Brown Mr. Brown rose—
Hon. Members: Divide.
Mr. Logan: On a point of Order—
The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) to remain in his seat.
Mr. Logan: On a point of Order—
The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member for the Scotland Division to resume his seat.
Mr. Brown Mr. Brown rose—
Hon. Members: Divide.
The Chairman: I really want to make an appeal to the Committee at least to allow the Government spokesman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?" and "No"]—in the ordinary interests of Debate, to make his speech.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Brown Mr. Brown rose—
Hon. Members: Divide.
Mr. Denville: On a point of Order—
The Chairman: Is it a new point of Order?
Mr. Denville: I would like to ask for your Ruling whether it is in accordance with the best British traditions to make a noise like that and not listen to the Minister.
Mr. Brown: As Members are aware, during the last two years special efforts have been made in areas scheduled in the Act of 1934, which is known as the Special Areas Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] During that time an experiment has been undertaken through two Commissioners, one having the oversight of the Special Areas in England and Wales, the other having the care of the areas scheduled in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] The White Paper gives an outline of the measures which are the result of these experiments and figures as to their potential cost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] It shows how baseless is the assertion continually heard in some quarters that nothing has been done for the Special Areas.
Mr. Buchanan: May I rise to a point of Order? With all due respect, I would say, first of all, that I can hardly hear a single word that the Minister is saying, but I want to ask quite seriously whether it is in order for me not to hear him. Secondly, I understand there is a Ruling against the reading of speeches, and I

1011
want to ask, in view of the fact that the speech is being obviously read, what is your Ruling in regard to it.
The Chairman: My Ruling on that is quite obviously that a chance ought certainly to be given to hon. Members to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Though the reading of speeches is forbidden by the Standing Orders, hon. and right hon. Members are permitted to make copious use of notes, and, further to that, it is the recognised practice of the House that members of the Government, when they have important statements to make, should, for greater accuracy, have those statements written out.
Mr. Attlee: On a point of Order. Surely the latter part of your statement refers to definite statements of Government policy and not to a longish speech explaining a Bill, and this House ought not to have long statements read to it, but there ought to be only a use of notes.
The Chairman: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will ask me that question again, if there is reason for it, when the right hon. Gentleman has made a long speech.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether the right hon. Gentleman has been making an important statement of Government policy?
The Chairman: That, no doubt, is a matter of opinion, to be judged by those who heard it.
Mr. Brown: I was pointing out that the original criticisms which we have had were not well founded. In the first month after the Act of 1934 was passed it was contended that the total sum available for the Commissioners for this work in the hard-hit areas was £2,000,000, but the White Paper makes it quite clear that that statement was wholly inaccurate, and that the original grant of £2,000,000 was succeeded by one of £3,000,000 in the Vote of 1936, and that has been succeeded again, in the Estimates for 1937, by a sum of £3,500,000. I would also point out that the Commissioner in England and Wales has already entered on commitments to the total amount of £9,000,000, and the Commissioner in Scotland on commitments of about £2,000,000, or a total of nearly £11,000,000. I need not go at length into
1012
the measures which are set out in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the White Paper, but the Committee will note that the Government have said from the beginning that the recovery of these areas would only arise in one of three ways, either by a revival of old industries, or by the establishment of new industries, or by the transference of those for whom there was no work available in the areas where they lived to areas where work was available.
Mr. MacLaren: Platitudes.
Mr. Brown: Quite likely, but a platitude is an uncomfortable truth, and it is much easier to press for a general cure for a problem of this extent and gravity than to accept platitudes which are the facts of the situation. The Government have taken steps, with regard to the inducement of new industries to the areas which have long based their economy on one industry, or at the most on two industries. The Special Areas Reconstruction Act was passed last year in order to meet a want which the Commissioner had pointed out, and which other quarters of the House had brought to the knowledge of the Government, and that Act was passed for the purpose of giving financial assistance to small industries to establish themselves in the Special Areas. Although, partly because of the necessity for local organisation and partly because of the time necessarily taken in investigation of original applications, the Association has only been in full operation for four months, it has already agreed to make 54 loans, which, subject to the settlement of details in some cases, amount to £315,100 in total. As the House knows, there is a revolving fund of £1,000,000 provided under this Act.
Let me point out in a sentence the salient facts of what has happened in the matter of Government contracts in the Special Areas and the areas known in the Ministry of Labour as depressed areas. The value of Government contracts given to those areas already amounts to £41,000,000, of which sum £24,000,000 has gone to the Special Areas. That is the latest figure for Government contracts since the establishment of the Act of 1934 for the benefit of the Special Areas.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Can the Minister tell us what proportion this £41,000,000 bears to the total value of the contracts?
Mr. Brown: Not now. If the hon. Member raises the question in Debate later, perhaps I may be able to get him that information. The Defence programme has also played its part in altering the conditions as regards the possibility of providing work in the Special Areas. Perhaps I may give the following summary of what has been decided with respect to Government factories in South Wales, in the North-East Special Areas, in Lancashire and in Scotland. In South Wales there are to be a filling factory, a petrol tin factory, a bomb factory and a mines depot. In the North-East Special Areas there are to be a cartridge factory and a munitions factory. In Lancashire there are to be a filling factory and magazines, a shadow aircraft factory, and a factory for the manufacture of variable-pitch airscrews. A factory for the manufacture of respirators is already in operation. In Scotland there are to be two new explosive factories and an extension of an old one, a petrol tin factory, the extension of a plant for making armour plate, and a torpedo factory. This list shows that in designing the plans for Defence work the Government have had regard to the Special Areas and to areas which have suffered long and continued unemployment.
That does not exhaust the list of possibilities. I notice that a number of Members who treat this lightly are themselves quite keen to get factories in their own areas. I would point out that the Government's Defence programme as it develops is bound to provide further opportunities for locating factories in these areas, and I assure the Committee that full advantage will be taken of all such opportunities, subject always, of course, to the over-riding considerations of strategy on the one hand and the time-factor on the other. In addition to that, the Defence programme is likely to have increasing effect upon the Special Areas, and it may interest the Committee to know that whereas in the Special and depressed areas during the whole of the financial year 1935–36 the orders amounted to £17,000,000, in half the year 1936–1937 the orders have amounted to £19,000,000. [Interruption.] I am pointing out the cumulative efforts on the part of the Government in attacking this problem from many sides.
Before I sit down, I hope to have the opportunity of pointing out that the efforts
1014
which have been made in order to induce the heads of private firms to go to the Special Areas is at last beginning to bear fruit. Surely we are entitled first to make the case that there has been a cumulative effort on the part of the Government to attend to the needs of these areas, whether from the point of view of providing finance for small industries or establishing Government factories, or through the orders which have come to them as a result of the defence programme. I should like to add, with regard to the incidence of rates in those areas, though I do not want to discuss it in detail, because it has recently been discussed in the House, that the new block grants which will result in substantial assistance to the local authorities in these areas, are another contribution to aid them in meeting the situation in which they have found themselves in these recent difficult times.
Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is making a strong point about the block grant, and saying that it is a special contribution by the Government to the solution of the problem.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): So it is.
Mr. Shinwell: If the Secretary of State for Scotland will restrain himself, perhaps the Minister will make a responsible reply. I ask whether there is any Government money involved in the revision of the block grant?
Mr. Brown: Undoubtedly there is Government money, and, more than that, there are two sides to the situation. First of all there is the amount of Government money involved, and then there is the money which other areas outside these areas might have been entitled to look for in view of the terms of the Act of 1929 but which they have foregone. Therefore, these areas have found sympathy not merely on the Government benches but in Government action as it affects other areas outside.
Mr. A. Jenkins: There is no Government money.
Mr. Brown: I was asked to answer a question and I have given an accurate answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
In surveying this problem it was clear that there were areas outside the ambit of the Special Areas Act which had a long

1015
continued and heavy weight of unemployment. There are areas with a weight of unemployment as high as in the areas inside the Special Areas Act, and some, as a matter of fact, have an even higher weight of unemployment than certain of the areas which are scheduled. We have received a number of representations from all kinds of areas for inclusion within the Special Areas Act. I would point out, however, that some of those who made representations for aid with the primary object of establishing new factories made it very clear that while they desired aid they did not want to be labelled either "distressed," "depressed," or "special," that they would desire to have that aid without inclusion within the Act.
Let us consider the question from the point of view of inclusion in or exclusion from the boundaries of the Special Areas Act. The major issue which those who desired aid but not label raised with us was the need they felt for aid in the acquisition, the clearance and the preparation of sites, or the pulling down of old mills and factories and their replacement by new factories. They said that if aid could be given for this purpose they did not desire inclusion within the Act. We have had many surveys and analyses of this problem since the University Survey in 1931 which, as the House knows, was assisted by the Board of Trade, and I should like to look at the problem inside the areas first and then outside, with at view to establishing the fact that whether they are inside or outside there are no two areas alike in history, in character, in need or in possibilities.
Take the four areas which are now the Special Areas, Cumberland to take the smallest first, the West of Scotland, the North-East Coast, and South Wales. Let me point out the difficulty which is bound to arise through the variety of circumstances to be found in those areas. In Cumberland they have an industrial area which is not a very large one and with not a very large number of unemployed but those unemployed are concentrated in a number of small towns and villages where the problem becomes a heavy and pressing one. It arises from two main causes, first the closing down of collieries there, and second, the ill-fortune which has recently attended
1016
certain iron-ore mines in that area. With regard to the collieries, I was able to announce last Thursday that owing to the new arrangements of the Special Areas Reconstruction Act, Lord Nuffield's munificent fund and the Government, together with the Lowther Estates, Limited, and the Coltness Iron Company, it is now proposed to reopen those collieries and in the end to obtain full production.
Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is raising an important point here. He claims that the Government and the Special Areas Reconstruction Act are responsible for the re-opening of those collieries. Will he tell us what the Government have done, and what the Special Areas Reconstruction Act has done?
Mr. Brown: We say that the whole arrangement has been the result of discussions which have taken place between the Reconstruction Association, the Nuffield Trustees, the Government and all those concerned. It is a result of long and, indeed, prolonged discussions that this happy state of affairs has occurred. Surely hon. Members in all parts of the House are glad that there is a brighter prospect for this district.
Scotland, on the other hand, has a very different problem. It has a much more uniform experience of unemployment, and I think it will be a fair generalisation to say with regard to Scotland that the Special Areas of Scotland are not so much black as grey. In Scotland there are fewer extremes than are to be found either in Cumberland or Durham or South Wales, and the area adjoining Clydeside has seen a remarkable improvement in the last two years.
Durham, of course, shows a great variety of conditions. On Tyneside, as all Members know, there has been a very great improvement, and other parts of the northern half of Durham are feeling that improvement. But Members who have read the report presented to the Commissioner by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners will know from that frank report that south-west Durham shows no improvement at all and has a particular problem about which I intend to say something before I close my speech.
Mr. Dalton: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us before he sits down whether or not the Government

1017
accept the outline of ideas contained in that Gibb report.
Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will wait until I come to that part of my speech he will find that I have an announcement which I think will interest him, even if it does not satisfy him.
With regard to South Wales the difficulties are rooted in two problems. The early development of that district began in places on the heights. Towns on the heights, like Merthyr, Tredegar and Blaenavon prospered with charcoal, iron and coal, and flourishing industries grew up. Charcoal has passed away, the industrial centre of gravity has moved from those places on the heights, with the result that the situation is now entirely different. The movement has been down from the heights to nearer to the coast, and in some cases to the coast. The other side of the South Wales problem is that of a sudden, sharp reversal of the fortunes of their wonderful export trade in coal. The result is that South Wales has concentrated a larger number of unemployed in those areas in density, over-all, unexampled, I think, in any other part of Great Britain.
I should like to refresh my mind about an analysis that I have made of the unemployment in the Special Areas. On the North-East Coast and in Northumberland there are 41 Special Areas, in West Cumberland 13, in Scotland 42, and in South Wales 38. I would ask the Committee's close attention to the figures that I am about to give. I have divided those areas according to the unemployment as registered at the Exchanges into three categories: those towns and villages with less than 20 per cent. of unemployment, those with between 20 and 30 per cent. inclusive, and those with more than 30 per cent. of unemployment for the period January to December, 1936. From January to December, 1936, in the 41 districts of the North-East Coast and Northumberland, the districts with under 20 per cent. of unemployed were 10; between 20 and 30 per cent., 15; over 30 per cent., 16. In West Cumberland, of the 13 towns and villages there were two with under 20 per cent. of unemployment, two with between 20 and 30 per cent., and nine with over 30 per cent. of unemployment. In the 42 areas of Scotland there were 20 with under 20 per cent. of unemployment, 13 with from 20 to 30 per cent. of unemployment and 19
1018
with over 30 per cent. of unemployment. In the 38 areas of South Wales there was one with under 20 per cent. of unemployment, five with 20 per cent. and under 30 per cent. of unemployment, and 32 with over 30 per cent. of unemployment.
Those figures bring out very vividly the immense variation there is in the conditions in areas which are inside the Special Areas Act. More than that, they make it perfectly clear that in approaching any Amendment of the Act with regard to adding to the Schedule, any Minister of Labour and any Government ought to be quite sure that in doing that they do not lessen the chances of South Wales of getting new industries.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that every authority and every counsel, including the survey for which the Commissioner is responsible financially, and which was published yesterday, say that to divide South Wales is the utmost folly?
Mr. Brown: That is another matter altogether. Perhaps the hon. Member will bear with me. There is some misunderstanding even there. It does not seem to be understood by some of those who have been criticising the boundaries of South Wales, that the Commissioner under the present Act has power to do things outside the boundary of the Special Areas, providing they will bring results in employment inside the boundaries of the Act. That is a misunderstanding even in the latest report; but seeing that the report was only issued yesterday, I cannot pretend to have read it yet. I have quoted the tables in order to point out that there is inside the Special Areas a very great difference in regard to the density of unemployment.
Let me turn now to the areas outside the present scheduled Special Areas. We have had numerous applications for inclusion, and I want to tell the Committee the kind of places from which the applications have come, either direct or through their Members of Parliament. Applications have come from Glasgow, Liverpool, Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Hull, and Leith; from a mining area in South Lancashire, a mining area outside Barnsley, in South Yorkshire, a weaving area in North-East Lancashire and a number of smaller places, of which I will mention only two or three in order to bring out the infinite variety of the demand. Applica-

1019
tions have come from places like Anglesey and Kidsgrove in Staffordshire. It may startle the Committee to know that we have had applications for inclusion from a town like Bideford in North Devon, and from mining towns like Redruth and Camborne in Cornwall. It will, therefore, be seen that the problem of drawing out a formula and coming to a solution of what was best to be done was not easy.
I would ask the Committee, especially hon. Members from South Wales and the Special Areas, to remember that whatever view they may take of the other operations of the Commissioner, of a social kind, it is clear that there are a number of light industries springing up and that the real problem ahead of us is to see whether we can get a greater diversity of industries in those areas which have too long depended upon one or two industries. It is also true that there are not an unlimited number of these new industries.
Therefore, any Minister of Labour or any Government, faced with demands from more than 100 places so varied as those I have indicated, must have regard to two things; first, whether it was possible to draw up a statistical, scientific, industrial or practical formula which would be workable and fair as between one area and another, and, secondly, if we did that, should we not so dissipate our efforts as to deprive the very worst spots of the aid which the whole Committee would wish them to have? It was considerations of this kind and not considerations such as were urged in yesterday's Debate, that determined the Government to bring in a Financial Resolution designed to do two things: first, to meet the urgent demand, made not only by the Commissioner but by every student of this grave social and industrial problem, for the introduction of new industries, even if the methods adopted were unorthodox; and, secondly, to see whether we could not find a solution which would enable aid to be given to areas not inside the Special Areas without lessening the potential help which is so urgently needed by the Special Areas of South Wales, Durham, West Cumberland and Scotland.
Mr. Logan: If special powers by Act of Parliament are vested in a borough such as the City of Liverpool to attract special industries in regard to sites, would
1020
the money be given direct to the municipality, or to whom?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Member cannot expect me to give any judgment in favour or against any area, but the Financial Resolution makes it clear that it must be a public utility company.
Mr. Logan: This is a matter which is interesting the people of Liverpool. There will be two parties who will be able to finance the companies that may go there and I am wondering whether any adjustment can take place to avoid there being two competing parties in one city.
Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to deal with the matter in my own way. It will be more for the convenience of the Committee, and perhaps for his own convenience.
I have spoken of improvement in trade. There is a recovery going on in the Special Areas themselves, although there are some places, of which South West Durham is an outstanding instance, where there is no improvement. Nevertheless, the total figures show a great reduction in unemployment in the last year. The Committee will be interested to know that of the 61,000 drop in the unemployment returns published this morning, 10,143 of that reduction relates to the Special Areas. That shows that the cumulative efforts I have described are really beginning to have effect.
Sir Robert Aske: What proportion of those have been transferred to other areas?
Mr. Brown: The hon. and learned Member cannot expect me to answer a question of that kind off hand, but if he puts the question on the Order Paper we shall be glad to get the information. That reduction of 10,000 is inside one month. I would, however, point out that the amount of new industrial expansion to be achieved in a given time is not unlimited, and we feel that the existing Special Areas have the first call to the greatest practical extent upon whatever expansion there may be. Subject to that, we desire to help local initiative outside the Special Areas. That is the design of the Financial Resolution and of the Bill. Although there are differences of opinion about the policy pursued by the Commissioners, there is general agreement as to the desirability of establishing new industries,

1021
with one exception, and that exception is this: that complaints are already being received about the possibility of unfair competition by industries established in the Special Areas, with Government aid, under preferred conditions, with industries established elsewhere under normal economic conditions. The Committee should not overlook that fact in considering the boundaries prescribed by the Act. It is clear that while there is widespread feeling of sympathy in many parts of the country and in industry over the plight of those areas which I have described this afternoon, and which have been much in the public mind, and while I believe there is general agreement that what the Government proposes to do, if we pass the Financial Resolution, is well worth doing from the national point of view, yet if we were to spread this assistance too widely, the favourable atmosphere in industry would change. The Committee will no doubt come to the conclusion that the decision of the Government to do their best by way of maximum of effort for the towns and villages inside the Special Areas, while helping those who show local initiative outside those areas, was a wise and sound policy, and one of real alleviation for the Special Areas.
Trading estates have been established. The Team Valley Trading Estate has received 217 inquiries up to the 4th of this month, of which 66 have proved definitely unfruitful, 151 are still under discussion and 20 have resulted in definite orders. Seeing that this is a new experiment, that is a remarkable beginning. At Treforest—[Interruption.] Hon. Members who wish to put supplementary questions should remember that we have two days' debate, and that the questions can all be dealt with at the end. I am anxious to give the Committee an accurate picture of the situation.
Mr. Logan: How can the Minister do that unless he answers our questions?
Mr. Brown: Questions are not usually put during a speech, except on points of principle. The hon. Gentleman does not know—
Mr. Logan: The hon. Gentleman does know.
Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to put my case. The organisation at Treforest has been in existence for a shorter time, but out of
1022
66 inquiries 46 inquiries have been definitely unfruitful. [Interruption.] Sometimes, when a number of applications are made, it must be remembered that they are not all the kind of application that any wise body would be justified in admitting. The difficulty of this problem is to find new and creditworthy industries likely at the end of the period to be economic industries, so that the districts to which they have been induced to come may not find their last state worse than their first—
Mr. J. Griffiths: As with armaments.
Mr. Brown: Although the hon. Member does not agree with the policy of armaments, he and his friends would prefer to have the work, even though it is only for four or five years, than that that work should go elsewhere. The Government and the organisations which have been set up under the Acts, and through the finance provided by the Government, have begun a real attack upon this problem, not from the point of view of armaments alone, but from that of private new industries. No hon. Member will complain that those responsible for this great experiment should take a little time to make sure that the applications which they are now sifting are likely to prove of lasting good for those areas.
Mr. S. O. Davies Mr. S. O. Davies rose—
Mr. Brown: If hon. Members did not interrupt me so much, we might get on a little more quickly.
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement about Treforest.
Mr. Brown: Hon. Members will admit that they have not made it too easy for me to-day, but I take things as they come. I will give hon. Members, if they will allow me to refresh my memory from the notes, the exact figures. Out of 66 inquiries 46 have been definitely unfruitful and 18 are still under consideration; five of them are in an advanced state of negotiation and agreements have been signed for two factories.
The Government have deliberately designed a policy of tilting the balance in favour of these areas for a temporary period. The Government and the Commissioners, in attempting to establish new industries in the Special Areas and those which are afterwards to be known as the certified

1023
areas, fully appreciate the necessity of having regard to the position of the industries concerned throughout the country. Dealing with the applications from intending manufacturers for the Government financial assistance which will be available under the proposals before the House, the Commissioners will have the advice of Lord Portal and his colleagues who are well acquainted with the nature of the problem. In any case in which they require additional information, and in all cases where they think it useful, the advisers will consult the appropriate trade organisation. I have made that statement to ease the path of those who desire to come to the Special Areas and certified areas in pursuance of this experiment.
The developments of policy are therefore three in number. The first is that, to meet the demand of the Commissioner, the Government have dealt with inducements to private industries. Secondly, special financial assistance is to be available where local initiative in appropriate areas outside the Special Areas, is forthcoming. The third development is that the Government are providing a fund of £2,000,000 by way of loan for the gap which it has recently been suggested may be found for industries which are rather above the range of the small industries covered by the Special Areas Reconstruction Act. If the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) will look at the Resolution on the Order Paper he will see a provision as to factories in the Special Areas in regard to rent, and it covers a contribution for as long as five years. Rent, rates and Income Tax are included for those inside the Special Areas. The position is that the Commissioner may in the exercise of his own discretion do any or all of the following things: He may purchase a site and let it, or build a factory upon it and let it, or he may pay a larger or smaller proportion of the rent or of the rates or of the Income Tax for the undertaking, for a term of years up to five. Those are important powers. It would not be going too far to say that they are unique powers. So far as my knowledge goes such wide discretion has never before been given to any individual. The Government are prepared to give to the Commissioner this wide power, and that fact should silence once and for all those
1024
who say inaccurately that the Government do not mean business about the Special Areas.
There is a limitation on the Loan Fund of £2,000,000, but I would ask hon. Members to notice that no limitation is proposed to the commitments into which the Commissioner may enter, except the limitation implicit in the maximum period of five years, and, of course, the general oversight of the Commissioner's activity provided in the Special Areas Act.
Mr. Dalton: With Treasury sanction.
Mr. Brown: That was mentioned in the Debate yesterday, and I need say no more about it. The Resolution deals with two minor matters, one is the filling up and the bettering of certain streets in the Special Areas. The other is the question of field drainage. In this connection, the Commissioner found a difference in the law on one side of the Solway as against the other. The Commissioner cannot assist field drainage in West Cumberland, but in future he will be able to assist schemes if they are desirable in the interests of the inhabitants of the Special Areas.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) give authority for new measures for the assistance of areas outside the Special Areas as well as for the provision of additional financial facilities for new industrial enterprises both in the Special Areas and outside. Perhaps I might reverse the order of these paragraphs in the Financial Resolution and ask Members to refer to paragraph (d). Under it, the Treasury will be empowered to provide financial assistance up to £2,000,000 in the aggregate by way of loans to new industrial enterprises which establish themselves in the Special Areas or in one of the certified and hard-hit areas outside.
Paragraph 20 of the White Paper explains that the Treasury will help in this new form of financial aid. Hon. Members will doubtless ask what liaison there will be betwen the various organisations. I would point out that it is proposed that the new advisers of the Treasury will be Lord Portal, Sir Nigel Campbell, and Sir Frederick Marquis. Lord Portal is chairman of the Special Areas Association and one of the trustees of the Nuffield Trust. Sir Nigel Campbell is also one of the trustees of the Nuffield Trust. Sir Frederick Marquis is one of the advisers

1025
recently appointed by the Commissioner to help him in his industrial policy in the Special Areas. This Committee will be able to provide the liaison to make sure that there is no overlapping.
Mr. Logan: Will the Minister answer a further question? I want to ease the situation and get information. Is it possible for the money to be given through this advisory body, in view of the fact that the municipality itself have given the advance and have already loaned money to other companies, having had special powers to do so.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is anticipating my explanation of the manner in which the site companies are to be aided. Paragraph (c) makes provision for the certification of areas of heavy unemployment, and for the establishment of site companies in those areas. The duty is imposed on the Minister of Labour of certifying any area, outside the Special Areas, which desires to take advantage of the benefits of the Act, as an area proper to be helped, and he is to be aided in that by the advice of an advisory committee. The conditions are, first, heavy and prolonged unemployment; secondly, that unless financial assistance is given to the area there is no immediate likelihood of a substantial increase in employment; and, thirdly, the area must be mainly dependent on one or more industries which cannot supply sufficient employment by reason of the general depression in those industries.
Mr. J. Griffiths: With regard to the last condition, may I cite two villages in my division which are dependent upon the steel and tinplate industries? These villages are completely depressed and derelict, but there is no general depression in those industries. Will it, therefore, be impossible to certify these areas because, although they are dependent upon industries in which there is particular depression in those areas, there is no general depression in the industries?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will understand that the Resolution has been drawn in this form in order to give flexibility to the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly; if the Resolution had been drawn so rigidly that it had no flexibility, surely the complaint of hon. Members opposite would have been against its rigidity. It is impossible for
1026
me to say in advance what will happen in the case of any particular village. This is a matter of general definition in a Financial Resolution which is to be followed by a Bill and which lays down the guidance for the Advisory Committee who will consider any application.
Miss Wilkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrapping up the matter in words. Here is a crucial point, and he will not give an answer upon it.
Mr. Brown: No doubt the hon. Lady will speak later, and the House will be very glad to hear her. I am pointing out that the Resolution has been drawn in a flexible form so that it may provide guidance for the Advisory Committee, and if, inside the terms of that flexible guidance, the conditions are satisfactory to the Advisory Committee, the Minister will certify that particular area. It is not merely that; if there is sufficient local initiative in the area for the establishment of a site company, the grant will be given.
Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to give a definition of the phrase "general depression." There is no general depression in the steel industry at the moment; the output is going up; but there are places where steel is not produced and never was produced. Will it be impossible to certify these areas because there is no general depression in the industry?
Mr. Brown: The answer, given in advance, is that that would be a matter of the common sense of the Advisory Committee in the light of the local circumstances. Surely that is the correct answer in advance of the investigation of any particular area.
The Commissioner has called attention to the fact of the excessive growth of London, and has expressed the opinion that further extension of industry in Greater London should be controlled, as a means of securing more even distribution of production, in which, he hopes, the Special Areas will share. This extension is occurring, not merely in London, but in other great cities, and it gives rise to grave problems, not merely of industry, but of health, communications, vulnerability from the air, and other problems that go far beyond the issue raised by Sir Malcolm Stewart. The Government feel that these wider issues deserve

1027
authoritative and comprehensive study, and they propose to appoint a Royal Commission for this purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The greater the importance that is attached by Members in various parts of the House to this grave problem, the more they ought to welcome a thorough investigation before any hasty action is taken. The terms of reference for such a Commission are now under consideration, and will be announced in due course, together with the names of those appointed to serve on it.
Another question is one, not of growth, but of decay. That is the problem of the decay of South-West Durham, to which special attention has been drawn in an expert report. I have already made it clear to the House that neither the Government nor the Commissioner necessarily agrees with the conclusions of that report, but it is at any rate the result of an objective, expert and frank examination of the problems in that area.
Mr. Dalton: Who were its authors?
Mr. Brown: They were appointed by the Commissioner for this purpose, and they represented one of the greatest firms of engineers in this country. I have no doubt that those who nave read the report and know the area will welcome the announcement that I am now going to make. I am happy to announce that it has been decided to set up a small executive board, consisting probably of three members, to be known as the South-West Durham Improvement Association. The duties of this body will be to investigate the economic possibilities of the area, to undertake a certain amount of site clearance, and to improve the general appearance of the district by the removal of derelict buildings and other measures. They will also give special consideration to the problem created by the existence of small and relatively isolated villages where there is little prospect of industrial development. This body will work in close co-operation with the local Development Council, the North-Eastern Trading Estates Company, and the North-Eastern Housing Association, and the necessary finance will be found by the Commissioner out of the Special Areas Fund. This is a decision which I am sure will on reflection give great satisfaction to hon.
1028
Members opposite who know the area, and to the area itself.
The clearance of sites for new factories is a matter to which the late Commissioner attached great importance in certain areas. In particular he was interested in the problem of Tyneside improvement, and the Government have decided to authorise the Commissioner to proceed with the clearance of a number of sites on the banks of the Tyne, where, in the words of the late Commissioner:
"The ruins of old factories are not merely hideous to the eye, but must have a deterrent effect on those who are thinking of starting new enterprises on the banks of this great river."
The work will be carried out by the Tyne Improvement Commission with the assistance of a 100 per cent. grant from the Commissioner. As was indicated in the Third Report of Sir Malcolm Stewart, a comprehensive scheme for the development of East Gateshead has been drawn up by a firm of consulting engineers, and the Government have adopted the scheme, which is designed to make an important contribution to the industrial development of the area. It is proposed that the work should be carried out by the North-Eastern Trading Estates, Limited. With regard to Western Cumberland, the Government have come to the conclusion that this is not an area suitable for a trading estate, but they have had regard to the local circumstances, and have decided to set up a company, not trading for profit, to be known as the West Cumberland Industrial Sites Company, to provide factory accommodation for firms desiring to establish themselves in that area. It is intended that the company should clear sites and build factories to order, but, naturally, if a demand arises from a certain number of firms for factories in the same district, there is no reason why these factories should not be grouped if a suitable site is available. The capital for this company will be provided by means of loans from the Special Areas Fund, as in the case of the Trading Estate Companies.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has raised the question of the possibility of an export subsidy for stimulating the coal trade. I understand that this matter has been for some time under consideration by the joint Standing Consultative Committee for the coal industry. I am informed that

1029
the upshot of the careful examination that has been given to this proposal, in the light of the internal and external demand for coal, is that, having regard to that demand, the Consultative Committee have asked the Government to suspend consideration of the matter for the time being, on the understanding that the Consultative Committee will desire to reopen the matter when the situation in the export trade appears to them to call for further consideration of the situation. In view of that authoritative expression of opinion from a body representing both the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation, I should have thought that the laughter of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was ill-timed. I will say nothing about the point raised by the Commissioner with regard to the manufacture of calcium carbide in South Wales, because the House will be discussing to-morrow a Bill dealing with that question, and therefore will have to make up its own mind on the issue.
I have one other thing to say, and that is with regard to private factories and the progress that is being made in that direction. I said in the earlier part of my speech that definite results were being achieved. As the Committee may know, Lord Portal, as Chairman of the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, the Nuffield Trustees, and the Government themselves, have been making great efforts to induce industrialists to go with new industries to the Special Areas, and in South Wales, Messrs. Pilkington Brothers Limited are arranging to set up a glass factory and Messrs. George Weston Foods Limited a biscuit factory. A sewing machine factory at Merthyr Tydfil, an engineering works at Aberdare, and a reinforced concrete factory at Port Talbot, have also been arranged for. Negotiations have also been proceeding between the Government, the trustees of the Nuffield Trust, and Low Temperature Carbonisation Limited, for the establishment of a "coalite" low temperature carbonisation plant on the southern outcrop of the South Wales coalfield. I am pleased to be able to state that these negotiations have reached a point which will enable a large plant to be erected by co-operation between the three parties I have mentioned, provided that legislative sanction is given to the present proposals. The total capital involved in these
1030
six new undertakings in South Wales will be in the region of £1,500,000.
Turning to Tyneside, hon. Members will be glad to know that while the Team Valley Estate is making a very great contribution in the North-Eastern area, financial arrangements have also been made for an extension of the engineering works of Messrs. John Spencer and Sons, and for the establishment of a metal working factory. As regards West Cumberland, the Whitehaven Collieries are to be reopened after having been closed for nearly 18 months. Finally, in the case of Scotland an engineering works and a brickworks have been already arranged for. Since these results have been achieved in three or four months, I think I am justified in saying that this concrete contribution to the problem is of far more value to the men and women who have suffered so long in these areas through heavy unemployment than a great deal of the talk that we have had in Debates in this House.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. Dalton: The Minister ended his speech with the claim that certain factories were to be established in certain parts of the Special Areas. I hope we shall be informed before the Debate ends how many persons are likely to be employed, approximately at any rate, in the undertakings to which he has referred. It might well be that, although there may be some dozen new factories, the employment afforded will be negligible. On the other hand, if some of these are substantial, it might be very large. I am sure he would not wish the Committee to remain in ignorance as to the total achievement, in terms of new employment, likely to be yielded by the facts cited in his peroration. Therefore, I ask that we shall be given some estimate, even though it may be at this stage provisional.
It was strongly felt at the beginning of the Debate, and indeed, it was strongly felt yesterday, that we are conducting this discussion under a procedure which is open, from the point of view of my hon. Friends, to the very gravest objection. A large number of very important matters have been referred to in the Minister's speech, and others will be raised from these benches, but, although they may be discussed to-day and on

1031
Friday, it is going to be impossible to take the judgment of the Committee or the House upon them in the form of Amendments. My hon. Friends regard this as a grotesque procedure, for which they hold the Chair in no way responsible. You, Sir, naturally give your Rulings on the situation created for you by the Government. My hon. Friends feel that the Government are not treating the House in proper fashion in thus limiting our rights and our power of taking the opinion of the House or the Committee on Amendments dealing with these matters.
We feel particularly strongly on the limitation imposed on any Amendments for extending the scope, as distinct from increasing the charge, involved in this Resolution. We accept the general principle that private Members should not be permitted to move Amendments which would increase the charge upon the taxpayer, but a very large number of questions which we seek to raise are ruled out from discussion in the form of Amendments, not by reason of increasing the charge, but on the ground that they extend the scope of the Resolution, and on that I once more make a protest. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Captain Macnamara), who made an exceedingly interesting speech yesterday, said, with very great truth, that here in London we are a long way from the Special Areas, and certainly the kind of performance which has been staged by the Minister to-day would have been considerably less successful had it been staged in any of the Special Areas, where the emptiness of many of his claims and his failure to grapple with a large number of the issues that have been raised would have been patent.
I hope to touch in the course of my remarks upon several matters, on which we are debarred from moving Amendments, but which, in the opinion of my hon. Friends, are of the very greatest importance. I will begin with the question of the location of industry and the Government's responsibility therefor. The Minister announced that a Royal Commission is to be appointed, although the Government are not yet in a position to announce the terms of reference or the personnel. A Royal Commission is a well-known device for postponing decisions. It has been employed by all
1032
Governments, including, no doubt, the two Labour Governments, with that object. We appointed a Royal Commission on the drink traffic. The right hon. Gentleman is not to be congratulated upon this delaying decision. It appears to me to be one of the most deplorable statements in the whole of his speech. Sir Malcolm Stewart, in his very able third report, his swan song before, exhausted by a struggle against unequal odds, that combination of the Treasury and the Ministry of Labour, he threw in his hand. All credit to him for what he did in difficult circumstances, continually cribbed, cabined and confined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman while he held that thankless office. He dealt in the most vivid and remarkable language with this question of the growth of London. I wish to say a word or two upon it from the point of view of defence. The problem of the location of industry has two sides. There is the question of the life of the Special Areas and there is the question of the life of these ever-growing and expanding urban aggregations of which London is the most glaring, and Birmingham the next most glaring example. Sir Malcolm Stewart some months ago now struck a note of urgency with regard to this matter, and among other observations of his I quote this:
"From the strategic point of view the position is one of the greatest possible dangers. Reference has already been made to the concentration of population and wealth in this small area"—
he was referring to Greater London—
"dependent on an extremely complicated mechanical organisation. It would take little in the way of systematic attack to destroy the most vital part of this organisation, with the result that the feeding of the population would become impossible."
Finally, he points out,
"London is not only open to attack from the air but could be bombarded from the Continental ports on the other side of the Straits of Dover should those be in enemy hands."
Every month and every year during which this Royal Commission will be sitting the stream of population from the rest of the country is to be allowed to continue to flow to London, a stream of persons, some refugees from the Special Areas, some youngsters torn away from their families and planted down here in occupations of a sweated and precarious character, some under the most deplor-

1033
able conditions, to swell this great mass of ever growing Greater London, while this precious Royal Commission is slowly examining witnesses and ponderously going on its way. Birmingham is in little less perilous case and you have, therefore, this dual situation. On the one hand, you will continue to have the life blood drained away from the Special Areas and, on the other, you will have this enormous, swelling target continually being augmented while your Royal Commission is sitting on the question. May I quote one more authority, the military correspondent of the "Times," one of the most brilliant of our military authorities, commenting upon the general situation presented by the growth of great towns. In a book to be published on the nth of this month, of which he has been kind enough to send me an advance copy—"Europe in Arms," Captain Liddell Hart says:
"Military wisdom now lies, not in amassing armies, but in diminishing national vulnerability. This is a compound of factors. Centralisation of industry may counteract the growth of industry from a military point of view, and every means of reducing and dispersing targets, and also of decreasing their sensitiveness, should be studied and sought."
But you are accumulating targets for our opponents in a war in the future. This Government is acting, in regard to the concentration of industry and population, exactly as if it was in league with the King's enemies in a future war. You are going straight against the dictates both of common sense and expert opinion on military questions and, at the same time, by the same action, you are leaving the Special Areas to be drained of their life blood. They will continue to be desiccated as the result of your policy during the indefinite period during which your Royal Commission will slowly rumble towards its conclusions. That is the contribution that you are making to the Special Areas and to the defence of the country. In my judgment, and in that of a number of my hon. Friends, there is only one, and that a very simple mode of dealing with the problem of location. That is to lay it down that the State has a responsibility for the location of industry, a responsibility which, both on economic and health grounds and on grounds of military defence, it can no longer refuse to accept. The simplest, and I believe the most effective of all modes of approach to the problem is to
1034
lay it down that from this time on no new industrial establishment of any size should be erected on any particular site unless permission is obtained from some public authority. Those who desire to see a Minister of Cabinet rank appointed to take charge of all these problems of the Special Areas believe that the best plan would be for this Minister to have power to require that new establishment to be started either by Englishmen, or by foreigners who come here under licence, should be placed in some part or other of the Special Areas, unless a case can be shown—as sometimes it could—for this establishment to be placed somewhere else.
We believe that there should be a definite pressure imposed upon new industries. They should show cause why they should not go to some part of the Special Areas. In some cases they will show it, sometimes easily, sometimes with difficulty, but in other cases it is to the Special Areas that they should be required to go. By some curious chance of fate the Special Areas have, from the point of view of vulnerability, very great advantages over London, Birming ham and the Eastern side of this island. West Cumberland is, I suggest, one of the least vulnerable parts of the country to air attack. On the Western seaboard, beyond the Pennines, it is so situated that any hostile aircraft would have to fly a considerable distance both there and back over land, in addition to encountering the difficulties of air pockets, and so on, in crossing the hills. West Cumberland is ideally situated from the strategical and defence point of view for the establishment not only of factories for munitions, but also for any other factories or establishments which the Government wish to tuck out of harm's way. The same is true, for the obvious geographical reasons, of South Wales. It is true also of Western Scotland, which is the most depressed part of Scotland. And it is not untrue of the South-West Durham area, which is further in from the coast than the rest of the North-Eastern area, and where also there are difficulties for air navigation owing to the lie of the land in Weardale and Teesdale. Therefore, it comes about that these Special Areas, as at present defined, are also special in respect of their vulnerability, and upon defence grounds

1035
there is everything to be said for the Government seeking to place new industries, and, in particular, industries connected with the defence of the country, in these areas.
I pass to the question of a Minister of Cabinet rank, whom we desire to see given general charge of the distressed areas. In our view it has been abundantly proved that the device of Area Commissioners, as we have experienced it, is not satisfactory. The Commissioner is always subject to Treasury sanction. The Minister admitted that. He said that the Commissioner will have power to make grants to this and that undertaking, but always subject to an overruling Treasury veto. He needs not only a Treasury sanction, but a Ministry of Labour sanction, and there are many cases in which the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Transport also exercise vetoes of varying degrees of stringency. The Commissioner, in other words, has to square, or get one or other Minister to square, a large number of separate departmental interests before he can undertake even a very modest development and make use of the money allotted to him. It is an open secret that Sir Malcolm Stewart was continually held up by long delays owing to departmental jealousies and inter-departmental correspondence, both on paper and by word of mouth. It is high time that some Minister should be appointed who would take general charge of these problems and fight out these quarrels with his colleagues in the Cabinet on behalf of these areas, rather than permit these immense delays to accumulate, as they have done under the existing system.
Moreover, in this House there should be some one Minister who can be called to account for policy dealing with these matters. Even had we been dissatisfied with Sir Malcolm Stewart—and I here put it on record that we believe that Sir Malcolm Stewart, though obstructed and hamstrung by the Government and by various Ministers, did his utmost in very difficult circumstances—we could not have called him to account across the Floor of this House. Nor is it possible for us to deal with the Minister of Labour who can be vetoed sometimes by the Ministry of Health and sometimes by the Ministry of Transport. Surely we should have one Minister here in order to focus re-
1036
sponsibility upon a single person for the general conduct of these policies relating to the Special Areas. We feel very strongly upon this matter. Your predecessor in the Chair, Captain Bourne, early this afternoon did not give a definite Ruling on this point. He said that this was a matter he would have to look into more closely. But we consider that it will indeed illustrate in the most extreme way the grotesque and cramping procedure which the Government have chosen to force upon the House, if it should turn out, in the judgment of the Chair, that it is not even in order for an Amendment to be moved calling for such a Minister of Cabinet rank to be appointed. So much for administration.
We also believe that such a Minister should be furnished with a substantial sum of money, which he should be free to spend at his own discretion, without needing Treasury sanction for every pound, shilling and penny. You should trust whoever is appointed to such a post with reasonable discretion in spending a substantial sum of money for the general benefit of the areas for which he would be responsible. There should be flexibility with regard to his expenditure, and there should be, in a number of other directions, more flexibility also. The Minister has stated—and he will correct me if I misunderstood him—that there is no relaxation, under this new Resolution and under the Bill which is to be founded upon it, of the rigid rule of which Sir Malcolm Stewart has made bitter complaint, namely, that the Commissioner is forbidden to make any grant of money to any object if it is within the power of any Government Department to make a grant for that same object, even although no grant is, in fact, being made by any Government Department.
The Minister will again correct me if I am wrong, but we understand that he has been engaged in long and difficult battles with his colleagues on this point. Perhaps the Minister has been overruled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point as on others, if rumour be true. But the Minister will correct me if I am wrong in stating that this crippling procedure of which Sir Malcolm Stewart complained still remains in force, and that Sir George Gillett, and Sir David Hay, in Scotland, are equally Lnable to grant a penny of the funds put at their

1037
disposal for any object which can be subsidised, even if, in fact, it has not been subsidised by any Government Department. That is admitted. The Treasury view has prevailed once more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wears his habitual happy smile. He is witnessing still one more triumph over conflicting doctrines. And, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never believed that it was possible to do anything much for the distressed areas. He has always been sceptical and pessimistic in this matter, and he is only too delighted at having been able to force his views, with the help of his very able and equally sceptical officials, upon the relatively exuberant Ministry of Labour staff.
I will pass to the question of the local rates for a few moments. A great deal has been said about the block grant, about these niggling adjustments of the block grant under which the rates in Merthyr Tydvil, in spite of the much advertised relief, are to remain at 22s. in the pound. [Interruption.] At least that; that is only an illustration. The rates in Merthyr are to remain well over 20s. in the pound after this niggling relief has been given, and the rates of prosperous areas are going to remain at only 7s. or 8s. in the pound. I will not multiply illustrations, as they were raised in the Debate the other day, but it still remains true that, with this very minor adjustment through the block grant, the Special Areas are to continue to carry an enormously heavy burden of local rates imposed upon impoverished communities, largely due to the fact that these communities have to pay for their own public assistance out of rates which are enormously above the average prevailing for the country as a whole.
In the view of my hon. Friends, the only adequate solution of this matter is for the public assistance rate, at least, to be levelled as far as the Special Areas are concerned, over and above these niggling adjustments of the block grant, by an amount equal to the excess in any particular local authority area of their present public assistance rate over the average public assistance rate for the country as a whole. Until that is done, there will be no approach towards equality of opportunities—and I would put it in this form —for industrialists desirous to settle in
1038
these areas. This must be qualified, and I will proceed to qualify it, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman tells us about the new powers of the Commissioner to make grants in respect of Income Tax, rates and rent.
I will examine that for the moment. It was generally imagined up to now that the way any such relief would he operated would be according to some general formula. It has been suggested, for example, that any new undertaking setting up in any of the Special Areas, should be entitled to some uniform reduction according to some proportion of the local rates over a period of years. There is a good deal to be said—although I think that it is possible to exaggerate its importance—for some such general relief. But I am very doubtful about this kind of relief in which everything is left to the discretion of the Commissioner dealing with the particular cases, with the advice of one of the many new committees which the right hon. Gentleman has announced this afternoon.
You are throwing a very great and invidious burden upon Sir George Gillett and Sir David Hay in making them say, "We will give to this industrialist the equivalent of £x,000 a year, and to this the equivalent of only 50o a year, and to this man nothing at all." You are throwing upon them an invidious choice, and, further than that, you are leaving it to be imagined, even though the suspicion tnay be quite groundless, that personal influence may exercise an undue effect in determining how much a particular man is to get. It is, of course, a pure coincidence—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this—that one of the new armament factories is being established—I am sure it is a very suitable location, and is a pure coincidence—in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking), who is also the Chairman of the Conservative party organisation. It is a pure coincidence, of course, that that is the same constituency in regard to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) elicited the fact that the Employment Exchange has been moved into the local Conservative club. But you see how suspicions may arise, and this arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman whereby the Commissioner is to choose people

1039
for assistance—to give much to one, little to another, and nothing to a third, is, I think, open to objection. It would have been very much better to give whatever relief is proposed in some straightforward way to all new industries setting up in these Special Areas, so that they could share equally.
There is one point about which the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything at all, and I want to ask him a question. Does he or does he not agree with the "Times" in this assertion?
"Although nothing is said on the point in the White Paper, there ought to be an assurance that undertakings that start with State assistance shall maintain fair conditions of employment."
There is nothing about that in the White Paper. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have travelled round most of these Special Areas with various colleagues in the last month or two, and when I was in the North East I did hear complaints about the conditions of employment in some of these new factories to be established in the Team Valley Trading Estate. A complaint was made by some of those whom I saw, that the Government were not enforcing, through the Public Utility Company, the condition that trade union rates of wages should be paid, and that trade union conditions should be respected by these industrialists who were getting some very cheap factories.
Mr. Magnay: The hon. Member has referred to my constituency and to the new trading estate there. No work has yet been started by that trading estate.
Mr. Dalton: I am aware of that. I had the pleasure of calling on Colonel Appleyard, who was kind enough to show me the plans. The point I am making is that, although nothing has yet been started, a number of firms have been in communication with the company and in some cases arrangements have been made by particular firms to take over a factory when it is built.
Mr. Magnay: But who was complaining?
Mr. Dalton: I do not think the hon. Member and I are in any disagreement. If we are, then I am right; because I am only reporting what was said to me. I was told that the firms who have bought
1040
factories on the Team Valley estate were not required to give any undertaking that they would pay trade union wages and maintain trade union conditions. They are getting a very good bargain and my contention is the same as that of the "Times," that there should be some assurance that people who are getting these advantages by way of public money should give an assurance that they will pay proper wages and observe proper conditions. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether the Government are going to do anything to see that proper conditions of labour are observed by employers who are getting all the advantages which he so glowingly described? The right hon. Gentleman was delighted that consideration of the question of the coal export subsidy should be suspended. I am sure that suited him very well, and it would suit him if consideration of a number of these other matters were suspended. But, so far as the internal market of the coal industry is concerned, I want to ask him for more particulars as to what is going on.
He said that in South Wales there was to be set up, with some element of State assistance, a new works for low temperature carbonisation. Apart from the size of the establishment and the amount of employment it will give, I want to ask whether this is absolutely all that the Government are going to do in the development of oil from coal? If one factory in South Wales is to be all, then it is a most miserable achievement. At a time when the Government are taking power to spend £1,500,000,000 on making munitions of war they are taking no steps whatever, except in the case of this one establishment, to see that if war comes we are not wholly dependent on overseas sources of supply for oil. It has been stated that 98 per cent. of peace-time consumption of the Defence Forces by way of oil comes from overseas, and that only 2 per cent. are produced in this island. Are the Government really going to do nothing more than this in order to stimulate the creation in these relatively invulnerable areas of additional sources of oil supply to meet the needs of a critical situation? Ninety-eight per cent. is a staggering percentage, and although it is not a practical proposition to make ourselves wholly independent of overseas supplies, yet I

1041
should hope that as a measure of military precaution a big effort would be made to increase substantially the output of oil from our own country, not only from the Defence point of view, but having regard to our national economy and to bring back into employment some of our unemployed miners and to reopen some of the pits which are now closed. What is being done in that matter?
Cumberland has been mentioned in the course of the Debate, but the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the development of the harbours on the west coast of the county. I have visited that terribly derelict harbour at Maryport. Sir Malcolm Stewart specifically recommended, quite apart from the commercial and economic arguments for the reopening of Maryport Harbour in view of the coal mines in the vicinity, that there was also a tremendous strategic argument for keeping the harbour in good order.
Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member knows that the Commissioner in his second report covered a very large field and put up a very large scheme in connection with Maryport Harbour costing £70,000. There is an inquiry taking place into that matter.
Mr. Dalton: Another inquiry—another preliminary inquiry. Inquiries and inquiries and inquiries fill up our little lives from day to day. That is almost a quotation from Shakespeare. Now let me deal with the question of communications. As we have drawn from the right hon. Gentleman the fact that a preliminary inquiry is to take place into the question of Mary-port Harbour we may be able to get a similar assurance if I go on to mention one or two other burning questions. The matter of communications has been dealt with by Sir Malcolm Stewart. In West Cumberland rail and road communications are a disgrace to those responsible, and it has been frequently urged—it was recommended by Sir Malcolm Stewart—that a good West Coast Road should be constructed, and that a road and rail bridge should be thrown over the Duddon estuary. Is there to be an inquiry into that? I gather there is not, not even a preliminary inquiry. Sir Malcolm Stewart also reported emphatically in favour of a bridge over the Severn. The arguments are well known. Is there to be any preliminary inquiry into the
1042
Severn Bridge? Apparently not. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will deal with the improvement of communications by rail and road within the Special Areas and also between these areas and the rest of the country.
Let me say one word on the Treasury loan of £2,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is just painfully keeping pace with Lord Nuffield. I suppose if Lord Nuffield had just put in £500,000, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have felt satisfied if he also had put in £500,000. What a pity that Lord Nuffield did not put in another £1,000,000, and then we might have had another £1,000,000 from the Government. But is it not a little derogatory for the Government only to put down pound for pound of the amount given by a charitably-disposed millionaire to help these areas and to carry out obligations which should be national obligations? We are deeply dissatisfied with this small sum of money, and we cannot believe that it will go far in the creation of new industries on any scale. The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the Gibb report on the position in South-West Durham, and said that the Government did not necessarily agree with the recommendations or the general conclusions in that report. I suppose that means that the Government do not know whether they agree with them or not.
They are going to have another preliminary inquiry which is to be carried out by a body called the South-West Durham Improvement Committee. I do not know whether I have got the title right, but this committee is to make another inquiry. Is it going to do anything more? Is it going to have any power to do anything more than conduct further inquiries? Hon. Members from South-West Durham are anxious and want to be reassured on this matter. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is to compose this body? Will he give us the names later in the Debate? I can claim some local knowledge here, and other hon. Members who are well acquainted with the south-west part of Durham entirely refuse to accept the general conclusions of this so-called expert report. We do not believe that this area is unsuited for industrial development. It has within its area the London and North

1043
Eastern Railway Company's railway shops at Shildon, which are working better than for years past. And there are a number of manufacturing firms, at Bishop Auckland and elsewhere, which during the years of depression have triumphed over obstacles and have made profits on a moderate scale in spite of the shrinkage of the local market. Therefore, we do not accept the view that this area is unsuited for further industrial development.
It appears that the chief remedy proposed in the Gibb Report is to drive the people out of the villages and then pull the houses down behind them so that there would be no chance of their going back. The ancestors of some of the more aristocratic associates of the right hon. Gentleman did that with the Highland crofters. They drove them out and then pulled their houses down behind them. The representatives of the southwestern area of Durham do not for a moment accept the programme implied in this deliberate depopulation of the area. There is a good deal to be said, and it will be developed by my hon. Friends from this area, to show that there is an opportunity for many forms of development, industrial and agricultural, including afforestation, within the area. We do not for one moment accept the view that there is nothing to be done here except to shut up shop and go away.
Before concluding. I wish to draw attention to one further matter which looms very large in the White Paper. Great credit is taken by the Government for Their armaments programme in relation to the Special Areas. I accept the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that if armaments are to be made, it is well that the factories which make them should be established in those places which combine relative invulnerability with heavy unemployment. But what is the further outlook for these areas? There is this great piling up of armaments. Either a war will come or not, but in either case what is the outlook for these areas? If a war comes, it is hardly necessary to imagine the consequences: For these areas it will be Death in the Mass, as for many other areas neither "certified" nor classified as "Special."
If a war does not come, if somehow or another we muddle through and if after
1044
a year or two we are able gradually to reduce armaments expenditure again from the dizzy heights to which it has risen, what will happen? There will be a collapse of industrial activity precisely in those areas in which, by the artificial stimulant of armaments, it has been built up. Therefore, there will be the same areas still distressed—exceptionally distressed—in proportion as there has been concentrated in them the exceptional armaments production of these years. The Government are simply asking for this problem to be repeated again in a more critical and acute form a few years from now. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that what is necessary is a basis which is more permanent and more diversified with regard to the occupations and livelihood of the people than can be formed by merely pumping in armaments work at the present time.
I have gone through some of the points raised in the right hon. Gentleman's statement and I have expressed the view that the Government's policy is inadequate and that it does not go to the root of the matter. A large number of positive measures which ought to be adopted in the Special Areas have been deliberately set aside. The Government are embarking upon most perilous and most discreditable courses of further delay. There is no decision and no bold action here; there are only a few trivial expedients and there are still the same restrictions imposed on the agents of the Government's policy—those unfortunate new Commissioners—as were imposed upon Sir Malcolm Stewart. Therefore, we have no hope that any substantial transformation of this dark scene will take place.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Government must not be surprised at the signs of indignation that were manifested from the benches behind me this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour sits for a pretty dark area, and he ought to have a certain amount of sympathy with my hon. Friends who come from areas even worse hit than Leith. We suffer deep disappointment in face of this most inadequate and slow-moving programme which the Government have put before the Committee. Finally, I repeat—and this is the core of our criticism as far as procedure is concerned —that we deeply resent the fact that the Government have chosen so to frame this

1045
Financial Resolution and so to predetermine the proceedings on the Committee stage of the Bill that on practically all the matters on which I have touched in my speech—and whether or not what I have said carries conviction, at any rate, it cannot be denied that these are matters which are important and highly relevant to the problems of the Special Areas—no Amendments will be in order when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
6.36 p.m.
Miss Lloyd George: If it was not clear before, I think the Minister has made it abundantly clear this afternoon that the Financial Resolution now before the Committee does not provide a policy to lift the Special Areas out of their depression. With one exception, the Financial Resolution in all important respects is the same as the old Bill. It is really a sop thrown out to quieten public clamour and the noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and his friends. I do not know what effect it may have on the Noble Lord, but I have a pretty good idea of what effect it will have on the public outside. I would like to improve the version of the quotation given by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) by giving the quotation itself, for I cannot help feeling that it adequately represents the policy of the Government:
"To-morrow, and to-morrow, aid tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day."
In listening to the successive speeches of Ministers on this question, I think we cannot help coming to feel that there are always excellent statesmanlike reasons why something adequate should not be done for these areas. I believe that hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite are just as sincere in their sympathy towards those who live in these areas as we are on this side of the House, but I have also come to believe that there are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, among them the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who are quite sincerely convinced that there is no real solution to the problem. They have accepted the old Calvinist doctrine that they are predestined to be doomed and that there is nothing to be done about it. Had the Government exhausted every experiment, or every group of experiments—had they given a fair trial to all these experiments—there might
1046
have been some justification for this defeatism, but I can only say that I wish their policy of non-intervention had been as effective elsewhere as it has been in the Special Areas.
We have only to measure the Government's proposals by the proposals of the Commissioner himself to realise how inadequate they are. There are a great many of us who believe that the Commissioner's report did not go far enough, but if his proposals are measured by these proposals, they are revolutionary. The one proposal of any substance that has been made by the Government relates to the establishment of new industries, and the inducements the Government are going to offer to industries go to these areas. There is to be what amounts, I think, to an extension of the Special Areas Reconstruction Association. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman is going to extend it to areas outside the scheduled areas. [An HON. MEMBER: " Do not be too sure."] I hope he will do so, otherwise this provision means nothing. But I still believe that this is not a just or a proper definition of distressed areas. I believe and hope that my constituency will qualify for some assistance. It ought to do so, according to the provisions laid down in this Financial Resolution. It has 49 per cent. of the men insured in the town unemployed, it is dependent upon one industry, and that industry has been in a state of depression for many years.
In the case of a comparatively small community such as that, the establishment of a new industry will make a great difference, but what is likely to be the extent of it over a considerable area? We were told in the White Paper that up to date 48 loans had been made, and the Minister now tells us that 54 loans have been made. But those 48 loans were for £280,000, that is to say, something less than £6,000 each, although £1,000,000 has been set aside. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to give any estimate of the employment that has been given as a result of these loans. A sum of £2,000,000 is now to be given to cover an area which is far greater than the Special Areas. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman told us of factories that have been established or are about to be established in South Wales, but again, curiously enough, he omitted to give any estimate of the em-

1047
ployment that was likely to be given, and that, after all, must be the test in this instance. Moreover, we do not know how much is to be spent in remission of rates, rents and Income Tax, but unless the Government have completely revised their estimate of the whole problem of the Special Areas, I think it will not be very effective.
I would like to say a word or two about new industries. With trade on the up-grade, with concerns more prosperous here and in other countries, and therefore more opportunities for development both here and abroad, this should be the most propitious moment to start new industries, but in fact it is the least advantageous moment, because of a shortage of skilled labour, a shortage of materials which is likely to become more serious, and because the energies of the nation are concentrated at this time on the armaments programme. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Coordination of Defence said that there is to be no uncontrolled interference by the Government's rearmament programme with the normal trade of the country, and he said that that would be both foolish and disastrous. But the interference has already begun; it has already been felt. Within a month of the announcement of this programme, there is a very serious shortage of steel, and it has become obvious that a great many trades, including the building trade, which gives a great deal of employment, are to be very seriously prejudiced. That is happening within a short time of the announcement of this programme.
If that is the reaction on normal trades, the programme will certainly prejudice very seriously any new developments. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said that the Government will give facilities for new industries and will do all in their power to assist them—I am sorry that their power is so limited—but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence said that in present circumstances it would be no bad thing if some orders were postponed two or three years perhaps, so that the Government would not be handicapped in the completion of their programme. I should have thought that that was hardly the spirit in which to encourage new industries. The Minister said afterwards that at the end of five
1048
years there will be a flow of remunerative contracts and that it will be possible to take advantage of them; but if we cannot take up orders now, other people will take them up, and we shall find that they are going elsewhere with their orders, as they did during the War. It seems to me that now is the time, or now should be the time, to take the tide at the flood. The Unemployment Assistance Board is prepared for a figure of over 2,000,000 when unemployment comes round again and Sir William Beveridge says that he expects a " land-slide " within three years, and so we should be well in the doldrums by the time the five years are up. The establishment of new industries at this most unpropritious moment is the mainstay of the Government's proposals or, at any rate, they would have us believe that it is. I believe that it is a broken reed.
I do not think, however, that the Government expect great things from this proposal. The truth is that they are relying upon their armament proposals to rehabilitate these areas. But is that the real solution? Some areas, no doubt, will benefit much by the armaments programme. Others will benefit a little, but some will not even be touched by it. That is becoming clear even at this early stage. It seems to me that the Government by relying upon their armaments programme are perpetuating the state of the distressed areas, because certain areas will become dependent upon an industry which we must all hope, for the sake of our civilisation, will not be in a state of boom for ever. What is to happen at the end of these five years? Even if we pursue the foreign policy of the present Government I cannot believe that at the end of five years we shall have to rebuild our Fleet completely. We shall require replacements but whatever we may feel about the inevitability of armaments, we shall not have to make up the lee-way that we have had to make up by this programme, and unless that worst of all imaginable contingencies arises and we are involved in another conflict, it is inevitable that the programme of armaments must be slowed up.
The White Paper tell us that we have not yet realised the cumulative effect of the Government's proposals to deal with these areas. I think that at the end of five years we shall begin to realise the cumulative effect of these proposals. The

1049
Government are again putting off until tomorrow what they ought to have done yesterday. For good or ill, we are committed to this vast loan for armaments but is that any reason why we should not at the same time help national development. Germany, Italy and Russia have been spending vast sums on armaments in recent years, but, side by side with that policy, they have been re-organising industries settling people on the land, draining the land and in every way improving their estates and they have not the resources of this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) said that we could take this great loan in our stride. Therefore, it is not a question of finance, and I do not believe it is a question of lack of schemes. To begin with, there are the schemes of the Commissioners. Then there is the short-term policy which was brought out only yesterday by the Labour party. There is the new report on South-West Durham. There is the second industrial report on South Wales which came out a few days ago. There are all those schemes and many more which should be considered by the Government in a very different spirit from that in which they have examined such proposals in the past.
I would like to see the Government summon an all-party conference of responsible leaders to see whether it is not possible to produce a policy to lift these areas out of their depression. It is a national problem and it concerns us all. Hon. Members may say that what I suggest would be impossible, and that among so many conflicting views, agreement could never be reached. A short time ago, the Welsh Parliamentary party in this House, a very important body, including Members of all parties, and indeed including every Member who represents a Welsh constituency, came together to see whether it was not possible to get a practical policy for the distressed area of South Wales. Very controversial matters were discussed; each party had its own definite views and its still more definite reservations about the ideas of the others, but in the end the lion of Ebbw Vale lay down with the lamb of Carnarvon, and it was possible to frame a policy of concrete and practical proposals. They were put before the Prime Minister and the Government but they were not accepted. If hon. Members had entered that conference armed with
1050
statistics and with only one idea, wondering how they could prove the ideas of others to be completely useless, that conference would have been of no avail. But the chief anxiety of those who took part in it was to get something done, and done immediately, to assist their fellow-countrymen. That was their paramount consideration. I appeal to the Government to see whether it is not possible to call together some conference of that kind. Here would be an opportunity to show the world that this democratic country can tackle its problems with as single-minded a purpose as any autocracy in Europe.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. Peat: I find myself largely in agreement with many of the statements of the hon. Lady who has just spoken. She has, I think, expressed views and principles which are in the minds of a great many hon. Members. But when she complains that nothing has been done I would point to one passage in the White Paper which has not been referred to yet. It is on page 8 and it shows the reduction of unemployment in the Special Areas. Between 1935 and 1937 the unemployment figure in those areas has been reduced from 450,000 to 335,000. That is to say, 120,000 people have returned to work in the Special Areas, between January, 1935, and January, 1937. That appears to me a very great achievement, though it is not completely satisfactory because of the 330,000 people who remain unemployed in those areas.
Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the hon. Member certain that this number has been employed? Have they not been transferred?
Mr. Peat: I understand that 20,000 have been transferred, and I presume that they have found employment somewhere. If a man can find employment outside the Special Areas, I do not see any reason why he should not go and get it, and I feel that the prejudice against transference is very much overdone. My own family were yeoman farmers in Scotland, but only one son could take the farm and the others had to go. They did so for generations, and I do not see why young men in the distressed areas should not do the same thing. The provisions of the White Paper to a large extent make it possible to re-industrialise the Special

1051
Areas. A great many of the earlier difficulties and shortcomings and restrictions on the Commissioners have been done away with, and the field is clear for the re-industrialisation of these areas. No policy for dealing with these areas is satisfactory which does not take a very long view, and it has already been said that we do not want to do things now which, later, may plunge the distressed areas once more into a condition of depression, and possibly create other distressed areas in other parts of England.
The present position of industry is, to a certain extent, alarming. We have this great armaments expenditure which is taking place. Thousands of millions are being spent in all parts of the world on armaments, and the conditions are almost those which would exist if we were at war. There is an international shortage of steel and certain metal prices are soaring. The position is difficult indeed because of two main factors—one that of prices and the other that of the reckless expansion of productive plant. As regards prices, they must be controlled because uncontrolled prices soaring higher and higher without relation to cost and based purely on speculation, will reduce the comparative boom which we are enjoying gradually to a condition of depression. I see no reason why prices should be allowed to hamper our efforts to "iron out "—if I may use an American expression—the trade cycle. In the steel industry prices are regulated by the Import Duties Advisory Committee who ask for the costs of the products, and these audited costs not only show the cost of production but include a provision for depreciation and obsolescence, and also a reasonable return on the capital invested. Is there any reason why the great basic industries of this country should not be controlled as to prices in the same way? Is there any reason why great Government Departments and the great consuming industries should not get into touch with their suppliers and demand like conditions? I believe that if they did, this prosperity which we are enjoying to-day could be maintained.
The other factor to which I want to refer is the expansion of productive equipment. At the present moment in an almost hysterical manner we are being asked to put down factories here, and factories there, very largely from the
1052
point of view of mitigating the condition of the distressed areas without very often great relation to the economic effects. We must be very careful and self-controlled in this matter of the expansion of equipment, because if we are not careful we shall find ourselves in four or five years time with plants put down in all sorts of uneconomic places, with communities got together which are employed in these works, and when the contraction comes —and there must be a contraction—these places will not be able to stand up to that contraction, and will become derelict as the years go by. Whereas if we control the expansion of our productive equipment, we shall be able to stand up against a moderate contraction of our markets, because, after all, if you put your new works adjacent to your old ones on an economic basis, and have your industries properly organised, you can treat them as stand-by plant, and they are not left standing on their own, isolated and doomed. This, again, is being done by the iron and steel industry. They are trying to control expansion of plant.
This leads me on to the position with regard to rationing the deliveries of our products where there is at present a shortage. A world shortage exists in iron and steel. The Government are calling, or will call, for great quantities of steel on urgent delivery. I suggest that in that case and others like it, instead of a mad expansion of equipment, there should be a careful rationing of deliveries, and some of the more luxury things should wait awhile. You should not put up cinemas if it is going to be at the expense of bridges. That is the sort of example I should like to leave with the House, because I believe that by doing that and making expansion in the right places, we can get through this difficult period which lies ahead without sacrificing the position as it will exist in the years to come. I think that few of us can possibly accept the statement which is so often made—"When the slump comes." It is our duty in this House to see that that slump does not come again. All our efforts ought to be bent in that direction and I think that our end can be achieved if we see the danger ahead and do not, as some people do, great economists and others, accept as a matter of course that in three years, five years, or eight years time we shall be down again in the

1053
depths, at the bottom of this hideous vortex out of which we have just climbed after years of sacrifice. After all, who is it that suffers most from this trade cycle?
The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): It is quite understood that the Debate on this Resolution should be very wide, but so far not one single word which the hon. Gentleman has said appears to me to have had any relation to the Resolution.
Mr. Peat: I must apologise for having taken the Debate too broadly, but I did it because I felt that these rather broad considerations which I have been putting forward are absolutely inherent in any attempt to tackle the problem of the distressed areas, and particularly as we find that these areas are to be extended in certain directions. Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks by saying that I do not think any treatment of the distressed areas can be isolated. It must be of a national, and almost of an international character. My final word on that point is that the people who are going to suffer from the uncurbed reactions of a trade cycle are the working classes in those areas. They suffer first and they suffer last, and Members on this side of the House stand equally sincerely for helping these classes, and I, for one, want to stress the importance of getting away from this trade cycle. As I see it at the present moment, there are about 340,000 men and women and young people who have been unemployed for 12 months and more. Of that number, approximately 200,000 are between the ages of 35 and 64, and I presume that a large percentage of that 200,000 are married people.
I think one can see, therefore, that the main problem attaches to these 200,000 people. They represent probably somewhere near 1, 000,000 citizens, and they are the great problem which we have to attempt to solve. One of the great difficulties with regard to these people is that many of them are unskilled. Secondly, owing to the lapse of time they have become, to a certain extent, physically and mentally degenerate. It cannot be helped. They are soft from the point of view of labour, and mentally they are depressed. To deal with the first point, perhaps an hon. Member opposite who sits for a Welsh constituency will put me
1054
right on this. Is it a fact that a miner who has been out of employment for a number of years is regarded as a dangerous person to take down a pit? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Mr. George Hall: May I put the hon. Member right? He is not regarded as a dangerous subject, but if he has been away from the pit from four to five years, it is almost impossible, if he is 45 years or over, for him to regain that standard of physique which will enable him to do the heavy manual work which he previously did.
Mr. Peat: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is what in essence I had in mind—the difficulty for a man to get back to employment if he has been out a long time and is over a certain age. A man of 35 to 64 who has been living in a certain district with his family is not the sort of person you can move about the countryside. It is difficult to take him and put him on a road job Too miles away. I have enormous sympathy with these people in their immobility, whereas I have no sympathy with the young people in their desire to remain at home with their parents. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is laughing at me.
Mr. Gallacher: It is not a bad desire, to remain at home with their own people.
Mr. Peat: It is a bad thing if they continue to be dependent on them.
Mr. Gallacher: Give them a job.
Mr. Peat: The problem with regard to these 200,000 people is that unless we take quite separate and individual action with them they are going to become the lost legion of our generation. Every day, every week, every year that goes by makes their position more difficult. If you look at it from the point of view of 200,000 families, it is not such a big problem to deal with as that of the whole of the unemployed or the whole of the distressed areas, and I would recommend with all the power I have that these people should be dealt with individually, family by family, constantly under supervision. I am very glad to see that the Unemployment Insurance Committee are advising their representatives that it is not good enough just to pay out money. You have got to do something else. Not

1055
one moment should be allowed to elapse while these people are allowed to drift. You have got to keep them fit. There are reconditioning camps at present in existence, but very seldom does a man who goes to a reconditioning camp for three months get a job, and there is a good deal of disappointment in that fact. That should be changed. If you get these men reconditioned and fit, you should see that they get a job of one sort or another afterwards.
With regard to public works, unless they mean the utilisation of a great deal 'of raw materials wanted in other directions, now is the time to put them in band. A large number of public works -want doing at the very doors of the Special Areas. There are roads to be built—national roads. There are rivers to be cleaned. These polluted rivers in the part of the world where I come from are an absolute standing disgrace. Beautiful rivers which used to be clean and wholesome are now open sewers, and they run practically through the distressed areas, within easy reach of these people. Then there is the other side, the more spiritual side, the voluntary, work by which the neighbour gets to work on these people. I am glad to think that in County Durham there are at least 10,000 out of the 39,000 in receipt of public assistance who are in contact with these voluntary associations, which give them something to think about, and something to do. We have to keep these people always under our closest watch. We have got to give them friendship, and this they are getting through the voluntary associations. We have to give them work where it is possible, but that may not always be possible.
There is one other thing. I understand that in some cases in some of the big Employment Exchanges, particularly in North London, the staffs are inadequate to cope with the work of finding the right man his right job. There is a tremendous delay in getting these jobs for the men. A young Scotsman who went into one of the North London Exchanges had taken every trouble to qualify himself for various trades. He was very persistent, but nothing happened for five months. Finally, he was sent to a friend of mine who was doing voluntary work, who got the man a job in a fortnight. The Employment Exchange had been pegging
1056
away at that man for five months, but with this touch of personal help he got a job in a fortnight, his brother-in-law and the rest of the family came to London, and they got jobs easily. I hope that the Minister will look at that question and see if there is anything in the complaint I have made. I appreciate that Members have not the information which is in the hands of the Minister, and we speak rather in the dark, but what I have said to-night is what I believe most intensely, and after great consideration I think that within it there is the solution of this difficulty. I hope that some notice will be taken of it.
7.16 p.m.
Miss Wilkinson: I hope that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) will not mind if I do not follow him into some of the more general questions that he has raised. I will deal with his remarks on steel before I have finished. I would like to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to the fact that while his Minister has been one of the foremost in talking about prosperity, and while his Premier tries to suggest that all we are having to deal with are the black spots, the Minister has to-day admitted that over xoo districts have applied for inclusion in the Special Areas scheme in addition to a large number who would like to be included but who do not want to be given the name of Special Area. On looking it up, I find that 47 per cent. of our industrial population are either already in the areas scheduled as Special, or are in areas asking to be scheduled or which have similar unemployment figures. That is the other side of the Government's talk about prosperity.
When we have a problem like that, what is the use of suggesting that transfer is any real solution to this problem? Where are the people to be transferred? Are they to continue transferring to London while the Government sit idly by and let them come to this area which is so vulnerable that it is a standing invitation to somebody to bomb it when any question of war appears on the horizon? People talk about transferring as though once the unemployed get out of the Special Areas they are quite comfortable and nobody need bother any more. A stream of people come from my constituency—and other hon. Mem-

1057
bers have the same experience—to this House begging for the price of a night's lodging because they get into this area and have nowhere to go when they get here.
There is a serious part of this problem for which those of us who come from the Special Areas find it difficult to see a solution. In the whole of his speech the Minister concentrated on these suggestions for new trading sites and the building up of new industries—presumably small industries, because by the definition they have to be unable to provide sufficient employment by reason of the general depression in those industries. They are, therefore, not the main industries. The Minister talked about these new industries, which he has discussed in every speech I have heard him make in this Parliament, but which, so far, have failed to be realised, but he does not say a word about the opportunities that are being lost by this Government to use the power that they have. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Darlington realised the depth of cynicism in his remarks about the iron and steel industry. They sounded very nice in the hon. Gentleman's delightful and polite voice and gentle manner, but what did they actually amount to? They amounted to a plea that the iron and steel trade in this country should be in close co-operation with the firms that already own them, and that, in order to meet the complete breakdown that is coming, they should have a rationing scheme in order that their plants should not be further extended, that their profits should be maintained, that the orders should be there! when the armament pool is open. As the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) said, these orders do not wait to be pigeon-holed. The opportunity the Government have lost is so to plan the great steel industry that it would have been possible to have a rationing scheme, not in order to support somebody's profits, but in order to serve the interests of the country. It is no good talking about restricting prices when we have people buying anything now in order to get the stuff. The President of the Board of Trade could have had the power from the House any time he liked to ask for it, so that he could ration and plan, and it is dodging the issue for him to say, "We have not the power."
Mr. Peat: I want to make three statements in answer to what the hon. Member has said. I did not suggest that all the new plants should be made to depend on the present plants. If I used any words that gave her that impression let me withdraw them. What I had in mind was that any extension should be on the best economic lines. There is a world shortage of steel to-day, and however much people clamour for it it cannot be produced and must be rationed. From the point of view of expansion, the hon. Member must rest assured that the steel industry for the last two or three years has been expanding to the best of its ability to meet the demand for steel. Because a new steelworks has not been built in Jarrow, it does not mean that the industry has been doing nothing in other parts of the country.
Miss Wilkinson: The first two points of the hon. Member give me my case, and the third is not true. We know that extensions ought to be done as an economic proposition, but is it economic to patch up some of the plants that are being expanded in order hastily to meet the demand when it could have been planned for beforehand? I am not altogether blaming the iron and steel trade in this matter. The figures they placed before the President of the Board of Trade were unduly pessimistic. I am not saying this in regard to Jarrow only, for the steel industry is a much bigger question even that the question of Jarrow. The President of the Board of Trade has admitted these figures to be hopelessly wrong, but who was in a position to know that they were wrong? The Government themselves. The Government cannot pretend to say that they started thinking about disarmament only after the Prime Minister made that speech in which he said he tricked the lot of us in order to get the power to rearm. When he was deciding to do it he must have known that there would be this overwhelming demand for steel. Yet, two years ago, when the plans were being suggested, the President of the Board of Trade sat absolutely quiet and let the whole thing go by, and then threw up his hands and said, "There is an opportunity we have missed, and we have to face the situation as it is."
This is only symptomatic of what we are having from this Government all the

1059
time. They miss the big opportunities of planning on a big scale. They will not look ahead. Even when they had the information that this rearmament is coming on they did not look ahead. They just sit still and do nothing and then we have the spectacle of the Minister of Labour coming forward with the present proposals. I am sorry for him, if I ever was sorry for a man, having to get up and speak about these pettifogging schemes which, even if they come to anything like fruition, will take years to do so. I could have sympathised with him if he had said, "We are in the middle of this rearmament boom and we know what the situation is, but what we are planning in the Special Areas Bill is something that will take the place of the boom afterwards."
It is not only the question of steel. There is the question of Government factories. North-Eastern Members have had before them the careful statement of the North-East Development Board, who point out that when considering the employment given by the armament programme it must be remembered that, while a great deal of work had come and would come to shipping yards and munition works on the Tyneside, no Government factories had been started in the district. All the Government's shadow factories for the manufacture of aeroplane parts were also to be started outside the Special Areas. That is to say, the Government go to manufacturers and say, "You ought to start industries in the Special Areas and we will arrange a beautiful trading site for you," yet the Government themselves do not take the lead and set an example. They will go anywhere except to a Special Area. They will rip up Maidenhead and some of the loveliest valleys in Pembrokeshire, and will go anywhere to put up factories except to the Special Areas.
Mr. Magnay: If the hon. Member will read the White Paper again, she will find that on the margin of Gateshead there are to be munition works.
Miss Wilkinson: The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) must not tell me what is going to happen on Tyneside. What I am saying is that the Government put forward such things as we have heard from the Minister of Labour, but when it
1060
comes to anything really big in the way of shadow factories and important works, the Government give no lead. How can the Government expect private employers to do it, unless they are to be spoonfed to such a degree that other employers will begin to protest? When I come to my own constituency, really it is almost impossible to speak patiently of the way in which the Government have treated that area. I do not want to be merely a voice saying, "Jarrow, Jarrow," but the conditions there are so dreadful, and when the Government try to say what they have done, what have they done for that area? They have amalgamated the figures of unemployment between Jarrow and Hebburn and so made it utterly impossible to find out what the situation in Jarrow really is, and they call that a means of solving the unemployment problem. As to transference, if you take away all the young people, what on earth will you have left?
I want to ask whether we can get something definite from the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, on this question. We have had deputation after deputation to the President of the Board of Trade and to every single Minister whom we could get to agree to listen to us, and now we are faced with a number of hints that there is something being done, that there is something in the wind. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir J. Jarvis), who spoke very bitterly and with some knowledge a few days ago, did not sound too hopeful, but there is a very great deal of hope in the area, because of certain hints that have been passed that at last something is being done. If ever there was a town of which it was true that "hope deferred maketh the heart sick," it is this town of Jarrow, and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is possible now to give us any assurance that we are not being pushed on and pushed on, month after month after month, just as we were with the iron and steel scheme, or whether the Government are really prepared to do anything at all for this area, except to organise propaganda.
I am very interested to see the way in which it is being said that there are no skilled men there, and so on, and, therefore, that there is really nothing to be done. You cannot go on like this with areas such as Jarrow. Jarrow is one

1061
area, but other areas are just the same, and we come here asking the Government at least to tell us the truth. That would be so much better than having vague hints thrown out all over the place. If they really mean that there is no hope for these areas, except what they can get out of this rearmament programme—and you are only going to give them driblets at that—then at least say so, but these hints thrown out here and there, so that nobody quite knows what is happening, and the only thing that we do know is that for these unemployed men nothing seems to be happening, are too cruel. If we could only get from the Parliamentary Secretary something definite, it would at least let us know whether we have to hope or whether the Government just mean to let these areas sink into the mud that the capitalist system has produced.
7.34 p.m.
Viscount Wolmer: Yesterday we had from the Leader of the Opposition a very moderate House of Commons speech on a problem with which we are all equally concerned, and I think his speech evoked a great deal of sympathy on this side of the House. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), when he spoke on a subject which equally concerns all Members of the House, adopted a different attitude and really used the Special Areas to deliver a pure, party attack. I regret that approach to the question very much indeed, and, if I may say so, I think the hon. Gentleman's speech was further marred by disgraceful insinuations in regard to the location of the munition works at Chorley, insinuations which he had absolutely no right to make. Of all forms of allegation, an insinuation, where the speaker does not commit himself to a definite statement on which he can be pinned down, is the most contemptible. Three-quarters of these factories, if not more, are going to be put up in the constituencies of hon. Members opposite, and to insinuate that, because a particular constituency is not represented by the Socialist party, therefore there has beeen some political jobbery, is altogether unworthy.
Mr. W. A. Robinson: Does the Noble Lord suggest that the sites have been picked in the constituencies of hon. Members on this side more than any others?
Viscount Wolmer: I am not making any insinuations at all. I am quite certain that all these sites have been chosen on their merits and that hon. Members opposite have not used their influence in the matter any more than any influence was used in the matter to which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred. I am not making any insinuations; I am merely protesting against insinuations of this sort being brought into this discussion.
Mr. Tinker: I have heard in Lancashire that these factories are going into the constituencies of Conservatives, and I think it is well that it ought to be known to-day whether there is any truth in that or not.
Viscount Wolmer: If the hon. Member has any evidence for that allegation, he ought to make it across the Floor of this House, and he ought to submit that evidence for examination and cross-examination in debate. If the hon. Member has not got any evidence of that, I say that he ought not to make the allegation. I must also add that it is very unfortunate that when the Minister of Labour read out an encouraging and important list of new factories, for the establishment of which the Government has been able to arrange, there was not a single cheer from the benches opposite. The faces of hon. Members opposite denoted nothing but profound gloom at the prospect of thousands of men getting employment.
Mr. Logan: Is the Noble Lord not aware that the statement was definitely made that about 14 or 15 were under consideration, but definitely that only two were in operation?
Viscount Wolmer: Not at all. The Minister of Labour read out a new list, which I should have thought would have been greeted with cheers in every quarter of the House, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that if they would only approach this problem in a non-party spirit, they would get a great deal more sympathy from all quarters of the House than by the tactics adopted by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. Certainly some of us were disappointed by what we read in the White Paper, which seemed only to cover four or five of the recommendations that Sir Malcolm Stewart made in his third report, but

1063
the Minister of Labour this afternoon has added a number of important decisions of the Government, which did not appear in the White Paper. I hope very much that they do not indicate the high-water mark of the Government's activities in this matter, but that more announcements of this sort will follow as soon as ever the Government are in a position to make them.
I, for one, certainly want to pay a tribute to what the Government have done in tackling the Special Areas problem. Those of us who have ventured on occasion to make suggestions and criticisms certainly are not unmindful of what has been achieved, and I venture to say that it is no insignificant record that is set forth in the White Paper. Hon. Members opposite are not doing a service to the cause in trying to belittle what is really a constructive, creditable, and helpful achievement; and the suggestions which the Government have now brought forward are new and bold ones. They may not go the full length that some of us would desire, but nobody can possibly deny that they are entirely novel expedients which the Government have had the courage to adopt, and I, personally, should like to thank them for doing so. It must also be remembered that the very success that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has achieved in restoring industrial prosperity in other parts of the country has thrown the Special Areas into sharp relief. It is most unjust to contrast the state of the Special Areas with that of the rest of England without giving the Government credit for having brought about the very noticeable improvement in the rest of England which they have achieved during the last five years.
Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the Noble Lord aware that the Government have abstracted from the Special Areas, by way of the application of the means test, 10 times as much as they have poured in under any of their schemes?
Viscount Wolmer: I do not in the least accept the hon. Member's figures, and I do not think they are relevant to the Financial Resolution now under discussion. Having said so much, I want to enter a plea that the Government should go on and go farther in tackling this great, new, difficult, and unprecedented
1064
problem. I am quite sure that the Minister of Labour is right in concentrating on trying to foster light industries. One of the chief causes of the plight of the Special Areas has been that they were in many cases dependent on a single great industry, and I am sure the Government are right in trying to have as big a diversity of industries as they can. That is one of the best insurances which you can get against a recrudescence of this situation in the future.
To my mind, the most important avenue which the Government have not yet fully explored is that of the location of industry. The Minister of Labour, speaking to-day, reminded us that there is not an unlimited supply of new industries. That is a truism which we must not forget, and it makes this problem of the location of industry all the more urgent. I do not in the least regard the appointment of a Royal Commission as a delaying move. There are Royal Commissions and Royal Commissions. We do not want a Royal Commission of the character which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland boasted his Government had appointed, the Royal Commission on drink, which he confessed or almost boasted had simply been appointed in order to shelve the question, and in order that some other Government would have to deal with their report. We do not want a Royal Commission of that sort, and I am sure that we are not going to get it. I hope we shall get a small Commission and that its members will be men of constructive minds who will be able to bring forth in a very few months, or even weeks, an interim report on which the Government can act, because I am sure that this question is urgent.
It came to my knowledge in the course of business only a few days ago that a builder claimed to have contracts for 23 factories in the West End of London, and that shows the extent to which these new small factories are being run up in the London area, which I am sure, for the reasons which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland gave and for the other reasons which Sir Malcolm Stewart gave, it is not the right policy for this country to allow to continue uncontrolled. If the Government say that they require more information before they can embark on this admittedly drastic scheme of national town planning, we cannot possibly deny

1065
them that request. But while this Royal Commission is sitting it seems to me there is a practical step the Government could take which would be helpful. An authoritative announcement should be made by some leading Member of the Government that they are very much concerned with this question and they should make an appeal or issue a warning to local authorities in the areas round about London and Birmingham and such places not to peg out claims for new factories pending the report of the Royal Commission.
I understand that one of the problems with which the Government will be faced in tackling the question of the location of industry is the large sums of money which local authorities in the vicinity of London and Birmingham have spent in preparing ground for factory sites. If that is so, a warning from the Government that any local authority which continues to peg out a claim of that nature does so at its peril, might possibly have a deterrent effect, and I hope that my right hon. Friends will give that matter their consideration. It is not only local authorities which are doing this. One hears of issues being made by public companies and of the formation of private companies which are buying land round London and raising money in order to develop those areas for factory sites during the next 10 or 20 years. That is going on every day; a big scheme came to my knowledge only a few weeks ago. Again, I think that an announcement from the Government that people who embark on such schemes will from this day forth do so at their peril would be a helpful step, and a perfectly reasonable and just step to take. All plans of that sort ought to be kept in abeyance pending the report of this Royal Commission; othenvise, we may find that we have lost considerable opportunities in connection with new factories.
The other matter to which I should like the Government to give their close attention is the appointment of a Minister for the co-ordination of special area problems. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland in that desire, though the reasons why I think such a Minister is required differ in many respects from those which he put forward. Everyone has seen the good work which the Minister for the Coordination of Defence has been able to
1066
achieve during the few short months lie has been at work. Surely similar work of a very important character could be performed if one of the members of the Cabinet, or some new Minister, were given the duty of co-ordinating Government activities in regard to Special Area problems. If there had been such a Minister installed a few months ago, surely we should not have had the fiasco of the Maidenhead Aircraft factory, to give only one example.
A very important suggestion was made in the Press a few weeks ago by the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) that there should be a survey of new industries required in this country for the purposes of national Defence or national self-sufficiency. I am not aware that any such survey has ever been undertaken. It is a survey which would cover practically every trade and every branch of industry, and it may well be that if properly undertaken it would make out a case for the establishment of some 20, 30 or 40 new types of light industry; and that case having been established, the Government might offer facilities to those who were prepared to take the risk of establishing those industries in this country, and offer such facilities as are set forth in the White Paper for putting the factories in the Special Areas. That also seems to be work which a Minister for the co-ordination of Special Area problems would be able to achieve.
Then there is the question of coal. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), speaking here some months ago, said very truly that the whole Special Areas problem was to a large extent the problem of coal, but since he spoke the situation has undoubtedly changed, and now, although there are something like 200,000 coal miners on the unemployment register, there is a shortage of miners in many pits and a great shortage of coal at the present time.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sure the noble Lord does not want it to go out from this House that he has suggested that there is a shortage of miners.
Viscount Wolmer: In some areas.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask where are the areas in which there is a shortage of miners?
Viscount Wolmer: I have been informed that there is a shortage of miners both in Lancashire and in Warwickshire —that statement has been made—and there certainly is a very great shortage of coal there. But I do not intend to go into that question, and I hope I am wrong. The point is that the Minister of Labour is undoubtedly justified in postponing consideration of the proposal for an export subsidy for coal at the present juncture. But this state of affairs- will not always remain, and there is a longterm policy to be undertaken in regard to coal as well as the short-term policy. This is the sort of problem I should like to see somebody in the Government considering. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply to-night will tell me whether it is being considered and, if so, who is considering it.
Then there is the question of oil-burning and coal-burning merchant ships. The Government are, very rightly, giving a subsidy to our merchant shipping. Would it not be possible to weight that subsidy so that in future all the shipping that is to be built should, as far as possible, be built for coal-burning rather than oil-burning? It seems to me that the Government might tilt the scale by means of their subsidy, and also by other means, so that they definitely gave an encouragement to our merchant shipping to use coal instead of oil. It would be of permanent assistance to the coal trade. That is just the sort of thing which a Minister for the co-ordination of Special Area problems might be able to think out and bring to the notice of the Cabinet as a whole.
Then, of course, there are questions like the Caledonian power scheme, about which we are going to hear a great deal to-morrow. A matter of that sort is so intimately concerned with this Special Areas problem that it would have been helpful if the Minister of Labour had felt justified in announcing to-day the policy of the Government on that particular scheme. The point I am trying to make is that this Special Areas problem has to be considered as a whole, and that while it touches a dozen different Departments the problem itself is a whole. Therefore, there is a good case for some Minister of the Crown who is in touch not only with the Ministry of Labour but with the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health, the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, to co-ordinate the
1068
efforts of all those Departments towards the solution of this problem. I believe that is a better and wiser method of tackling the problem than proceeding by the method of special commissioners, which, although it was perfectly right when it was started, ought not to be regarded as a permanent method. One of the evils of the system of special commissioners is that it has a tendency to put the problem in a pigeon-hole where Members of Parliament and Members of the Government are apt to overlook it. We want the whole problem to be in charge of a Minister who is in daily contact with his colleagues here.
I would make an appeal to the Government to increase the energy with which these good works have been pursued and are going to be pursued. I will give an instance of what I have in mind. I have been informed, and I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend whom I see taking notes on the Treasury Bench will correct me if I am wrong, that Sir George Gillett is not giving his whole time to this question. It seems to me to be absolutely wrong that the Special Commissioner for England should not give the whole of his time to this problem. If I am wrong in that statement I hope that my right hon. Friend will correct me. As he does not correct me I am afraid there must be some truth in it. If that is so, surely that is tackling the problem with your left hand, and we need to have a man of the utmost energy who is prepared to give his whole time to the job. I would pay him a fair and proper salary in order that he might devote his whole time to it.
There is another question I should like to ask the Government. When the Secretary of State for Scotland speaks I hope he will tell us what is the attitude of the Government in regard to certain of the recommendations of Sir Malcolm Stewart. In his Third Report last October Sir Malcolm Stewart made 20 recommendations. So far as I can make out the Government has given effect in its own form to something like seven or eight of those recommendations, and there are To or a dozen which have not been adopted. It will be helpful to us if the attitude of the Government in regard to those remaining recommendations can be indicated. I do not suggest that it would be reasonable to expect the Government to be able to bring in proposals at once to deal with

1069
all these 20 recommendations, because some of them do not admit of that sort of treatment, but at least it would be helpful if the Government could tell us what their attitude is towards some of them. In particular, I should like to know their attitude regarding recommendation i8, which is—
"That attendance at instructional centres on the part of young unemployed men in the Special Areas should no longer remain on a voluntary basis but be subject to an approved measure of compulsion."
The Committee will remember that Sir Malcolm Stewart wrote three very strong paragraphs in his report on that question. This is a matter which the House and the Government ought not to shirk. Do the Government accept Sir Malcolm Stewart's statement that there are a very large number of young men who refuse to attend the instructional centres but who are drawing full benefit of unemployment relief? If so, what do the Government propose to do about it? It is wrong from the point of view of these young men and also from the point of view of the State that that matter should be left where it was when Sir Malcolm Stewart wrote of it. If the Government are tackling the Special Areas problem from every angle that they can think of, that is one of the angles that demands action.
Finally, let us not forget that the period of rearmament is a godsend to us so far as the problem of the Special Areas is concerned. It gives temporarily a very valuable fillip and assistance but it will not last long, and it is necessary that during the three years while the height of rearmament employment continues, the Government should be able to develop other more permanent sources of employment and to replan so that when the rearmament movement comes to an end there will be something to take its place. It is for that reason that we want to see this matter more energetically handled in the future than it has been in the past.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. F. Anderson: I do not intend to follow the noble Lord into the whole of the aspects of his speech, but there are two items to which I would refer. One is in regard to the factory that is being built at Euxton Junction, near Chorley. Whatever the Noble Lord may think, there is a feeling abroad, rightly or
1070
wrongly, that the strategical position has been the only factor in the decision to build this factory near Chorley. Within 30 miles of that place during the last War Zeppelins came. Is that not a factor that should have been taken into account? Moreover, some of the nicest countryside between Preston and Chorley is being brought to book for the purpose of establishing that factory there. Surely, it was within the means of the Department concerned to establish the factory somewhere in a position that would be more strategic.
Perhaps the Noble Lord is not aware that this junction is a bottle-neck junction. All the trains that pass to the west from north and south must pass through that junction. They also pass the bottle-neck at Preston, and the whole of the train services must cross the Ribble. Therefore, we have a river that can be followed from the air and a series of railway lines that can be followed from the air. Those lines serve East Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the main lines serve the principal districts of West Lancashire, and also London. Consequently, the establishment of the factory at Euxton Junction has created a smell in certain quarters. Moreover, the whole of the labour for the construction of the factory has to be imported from several miles away. Leyland and Chorley are not depressed areas as depressed areas are understood. The Leyland motor works is doing more than full time. Consequently, apart from what was said by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), I can say without doubt that there are more opinions than one as to why that factory is being put up at Chorley.
The next point was in regard to the shortage of miners. I happen to represent a mining constituency and I am interested in this subject. If there is a shortage of miners, where does the machinery of the Ministry of Labour come in? I understood that we had a machine that could operate and find work in places where the work was required. If there is a shortage of miners in some areas, why does not the Minister of Labour solve the difficulty? That is a fair question to ask, because when these statements are made they create the impression that the miner is a person who is not prepared to do his fair share at the proper time. From my division

1071
there have been scores of miners transferred to the Kent coalfields; they have been compelled to go. Therefore, the argument adduced by the Noble Lord does not bear examination.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) made reference to transfers. A large number of young people have been transferred from my division to other parts of the country, and we are now faced with a problem, seeing that the Whitehaven mines are to reopen. The cry from that part of the country from the older miners is that they require the assistance of the younger miners to make efficient pit workings. What is the problem going to be? Is it common sense to transfer your young people to other districts and then expect them to come back when the industries that are being revived find themselves in a serious difficulty, in that the pits have to be worked by the older men? That aspect of transfer is a serious question. I have had instances of three and four being transferred from one family to other areas. That is a serious matter for the homes of those people. We are told that it does not matter, that so long as there is work in the other areas they ought to be transferred. We say that the work should come to our areas instead of our people having to go away.
The Minister of Labour referred to the reopening of the Whitehaven mines. I am prepared to give all credit where it is due for the creating of the feeling in the town that at last something good is to take place, but there is a moral to be drawn from the reopening of the White-haven mines. When those mines were closed they were under private ownership. Had the mines been publicly owned they would not have been closed down for a single day. Consequently, I submit that there has been no real merit to the Government so far as the reopening of the mines is concerned. Up to a certain point the Government have had to rely upon the fund promoted by Lord Nuffield. However, the reopening of the mines is welcome news to Whitehaven. In the course of further remarks the Minister was not able to tell us that any new industries had been established in the West Cumberland Special Area. I cannot understand why a factory like the one that is being built at Chorley could not
1072
have come to West Cumberland, where no airship came during the last War.
We can safely claim that the Government have not succeeded in bringing any new industry to the West Cumberland area. Some weeks ago application was made to S.A.R.A. and sanction was given for a certain industry, but the people concerned are still having to try to find cash in order to be allowed to come into the Special Area. If industries are to be brought into the Special Areas something real and effective will have to be done for the small man who desires to undertake something real to bring new industries to those areas. If the Government mean business they will have to speed up their procedure for the examination of proposals for new industries. I have had brought to my notice several cases where the delay that has taken place in the examination of the proposals has discouraged people from taking steps to come into the Special Areas.
The Government ought to set up some kind of investigation department for the benefit of people who are bringing out new patents, and who at the moment have to spend practically the whole of their spare cash in getting them on to the market. In the machinery that the Government are setting up they ought to find ways and means whereby persons who have patents which could be worked should have special consideration, and thus avoid their having to go to all the expense that they have to incur at the present time.
The Minister mentioned that trade organisations will be consulted. That is a very serious step to take. I wonder if that expression means the trade unions as well as the employers' organisations. If certain trade organisations desire to stop new industries going to those areas, what is the use of asking them for advice? They will reply that there is no need for new industries to be established. Workers' organisations ought to be consulted as well. I would like to turn to the question of iron ore. The proposals in the Financial Resolution do not go far enough. I would like to know how, under these proposals, iron ore can be brought to the surface. What proposals are the Government prepared to make? The private employer candidly says that it is too expensive for him to get ore from mines that have been closed down. That

1073
matter should receive consideration at the hands of the Government, especially as iron ore is so important to the iron and steel industry. Cannot machinery be set up for locating ore and sinking shafts? Those operations are so expensive that the Government should find means whereby this raw material can be found as early as possible and put to the best use. The proposals in the Resolution will not allow that to take place. I do not think the Commission have the power to adopt the course which I am suggesting.
In regard to local government services, I would point out that water is required in the Special Areas as in other areas, but in two of my districts they have been told that the fund for water purposes is already exhausted. There have been serious reports as to the condition of the water, but the local authorities are not able to put any scheme into operation. They have to wait some time before they can do so. If the proposals on the Paper were widened in scope, this matter would undoubtedly receive favourable consideration. Special Areas should not be at a disadvantage as compared with other areas. Large blocks of houses in some of the Special Areas have not hot and cold water, let alone other services that are usually supplied in more prosperous places. Those authorities desire to carry through proposals which will find labour for unemployed people in their districts.
In regard to slum clearance, in one or two of my districts clearance schemes have had to be held up because the authorities could not afford to carry them out. They have to delay them as long as possible, and housing associations are having to be formed. If the local authorities have done their best to build houses why should not the same financial assistance be given to them as is given to housing associations? In regard to roads, which are very important for attracting new industries, special proposals have been made for a West Coast road. I would ask what is actually taking place in that connection. A West Coast road is very important from the point of view of Defence. By going to the west side you avoid the terrible conditions with which you have to contend on the Shap road, as we understand it in our part of the country. With regard to the Duddon Estuary, I should like to ask what is happening to the scheme, which has been
1074
put forward by responsible people. The local authorities, because of their special difficulties, are not able to take their full share of responsibility. Sir Malcolm Stewart said that he was prevented by the Special Areas Act from offering assistance to local authorities for the provision of roads or bridges. If that is one of the difficulties that are stopping the development of a district, why should not the Minister come forward with suitable proposals that will help to remove those difficulties? Undoubtedly that would help the Special Areas very materially in securing new industries.
Sir Henry Fildes: The hon. Member is doubtless aware that grants are to be provided by the Ministry of Transport for the making of new roads and new bridges. It is not possible to have it both ways.
Mr. Anderson: I am aware that sums of money have been provided for roads and bridges, but the hon. Member should also be aware that the Special Areas have not been able to do what they required to do, because they were not wealthy enough to carry out the proposals. Is that any reason why the Special Areas should not have added facilities, but only what the other areas have already got? Surely they ought not to be put to inconvenience because they happen to be poorer, because their rates do not bring in so much in the pound as those of other districts. Surely, seeing that the effort is being made to bring these new industries to them, they have a right to claim that their transport facilities shall be as good as those of other districts.
The Minister has announced that West Cumberland is at last to be one of those districts that are going to have what are termed site factories. That proposal is rather belated, but, nevertheless, I am glad to welcome it, because I think it will help very materially the coming of new industries into the district. Another proposal that has been touched upon is the extraction of oil from coal. I am wondering why, while proposals can be made for the production of oil from coal in one part of the country, proposals for its production in another part of the country are turned down. A proposal was made for the establishment of a low-temperature carbonisation plant in the West Cumberland area, but it was turned down. Was that as a result of consulting

1075
trade organisations? I should like to know why, if a plant can be established in one area, it cannot be established in another area when application is made through the usual channels. I have been informed that technically it would be in every way a commercial proposition to produce oil from coal in the West Cumberland area, and, moreover, if that could have been done, it would have been possible to try out another proposal of Sir Malcolm Stewart's with regard to the storage of oil in those districts where its storage might be regarded as reasonable. That could have been done in the West Cumberland area.
Another question to which the Government ought to pay more attention is that of food production, particularly in regard to canning factories If it is possible to produce aeroplanes in Government factories, why should it not be possible for the Government to put down their own factories for the production of canned goods, so that they might be stored in case of emergency? I cannot understand whole areas waiting to be considered from the standpoint of food production, while at the same time we have hundreds of men out of work who would be prepared to do what they could to make the production of food an economic proposition. At the same time the matter is important from the standpoint of defence, and it would be possible to store that food ready for any emergency.
My last point is with regard to the location of industry. Is it not possible for the Government to experiment in this direction, and to exercise some pressure with people who might desire to establish industries outside the Special Areas? Let me take an example. Supposing that I wanted to establish a new industry, say in London, I should have to find a site. Is it not possible to ask for the assistance of the local authorities in notifying the Government Departments concerned, so that they might use a kind of persuasive pressure to get those industries into the Special Areas? If that were done it would help very considerably some of the Special Areas which are in urgent need of new industries to-day. Can the Government tell us, can the Minister tell us, why that persuasion cannot be used? I see that Sir Malcolm Stewart has done what he can by asking the Federation of British Industries, but I should like to
1076
see the matter carried a step further, so that, when applications are made for sites, the local authorities might be asked to notify the Government Departments, who might exercise their machinery of persuasion in asking those responsible for such industries to take them into the Special Areas. The Government have here a great scope and a great opportunity, if they would only take it, because, if location were brought about, it would help to solve part of the difficulties with which we are faced.
8.34 p.m.
Major Herbert: I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for White-haven (Mr. F. Anderson), who made many fertile suggestions which I think will be appreciated by the Committee and by the Minister. They show that there should be great collaboration between the Commissioner for the Special Areas and the local authorities, and they also show what a tremendous amount the Government and the country are doing for the Special Areas. The hon. Member asked, what can the Government do to help those areas which are now distressed; and that is a question which we should consider seriously, not on party lines, but on the lines of the broader issues which may face the country whatever party may be in power. It seems to me that the subsidisation of local authorities means that the local authorities become too dependent upon the central authority, that is to say, the Government. They depend entirely upon Government assistance for their solvency, and they depend on the Commissioner for other help. We know that each local authority wants the best that it can possibly obtain—each clamouring for assistance. I think the House will be faced with a realisation of the enormous work that the Government have been doing in these areas. But the Commissioner's first task is to prepare sites and prepare trading estates, and he should be careful not to usurp the functions of local government, otherwise local authorities may begin to be dependent and not be able to function in the best way. I think the Commissioner's tendency has been rather to usurp those functions. He has taken over maternity services, he has built hospitals, he has built and subsidised to a large extent sewerage schemes, which must be a charge upon the local authorities. They

1077
are so dependent upon that subsidy that I think they are losing their independence in the proper sense. We who come from highly-rated counties are all grateful for the recently passed Local Government Bill, with its new formula, which will give great assistance to the rates, but it is quite possible that no formula will, in fact, be able to help those areas. It is possible that completely new districts will grow up around the site-companies which we are envisaging setting up in this Bill, and, therefore, something extra may be required in the future.
There is always the question whether the areas should be extended or contracted. Near where I live there are two small townships next door to each other, one in one parish and one in another. The first parish is in a rural district which is a Special Area. The works in that area are subsidised and the rates are, therefore, a good deal lower than in the neighbouring rural district. There the rates are extremely high, because it is within an administrative county containing Special Areas, which adds to the incidence of the rates, and, because the council does not wish merely to cry for more subsidy but wishes to be independent, it feels that it cannot carry out work that it would like to carry out because it would be adding too much to the rates, and would be going beyond its obligations. It would mean depopulation of the district. Another annoyance to the district is that, if work is being carried out though a highly-rated district, but not a Special Area, by the Commission for Special Areas, 85 per cent. of the labour is brought from the Special Area, though there is plenty of labour available already. This shows the way the Bill operates. I should add that I have written to the Minister about it. It seems to me that the great question is whether the areas should be extended or whether the work of the Commissioners should be still more concentrated on the Special Areas.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) talked about the levelling of public assistance, and there is much to be said for it. In certain areas where everyone is impoverished and where there is a demand for some compensation for members of public assistance committees, I am rather wondering whether the question should not
1078
eventually be faced whether the work would not be carried out as well, and more humanely, by civil servants acting as specialists. I think if we spread the high rates of public assistance and special services, like the Goschen loan, throughout the area, we should be spreading the distress far further than the Special Area itself, creating more distress, stopping industry in those areas, stopping everything going on, and it might eventually lead to further ruin. The local authorities of these areas ask that the burden should be carried on the broad shoulders of the nation. They send deputations to see Ministers. The travelling expenses of certain councils have become very high, and they are sometimes accused of not running their affairs as they should. In this respect I should like to say what commendable work has been carried out in my part of South Wales by two Members of the party opposite. Their councils are in great difficulty and are sometimes rather apt to lose their sense of financial responsibility. There is much to be said about what the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) have done in keeping those authorities going. That does not mean that all is well with those authorities, nor that sometimes some notice should not be taken of what goes on. If an authority is so bankrupt that it depends entirely upon subsidy, it is inclined to lose its financial sense, and that is a great danger which, I think, the House should face. If local authorities are dependent upon subsidies, a certain lack of resilliency is induced. The Government have been doing much to help these authorities but, if that were changed, it is possible that there would be a crash which would go right through the country, creating even greater distress.
Hon. Members opposite desire more compulsion in the location of industry. I can quite understand that, because if a firm was compelled to go to a certain area and failed, they would say that the Government would be responsible for running that firm. In other words, the firm would be nationalised, which would suit a certain political point of view very well. If the firm were nationalised, what about its competitors in other districts, who would be killed by the running of the one firm by Government aid? For these reasons I welcome the Government's plan to have

1079
a Royal Commission to consider limitation of expansion in certain areas. The Opposition suggestion that there should be no new factory without permission would cause great delay. There is only one thing that I would like to add to reinforce what the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) said, and that is, that if Bills are considered in this House to set up works in certain places which are not distressed areas, I hope that the Government will be in favour of setting up those works in the distressed areas, and not elsewhere.
We should realise that the Commissioner has a specific task to carry out. The first Commissioner was sent to find the distressed areas, like a dove from the Ark, and the next task of the Commissioner then appointed was to concentrate upon preparing those areas for the advent of trade, to prepare the sites and to improve amenities by the provision of clubs, etc., in those areas. Paragraph (b) of the Financial Resolution is a clearing up of that proviso, so that the Minister should be able to subsidise the improvement of streets which could not be subsidised by the Minister of Transport, and is a good addition, as are also the other provisions of the Resolution, particularly that in paragraph (a) which goes beyond Sir Malcolm Stewart's report and adds rent, in addition to rates and taxes, to be subsidised by the Government. The encouragement to estate companies outside the area I particularly welcome. I may be old-fashioned, but there is one thing I would like to see in connection with the setting up of site factories. I hope that it will not prevent that feeling of helping each other which should exist in industry between employer and employé. The employer is responsible to a great extent for the working conditions and the wages, and for the housing of his workmen. If a firm comes to a trading estate or to a new factory site built by the Government and owned by the Government, there is a danger, unless the Commissioner steps in between, that the employer will merely treat his men as machines, and that the men will cease to have the same interest in the firm as in the days of old. That is a danger which might go very far and be a great hindrance to industry on those lines in future.
1080
As to the loan provisions of the Bill, the most important part that the Government can play is the preparing of the site and the urging of industry to come to those sites, and the preparing of localities and the urging of industries to come to those localities. If a man wants to borrow money and he goes to a lender who is a private individual, or a bank, or a financial corporation or the Government, surely the security required by the lender is always greater in proportion to the public responsibility of the lender. One often finds that when a Government Department is lending money it is far more difficult to deal with than a private company. In the "Evening Standard" the other day I saw an advertisement of a company offering to lend money for factory sites. There is, however, one link missing in the connection of the two. We have in this country now great confidence in the future, and that confidence is enabling industry to expand and firms to be set up which might come to the distressed areas.
I do not quite understand what happens supposing a firm wishes to come to a Special Area. The procedure is rather difficult, and I am not quite clear on that point. It would not only have to approach, as now, the different development companies in different areas, but would also deal with Government Departments. There should be some central authority, preferably in London, to give full details of the site and of the labour available, and that same authority should have the authority to lend the money if necessary. Otherwise, if a firm had to go to the Treasury for money, and to somebody else to find out about the site, the firm would be apt to lose interest, or possibly a competitor might step in. If we could deter industry setting up in certain places, and if it were possible for industry to obtain fuller details of the places to which the Government would like them to go, it would be a great step in advance. The Government policy should be Cabinet policy, and there should be much greater cohesion between the Cabinet, the industry and the place to which the Government policy required that industry to go. The Ministry of Labour is responsible for the Special Areas as a labour problem, but they are so inter-related that I wonder whether consideration might not be given to setting up some other machinery to bring

1081
them together, as the bringing in of new industries is most important if these areas are to be developed.
I will not deal specifically with other questions, except to say that in South Wales, naturally, coal is the great product of that district. Anything that can be done for the development of the coal trade should be gone into, and I cannot understand the statement which I saw in the paper on Friday that there is not enough coal for home use in South Wales. There should be an inquiry as to why we cannot obtain sufficient supplies and why orders cannot be met. One suggestion at to how the Government could help the Welsh coal trade is by using more smokeless coal themselves. I asked a question the other day, and the answer which I received from the Office of Works was that they burnt 40,000 tons of smokeless fuel, 105,000 tons of coke and 125,000 tons of other fuel in the course of last year. The Smoke Abatement Society and other bodies are entreating us to take steps to preserve the ancient buildings of this country, and so I make the plea, which many hon. Members will appreciate, for greater use of smokeless fuel and South Wales coal. I wonder if it is possible to initiate some sort of inquiry as to what we can manufacture in this country which we at present import. The Noble Lord suggested a commission to consider what we could manufacture in the way of arms that we are importing. But I would like to go a step further and consider the manufacture of some of the goods we now import. By preventing the import of certain goods which we might manufacture at home, by the encouragement of industry in this country, and especially through this Act the Government will do much to help the Special Areas, and to bring industry to areas of distress.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Tinker: I want to make one or two remarks on the Financial Resolution, although it is a little difficult to do so when you find that point after point which you had intended to bring before the Committee has already been made by other speakers. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) dealt with a remark made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and said that it was not a statement in keeping with the traditions of the House. It
1082
was the statement which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made in regard to the factories which are to be put up in Lancashire, particularly the factory to be put up near Chorley. I should like to bear out the feeling there is in Lancashire on this point. There is a feeling there that the Government are looking after their friends, their political representatives in this House, and that all the factories to be put up in Lancashire are being put up in the vicinity of constituencies of hon. Members opposite. One prominent politician in Lancashire, not a member of this House although he hoped to be one, made a statement in a speech that there was no hope of any Labour Member getting anything from the Tory Government.
Mr. Storey: Is the hon. Member aware that the trading estate on the North-East coast has been put in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).
Mr. Batey: No, it has not.
Mr. Tinker: I am speaking of Lancashire. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) represent districts in Lancashire which are the hardest hit, but nothing is to be done for them. I understand that the next factory is to be in the vicinity of Bolton. That seems to bear out the contention that Labour Members in the House of Commons will not get much from the Government. We may be wrong, but that is the view which is held, and if it is wrong the Government should remove the impression by giving us the reasons why factories have been put up in these particular places. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) on the matter of vulnerability. That question ought not to enter into the matter at all, because modern science has made it possible for airships to go all over the country in a few minutes. There is no question at all of tactical positions in this small island. I would fix on a site which was suitable having regard to the requirements of these Special Areas.
Then the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Aldershot made a reference to coal mines, and said that he understood there was a shortage of miners in Lancashire and in Warwickshire. Ten

1083
years ago we had over 100,000 miners working in Lancashire, at the present time only 50,000. In any part of Lancashire you can come across unemployed miners who would be only too ready to take any position in a mine. In fact, one of my complaints is that a number of collieries have been closed down in Lancashire recently and that the Government have not done anything to keep them going. The Minister of Labour said that what happened during the course of the Debate did not make it very easy for him. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have no personal feeling against him. I believe he is trying to do his best in his position. Our protest is against the Government to which he belongs, and particularly the Cabinet. We believe he is not getting very much of his own way, and our resentment is very bitter against the party with which he is mixing. If we shout him down I hope he will realise why it is being done. Hon. Members opposite must not take it either that there is not a great deal of feeling behind our outbursts. There is a deep feeling in regard to what is happening in these distressed areas. There are black spots in Lancashire which ought to be dealt with, and I am pleased that the Minister under this Money Resolution says that he can bring in parts of Lancashire which are not termed Special Areas and that they will be able to receive some consideration which was not given to them before.
There are one or two things which should be brought to the notice of the Minister. There are in certain parts of the country works being closed down. I think the causes should be examined immediately. It is not right for the House of Commons to wait until the blow falls. This afternoon we are dealing with the effects of something which everybody feels should be removed, but we are making no attempt to get at the sources of the disease. We wait until the disease has got a hold and then try to cure it. The Minister of Labour has intimated that a Royal Commission is to be set up. I was not able to follow exactly what he meant, probably because we were guilty of not allowing him to explain fully and clearly, and probably because he talks so fast—that may be a virtue or a weakness. But I want to know whether the Royal Commission is for the purposes of looking ahead, of
1084
finding out the causes of this distress. I want to know whether the Commission will be able, if there are any signs of a breakdown in any part of the country, to investigate the causes and prevent, for instance, a mine closing down. Six months ago a number of collieries were closed down in Westhoughton. In my constituency, it was for some economic reason with which I cannot deal now, and in Westhoughton it was because of the flooding of the mines. Will the purpose of this Royal Commission be to watch such things and to instruct the Government on these dislocations of trade? Unless that is the purpose of the Royal Commission, it will fail in its duty.
Everyody realises that in manufacturing armaments we are creating a position which in a few years time may react upon us. Many of us welcome armaments because they bring some employment, but if the danger of war recedes, it will mean chat the arms will no longer be necessary and the factories established to manufacture them will be required for some other purpose. If what has happened in the past happens again, the Government of the day will not pay any attention to the men who are thrown out of work in that way until they have been unemployed for months or even years, and all over the country distressed and Special Areas will be created in the places that have been manufacturing armaments. Unless the Royal Commission is to deal with such matters, we shall simply be hiding our heads in the sand, and not doing anything to meet future probabilities.
There was another remark made by the right hon. Gentleman which I thought was rather ill-timed. He said that the people who are crying out against armaments are hoping to get factories in their areas. That was the effect of his remark In distress men turn anywhere, and people in areas where there is a great deal of unemployment, when they know the Government have to establish these factories for armaments, are urging their Members to try to get the ear of the Government in order to have a factory in their area. I was asked by the town council to make an appeal for a factory to be set up in the vicinity of Leigh. I told them that we were not as badly hit as some other places and that we ought not to make such an appeal, but they said that other places were doing it, so

1085
why should we not do it? Reluctantly I did so, feeling that I had no right to do so, but knowing also that everybody else was doing so. In our distress we are driven to that, and in an effort to get work for his people, everybody is sinking his principles, as it were, and trying to get a factory in his area. The House of Commons should try to remove that sort of thing.
Surely, if we are preparing our Defence Forces to meet a possible invader, it is not too much for us to prepare for the economic future of our country. It is our job to do that, and not to allow things to slide until we get Special Areas, where men and women have been suffering year after year, and no attempt has been made to help them. The House of Commons ought to be ready to meet these emergencies, and I appeal to the Minister to try to set up some sort of system such as I have advocated to the Prime Minister several times, in order to deal with this matter. Not long ago I urged the creation of a Minister whose job it would be to watch for signs of a breakdown of trade in any area. If the Government would do something on those lines, we might at some time or other be in a position in which we would not have Debates such as that which we are having to-day and would not have such feelings created on this side of the House against the other side. I am not saying that hon. Members opposite have not as good intentions as we have, but they do not see the matter in the same light. Almost every week we go among our people, and I do not think hon. Members opposite do that as often as we do. I do not think they see the problem as vividly as we do. I hope that as a result of this Debate the Government will realise that unless they do something very different from what they are now doing, such scenes as we had this afternoon will become more frequent.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. Magnay: It happens that to-day I have received two letters concerning the factory on the new estate in my constituency. The only time I can give to that matter is Thursday morning at Newcastle and Friday at Darlington. Consequently I shall not be able to be in the House on Friday, and I consider myself fortunate in having caught your eye, Sir, thus being enabled to make a few re-
1086
marks in this Debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) is not in his place, because I am going to suggest that his whole argument was based on the failure of the Government to do anything, whereas all the opposition of his hon. Friends yesterday and to-day resolves itself into a complaint that the Special Areas scheduled could not be extended and the financial benefits increased. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if they would, in the words of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, institute a preliminary inquiry into the White Paper and pay some attention to its contents, their speeches would be altogether different. In my simplicity, I had supposed that we were discussing the Financial Resolution, which states in plain language:
"It is expedient to continue the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, until the 31st March, 1939, and to make further statutory provisions."
I understood that was the text, but I have never heard so many speeches so far away from the text as I have heard this afternoon. The discussion has certainly not been upon what I, in my simplicity, understood was the subject under discussion. Speaking not only for myself, but as secretary for the Northern Group, I ought to say, in the first place, that we welcome these proposals as the furthest advance we have yet seen in regard to legislation for the Special Areas. As a Member representing a Special Area, I propose broadly to give some of the reasons why the 1934 Act should be continued, as is the purpose of the Financial Resolution, and the reasons why I welcome the further benefits which will accrue to the North-Eastern area in general and to my constituency in particular. My reasons are the best of all reasons—that, in fact, the 1934 Act has been of immense benefit to the North-East Coast and to my constituents.
For purposes of clarity and cogency I take some of the provisions contained in the White Paper, though I do not propose to bore the Committee by going through them all. Paragraph 2 of the White Paper states in general what the Commissioner has done, and I wish to draw attention in particular to what has been done in my own constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite may think that I am the exception which proves the rule, but is

1087
not that all the more reason why I should express my thanks? Would I not be ungracious and ungrateful if I did not express the thanks which I feel to be due? I had something to do with the question of the old Imperial Chemicals Industry site at East Gateshead. While other folk were deriding the powers of the Commissioner I went to see him. I did not ask anybody's leave. I thought it was my job to do so, and, frankly, I went to see him and persuaded him to look at the site. He did so and we bought the site with the generous assistance of the Imperial Chemicals organisation. My friend the mayor of that time, Alderman Armstrong, saw him too, and persuaded him to buy the land near the Tyne in the neighbourhood of the Pipewellgate Road, and the consequence is that in those two respects alone, under the 1934 Act and the powers given therein, almost £100,000 of benefit has accrued, with great advantage, to Gateshead.
This afternoon the Minister has told us that the corporation which had charge of the levelling of the old site has turned it over as part of the trading estate on the water front. In these respects I suggest there are very solid grounds for satisfaction on Tyneside. Under paragraph (a) of the Financial Resolution the first point is that it waives, within certain limits, the prohibition which was imposed on the Commissioner in the 1934 Act against assisting undertakings 'carried on for gain. I imagine that few have realised the significance of that provision. For the first time the Commissioner has not that estoppel to thwart him in his efforts. I appreciate what the North-Eastern Development Board suggested when they advocated the appointment of a Minister who would be directly responsible for the Special Areas, but what could Sir Malcolm Stewart not have done if he had possessed this special power which is now being granted? It is an amazing extension of the powers of the Commissioners. The power to contribute towards Income Tax and rates was recommended by Sir Malcolm Stewart in his third report, but this proposal is wider in its scope. The power to contribute towards rent is additional to the inducements recommended by Sir Malcolm Stewart. It is true that he suggested a period of seven years and that in this case the period is five years, but altogether the extensions
1088
of the powers of the Commissioner are immense and I do not imagine that anything but good can result from the freedom which the present Commissioner will enjoy compared with the previous Commissioner.
In regard to paragraph (b), under the 1934 Act the Commissioner was prohibited from making grants to local authorities for works in respect of which grant is payable by a Government Department. I hope that my old colleague, Sir George Gillett, who is in Wales to-day, will read this Debate and particularly what I am going to say now. I tried to persuade the Commissioner in the past, that the Pipewellgate Road, on the level of the river, should be extended another mile and a half in the direction of the new estate. This would make transport easy. It would be on the river level, avoiding the necessity of going up narrow precipitous, tortuous and dangerous ways, and I suggested that it should be kept on the one level on the waterfront and that this would enable the trading estate to be used with the greatest effect. But I was met by the fact that the Commissioner could not recommend any grant in regard to a public road. I then pointed out that the road was only half made and was a cul-de-sac and was not a public road within the ordinary meaning of the term. I was reminded of Thomas Hardy's story in "Under the Greenwood Tree" of the stillborn child. The father used to say, "If Jimmie had lived, he would have been 21 years old to-day." I suggested that there was no use talking about a public road if it had not yet been made. As I say, I hope that my old colleague the present Commissioner will not allow any lawyer or Treasury official to stand in the way of using the discretionary powers that are now available and deciding that this is a street within the terms of this Financial Resolution.
Mr. Logan: Are we to understand that the hon. Member first approached one gentleman and got a concession from him and that he is now proposing to intimidate another? Is that how he goes about business?
Mr. Magnay: In Liverpool it may be called intimidation, but I call it persuasive eloquence. I believe in lathering a man before you shave him. Some folk call that tact and others call it discretion, but very few people like a dry shave, and

1089
the proper thing is to lather them and lather them well before the operation. With regard to the North-Eastern Housing Association some Corporations have agreed to work with it. I am glad to say that my own Corporation, although with a Labour majority, has agreed to accept it. South Shields has refused, but North Shields has agreed. I can only say that they are putting up hundreds of houses in Gateshead and doing it very quickly to the great advantage of the town in health and every other respect. On 24th February last, 250 houses were completed and 3,163 in course of construction, while 689 schemes had been prepared, 2,478 schemes were in course of detailed preparation and 6,508 further schemes were being placed before the authorities, a total of 13,086 which, when completed will represent £1,000,000 in capital value.
Mr. E. Dunn: On a point of Order. Am I to understand the hon. Member to say—
The Chairman: The hon. Member must not attempt to raise what he calls a point of Order for the purpose of interrupting the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) and arguing with him. A point of Order is a point in connection with the procedure of the Committee, and it is not in order to interrupt an hon. Member's speech unless that hon. Member is prepared to give way.
Mr. Magnay: I do not mind giving way if I have not made any point clear.
Mr. E. Dunn: May I put a question to the hon. Member? Do I understand him to say that on the estates to which he was referring there have been 689 schemes approved?
Mr. Magnay: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. I was talking about the total building in the distressed areas. I have spent two days getting out the figures for this speech and they are foolproof; they are indubitably true. I have got information from the Commissioner, and I have not the slightest doubt it is correct. If the hon. Member will check them in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT, and make any inquiries he cares, he will find that they are correct. It is an amazing thing to me to recall the time when I was practically the only Member who asked the Government to
1090
persevere with the trading estate, not knowing then whether it was going to Gateshead or not, and how the idea was decried and derided by hon. Members on that side who now are complaining, and asking that they might have a trading estate or a site within their constituencies. It was a wise decision to concentrate on one good estate rather than to have two half-empty ones.
In paragraph 5 of the White Paper particulars of the North-East Trading Estate are given. Where is the trading estate? [HON. MEMBERS: "Gateshead."] That shows that with a little application even hon. Members may learn some geography. May I ask them to persevere in their studies? In the lap of the hills between Ravensworth Park and the hill on which the town of Gateshead is centred this estate is situated.
In 1920 I tried to buy this place as a housing estate. There were three other friends associated with me, Mr. Aneurin Williams, Mr. Gerald France, and Major Harry Barnes, and we and the son of Lord Ravensworth of that time agreed to form a public utility company to use this site as a housing estate, but because of the law of entail it could not be so used. The site can be seen by everyone travelling from Scotland to England. It will be noticed I put them in proper order. It is bigger than the acreage of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens combined. There is room for 400 factories, and in due course employment will be given to 40,000 men and women. Already 20 factories are booked. These proposals in the Financial Resolution might result in a sound scheme of borrowing money, securing ordinary share subscriptions from the Nuffield Trust, for leasing a factory on the site which in the first five years might get a subsidy which would cover the whole of the rent, rates and taxes. I commend it to any Scotsman or Yorkshireman in the House to think about.
The concentration of new light industries round London is a psychological matter. If there is a big factory started on the Great West Road, such as a cement works, someone says, "This is an excellent site; we will go there, too." A trading estate, well built and a model for all the country to see, backed by the financial help of the Commissioner, should be a real inducement to get new industries to come to the North. Now as regards

1091
paragraph 8, the Special Areas Reconstruction Act, we learn that it has been going only four months, and with the assistance of these proposals and the great help of the Nuffield Trust, the engine can be quickened up and the Association can put their foot on the accelerator without any danger of big-end trouble. As regards Government contracts, paragraph 9, we learn that £41,000,000 worth of orders has been given by the Defence Department, and that £24,000,000 worth has gone to the Special Areas in the 18 months ended November, 1936, and Tyneside has had its share.
Regarding Government establishments, paragraph 11, we learn that Britley is to have a munition factory at a cost of £400,000. When the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) said that nothing was going into the North-East Special Area, I challenged her with regard to those armament works. They are in the Chester-le-Street area, close to the borders of my constituency. Again, I say that there could not be a better place. We have the men, we have the money, and we will deliver the goods. As regards the extension of existing works, I would like to sound a note of warning about the closing down of the Scotswood engine works for amalgamation with Vickers-Armstrong for armament purposes. It may be that these engine works would have been closed in any event, but it is a serious thing if such works, where apprentices can learn the skilled trade of an engineer, are closed down, for then we shall be in the position when the armament boom is over that we were in after the War. I want to give that warning to the powers-that-be, so that they may see to it that something can be done to retain skilled craftsmen on Tyneside.
As regards paragraph 14, assistance to the rates by Government grants, the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said the other day that Durham County had lost by derating and the discontinuance of certain grants. I am sure he did not intend to mislead the House, but under the block grant Durham County received £1,750,000, and under the new formula a further grant of £258,000, has been made. I have it on the best authority, it is in a speaker's handbook for the county council elections last week,
1092
which was sent to me for some reason in a confidential envelope. Gateshead has received nearly 3s. in the pound more, or £72,000 more. After the White Paper was issued the borough treasurer of Gateshead received a letter from the Assistant Accountant-General of the Ministry of Health saying that there had been such a marked improvement in the position of the North-Eastern areas, and Gateshead in particular, that the grant was down from £183,000 to £178,000, or £5,000 less. I felt like two gentlemen of a certain persuasion who, seeing a fire brigade go alon the street, said "Interfering beggars!" I felt very much like that with regard to this letter. They might have found that out months ago instead of now. However, we shall have 3s. off our rates, which are a great deal better than the 23s. 10d. at which they stood when the Labour party were in power in Gateshead some years ago.
With regard to the reduction of unemployment as referred to in paragraph 13 of the White Paper, it has been most gratifying generally, although not nearly enough. It has amounted to 30 per cent. in the last two years in Durham and Tyneside. In Gateshead in January, 1935, there were 12,800 unemployed, or 45 per cent. of the insured population. In January, 1936, the number was 11,300, and in January, 1937, it was 8,900—or 3,90o fewer in two years. Again, I am grateful for that, but I would like to think that the increase in employment was in the same ratio as the decrease in unemployment. It is difficult to obtain accurate figures, but on a rough estimate I have made by deducting the known figures of unemployed from the total numbers of insured persons as recorded last July, I have calculated that 2,000 more persons are in employment as compared with two years ago. It is not nearly enough, but I am thankful that the trend is upwards, and I suggest that the Committee has no alternative certainly I have no alternative—but to support the Government heartily and gratefully in what they are doing.
9.39 p.m.
Mr. Burke: I cannot promise to emulate the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), because I have never had as much practice as he apparently has had at testimony-making. He informed us that he took two days to prepare his

1093
speech,, and I hope it is not going to be a case of "Love's labour's lost." He is, at all events, grateful to the Government for what they have done for his part of the country, and I suppose he would agree with me that his gratitude is a lively sense of favours still to come. If I may pass him a word of advice, I would suggest that while he said he believes in lathering a man before he shaved him, it is as well to remember that friends are like fiddlesticks, they must not be screwed over-tight. He told us where his factory is in Gateshead, but he did not enlighten the Committee where Gateshead is. It reminds me of another Member of the House many years ago who was trying to find the Land of Goshen. When he was told it was in Exodus, he said, "I know that, but where is Exodus?"
Mr. Magnay: May I tell the hon. Member—
The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): There are many Hon. Members who want to speak, and each interruption only lengthens a speech.
Mr. Burke: The hon. Member seems to have been very successful in his application to the Commissioner, and the substance of his speech may be summed up in an adaptation of the words that "Sweet are the uses of adversity." I hope I may refer to a part of the country in which I am interested, and to consider it under paragraph (c) of the Resolution. There has been a good deal of talk about the Special Areas as they have been defined, but I am concerned with those parts of the country, and particularly that part of Lancashire, which is not a Special Area as such, but is one of those areas which we have always regarded as being so depressed and as having so much unemployment, that it ought to have had some special consideration. There are many people in Lancashire who do not like to use the term "depressed area" or even "distressed area." That is not because we are snobbish or want to hide the distress in those areas. It is because we feel it might have a wrong psychological effect. I do not know that the use of the term "certified" will alter the position very much. I do not know that anybody will want to consider themselves as certified by the Minister of Labour. We are not concerned so much about the name, however. The Minister of Labour
1094
said that the question of name interested a certain deputation, but I am afraid he missed the whole point. What the deputation really wanted was aid, some financial assistance that would enable them to get rid of the large pools of unemployment that existed in those areas.
Reference has been made to-night to the mining industry, and I understand that in Lancashire there are 100,000 unemployed miners. Paragraph (c) says that help will be given to those areas where there has been long continued unemployment in an industry on which the country is mainly or largely dependent. In Lancashire there have been many more unemployed among the cotton operatives for many years past. Before the War there were 600,000 persons engaged in the cotton trade, and that number has gone so low that there are only 350,000 engaged to-day. I am trying to interest the Ministry of Labour in the north-eastern part of Lancashire, the weaving area, which seems to have been neglected over and over again. I do not want to enter into the competition for a munitions factory in that part of the world. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour saw the statement of the Chairman of a large firm of engineers in Manchester a short time ago, in which he said they were not anxious to get war work and make munitions. What they were anxious to get was a steady flow of work which came by peaceful avocations. That is what we want in North-East Lancashire, where we have a large residue of people unemployed —adult labour.
Much has been said about transference, but transference has been distinctly harmful to the cotton trade. There is now—and I think it is likely to grow—a shortage of young labour in certain sections of the cotton trade, partly because the cotton industry in the past fell so low that young people were not attracted to it, and partly because they have been taken from these areas and transferred into other areas. That presents a very grave social problem. It is altering the balance of your social life, causing a wrong distribution of the age limits and levels in various localities, and presenting problems of a very far-reaching nature in all those localities from which young people are being transferred. A very much better method of doing the job would be, not to transfer young people from those areas,

1095
but rather to find ways and means of bringing industry back to them.
The Minister says that there is a limit to the number of new industries that can be found. We agree, and because there is a limit, you will have a scramble for those few that can be found. We do not want a scramble, and our suggestion is that the whole scheme of national development ought to be surveyed and that, on some definite national plan, industries ought to be located all over the country according to the needs, not of one area alone, but of other areas as well, because we have a scramble now between the particular areas and localities. It is a good many months since I had the privilege of moving in this House a Resolution on the location of industry. There was so much support for that Resolution that the Government withdrew their Amendment and accepted it. It is true that they accepted it, not with the principle of compulsion which they thought was in the Resolution, but rather by promising that they would give inducements for industry to go into particular localities. This White Paper suggests the kind of inducements that the Government have in mind, and we feel that they are totally inadequate to deal with the problem that we have, for instance, in North-East Lancashire. A few years ago in my own constituency there were 100,000 looms—there was roughly one loom for every member of the population—but to-day the number of looms has gone down to 48,000. Even if the cotton industry gains some of its former prestige and weight, it is obvious that you cannot employ again half the number of looms, that smaller number being made necessary, because you are working more looms per week.
There is no help for the cotton industry, as far as I can see, in the proposals contained in this White Paper. If the Government had said, "We have no proposals to offer you, but we hope that you will be satisfied, because we are going to take a much firmer hand in regard to trade agreements, or we are going to see to it that you get a better share of trade outside," we might have been satisfied, but there is no indication anywhere that the Government propose to come to the help of this very great industry. Some time ago the Government said that they
1096
were going to deal with this problem of locating industry. They now suggest a Royal Commission, the purpose of which, I believe—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is to inquire into this problem of the location of industry. If that is so, I wonder how long it will be before we can expect any real planning of the industries of this country so as to do justice between area and area and locality and locality. I do not see why a Royal Commission is necessary. We have had surveys of all these areas. We have had university surveys and surveys made by the Board of Trade, and all the information is in Government Departments now if there is any desire to act upon it.
I think I am not misunderstanding the Minister when I say that he said, to those who pour scorn upon the fact that the armaments programme of the Government will only provide work for four or five years, "Well, is it not very much better to have work for four or five years than to have no work at all?" But surely those are not the alternatives. It surely ought not to be an alternative between having work connected with war and no work at all. What we suggest is that the Government ought to have given us something else instead of the possibility of getting work through an armaments programme for these areas, and I hope that the Minister will go further and indicate to us that behind this scheme there is some really big proposal, some imaginative proposal, which will establish in those industries work which will last during times when the war fever has passed, or else that they will put down definite proposals for reviving those older industries which at one time enabled large numbers of our people to live in these areas. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that these statements in the White Paper are not the last word for Lancashire, and at all events that he will consider that part of the county connected with the weaving industry for which apparently no provision has been made so far.
9.52 p.m.
Major Oscar Guest: It is with considerable diffidence that I rise to speak in this Debate, as I am not connected with any Special Area and do not claim any special knowledge, but as an industrialist I have visited most of these areas

1097
from the point of view of considering how one could set up works in any of them. I must own, as a stranger going to these districts, that the prospects of setting up a factory there are not very encouraging. You are shown places where factories might be built, but then there is no road to them, and gas, water, and electric light are problematical and not laid on. It seems to me that if you are going to attract industry to these Special Areas, where unemployment is acute, you must have something to offer the industrialist who is looking for such sites. That is why I think the trading estates are a most valuable contribution towards that effort. I have visited most of the trading estates this year. It is true that at present they are not in a very advanced stage. In fact, on the one in South Wales on the day when I was there they had started to break down fences only two days before. Industrialists who want to find factory sites do not ask for a great deal, but they do not want to be shown a field with nothing in it and no way of getting there, and I do not believe that it needs large sums of money to make some preparation—
Miss Ward: I wonder where are the areas which the hon. and gallant Member has been shown. There are many places in my part of the country where he could be shown excellent factory sites.
Major Guest: I have visited a number of sites. I went to Bishop Auckland, for instance, where we drove out to a reasonably level field which was difficult of approach. If the Commissioners had had powers to make a decent approach to that field and to lay on water and electric light there would have been much more inducement for an industrialist to go there. I feel sure that it is by the extension of the trading estates system that we shall get light industries of various kinds to go to districts where they are wanted, and that is why I welcome the reference in paragraph (a) of the Resolution to the letting of factories. I think that light industry can work reasonably well regardless of locality. I cannot see why a light factory should not work as well in West Durham as on any other site, provided that the land is flat and that you can get to it by road and rail.
I would proffer the suggestion that the people on the spot who are working at
1098
this problem should have more power to carry out the plans which they make, without the need for constant reference to London, which makes things difficult for them. I think we shall receive assistance in this problem of getting industries to the distressed areas from the shortage of labour in places such as London, Birmingham and Manchester. There will be an inducement to manufacturers to look farther afield to find labour as the labour problem grows more acute. Therefore, if we can make sure that when industrialists look for factory sites in these areas they are invariably shown them, I feel certain there will be a great increase in the movement of factories to them.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I believe the planning of industry has to come, and in that planning we shall have to consider not only the Special Areas but the prosperous areas. We have to even out the work which the country has to do among the population which there is to do it, and it is surely more economical to move the factories to the workers than to try to move workers about the country to the factories. I very much welcome the news we have been given this evening that a Royal Commission is to be set up for this purpose, and I believe the result of the planning of industry will be far-reaching.
9.58 p.m.
Mr. G. Hall: From the speeches delivered by hon. Members opposite it would seem that the Government have, at very little cost, stifled the revolt which was expected from some of their backbench Members, because almost every hon. Member opposite who has spoken appears to be quite satisfied with the proposals for which provision is being made in the Financial Resolution. I was surprised to hear the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Camberwell (Major O. Guest). He suggested that he had visited almost all the Special Areas but could not find a suitable site for a factory. May I ask whether he has ever heard of Merthyr Tydvil, and whether he has visited Merthyr Tydvil, Dowlais and other areas in South Wales which were so well known to ancestors of his?
Major Guest: Yes, I was there within the last three weeks. My point was not that those places could not be visited,

1099
but that you ought to find it comparatively easy to set up a factory, and the trading estate at Treforest is the only thing in that line. It is very hard to find a site in Dowlais.
Mr. Hall: There would be no difficulty in finding a site in Merthyr Tydvil. The site of the old iron works there covers many acres, and there is no shortage of water or scarcity of electricity, which can be provided at very reasonable cost. If there is one place in the country which should receive assistance and consideration from the hon. and gallant Member, if I may say so quite respectfully, it is Merthyr or Dowlais, and I wish that he would look again in that district and make inquiries not only with regard to sites but with regard to the amenities there. I think he would find it a suitable area for him or for one of the companies with which he is associated to establish works in.
The White Paper indicates that even yet the Government do not recognise the magnitude of the problem of the Special Areas. The Minister of Labour gave figures of the unemployed still in those areas. He said that in South Wales there are no fewer than 32 employment exchange areas with more than 30 per cent. of the men unemployed. He could have gone very much further, and could have stated that there were some areas there, very large areas, in which more than 50 per cent. of the insured persons are unemployed. The same observation would apply to some of the other Special Areas. That is an indication that, whatever may have been done, there is much more to be done. There have been a number of visitors to those areas, some even making pilgrimages. Some have rendered very valuable assistance, and some carry away with them sights which have not only oppressed them but worried them considerably. I wish that the Minister of Labour could have portrayed the sites at Dowlais and Merthyr when he visited them in the presence of someone else in October of last year. I think the sight of all the derelict buildings, not only factories but houses, and the hopelessness expressed in the faces of the men, women and children, would be sufficient to indicate that all is not well in those districts.
I say quite respectfully to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
1100
and some other leading Members of the Cabinet that before this legislation is finally decided upon they should not only send Commissioners or Committees to these Special Areas but should themselves pay them a visit. The Prime Minister himself was no stranger to South Wales in past days, but if he went there now he would see a very different South Wales from what he remembered before the War, especially in those centres where, year after year, there used to be a big production of iron and steel. Those districts are now nothing but centres of misery and hopelessness and helplessness. I think it is necessary to indicate to the House how the people there have suffered long years of unemployment and how it has caused a deepening of poverty, despair and helplessness. The patience of those people is enormous, but let the Government realise that it is not everlasting. Things cannot get worse, but they can certainly be made better, and the Government should see that that is done.
All those people were intensely interested in the plans which they expected the Government to divulge in the publication of this White Paper. They have been greatly disappointed. Their claims have been ignored. Whatever may be said by representatives of the Conservative party opposite, they do not indicate the feelings of leading Conservatives in the Special Areas. There is very keen disappointment over these proposals not only among Socialists and Liberals but among supporters of the Government. I daresay that the Prime Minister has heard of the "Western Mail," in South Wales. There is no greater supporter of this Government and of the Conservative party than that paper. It has been a consistent supporter. When the White Paper was published the "Western Mail" came out with a leading article, in which it said:
"South Wales is certainly not promised what was expected in the Government's White Paper on Special Areas. There is no hint of the bold policy which by general consent was recognised as necessary to aid the recovery of this district … The White Paper provides for no more than the minimum, excessively cautious, safe-at-any-price Amendment of the existing Act. It appears that the Cabinet has decided to do as little as possible."
Not only is that the expression of a provincial newspaper, but some of the London papers, including the "Morning

1101
Post," came out with huge headings, "Not enough!" Those opinions are shared by every hon. Member on this side of the House. The proposals of the Government are not enough. They will not touch the fringe of the problem with which these districts are confronted. It can truly be said that the general opinion is that the White Paper represents the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Treasury but not that of the Ministry of Labour. It is money, money, and money is the important thing. The White Paper indicates that from December, 1934, until the end of last year, £2,900,000 has been spent in the Special Areas—less than £1,500,000 a year, and the White Paper indicates that we are going to spend £2,000,000. What a contrast to the generosity with which the Government are dealing with the Defence programme. £1,500,000,000 to defend this nation against an enemy from outside and £2,000,000 to defend or protect our people from the enemy of unemployment in this country. In other words, £750 is to be spent on Defence for every £1 which is to be spent on the Special Areas. No wonder that the people living in the Special Areas are very dissatisfied with the proposals of the Government.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister and the Government realise what these areas cost in money at the present time. The Special Areas alone, as far as I have been able to ascertain, receive in unemployment benefit and assistance something between £20,000,000 and £25,000,000 a year. Last year Monmouth and Glamorgan received in unemployment benefit and assistance £8,500,000. That sum of money went to those two counties in one year. From 1925 to the end of last year those two counties received £71,500,000. The Government are quite content to spend this money on unemployment benefit and assistance. Why could not that sum of money have been used for the purpose of putting these people into employment? These huge sums of money have not provided one pennyworth of labour in return. Nothing has been contributed to the common weal, and hundreds of thousands of people are living in dire poverty and deteriorating in physique. Despite their characteristic steadiness they are rapidly losing their moral. Let the Government give one thought to the great contributions that
1102
have been made by these people in the earlier years, contributions which cannot really be estimated, and once that recognition is given there can be no question that instead of having unemployment benefit, it is work they want, if work is available. If they can be engaged in useful employment, that is what 99½ per cent. of these men require.
A whole lot of munition works are to be established. It is suggested that the construction of these works will in itself give a large amount of employment, that their establishment will be a contribution to the permanent well-being of these areas, and will afford a measure of continuous employment. It must, however, be remembered that in the next paragraph of the White Paper we are warned that some of these establishments are not intended for operation to meet even the present Defence programme but only to serve in a reserve capacity to meet war demands in the event of emergency. The labour required at the present time will be very small. Many of the Special Areas will benefit very little and chronic unemployment will not be relieved as a result of the establishment of sonic of these factories.
Can the Secretary of State for Scotland give us any information as to which of these factories are to be used during the Defence programme and how many are to kept idle waiting for the emergency to come? What is likely to be the position of the factory which is to be established at Bridgend? Is that factory to be used when it is constructed or is it to be one of the factories which will be erected and equipped with machinery and then remain waiting for the emergency? A definite statement ought to be made by the Government not only in regard to the factory at Bridgend, but in regard to every other factory which is to be established we ought to be told whether those factories are to be used, and the number of men who are likely to be employed in them. One of the most dangerous things that could happen would be to buoy people up with hope that there will be work available when it is not likely to be available in those districts. The Government have come out with a very large programme and we have been told that a factory is to be established at Bridgend which will cost several millions of pounds. We heard

1103
of that over 12 months ago, but I do not think there is a single man employed in clearing the ground. Certainly no building has been erected. May we hear how far negotiations have proceeded in regard to other factories? Have the other areas to wait as long as Bridgend has had to wait before any factory is established?
In the list is a number of factories, which have been referred to. It is impossible to state their cost or their location. One is a factory to be established in the Special Area of South Wales, at a cost of £160,000. Can we ascertain from the Government whether Merthyr Tydvil is likely to have that, factory? A good deal has been said about it, and no end of confidence would be given to the people in that area if the Government could make up their mind as to the location of works of that kind. I would ask a question about the mine depot which, the Minister of Labour told us, was to be established at Pembroke. Is that the mine depot which was to be established by the Board of Admiralty? This mine depot was partly provided for as far back as five years ago, and if that is the same depot the Government are unfair in stating that, in accordance with their present programme, that mine depot is to be established. They should he more frank about their intentions.
The present proposals consist of very few of the recommendations of the Commissioner. When the first inquiry was made by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, Lord Portal and others, we were warned that financial inducement would be the only magnet which would attract industrialists into these areas. It is now proposed to empower the Commissioner to contribute towards the rates and rent of industrial establishments in those areas, and to give concessions with regard to Income Tax. Speaking for myself, meagre as those concessions are, I welcome them. They are a start, although they are belated. When the reports of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, Lord Portal and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were published, they dealt with those points three years ago. Valuable time has been lost. The gentlemen who conducted those inquiries did not do so for fun. They did not give their time or make their reports for the sake of putting those reports in the pigeon-holes of
1104
the Treasury. They were serious, but the Government at that time took no note of what they suggested. It was a relief to hear the announcement by the Minister that works other than munition works are to be established, and I was gratified to hear that a factory was to be established in my own area. While I am very grateful for that, it must not hide the general problem from me. The Special Areas are wider than Aberdare or South Wales; they cover the whole country.
I do not know any better person than Lord Portal to occupy the position of chairman of the new advisory committee which has been set up. He understands the problems of the Special Areas. I do not want to speak in too flattering terms, but in the very short time that he spent in South Wales inquiring into this question he was able to gain the confidence of all sections of the community, and from that day until the present time he has retained that confidence. Apart from the appointment of a Cabinet Minister to look after conditions in the Special Areas, I am sure that no one could be more sympathetic than Lord Portal or more desirous of bringing about a speedy improvement in those conditions. The Minister of Labour, in the course of his speech, referred to the reduction in the number of unemployed in the Special Areas, and the White Paper also deals with that question. But when the Minister was asked whether this reduction meant that 10,000 men had been placed in employment, he could not reply. We know that the reduction which has taken place in the number of men unemployed in the Special Areas has been caused almost entirely by the transference of these men from those areas. The Noble Lord shakes his head—
Viscount Wolmer: The figures are given in the White Paper.
Mr. Hall: The figures are given, but the numbers transferred are not given. If the Noble Lord will ascertain the number of unemployed in 1934, and the number unemployed at the present time, he will find that in January of this year there was a reduction of 106,000 as compared with January, 1934; but if he will look up the Ministry of Labour Gazette for February he will find that no fewer than 90,000 youths have been transferred from the Special Areas during those three years.
Viscount Wolmer: My hon. Friend is surely aware that the figures show that there was only a fall of 20,000 in the total insured population of the Special Areas.
Mr. Hall: The figures given in the White Paper show the number of persons unemployed—
Viscount Wolmer: At the bottom of page 8 of the White Paper it is stated that:
"The reduction in the total insured population of the areas in the period amounted only to about 20,000 as compared with a fall of nearly 120,000 in the number of unemployed."
Mr. Hall: If the Noble Lord takes the actual figures of the number of men unemployed in January of this year as compared with January, 1934, he will find that there has been a reduction of 106,000 in the number unemployed in the Special Areas; and if he will look up the Ministry of Labour Gazette he will find that during those three years, 1934, 1935 and t936, 90,000 youths have been transferred from the Special Areas. I have checked the figures, and I think the Noble Lord may take my statement as accurate. The actual provision for employment in the Special Areas in January of this year, as compared with January, 1934, means that no more than 16,000 persons have been placed in employment, and transference has been carried out to such an extent in the Special Areas that it has become a real menace to the future of industry. The present Commissioner, speaking at Cardiff only yesterday, referred to this policy as a policy of despair, and the Minister of Labour, if he will inquire of industrialists in the Special Areas, will find that they view with alarm the continuance of transference. There is considerable difficulty at the present time in securing the necessary suitable labour of young people to carry out work in the Special Areas, and, if a long view is taken of industry in those areas, such as a number of industrialists take—because they have begun to realise that labour is a most valuable asset—it gives ground for great apprehension as to the future of industry in those areas.
I want to put to the Minister who is going to reply one or two questions. The first is with regard to the grants that are to be given for the repair of streets. It is in paragraph (b) of the Resolution
1106
"enabling the Commissioners to make grants towards expenses occurred by local authorities in the repair or improvement of streets in any Special Area which are certified by the Minister of Transport."
Does that mean the carrying out of private street works, or are ordinary highways which have been taken over by municipalities to be assisted? In many Special Areas the municipalities have been too poor to look after their roads. Where rates are 24s., 25s. or 28s. in the pound they have had to save money, and the roads have had to suffer. The White Paper holds out great hope of the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, and the Government must know that much criticism has been levelled against the limited powers of this Association owing to the fact that the articles of association are much too rigid. Many applications for assistance have been notified and, after loans have been granted, they have refused them owing to the conditions that are applied. Will the Minister inform the Committee whether the articles of association are to be amended to obviate much of the criticism that has been made in the past?
Then, with reference to rate assistance, do I understand from the White Paper that the Government are quite content with the assistance that has been given to very heavily rated areas as the result of the revision of the block grant and that they cannot look for any further assistance in the matter? I take it that the relief of rates mentioned in the White Paper is simply to industrialists who establish factories in those areas. Again I do not minimise the advantages that are given to certain areas with regard to the revision of the block grants, but Merthyr Tydvil has had an increase in the grant allowing for a 5s. reduction, but still the rates will be 24s. in the pound after the 5s. has been allowed for. The county of Glamorgan has benefited to the extent of a 2s. rate, but the whole of the increase is eaten up with the increased cost of public assistance and with the refund to the railway. While there has been some concession given to Special Areas with regard to these rates, it is all eaten up.
I would that the Government had done something more than is being done on a very large scale to indicate their sincerity in dealing with this problem of the Special Areas. The coal industry is very largely the key to the problem of the

1107
Special Areas. I was very pleased to hear that a low temperature carbonisation works is to be established in Glamorgan-shire. I do not think the Government are paying the attention that should be paid to the oil problem. It is very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to smile, but 96 per cent. of the oil used for all purposes has to be imported. I wish the Government would pay as much attention to the home production of oil as other countries have done. It appears that they are not yet seized of the importance of research in this matter.
Why have we to wait for a process to be tried out in Germany before ever we hear anything of it in this country? Germany must not only apply the knowledge of her scientists, paid for largely by the State; they must put up a plant, try it out, prove it and, once it has been proved, the Government of this country is quite prepared to pick the brains of foreign scientists instead of applying themselves to the problem. The two great processes of producing petrol from coal which are being used and talked about in this country are German processes. Where is the British process? Is it that scientists in this country are not as clever as are the scientists in Germany or other countries, or is it that the Government are not prepared to spend the money to enable the scientists in this country to apply their knowledge? There is nothing which would give greater heart to the miners of this country and nothing that would relieve unemployment in the mining areas more than the establishment of a few of these plants.
I am not so much concerned about the economic position. Does the question of economics come into consideration when we talk of spending £1,500,000,000 on the fighting services? The cost of one battleship would enable two plants under the Fischer system or the Bergius system. Two plants of that kind erected in the mining areas of this country would, for 18 months during erection, provide employment for 20,000 people who are now unemployed, and after they have been erected and put into full production, they would provide permanent employment for from 8,000 to 10,000 people. While it may be necessary to keep up reserves of oil in the event of the emergency for which these reserves of oil are set aside, and while the Government would, in case of
1108
emergency, be prepared to spend not 10,000,000 or £20,000,000, but hundreds of millions to establish oil from coal plants in this country, they should do it now. They should pay more attention to the matter, and they would then give heart to the people living in the Special Areas.
I beg the Government to do something big and not to be niggardly. The Government have the power if they have the will. They can get the money, if they want the money. Do not let the men —and the women and children—who have suffered not for two or three years, but for 10 years, gradually deteriorating and losing their physique and moral, look in vain to the Government who have the power and the financial resources to turn on the tap at any time. Let the gates of plenty be opened not only for these instruments of defence, necessary as they may be in the opinion of the Government, but so that the great social scourge of unemployment in this country can be cured. Let the Government spend money as lavishly upon that as they are prepared to spend it upon their Defence plans.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. Elliot: The Debate has followed a very interesting course, and not the least interesting feature has been that, starting in rather a high temperature, the temperature has fallen as the Debate has proceeded and the Committee has become cooler and has devoted itself more closely to the problem under review. That is a most hopeful omen for the future in these Debates, and indeed for the solution of the great question we are met here to discuss this evening. We have all been struck by the sincere and thoughtful speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). He has had a long experience of these problems and these areas, and he speaks with an intimate acquaintance of the problems of his people which will always obtain the sympathetic attention of the House of Commons. I was wondering whether his heart had not run away with his head at the end of his speech, when he said that the Government had power to turn on the tap of plenty—let it spend money as lavishly on peace as on war. Surely the hon. Member must recognise that the money for peaceful development must depend on the continuance of cheap money, on the capital which can be floated in these new

1109
industries, and if the Government begins to spend lavishly it would produce a rise in the rate which might make it impossible to finance these new developments, and thus defeat the very object we all have so closely at heart.
Mr. Buchanan: Why not spend the money?
Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member will see that if we spend £1,500,000,000 for the needs of Defence and another £1,500,000,000 for developments in peace we shall double the effect of what otherwise would have taken place, and it might well be a shock to the economy of the country. We must keep closely in mind the fact that the Special Areas are part of the nation, and that their problem will be largely influenced and may be almost entirely solved by a development in the commercial prosperity of the nation as a whole. Only by looking at it in that way shall we get a proper view of the problem which concerns us to-night, a problem not only of the Special Areas but of the resources of the nation. I say that as one who has spent much of his political life either in a Special Area or in areas adjacent to a Special Area. As a Member for the County of Lanarkshire I have had a lot of acquaintance with the problem, and as a Member for the City of Glasgow I have come into close connection with it. No Member for Glasgow can be other than deeply touched by a Debate on Special Areas.
The hon. Member for Aberdare asked a question as to the location of new factories, and he had a short passage with the hon. and gallant Member for the Camberwell, North, Division (Major Guest), The hon. Member for Aberdare, with a sense of the historic, invited the hon. and gallant Member for Camberwell to visit Dowlais; the Special Commissioner has arranged that the Dowlais site shall be cleared by the South Wales Trading Estates Company with a view to making it suitable for new developments. The hon. Member also asked about the location of certain other factories and in particular—I think this is characteristic of the demands which democracies make upon their servants—where the War Office and the Admiralty factories are to be located, and which are to be kept in full occupation and which are riot. That is the sort of information
1110
which, if it is asked for, is certainly not given in any dictator country. It might well be that to the Army chiefs it would be very embarrassing if there were given out at this Box not merely the exact location of all the factories, but the conditions in which they were running, which we intend to be shadow factories and which we intend for permanent activities. I will go as far as I can, but I cannot give the hon. Member all the information for which he asked. The explosives and filling factory at Bridgend is in replacement of certain filling factories at Woolwich. It will run up to a peak and then slacken off a little, but it will in fact be in more or less permanent activity. There are certain factories in Scotland, but I will not refer to their location, because the hon. Member was more particularly concerned with South Wales.
Mr. E. J. Williams: May I ask the Minister for something far more precise about Bridgend? It is in my constituency, and I am anxious to know something much more precise than the information which lie has given.
Mr. Elliot: I sympathise with the hon. Member, but I am sure he will realise that to give details about the factories at Bridgend and elsewhere would do exactly that which for public reasons it would not be in the interests of the nation or in the interests of Bridgend to do. I beg the hon. Member to be satisfied with the information I have given. I think I have gone as far as it is safe for a Minister speaking at this Box to go.
Mr. Williams: This matter has been so largely magnified at Bridgend that I am sure the inhabitants will suffer ultimately unless something decisive is said on the matter. Already the rents are inflated as though something tremendous were likely to be done in the near future.
Mr. Elliot: I beg the hon. Member to ponder over the answer I have given, and to consider whether it would be safe for me to say more. Certainly I could not give more information to-night, and I beg him to consider whether he can press a Minister of any Government to go farther than I have gone. As to the other factories, the Royal Air Force Depot is to be placed in Glamorgan. The Pembroke factory is, in fact, the Naval Mines Depot.

1111
The hon. Member for Aberdare said that this is merely deluding the people, because five years ago they were told that a Mines Depot was to be placed in Pembroke. Surely the hon. Member misses the point. It is to carry out the programmes which have been foreshadowed for years past, but for which we have not been able to get the money, that we are spending these sums now. It is of no use saying the people heard about the Mines Depot five years ago. If they heard about it for another five years and nothing were done in Pembroke, it would not improve the unemployment situation there. Work is about to commence, and it is for that reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to find these tremendous sums. Do not let the hon. Member say that nothing has been done, because something was promised five years ago. I thought the hon. Member's objection was that promises had gone on for too long, and that it was time they were being translated into action.
Mr. G. Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that provision was partly made for this Mines Depot in the Naval Estimates as long ago as five years and that it is not something which the Government are providing in connection with their programme?
Mr. Elliot: Money may have been provided, but then, by what a former Chancellor of the Exchequer described as a process of clawing back from the Departments money which had already been voted to them, money has been saved and used to relieve the general burden of taxation. There is no hidden fund out of Estimates voted in past years. As the hon. Gentleman, who has himself been a Member of a Government, knows very well, money not spent by a Department is a very present help to the Administration in time of trouble. For five years we have talked, and now we are going to act, and it is that which the people of Pembroke want to know, and not whether money was or was not provided in Naval Estimates in the past. As for the factories in South Wales, the War Office factory is to be located at Llandarcy and the Air Ministry factory is to be at Cardiff. Extensions of private works in various parts of the country I cannot give in more detail, and, as to the other
1112
factories mentioned by the Minister of Labour, such as the glass factory and the biscuit factory, I cannot give the sites because they are still under negotiation.
I think I have dealt with the main questions which the hon. Member put specifically to me. I was glad that he welcomed the concessions which are being made. He also asked what was meant by the reference in the White Paper to the repair of streets. In the past the Commissioners had the power to make grants for the repair of private streets, but not grants for public highways. This Resolution will give that power and that I think is the answer which the hon. Member would desire. He said that the assistance which was being given in rates was not enough and asked whether the Government themselves were content with the proposed relief. He suggested that more energetic steps should be taken to get the rates down. Surely, the most energetic step which can be taken is the attraction of rateable value into the areas. That will be of greater assistance to an area than the increases of grants for relief of rates which are being made. I admired the hon. Member's arithmetic by which he sought to show that a relief of 4s. or 5s. in the pound was practically nothing. There are areas which would be glad to have it.
Mr. G. Hall: I simply said that it would still leave 24s. in the pound.
Mr. Elliot: I only say that considerable sums have gone towards these reliefs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) spoke of them as niggardly and paltry reliefs. A relief of £250,000 a year to the county of Durham may be regarded as niggardly but it is more than that county has got from other Governments. A relief of £98,000 a year to the county of Lanark is something which, as a former Member for that county, I am glad to see going there, and a relief of £525,000 a year to the City of Glasgow is a relief which as a Glasgow Member I am very glad to see going there.
Mr. Buchanan: Has the City Treasurer thanked you?
Mr. Elliot: The Treasurer of the City is effusive in his appreciation. Hon. Members spoke of the coal industry as the key to this problem, and I am sure

1113
that is true. The figures given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour proved conclusively that the black areas, the really difficult spots, were those areas in the mining counties from which employment has ebbed away. There is great difficulty in establishing new industries there. Those areas remain the obstinate hard core of the problem and every effort must be made to deal with them. The suggestion about oil from coal is an important one. It will not solve the whole of the problem. To some extent the solution which has been proposed in rather blunt form by Sir George Gibb in the Durham report is a solution which is being adopted in other parts of the country. My Scottish colleagues will know of the interesting experiment which is being made in Stirlingshire where the village of Standburn is being completely evacuated and the population moved to the village of West Quarter. I wish hon. Members could see the photographs of that development, and if they wish I shall have them put up in the Tea Room. I think they will convince everyone of the desirability of such transferences where they can be carried out. I am sure it is greatly to the advantage of the health and morale of a population to be taken out of some of these areas and moved to other areas where they can enjoy good air and reasonable amenities in new surroundings.
Mr. Grenfell: Within the same county?
Mr. Elliot: The criticism against the proposal was a criticism against moving people at all, and there was some bitter and unjust criticism of what was called "knocking the villages down behind the people," which seems to me a misstatement of an idea which at bottom was sound, and which I am willing to illustrate with photographs of a development in my own country and which hon. Members opposite have repeatedly begged me to push further still. The hon. Member was not in in the more febrile portion of the Debate, and his speech reflected a little the rosy-tongued nature of the advance copy which he was good enough to send us of the "Programme of immediate action." He was able to give the whole of the proposals in the form of a speech, but I am sure that no Member of the Opposition would suggest that they would form any reasonable set of Amendments to this Resolution. Nobody
1114
would suggest that they did not form an increased charge.
Further, the second part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was entirely destructive of the first. He began by explaining to us that the powers should be wider and bolder, that greater sums of money should be given to some gentleman who would have power to spend them, but in the concluding paragraphs he smote us hip and thigh because we had not tied up more tightly the proposals we were making. I wonder what the Financial Resolution would have been like if he had had the drawing of it. If this one is a tight coat his would have been a strait jacket. He said it was a coincidence, which seemed to have a certain sinister meaning in his mind, that a certain factory had been established in the constituency of a Conservative Member. I wonder if his suspicions would have been removed if it had been the constituency of a Conservative Minister. I wonder if anything we could do would remove his suspicion. One reads in the Proverbs in Holy Writ how if you brayed men with a mortar and pestle their leading characteristics would not depart from them. There are characteristics in the mind of the hon. Gentleman which a similar drastic process would not remove. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot have greater latitude in the spending of public money and then condemn us for not tying tightly enough the reliefs we propose to give.
Mr. Dalton: I asked whether the right hon. Member could give us the approximate amount of employment likely to be afforded by the group of new factories which the Minister of Labour mentioned at the end of his speech.
Mr. Elliot: I am obliged to the hon. Member for reminding me of that. The figure of 3,000 at present would be employed in that group. That is a beginning, and we may look for further developments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) read a list of the recommendations of the Special Commissioner. I think I can say they have practically all been dealt with in one way or another. There are one or two we could not possibly accept at present. One of them is exactly the recommendation, to which he drew attention, as to whether we should make com-

1115
pulsory instead of voluntary the attendance at instructional centres on the part of unemployed men. I think that that would be a step which hon. Members in all parts of the House would look upon with uneasiness. The essence of instruction is an element of agreement between the teacher and the taught, and there would be a danger, especially just now, in imparting a type of compulsion into these instructional centres. If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will give him a complete list of the recommendations, because I have them here, and it is merely for want of time that I do not quote them now.
My right hon. Friend referred to the case of Sir George Gillett and asked whether he was on a full-time basis. He is giving all the time necessary for the full purpose of his duty, and he is attending to it with the greatest assiduity. He has paid half a dozen visits or more to the Special Areas, and the Government and the Special Areas are fortunate in having a Commissioner with such wide experience who is so generously giving his services in this particular work. It is a little difficult to say what a part-time basis means. It generally means that you take a very busy man who is earning a large income in his own occupation and put a voluntary burden on his back which takes him entirely away from his own occupation. I do not know whether we should get more if we put that in statutory form, and paid him a handsome salary for the exchange. In fact, I think we get practically whole-time service from this Commissioner as we got from the others.
I do not wish to complain because the Debate is so wide that no single speech could possibly cover all the points which have been raised. I would like to say a word in conclusion on a matter which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and some other hon. Members, namely, the question of a special Minister. I do not know that the solution of a special Minister is so attractive
1116
as it seems to hon. Members opposite. I am in a way a general Minister for the Co-ordination of Affairs in Scotland. I have never found that that gets rid of all the facts or the difficulties. The difficulties are just as acute whether I have to deal with the Department of Agriculture or with the Department of Education, or whether I am meeting the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Education. The facts are my trouble. I heard a most interesting speech from an hon. Member for one of the Lancashire divisions pressing me to take a firm hand with trade agreements—a firm hand, he said, for the cotton industry in trade agreements. How often have I heard that same demand made when I was Minister of Agriculture the other way round. How often is the demand made now that a firm hand should be taken against Chinese liquid eggs. It comes from the same Member who afterwards demands that we shall have an agreement by which we may sell a larger quantity of cotton cloth in the Chinese market.
It is facts which are the problem, and all the co-ordination in the world will not enable us to get rid of the facts. We have to stand upon our general programme, the general programme which, as the White Paper indicates, has brought about a considerable reduction in the number of the unemployed in the Special Areas. I believe that that reduction will continue. I believe it will be possible for us to solve a great proportion of the problem of the Special Areas by the Government's method which we are now adopting, but not all. Bold and unconventional methods will have still to be employed, and we shall not shrink from employing them as we have not shrunk from employing them in the past in this respect.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again "—[Captain Margesson.]
put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, EXCESS, 1935.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £32,806 4s. 10d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Departments for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1936:
    Class and Vote and Amount to be Voted.

    Class IV.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Vote 9.Wallace Collection

    39

    15

    7

    Class VIII.

    Vote 2. Ministry of Pensions

    32,766

    9

    3"

    Resolution to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    METHYLATED SPIRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

SCOTLAND.
  FISHING INDUSTRY (ILLEGAL TRAWLING).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (ILLEGAL TRAWLING).
  POLICE PROCEDURE, GLASGOW.
  POLICE PROCEDURE, GLASGOW.
  JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (DEFENDANTS' CLOTHING).
  JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (DEFENDANTS' CLOTHING).
  TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT).
  TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT).
  PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT, 1932.
  PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT, 1932.
BRITISH ARMY.
  COURT-MARTIAL (MAJOR SANDFORD, R.E.).
  COURT-MARTIAL (MAJOR SANDFORD, R.E.).
  MARRIED OFFICERS' QUARTERS.
  MARRIED OFFICERS' QUARTERS.
  ROYAL TANK CORPS (INSPECTOR).
  ROYAL TANK CORPS (INSPECTOR).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (COAL PURCHASES).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (COAL PURCHASES).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (FOOD IMPORTS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (FOOD IMPORTS).
  FEDERATED MALAY STATES (DESTITUTION).
  FEDERATED MALAY STATES (DESTITUTION).
  SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).
  SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  HIGHLANDS AND SOUTH WALES.
  HIGHLANDS AND SOUTH WALES.
  LEICESTER.
  LEICESTER.
  HOSIERY INDUSTRY.
  HOSIERY INDUSTRY.
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  DOUBLE TAXATION.
  DOUBLE TAXATION.
AGRICULTURE.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  MILK CONSUMPTION, LONDON.
  MILK CONSUMPTION, LONDON.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HASTINGS EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to it being dispensed with in respect of the Hastings Extension Bill. I ought to explain that Standing Order No. 105 requires that a Private Bill originating in your Lordships' House shall be read a second time not later than seven days after the First Reading. This Bill was read a first time on January 28 and has been waiting since then for the Report of the Attorney-General. That Report was received only on Wednesday last and so it is necessary to ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Order in order that the Bill may be read a second time.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to it being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EARSDON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
FOLKESTONE PIER AND LIFT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Establishment of agricultural wages committees and an Agricultural Wages Board.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (in this Act referred to as the Department) shall, as soon as may be, divide Scotland into districts and establish an agricultural wages committee for each district, and an Agricultural Wages Board for Scotland, to be called the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
(3) The Department may, if they think it expedient, from time to time vary the boundaries and number of the districts into which Scotland is divided under subsection (1) of this section and may make such provision as is necessary in consequence of any such variation, with regard to the establishment of committees for the districts affected by the variation.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "divide Scotland into districts and." The noble Marquess said: I feel that I ought to apologise to your Lordships for not having been here for the Second Reading of this Bill and for my name appearing so often on the Amendment Paper. As the Second Reading was postponed I had to go North on business and was unable to be here. The first two Amendments are mainly an attempt to deal with a point raised in connection with the English Bill of 1924, which was introduced in much the same form as that in which this Bill now appears. During its passage, however, Parliament thought it undesirable to put so much power into the hands of the Minister of Agriculture in saying what should be the various districts in which the committees should be set up for considering and settling upon the wages to be paid. Here we have it left to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to decide what the districts shall be. I suggest that Parliament should say what the districts should be rather than give uncontrolled power to the Minister. I therefore suggest that we should leave

535
out "divide Scotland into districts and" and later, after "district," insert "specified in the First Schedule to this Act;" and perhaps I might mention that later on I have an Amendment proposing a new Schedule setting out the districts. I therefore beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name and, if I may do so, I will put the second one also, which is part and parcel of the same thing.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Marquess should move his Amendments one by one.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out (" divide Scotland into districts and").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD SALTOUN: I rise to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess, because it binds itself naturally to the proposed new First Schedule, which corresponds to all intents and purposes with the sheriffdoms of Scotland. These sheriffdoms, I claim, represent real differences in the character of the population of Scotland. For instance, for Aberdeenshire it would be a disaster indeed to us if the sheriffdom of Banff, Aberdeen and Kincardine were incorporated with Angus to the south or Moray-Nairn to the west. I can illustrate this point best by the following fact. Farm servants are more inclined now to remain in their situations than when I was a lad, but at all times, and even now, the practice has been for farm servants who really want to feel that they know the world to travel within the sheriffdoms and to accept places as far as fifty miles or more apart. That is a very common thing. It is quite a common thing to have a man in your service who knows every corner of the district Banff, Aberdeen and Kincardine. But they never go outside that area. There is a line beyond which you will very seldom find Aberdeenshire farm servants travelling. That indicates to my mind that the sheriffdom is a proper boundary for the local committee, because it corresponds to a real difference in population even though it may be too subtle to be noticed otherwise.
EARL CAWDOR: I should like to support what my noble friend has said
536
or this Amendment and to ask the Government, if they are unable to accept it, to give the matter sympathetic consideration.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): It will perhaps be for the convenience of your Lordships if in answering this Amendment I also give an answer to the two Amendments following, which are consequential, and also to the Amendment to the Schedule on page 3 to which the noble Marquess referred. As he explained, the object of his first Amendment is quite clear. It would have the effect of attaching to this part of the Bill a definition of the districts in Scotland for which the first agricultural wages committees are to be established. I should like to make it plain to your Lordships at the outset that in refraining from scheduling the districts the Government had no sinister motive. They have rather been moved by the consideration that, since it is desirable that power should be taken, as it is taken in Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, to make such modifications in the number and boundaries of the districts as may be found expedient in the light of experience, it might be better to leave the whole matter of the definition of districts to be effected departmentally rather than to put it in the Bill itself. There seems to be an objection in principle to an arrangement whereby an Act of Parliament can be amended at will by a Government Department, and I should have liked to avoid this happening if possible.
Moreover, if you put the districts in the Bill and give power to the Department to amend them subsequently, you run the risk that in the course of a few years that part of the Act may become out of date. May I give an example of what I mean by the Schedule falling out of date? While the Bill was in course of preparation the Government had in mind the districts recommended on pages 50 and 51 of the Caithness Committee Report. Those were the districts adopted for the previous wage regulations scheme set up in Scotland by the Corn Production Act of 1917. More recently, however, some suggestions have been made—some of them by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, himself, I think—for modifying those districts. It is true that if the suggestions were adopted they would not involve any

537
very large departure from the recommendations of the Caithness Committee, but since they have been made it seems to the Government that they should be carefully considered, if possible, in consultation with the bodies representing the organised agricultural industry in Scotland, who will be intimately concerned either directly or indirectly in the working of the scheme. The position, therefore, is that the districts have not yet been fully determined.
I have carefully considered whether, and if so, how far. it is practicable to meet the views of the noble Lord who has put down this Amendment. In order to see whether it may be possible to reach a. firm decision on this matter while the Bill is still before Parliament, the Department has invited the representative organisations to confer with them, but in the meantime I can only say that at some stage in the progress of the Rill through Parliament there will be a clear indication of the Government's intentions in the matter of the determination of the districts, and that the Bill will be amended either to include a schedule of the districts or to provide for the determination being made by way of an Order which will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That, of course, will give an opportunity for the Legislature to raise any objections to the Department's proposals. After that assurance I very much hope that noble Lords will not press this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I am rather disappointed with the noble Lord's reply, because I thought I was on safe ground, seeing that the Department have had experience of the English Bill and that Parliament has practically told them that Parliament itself should lay down these districts. Still, perhaps the noble Lord will enable us to put down something on the Report stage, in case he has come to some agreement with the parties he has named, although, frankly, I think we in this House know Scotland as well as anybody. With reference to the actual Schedule, I may say that in every case except one it conforms with the present boundaries, the only exception being Dumfries, where the conditions are different from the other counties in the proposed Schedule. The whole point of drawing up the Schedule has been that where there are differences
538
of practice in the engagement of farm servants there should be a separate committee who would know the customs in the area. That Schedule has been most carefully drawn up with that in view. If the noble Lord can give me an assurance that if possible he will produce the decisions of those with whom he is conferring before the Bill leaves this House I shall be quite willing to consider withdrawing my Amendment at this stage.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: If the noble Earl likes to put down an Amendment for the Report stage I have no objection, but I am afraid I cannot give him the assurance that I shall be able to make a Government statement before the Report stage, although it will be given during the progress of the Bill through Parliament.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments in the name of the noble Marquess are consequential, I believe?
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Yes, and I will not move them.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "from time to time" and insert "after receipt of a resolution in that behalf passed by the committee concerned." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is merely to ensure that the areas of local committees are not changed without their consent, and as I do not suppose the Department wishes for power to over-ride all local attachments I hope that no objection will be raised to this Amendment. I think it ought to be made perfectly clear in this Bill, and I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the resolution mentioned in this Amendment is a resolution "passed by the committee concerned." That means that it is not what is called a "resolution of representative members," as outlined in Clause 15, subsection (2) of the Bill, but merely an ordinary resolution of the committee. That would not, I think, present any difficulties. If they could not obtain a majority they could not pass a resolution.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out (" from time to time ") and insert (" after receipt of a resolution in that behalf passed by the committee concerned ").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: As Clause 1 (3) stands power is given to the Department of Agriculture to vary the boundaries and number of districts if they think it expedient to do so. The proposed Amendment would have the effect of transferring the initiative in the matter from the Department to the committees, since the Department could then only act upon receipt of a resolution passed by the committee concerned. If the Amendment were accepted, the only case in which a modification of boundaries could possibly be made would be by agreement between two adjoining committees. That being so, in all probability no changes would in fact be made, however much the Department might think them expedient. The English Act provides in Section 1 (3) for action by the Minister, if he thinks it expedient, only in the event of unanimous resolutions by the representative members of the county committees concerned. The action that the Minister may thus take is concerned with combinations of whole counties. In Scotland it is modifications of boundaries that are most likely to be in question, and not combinations of districts. It appears to me that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, would be content, in the case of Scotland, with a majority resolution of the committee as a whole, and that would meet his case. This certainly does make some difference, and on the whole I think I can accept his Amendment in principle, on the understanding that it will be redrafted to mean what Lord Saltoun intends—namely, a majority resolution.
LORD SALTOUN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments in the name of the noble Lord are consequential, and will not be moved.
LORD SALTOUN: That is so.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Duties and powers of agricultural wages committees with respect to minimum rates of wages.
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, committees shall fix minimum rates of wages for workers employed in agriculture for time work, and may also, if and so far as they think it necessary or expedient, fix
540
minimum rates of wages for workers employed in agriculture for piece work.
(6) If, on an application in that behalf, a committee are satisfied that any worker employed or desiring to be employed on time work to which a minimum rate fixed under this Act is applicable is so affected by any physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, that he is incapable of earning that minimum rate, the committee shall grant to the worker a permit exempting, as from the date of the application, or from any later date specified in the permit, the employment of the worker from the provisions of this Act recuiring wages to be paid at not less than the minimum rate, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the permit, including, if the committee think fit, a condition as to the wages to be paid to the worker;
(9) Before fixing, cancelling or varying any minimum rate, the committee shall give such notice as may be prescribed of the rate which they propose to fix or of their proposal to cancel the rate or of the proposed variation of the rate, as the case may be, and of the manner in which and the time within which objections to the proposal may be lodged, not being less than fourteen days from the date of the notice, and shall consider any objections to the proposal which may be lodged within the time mentioned in the notice.
Where the proposal is modified in consequence of any objection so lodged, notice of the modified proposal need not be given except where in the opinion of the Board the proposal has been altered so materially that a fresh notice ought to be given.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), after "time work," to insert with the exception of married workers employed under a contract of service by the year or half year and in the occupation of dwelling houses provided by their employer." The noble Lord said: This Amendment brings up the whole question of the position of farm servants who have a contract of service for a year and are living in houses provided by the employers. That brings up the whole question of the tied-house system. I do not want to elaborate what I said about that system on the Second Reading. I will merely content myself with two observations upon it. In the first place I think anyone who has had practical experience of agriculture in Scotland must agree that the tied-house system offers a great measure of security to the worker. Secondly, if you do away with the tied-house system you are not really going to put the worker in any better position, for, considering what I have already said

541
upon the subject, what use is it to a man to be tenant of a cottage which he does not in fact leave when he leaves his engagement, if he is going to take another engagement perhaps fifty miles distant, where he may, or may not, be able to get another cottage.
On the Second Reading Lord Marley, speaking I believe as the mouthpiece of organised labour, suggested that the future of agriculture depended upon the lowering of costs by the substitution of machinery for man-power. Speaking for the men on the land, I do not accept that solution. When I was assisting in the management of an estate and of a home farm, farming, as I might say, de haut en bas, I shared the opinion of the noble Lord, but my experience of practical farming in Aberdeenshire has given me a very modified opinion of the value of machinery in agriculture. In that County, at any rate, I am sure that when all is reckoned machinery is just as expensive as horse-power; but although, like everybody else who has had to do with the land, I am a little inclined to dislike machinery as I think it leads to defective tillage, it has certain quite definite advantages. It makes the farmer independent of labour and destroys any chance of a successful strike of agricultural labourers. Anyone who doubts this has only got to think for a moment of the disastrous results of the strike of farm labourers in Southern Ireland not long ago. In the second place—and this is a most important point—machineiy assists in the substitution of casual for permanent labour. In the third place, it enables a great deal of necessary work to be done quickly and betimes during intermittent spells of good weather.
Now this Bill and this clause in the Bill have made farmers in Aberdeenshire turn their attention more and more to the use of machinery because they carry on their industry in a latitude where the short days in winter and continuous bad weather render farming operations impossible for prolonged periods of the year. They argue that if they are to be compelled, as they think they would be compelled, by the local committees to pay extra money to their men for overtime they will seek to economise by reducing their permanent staff and falling back on casual labour during the times when they will require it. In Aberdeenshire most farms are equipped largely for married
542
farm servants. The farmers have at their disposal several cottages for these servants on farms of any size, and it is very easy for the farmer to use one of these cottages as a man's chaumer, as they call it, and to let the other cottages for any price that they can get. As conditions are in Aberdeenshire, they can get very good prices in any part of the county from tenants of these cottages. They will then simply turn one. of the cottages into quarters for single men sufficient to form the nucleus of their staff, and rely for the rest on casual labour obtained from amongst neighbouring smallholders or their tenants.
Of course I blame the farmers who reason in this way, because I stand for the retention of the harmonious relations between farmers and farm servants which have been the rule hitherto, but I do not see how the Government can blame these men, seeing that under this Bill they are putting the farmers on one side and the farm servants on the other, and they must expect them each to seek their greatest advantage. Moreover, at the present moment, though it may be only the worst type of farmer who is adopting this course, it is in the end bound to be the rule for all. I have said that this will be the result of the clause, but I can go further. I am not the only person to say this. There was a very good leader on the subject in the Aberdeen Journal, which carries deserved authority in the agricultural North, indicating that this is about to take place. And I have myself heard from two sources in Aberdeenshire that, in consequence of the introduction of this measure, the harder driving type of farmer is already adopting this course. I do not wish to detain your Lordships with other arguments which occur to me on this matter, seeing that this one fact appears to me to be unanswerable.
I have no reliable means for making an estimate, but I have estimated that in the first two years of the working of this Bill, if it should pass, there may be as many as a thousand families put out of work and rendered homeless and—worse than anything—deprived of that access to the land which is not only the means of their existence but the greatest pleasure in it. Even if I am wrong, take one half of that figure, I should like to ask the noble Lord who represents the Government whether they have contemplated such a dislocation of rural life as I have sug-

543
gested will result from this Bill. If it should take place I would like to ask him how they would propose to deal with it. I can assure him that, although the passage of this measure affects me with feelings approaching to despair, there is no one who is more willing than myself to do everything in his power to make it a success and to prevent its affecting harmfully people for whom, in spite of the abolition of all hereditary jurisdictions, I still feel so large a measure of responsibility. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("work") insert ("with the exception of married workers employed under a contract of service by the year or half year and in the occupation of dwelling houses provided by their employer").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: It may not be known to many of your Lordships that married men on farms in Scotland not only get fixed wages, but they get perquisites, and these perquisites are very valuable to the men and their families. I have rather a fear that if minimum wages are laid down and those minimum wages become rather higher than the farmer is able to afford, these perquisites will cease, and the state of these married men will be worse than it is now. I should like some assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that perquisites will be taken into account when the committees are set up and that instructions will be given to that effect when the minimum wages are fixed. It is a very important part of the married man's advantage, and also of the farmer's provision for his men. I think that unless we can have some guarantee that perquisites will be taken into account that would be a very good reason for leaving out married men, as proposed by the Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: In dealing with this Amendment I think it will be well to inform your Lordships that it is the normal practice throughout Scotland to engage married farm workers by the year or half-year, and to provide them with Jiving accommodation on the farm. The Amendment would have the effect of excluding from the scope of the Bill a very important proportion of the total number
544
of farm workers in Scotland. I think your Lordships will agree that in a measure of this kind it is plainly impracticable to make exceptions, such as those suggested, on a territorial basis. I sincerely appreciate the depth of feeling which the noble Lord, and also the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, expressed when speaking on this Amendment, but I think that the noble Lord seemed to have lost sight of the main object of the Bill. In general there is no question but that married men receive a fair deal from the farmer, and such fair-dealing farmers have nothing to fear from wage regulation, to which, after all, they will be parties through their representatives on the wages committees. The only difference, so far as they are concerned, is that many rates will be settled in round-table discussions on the district basis, instead of by private negotiation on the individual basis, which has operated hitherto.
As I see it, the case which will be affected by the operation of the minimum wage is the exceptional one where a fanner may in the past have taken advantage of the absence of any collective bargaining scheme to pay rates of wages below the standard of customary rates to married men who are willing to accept then in order to get a house. I do not see that such adjustment as may be decided upon by the wages committees is likely to bring in its train any of the extreme results which the noble Lord apprehends. It will, after all, be open to the committees under the terms of Clause 2 (2) to fix a minimum rate so as to vary according as the employment is for a day, week, month or other period, or according to the number of working hours or the conditions of the employment. It will be possible for the committees, with this wide discretion, to devise arrangements dealing with long hirings, which will fit equitably into the general framework, and will not cause any undue local disturbance. Noble Lords may therefore rest assured that the special case or cases in which they are interested can be met without amendment of the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will realise the difficulty which the Government would fee in accepting any such Amendment, and I hope that after this explanation of mine he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment which is on the Paper.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I am in considerable difficulty about this Amendment. I am very strongly in sympathy with Lord Saltoun's object in moving it, but I am not entirely satisfied as to whether it answers the purpose or not. The usual practice in my part of the world, in the dairying districts in the South-West of Scotland, is to engage a man to supply possibly two, three, or four milkers, which puts a man with a large family in rather a strong position. The position is governed by the number of available cot houses and whether these cot houses are big enough to hold large families and whether, failing large families, there is i. sufficient number of cot houses to supply the necessary labour on the farm. It is these conditions which appear to me to make it almost impossible for any wages board to decide the actual value of a man according to the size of his family. It is this particular difficulty, in tact which is my chief objection to the Bill at all, and which points to the absolute necessity of private bargaining, for in practically every case the circumstances are different. I have had this difficulty myself a vast number of times. You lose a man with a wife and perhaps two grown-up sons and one or two daughters, and it is almost impossible to find a corresponding number of workers for a house accommodating six or seven people without engaging two families who require two houses. I do not quite see how the Bill is to be framed to meet these cases. I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will take this point into very serious consideration before the Report stage and, in consultation with his advisers, see whether this Amendment moved by Lord Saltoun will cover the case or not.
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask the noble Lord also if he is able to amplify a little of what he said? The real difficulty is the question of overtime. On a farm you cannot reckon overtime. I gave examples of that on the Second Reading. I myself have never been able to reckon overtime and, what is more, my men knew I could not. It was a case of my men putting in extra time of their own accord, not one of my driving them. What farmers are frightened of is that they will have to reckon regular hours and overtime. They are throwing up their hands and saying, "This is not worth it. We shall engage unmarried
546
men and depend on casual labour for our overtime, and cut down our expenses when there is no work to be done on the land in the winter time." If the noble Lord can give me some assurance that the local committee can definitely disregard the question of overtime, that will go a long way to meet me.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I quite appreciate what the noble Lord has said, and with regard to Lord Aberdeen's point I believe that the question of perquisites will be taken into consideration. Also I understand that the question of overtime will be considered, but I hope noble Lords will believe me when I say that ample provision is made in subsection (2) of this clause, and I ask them to be content with that assurance for the time being. I will, of course, report what they have said to the Department, but I really do not see that I can withdraw from the position I took up before, that in a Bill of this nature you cannot possibly bring in special provisions such as noble Lords are pressing for.
LORD SALTOUN: In the circumstances, as I may raise this point at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (6), after "behalf," to insert "made either by an employer or by a worker." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I only want an assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. The point is this, that a worker who is suffering from a disability will very often be extremely unwilling to go before the local committee and declare his disability. He will feel thereby that he is publishing his disability, and if he is unwilling to do so he will only be able to accept casual labour and eventually fall on unemployment relief. The object of this Amendment is to enable the application to be made by the employer, or I would be willing that it should be made by either party. If the committee are satisfied, it appears to me unnecessary for us to go into the means whereby they have satisfied themselves.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, after (" behalf ") insert (" made either by an employer or by a worker ").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I appreciate that this Amendment is intended in the interests of the infirm or disabled worker. It is the Government's desire, and I am sure it will be the desire of your Lordships, that those workers who are affected by physical injury or mental deficiency should have their case specially taken into account. The clause provides that where in such case the committee are satisfied that the worker is incapable of earning the minimum rate the committee shall grant him a permit which will enable him, subject to any conditions that may be necessary, to work for a lower rate without his employer incurring any penalty under this Bill. The noble Lord's Amendment would enable effective application to be made to the committee by the employer or the worker alternatively; but it would have the further result that nobody else could apply on behalf of the worker. Application in such cases may sometimes be necessary before the worker obtains any employment. In such cases, if they are mental cases, it would not be wise to put the duty of application on the worker himself. It is desirable that parents and guardians and institutions charged with the care of infirm persons should be enabled to apply. As the clause stands the application can be made by anyone on the workers' behalf. In view of that explanation I think that perhaps the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment which, I venture to suggest, happens to imply the opposite of what he intends.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (9), to leave out "Board" and insert "committee." The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment. It is merely the substitution of the word "committee" for the word "Board." If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will find that Clause 2 deals entirely with and defines the duties of the committee. Clause 3 proceeds to the definition of the duties of the Board, and, except for this one word "Board," the whole of Clause 2 applies to the operations of the committee. I venture to suggest, therefore, that it should be left to the committee to decide whether
548
or not the proposal is so modified in con-sequence of objection lodged as to need the issue of a, further notice, because in subsection (9) of Clause 2 the duty is given to the committee of publishing a notice prescribing the rate that they propose to fix. It would seem, therefore, reasonable that if, after they have received objections and have considered them, they come to the conclusion that this rate should be modified, they should have the power of saying whether or not a new notice should be issued. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out (" Board ") and insert (" committee ").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This clause deals with the procedure of a committee in considering objections to any of their proposals. A case may arise in which, after the period of notice has expired, the committee may decide to modify their proposals as a result of representations received. The committee are not bound to give notice of such modifications, but may at once make their decisions and submit them to the Board for that body to carry out their functions under Clause 3, subsection (2)—that is, to make an order carrying out the committee's decisions. On the other hand there is nothing to prevent the committee from deciding to give further notice if they think that course desirable. The point of bringing in the Board is simply the obvious advantage of a second opinion in the matter. In this case it is the opinion of the body formally charged with the duty of seeing that legal provisions, including the provisions as to notice and publicity, are duly complied with. The question as to whether a committee have given adequate notice of their intentions is a legal point on which the validity of the order might possibly be challenged at some later date in the Courts. The provision is, therefore, in the committee's interest, and is designed to avoid any risk of their decision becoming void. The Government are, therefore, of the opinion that the subsection should stand as drafted, and I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill might perhaps consider

549
before the next stage whether it would not be better to put in this clause a provision whereby the committee may give notice when they have considered an objection and desire to give notice accordingly, which would mean that it would save the time that would be taken up in going to the Board and certainly it would tend to the more smooth working of the committee. I hope the noble Lord will take that into consideration before Report.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I shall be happy to make representations to the Department in that sense.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I confess that I am not altogether persuaded by what the noble Lord has said. I think the notice which the Board have to issue is dealt with in the following clause, but in view of what the noble Lord has; said I shall not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Penalties and legal proceedings.
(4) Where an offence for which an employer is under this section liable to a fine has in fact been committed by some agent of the employer or other person that agent or other person shall be liable to be proceeded against for the offence in the same manner as if he were the employer, and either together with, or before or after the conviction of, the employer, and shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment as that to which the employer is liable.
(5) It shall be a defence for an employer who is charged with an offence under this section to prove that he has used due diligence to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, and that the offence was in fact committed by his agent or some other person without his knowledge, consent or connivance.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (4), after "with," to insert "the employer." The noble Earl said: This and the following Amendments which stand in my name raise a legal point. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 7 proceedings may be taken against the employer and, after conviction of the employer, the employee shall be liable on conviction to the same penalty as that to which the employer
550
is liable. I venture to suggest that it would be incompetent to proceed against an employee in respect of an offence after the employer had been convicted of that offence, and for that reason I suggest that these words should be left out.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, after ("with") insert ("the employer").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I appreciate the noble Earl's point, and I am prepared to accept this Amendment and also the following two Amendments in the name of the noble Earl, but I cannot accept his Amendment in line 39, in subsection (5).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "conviction of". The noble Earl said: I understand that the noble Lord accepts this and the following Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, leave out (" conviction of ").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, after ("employer") insert ("is proceeded against").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (5), before "defence," to insert "good". The noble Earl said: This is perhaps not a very vital point, but it has a meaning legally. If a man has a good defence he is saved a certain amount of trouble in the Courts, and it seems reasonable to suggest, in view of the wording of the Bill, that if he met these provisions he should have a good defence.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, after ("a") insert ("good").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am advised that this addition really is unnecessary. If a defence is not a good defence, it is not a defence at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Regulations.
8.—(1) The Department shall in addition to any special power to make regulations given to them under this Act, have power to make regulations for the following purposes: —
(a) for enabling a committee, on the application of any employer or worker, to determine any question which may arise as to any contract of employment so far as the application of this Act thereto is concerned;
(b) for requiring the Board, if so re quested by a resolution of the representative members of a committee, to perform any duty or exercise any power of the committee under any regulation made under this section, or requiring the Board to perform any such duty which a committee has failed to perform within such time as may be prescribed by the regulation, and for applying for that purpose as respects the Board any provisions of this section relating to committees;
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a) The noble Lord said: Clause 8 is a clause that enables a committee, on the application of any employer or worker, to determine any question which may arise as to any contract of employment. For a long time past the Sheriffs of Scotland have done a work which has deserved and earned the gratitude of the country for the expeditious, cheap and sympathetic manner in which they have settled disputes that arise as to contracts of service. It is common knowledge that the Sheriffs look upon themselves as trustees for the farm servant in this matter. It has been suggested to me that the reason of this clause is that of the expense involved in going to the Sheriff on questions of wage contracts. If a farm servant takes a case to the Sheriff and is successful it costs him between 5s. and 10s. and that is not a very large proportion of the wage he has received even in the worst times.
It has also been suggested to me that a local committee may, under this clause, merely get powers to explain the meaning of their regulations. The clause appears to me to go a very great deal wider than that. It appears to me to be a very wide clause indeed. In any case, if the committee's regulations are not clear, then no man ought to be blamed for mistaking them, and if they are not clear or if there is a possibility that they
552
are not clear, then the committee is the last body in the world that should have to decide that question. The Sheriff is a far better judge of whether they are clear. Again there is another point. Committees may get known as being pro-farmer or pro-worker in complexion. Such a reputation will multiply vexatious cases and cause infinite trouble as well as a good deal of injustice. Then again, committee members may have special reasons for sympathising with one side or another even if they themselves are not parties. In fact from the constitution of the committee it is plain that almost any case that may be brought before them involves them in the danger of being auctor in rem suam, which is so obnoxious to Scottish law. I am allowed to say that unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Alness, is prevented from being in his place to-day, but that he views with uneasiness the wide powers conferred in this clause. If the Government are unable to accept this Amendment I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to move something on the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, leave out paragraph (a)—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I appreciate that the noble Lord suggested that the determination of mutters of this kind can chiefly be effected in Scotland by bringing the case before the Sheriff. This is undoubtedly true and I am prepared to accept his Amendment with this provision: I think the noble Lord proceeds to cut out the second half of paragraph (b) as an Amendment consequential on the first Amendment. If (a) is cut out the whole of (b) should go and I would suggest that we should accept these two Amendments with a consequential official Amendment which will be tabled at the next opportunity.
LORD SALTOUN: I am very pleased to accept that, but there is of course the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: If it is desired by the noble Lord I am prepared to move form-ally the deletion of the whole of paragraph (b) and before the next stage of

553
the Bill he can produce his Amendment. I therefore ask the Committee to delete paragraph (b) instead of only the second part thereof. It is really only consequential.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the noble Marquess is to leave out from "section" to the end of line 22. But the noble Marquess now moves to leave out the whole of paragraph (b).
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 12, leave out paragraph (6).—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.
Constitution and Proceedings of Agricultural Wages Committees and the Agricultural Wages Board.
Agricultural Wages Committees.
1. A committee shall consist of not more than eight and not less than five members representing employers and an equal number of members representing workers in agriculture in the district for which the committee act (in this Act referred to as representative members), and of a chairman. In addition, the Department may, if at any time they deem it expedient, appoint two independent members.
2. The representative members shall be nominated or elected in the manner prescribed by regulations made under this Schedule.
3. The chairman of a committee shall be appointed annually by the committee, but, if the committee at any time fail to appoint a chairman within the prescribed period, the appointment shall be made by the Department.
A committee may nominate one or more persons for the office of vice-chairman, and the chairman may from time to time appoint one of those persons to preside in his absence.
A representative member of a committee shall not be qualified to be appointed chairman or vice-chairman of the committee of which he is a member.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph 1, after "employers," to insert "and being themselves employers in the district." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent the political exploitation of either party and to prevent unnecessary disagreement. I am confident that if actual working farmers and farm servants found themselves together on the committee they would come to agreement far more readily
554
than will persons who make a profession and livelihood from this kind of work and whose interest it is to keep questions in agitation rather than allow them to be settled. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, after ("employers") insert ("and being themselves employed in the district.")—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Amendment, to leave out "nominated or" in paragraph 2, which appears later on the Paper, was really put down for much the same reason—to enable that these committees should be elected locally—and I shall have much pleasure in supporting the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: If I may take all these Amendments together, the effect of them would be that all the representative members of committees would be employers in the district and workers except that where the Farm Servants' Union could prove a 15 per cent. membership in the district that Union could nominate one workers' representative. I had better take the Amendment first of all of Lord Elgin and the question of nomination, because this Amendment would have the effect that all the representatives would necessarily be elected. The Caithness Committee contemplated exactly the opposite—namely, nomination by the representative organisations. No decision has yet been reached for or against either method. The effect of the situation—that is to say, that the organisation of both farmers and workers can claim only partially to represent the whole bodies of farmers and workers—rather suggests election, or a mixture of election and nomination, rather than nomination alone as the right solution. This, however, is one of the matters which must be discussed with the organisations. But it may be observed that without at least some measure of nomination the workers' side of a committee may be severely handicapped. This is recognised in the Amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen. There is, moreover, always the possibility in the future that an organisation may become fully represented in a district, in which case the convenient and obvious method of appointment would be

555
therefore nomination by that organisation. The Government appreciate the point of the Amendment, which is to secure the principle that the representative members of the committee would represent the whole body of employers and workers and not only the organised parts of those bodies. The Government concur in this principle and will take care to secure that it is not lost sight of. On the other hand, they cannot, I am afraid, accept the Amendment, which would make nomination impossible in all circumstances.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I think the noble Lord was really answering my Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am afraid I took the question of nomination first. Of course all these Amendments really hang together. The effect of them would be that all the representative members of committees would be employers in the district and workers presumably also in the district, except that where the Farm Servants' Union could prove a 15 per cent. membership in the district that Union could nominate one workers' representative. This is, of course, a lopsided arrangement which may enable a Farm Servants' Union official to serve on the committee but not an official of the Farmers' Union. It is not necessarily an objection on that account, but it is a point on which the farmers' organisation are entitled to be consulted. The extent to which the Farm Servants' Union are to be permitted to nominate members of these committees is also clearly a matter which will have to be discussed with them. The Government's intention is to embody in Regulations the arrangements arrived at by the Union and such Regulations would be laid before Parliament. There are obviously difficulties in embarking upon such negotiations before the terms of the legislation are settled.
Nevertheless, in view of the interest taken by noble Lords in this matter, which I quite understand, steps are now being taken to meet the Union at an early date with a view to discussing the points which have arisen. It may be that this discussion will enable us to indicate before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House the lines on which Regulations are likely to proceed, but it is
556
clearly desirable that the Bill itself should not contain provisions making it impossible without amending legislation to alter the arrangement at some future date when conditions may have materially changed or when experience may have indicated that they require modification. On that account I am afraid I cannot accept these Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I am rather disappointed by the noble Lord's reply because as things are at present the whole negotiations for wages take place between masters and employees—amicably, too. Here you take away the possibility of that continuing. It seems to me very desirable that there should be a definite undertaking that members of the committee shall be farmers in actual practice and employees in actual practice also. You do not want an outside influence on these committees. If you confine the committee to these two classes, who already arrange what the terms shall be, you will be continuing the practice which has been so successful in the past. It seems to me a great mistake to depart from what has been a very friendly arrangement every year for married men and every six months for unmarried men. I hope the noble Lord will find some means by which this friendly arrangement may be allowed to subsist in the new procedure which the Bill proposes. Quite frankly, I think the present procedure is far better than that proposed, but if you are going to change it I do ask that you should try and maintain what has been a very friendly arrangement between the parties concerned.
It is of the utmost importance in agriculture, especially when it is so liable to depression, that there shall be amicable relations between all the parties con-corned. To bring in an outside influence to decide what wages shall be paid is the way to upset the mutual good feeling which exists at the present time. Therefore I stress very strongly that it shall be laid down by regulation that the members of the committee shall be genuinely either employers actually working farms or employees actually working on farms. You do not want outside people at all. I should like to say one further word on the question of the Farm Servants' Union. As was pointed out in the Second

557
Reading debate that Union only represents 15 per cent. of the farm servants in Scotland. It would be quite unfair to give 15 per cent. of the men a representative on the committee and give other people with no organisation no representation at all. It would be far better to leave it out altogether than to introduce a foreign element. If, however, you do bring in a foreign element, then it might well be suggested that the National farmers' Union should have a special representative on each committee, or, as my noble friend Lord Saltoun proposed, that an organisation which is not the Farm Servants' Union should be allowed to have a representative I hope that the noble Lord will bear these representations in mind and try to meet us in the matter.
LORD SALTOUN: As the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, touched on my next Amendment, perhaps; I might be allowed to intervene at this stage. The whole point is that we are being asked to give the Government a blank cheque and that we are never going to see how it is filled up. If these committees are to be appointed it is most important to know how they are to be appointed. It is essential to see that they are properly appointed, and nobody is better able than your Lordships to judge of the formation of such committees. If I understood the noble Lord rightly, he said that there would be negotiations with the Farm Servants' Union and that he could not tell us anything about the Amendment until they had consented. It is stated in the Departmental Committee's Report that the Farm Servants' Union has a membership of 15 per cent. of the farm servants, but I said in the Second Reading debate, and I still maintain, that it is doubtful if the membership is 5 per cent. in Aberdeenshire. If any society has a membership of 15 per cent. in Aberdeenshire then let it have a member on the local committee, but do not let it be laid down that no one else shall have representation on the committee. If your Lordships will look at Appendix 9 of the Report you will see that the scheme set out was one giving the Farm Servants' Union a representation on the local committee. I do not feel that I ought to accept the noble Lord's statement if the matter is to be left to a decision arrived at by negotiations between the Department and the Farm Servants' Union.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: The noble Lord in his sympathetic reply got so near to saying that the matter would receive the Government's reconsideration, that I felt a little disappointed when in his peroration he said merely and bluntly that he was unable to accept any of the Amendments. I would like to stress the important point made by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, with reference to the members of these committees being drawn from those actually engaged in the industry. That is important. Another important point, stressed by my noble friend Lord Saltoun, is that these committees should really represent the locality from which they are elected. If he would give us an assurance that, after further discussion with the bodies officially representing different parts of the industry, he will at a further stage of this Bill introduce some words to give effect to what I think we all desire, I should as far as I am concerned be prepared to withdraw my Amendment—but we have not yet reached it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I feel that I ought to apologise to your Lordships to a certain extent. I thought it would be to the convenience of all if I gave a general answer to the three Amendments, which all deal with this portion of the Schedule. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, and it is, I am sure, the object of the Government and of all members of your Lordships' House to do all we can to ensure that the widest and the wisest distribution is made in securing representatives for these committees. I will point out to your Lordships that what we are discussing at the moment on this Schedule is paragraph 2:
"The representative members shall be nominated or elected in the manner prescribed by regulations made under this Schedule."
As I have already told your Lordships, negotiations are taking place almost immediately. The Government are consulting others besides these organisations, and I very much hope that before the next stage of this Bill I shall be able to give your Lordships some indication of the lines upon which those Regulations are likely to be framed. Obviously more than that I cannot do at this stage today, and I cannot therefore accept the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: If I may raise the matter on a later stage, I shall beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out "annually." The noble Marquess said: This is quite a different point. It would be a great mistake, if you got a good man to serve on the committee, to insist that he should retire at the end of one year. Although I am not quite sure, I understand that the idea is to appoint these committees for three years. It would obviously be much wiser, if you got a good man, that he should be chairman during the period for which the committee is set up; or, if one-third of the members are to retire each year, then it would still be advantageous for a chairman, if you could get a good one, to be chairman for three years, because that would give confidence to those who came before the committee. You would also probably get a very much better chairman if he knew that he was going to have responsibility for three years. Again, the annual appointment of a chairman might quite easily lead to unpleasant competition between members when the year was beginning to come to an end as to who should be the next chairman. I think it would be very much sounder to allow the chairman to be more or less permanent, or, at any rate, to leave out the word "annually," so as to enable him to continue in office for longer than one year without having to seek re-election. It is sounder in every sense of the word to have permanency, and therefore that a committee should have a settled policy to follow in its delicate work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16, leave out ("annually").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: These two Amendments in the name of the noble Marquess are concerned with the period of office of the chairman. The proposal that the period should be one year follows the practice in England. There is, of course, nothing to prevent the re-election of the chairman for a succession of periods. A great deal of responsibility will rest on the chairman, particularly in cases where it may prove impracticable to add to the committee the two independent members whom the
560
Department of Agriculture may appoint under paragraph 1 of the Schedule. The appointment of a chairman is normally to be made by the committee itself, and it therefore seems reasonable that the committee should decide how long the chairman should remain in office. The detailed procedure in regard to the tenure of office of representative members of the committees is not yet settled, and is a further matter for discussion with the interests concerned. If, however, the English model is followed, one-third of tie representative members will be due for retirement each year. If different persons are in fact appointed, it may quite well be that, in the third year at any rate, the chairman, unless appointed annually, may have ceased to be persona grata with the committee. This Amendment is therefore not necessary, and I am not prepared to accept it.
THE EARL OF STAIR: May I ask the noble Lord how you get a third of ten members?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am not very good at arithmetic, but I imagine that you would take the nearest third in every case.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in paragraph 3, after "by the committee," to insert "and shall hold office for a period of three years." The noble Marquess said: I still hold that this would be a good thing do. It would give some permanency to the committee. The committee would learn much in its first year, and it would certainly be a mistake to have the committee for one year only. I am still of the opinion that it would command more respect from those who came before it if they knew that it had some permanency and followed some policy on which they could rely. Quite frankly I do not quite see why, because it is annual in England, it should be annual in Scotland. It is an entirely different system in Scotland, and I am still of opinion that a three-year period of office, certainly for the first three years, is very desirable in every sense of the word.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, after the first ("committee") insert ("and shall hold office for a period of three years").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I have already explained to the noble Lord the reason why I think it is undesirable to adopt his procedure, and I hope therefore that he will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out "Department" and insert "Sheriff of the district." The noble Lord said: The Schedule provides that if the two parties on the committee are unable to agree on the chairman, the chairman shall be appointed by the Department. The object of my Amendment is to make the chairman appointable by the Sheriff of the county. All through the Bill I notice an unwillingness to make use of the Sheriff, though there is nobody in the ordinary Scottish sheriffdom who is better able to make the appointment than the Sheriff. He knows the character, the reputation and the capacity of almost everybody of any note at all living within the borders of the county, and I suggest that he is a far more suitable person to make this appointment than the Department itself. After all, the Department's knowledge of the county is not nearly so intimate or so accurate as that which the Sheriff must necessarily possess, and I think it would be more satisfactory, even for the Department itself, to leave this appointment in the hands of the Sheriff. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 19, leave out ("Department") and insert ("Sheriff of the district").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The authority proposed in this instance for the Department to appoint the chairman follows the English practice, and the Government see no reason for relegating the duty to the Sheriff, who really has no particular standing in this matter. Of course, before making such an appointment the Department will no doubt consult suitable persons in the district, but I think your Lordships will see that in this case the Sheriff is not necessarily the suitable person, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. I have already met him once this afternoon on the question of the Sheriff, and I am afraid I cannot meet him in this instance.
LORD SALTOUN: Though I still think it would be the best way of getting the
562
best men, I do not wish to press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.

BRITISH SHIPPING (CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, owing to the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Templemore through illness, it falls to my lot to ask your Lordships to approve of the two Bills which stand in his name for Second Reading this afternoon. It was in the autumn of last year that the tramp shipping industry requested the Government to renew the subsidy for a further period. After consideration, the Government decided to ask Parliament to make provision in 1937 for a sum not exceeding £2,000,000, but at the same time they warned the shipowners that this subsidy could not be renewed at the end of this year. Although conditions in this industry are distinctly brighter than they have been for some years, and the index for freight rates for the last few months has been above the average for 1929, it will be within the recollection of most noble Lords in this House who take an interest in shipping that during the years of depression the losses for the tramp shipping industry were very serious indeed, and it must accordingly take longer than merely a few months of comparatively favourable conditions of prosperity to repair the damage to the financial structure of the industry.
Moreover, during the last two years nothing approaching a sufficient sum of money has been set aside for the depreciation of ships, and in the fourth Report of the Tramp Shipping Administration Committee the arrears for depreciation are placed at a figure of some £10,500,000. I might mention, as your Lordships are probably aware, that the subsidy is based entirely on freight and if the average level rises above 92 per cent. of the average level for 1929 the amount of subsidy will be reduced, no subsidy being payable if that level is attained. On the other hand, if the average rate of freight is below the 1929 level then in the opinion of His Majesty's Government financial assistance will be necessary for

563
the industry, and the subsidy will automatically become payable. I think the policy that the Government have pursued in granting this subsidy to the industry has been highly successful, for both the subsidy and the organised cooperation that have resulted from the subsidy have achieved all the results which we hoped for. The rates of freight have been maintained and improved. British vessels have been placed on a footing to compete on equal terms with those of foreign competitors. The British tramp ships in commission on December 31 last year were about 285,000 gross tons more than in April, 1935. The policy of subsidy has furthermore reduced to normal proportions the sale of British tramp tonnage to foreigners. The number of foreign-going tramps owned in the United Kingdom has started to increase after a long and continuous period of decline. Lastly, the wages and conditions of employment, both for officers and seamen, has been improved and I am advised that the unemployment among seamen, more especially white British seamen, has been' substantially diminished by the better conditions prevailing in the industry.
With these results obtained from two years of the grant of this subsidy, I think it would appear to be foolish in the extreme if we were now to jeopardise all the good that has been done by deciding not to renew the subsidy at the first signs of improvement in the industry. It should also be remembered that the industry is in no condition to face a serious setback, and there is a great deal of lost ground still to be recovered. British tramp shipping is a vital element in our national prosperity in peace time, and it is essentially part of the blood-stream of the life of the people in the event of war. Perhaps I may now briefly refer to the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 extends the period in respect of which subsidies are payable to the end of this year, and subsection (2) provides that sums necessary for payment of subsidies and other expenses may be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. That is the Bill that I present on behalf of my noble friend for Second Reading, and in his absence I shall be happy to endeavour to reply to any queries that may be addressed to me. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, and I hope the reports about him are good, but I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on avoiding the danger of running on the rocks when venturing into strange seas, and on his explanation of the terms of this rather complicated measure. In fact I think he steered a very good course. I do not rise on behalf of my noble friends to oppose this Bill, because we think just as strongly as the noble Earl and His Majesty's Government that the continued prosperity and success, and also the quantity, of British shipping form a most important national interest. But I wanted to ask one or two questions, and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, present. If I can draw him into making some useful addition to your Lordships' knowledge I shall be Very happy, for I am sure no one in your Lordships' House has a greater knowledge of, or interest in, shipping than the noble Lord. If I make a few mild criticisms I want the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, to understand that they are not aimed at him or at the great companies with which he is connected.
I did not understand from the noble Earl whether the effect of the subsidy after the first two years has been to arrest the reduction of British tonnage. In other words, has the effect been to arrest this gradual melting away of the mighty British Mercantile Marine? That is the ultimate test of the success of this experiment. Secondly, is the noble Earl and the Department of Government concerned satisfied that the undertaking given—namely, that when a subsidy was given National Maritime Board conditions would be observed—has been, in fact, implemented? In that connection my information is that there are isolated cases where the Joint Maritime Board agreed rates and regulations have not been observed. I Would like to deal with a particular matter which affects the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Munster—the employment of Lascar seamen in ships receiving the subsidy. The Party for which I am speaking has nothing but good will and comradeship towards the Lascar seamen,

565
and any one who knows what Lascar seamen did in the Great War in face of the very atrocious attacks upon peaceful merchant seamen cannot but be grateful to them. But we have this criticism to make, that they are paid less than the wages for equivalent work by white seamen. We do not think it is right that the subsidy should be given to vessels manned by Lascar seamen receiving less than the Maritime Board rates of pay. The next question I would like to raise with the noble Earl is why we have not yet had particulars of the subsidy paid in 1936. That complaint was made in another place and the information, I understand, is still not available. We ought to have that information before this Bill passes through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament.
I want also to raise a very important matter, partly at the request of my noble friend Lord Lloyd. He and I in many matters affecting shipping see eye to eye, and in this particular matter I certainly see eye to eye with Lord Lloyd. Is the noble Earl—I am sorry I have not given him notice of this question—in a position to say whether the Government have taken any further decisions with regard to British shipping in the Pacific? Since this matter has been ventilated in your Lordships' House one British line has been extinguished and the remainder are threatened—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, would bear me out in this—and the situation is; serious and of great Imperial concern. What is happening? I am glad to see Lord Bledisloe in his place, and I am sure he is equally alarmed at this threat to the British Mercantile Marine in the Pacific. Are the Government doing anything? I hope the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India is not going to leave the House for at least one moment. I apologise for calling him back, but this is a matter which affects him and is also of concern to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Are the Government doing anything about shipping in the Pacific, particularly between India and Japan? My information is that Japanese com petition is worse, if anything, rather than lighter, and that at the present time about 80 per cent. of the regular shipping between India and Japan is Japanese, whereas a few years ago 80 per cent. of it was British. This is due, I am told, to very unfair Japanese com-
566
petition. I am sure that the two noble Lords I have mentioned—the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for India—are just as concerned as Lord Lloyd and I are about this particular matter.
Finally, I must take the opportunity of once more stating that we on this side are opposed to subsidies in principle to any private enterprise unless they are accompanied by a measure of State control. Nevertheless, in the peculiar circumstances of the present Government in office, we cannot expect that. Therefore, in a wider national interest we do not oppose this particular subsidy being renewed for another year, and I hope with the noble Earl that the rates will be such that very little of it will be required.
LORD ESSENDON: My Lords, I intervene in this debate with a certain amount of hesitation because I happen to be interested in the industry which is to benefit under this particular Bill. On the other hand, with few exceptions, I am only associated with vessels of the liner type, both cargo and passenger, and consequently have little direct interest in the tramp shipping subsidy. But I am interested in seeing that the industry in which I have worked all my commercial career, and which I consider is so vital to the interests of this country, is not placed in the position of not being able to exist. It occurred to me that I might be able to make some observations to your Lordships and to give you some information that would help you in coming to some conclusion on this important matter. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord opposite for the very polite way in which he spoke about me. I gather that he and his friends are not going to take this Bill to a Division. If they did so, I would not feel entitled to vote in the particular circumstances.
The real test of this Bill is whether or not it has achieved its object. The object was to save the tramp section of the shipping industry from disaster, and the Government in introducing the Bill very wisely made certain reservations to improve conditions and to minimise domestic competition within the industry in order that the subsidy might not be dissipated. I venture to suggest that the subsidy has justified itself by freeing the tramp section of the industry from col-

567
lapse, by restoring confidence, by promoting increased employment amongst British ships, by increasing rates of freight, and in setting the industry on the road to recovery, and incidentally by giving increased employment to officers and men. In considering this matter we have to remember that the basic economic facts which made this subsidy necessary in the first instance have not very materially altered. The shipping industry cannot prosper without world trade. There has been a very considerable improvement in that respect since the year 1932, but we are still 14 per cent. below the amount of world trade that prevailed in the year 1929. The improvement in tramp freights that has taken place during the last year has been to some extent due to the failure of the grain crops on the Continent of Europe and the consequent heavy purchases which have been made by Continental countries, necessitating grain being carried from great distances—from Australia, America, the Pacific Coast, and Canada—but the rates of freight that prevailed at the beginning of the year have not been maintained. In the early days of the year, from the River Plate, the rate was 34s. 6d. per ton; to-day it is about 26s. 6d. per ton. From Australia at the beginning of the year it was about 46s. 3d. per ton; to-day it is about 38s. 6d.
That is one of the causes of the improvement, but I suggest to your Lordships that the principal cause has been the organisation of the Tramp Committee which has instituted a system of minimum rates of freight, which has worked very satisfactorily. In fact, the existence of the subsidy has made the working of the Committee not only possible but practicable, because, as your Lordships will understand from what was stated last year, no shipowner can get the benefit of any subsidy if he opposes and does not work in conjunction with this scheme. If and when the subsidy ceases, I think it is very important that this Tramp Committee organisation should be continued, and I see no reason why it should not be, because it is only fair to say that foreign tramp shipowners have cooperated with the Tramp Shipping Committee in the most admirable manner possible. There are about 250 tramp shipping companies in this country, and the Chamber of Shipping received reports a
568
little while ago from 176 of those companies in regard to last year's trading. Those particular companies required 5 per cent. depreciation, which would represent £2,096,000. The actual profits from the voyages were £1,216,000, so that there was a deficiency of some £800,000. The noble Earl in introducing this Bill also informed us of the amount of depreciation for the six years from 1929 to 1935, which was £18,000,000, and only £8,000,000 was earned, leaving a deficiency of £10,000,000. Any further depreciation that was provided in the accounts of the shipping companies came either out of reserve or out of returns from investments.
I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that six months of cumulative prosperity in the industry does not compensate for six years of ruinous depression. During those six years the industry has had to contend with shrinkage in world trade, aggravated by the uneconomic nationalism of other countries, which has resulted in their fleets being very considerably increased, chiefly by subsidy allowances. One satisfactory feature of the whole matter, which I am sure will please the noble Lord opposite, is that the cuts which were instituted in 1932 to masters and men have now been entirely restored, and, in addition, a Superannuation Bill has been brought in for the masters and the officers and the engineers. And these advantages apply not only to the subsidised section of the industry, but to the whole of the industry. The unemployment of masters and officers has been very materially reduced. So far as the sailors are concerned, the noble Earl, in introducing this Bill said, I think, that their unemployment had been very much diminished. I think I will go further and say that unemployment amongst the white sailors has been entirely eliminated. In fact there is likely to be a shortage both of trained engineers and seamen which threatens to become acute. That is the position as it is to-day.
One point I would like to refer to, and that is the safeguarding clause in the Bill under which, if freights get down to 92 per cent. of the 1929 level, then there is an automatic reduction in the subsidy. If they get down to the 1929 level the subsidy ceases altogether. I am not going to predict whether that is likely to be achieved, but certainly there have been periods during the past few

569
weeks when the 1929 level has been attained. Personally I hope the day will soon come when the subsidy will have to be abolished altogether. In any case, the Government are keeping back the payments until the end of the year, when it will be seen whether the 1929 freights will have been attained or not, so that it is quite possible no payment may be made under this Bill at all.
I would like to point out that tramps running costs have risen something like 20 per cent. within the last few months. This does not in any way affect the subsidy payment, because the subsidy is based on gross freight levels. But another and a very serious factor is the increased cost of building owing to the recent rise in prices, and I am afraid that the replacement of ships by British shipping companies for some time to come is going to be a very difficult matter. That is a very serious question because British shipping has already been reduced from one half of the world's tonnage to one third of the world's tonnage. An even more serious factor is the fact that in the event of war we only have now for the importation of our foodstuffs and of our raw materials and the carrying of troops an effective tonnage of 14,000,000 as compared with 17,500,000 when the last War broke out. Or, to put it another way, there are nearly two thousand vessels less on the British Register than there were at that time. And the shortage, I think, applies most particularly to 3,000 ton and 4,000 ton vessels that were particularly suitable for carrying iron ore into this country. The effect of all this is that we shall be much more dependent on neutral tonnage than we were before the last War, and we do not know that, in the event of another conflict there will be any neutral tonnage available. We do not know who our allies or our enemies will be, but, even under the best conditions in war time, it is certain that neutral tonnage will cost us a vast sum of money if we ever have to enter into a contract to use it. That is why I regret the falling off in British tonnage, and particularly the increasing prices at the present time, when it will be so difficult to rebuild and reconstruct the fleets.
Now to return to my original theme as to whether or not this subsidy has been justified. I suggest that it has been justified, and at a very low cost, a cost
570
of £4,000,000 for two years. Many industrial experiments have cost a great deal more than £4,000,000. Without a Mercantile Marine adequate for both civilian and military requirements the vast expenditure which is now being incurred for armaments quite possibly might be rendered useless. In the event of any emergency arising, and in the event of our being unprepared, the Government would naturally be asked why they had allowed such an important link in defence as the Mercantile Marine to fall below the adequate requirements of the country. I suggest that £2,000,000 a year is not an abnormal sum for the rescuing and reviving of an industry which is of such value to the country as the shipping industry, and I hope your Lordships will agree that this Bill shall be renewed for what, I trust, will only be a convalescent stage, and it is quite possible that the money will not be required from the State at all.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, but I do so with a minimum of enthusiasm, because I venture to think it does not go nearly far enough. I support it on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. Your Lordships will remember that the President of the Board of Trade, in announcing his intention to continue the subsidy for 1937, warned the shipping industry that "its plans should be laid on the definite assumption that the tramp shipping subsidy will cease at the end of 1937." In the forefront of the Administrative Committee's Report a tribute is paid to the benefits that tramp shipping has received from the payment of this subsidy. The Report states that it "has succeeded in saving the British tramp shipping industry from certain ruin." It is further mentioned that when the original Act was passed the tramp shipping industry was "on the brink of catastrophe." Owing, however, to the improvement in world trade, and to the steps taken by the Committee during the past year, shipowners have been able to meet expenses and, latterly, to put something by for the renewal of their fleets.
The Report further states:
"It should not, however, be lightly assumed that because of rising shipping values, and the advance of freight rates since the Committee began its work, that the industry is now set on an even keel

571
again and needs no further care or assistance."
As we were reminded the depreciation now stands at £10,500,000. That Report was published in January last. Lord Essendon has pointed out that since then ship-building prices have risen, are rising and that there is every prospect that they will continue to rise. To quote the Report once again:
"It is impossible 'to secure a Mercantile Marine adequate to the needs of the country' unless existing British shipping is put upon a sound financial basis."
Your Lordships will remember that "to secure a Mercantile Marine adequate to the needs of the country" were the words used in the King's speech last November to declare Government policy in regard to British shipping.
The Chairman of the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee is Sir Vernon Thompson, and as such he has recently been the recipient of several eulogistic compliments from representatives of the Government upon the value of the advice he has rendered and the assistance he has given. Why not follow that advice a little further and make sure that existing British shipping is on a sound financial basis before you even consider abolishing the subsidy? If the present improvement in the freight market continues it seems probable that no subsidy will be paid under this Bill for 1937. So long as tramp shipping is holding its own, no expense to the country will be involved. Before ending the subsidy, might it not be considered worth while to use the money to build up a fund to assist British shipping in the future when and where it seems desirable to do so, without all the publicity of having to bring in another Bill and the inevitable delay which is caused thereby? The knowledge that the Government had this money and power to act, and were ready to use both, would give a sense of security to shipowners and enable them to face the future with more confidence. They could plan ahead and on broader lines instead of living from hand to mouth in an atmosphere of uncertainty.
Further, the declaration of the Government that it intended and was ready to come to the assistance of British shipping when and where required would have a salutary effect abroad and would do something to implement the proud
572
boast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that "we are not going to see the British Mercantile Marine swept off the seas." I may be told that the subsidy justifies that statement, and that it has had the desired effect. In this respect the title of the Bill is misleading. It does not deal with a subsidy for British shipping as a whole but with one section only—although it is a very important section. Liners and cargo liners are not affected except indirectly and coastal shipping not at all. As regards the cargo liners, the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, has pointed out in speeches here and elsewhere that it is just the class of ship which foreign countries are subsidising, and the process of sweeping British cargo liners off the seas still continues. No assistance is going to the coastal vessels, tramp or liner, or to the ships engaged in the short sea trades, although these small vessels have to face an intensive competition and they cost ton for ton more to run than the larger ships.
It cannot be said therefore that British shipping is being subsidised, and yet that is the impression that some people get from the title of this Bill. Coastal owners are not asking for a subsidy and they do not ask that foreign ships should be excluded from the trade of our coasts, but they ask that that trade should be carried on on equal terms and they hope and expect to get the support and assistance of their countrymen. I am not advocating the handing over of large sums of money to the shipping industry. I have no financial interest in the shipping industry and I approach this question simply as a student of national security. That security is based upon an adequate Mercantile Marine. It is for the safety of that Mercantile Marine in war that we go to the expense of maintaining a strong Navy. It is the Mercantile Marine that is all important, not the Navy. If the Mercantile Marine fails in its function a Navy treble the strength we visualise would not save us.
Appeals for any form of assistance are sometimes met by the argument that the shipping industry has no more claim upon the public than any other industry. Shipping, however, is essentially a national industry. It is more; it is the foundation of our national defence and of our national prosperity. It is quite astonishing to read statements by members of the Government taking credit

573
for having rescued our tamp shipping when it was on the "brink of catastrophe." I should like to ask how members of the Government reconcile their duty to the nation with having allowed that part of the industry to get into that state. Having taken four years to obtain it, it seems that the subsidy is to be wiped out at the end of three years, in spite of the warning of Sir Vernon Thompson that financial assistance and care are still required and that we have a lot of leeway to make up if we are to have a Mercantile Marine adequate to the needs of the country.
Recent speeches by prominent leaders in the shipping world have not been very optimistic. I do not think Lord Essendon sounded very optimistic. An examination of the recently published report of the Chamber of Shipping points out that we have now two thousand fewer passenger and cargo vessels than we had at the outbreak of the late War! We know that we had not enough then and that under modern conditions we shall want more. It has been stated that we shall want at least seven hundred more ships. How is the deficiency to be made good? It certainly cannot be left to the shipowners to make it. It would not be reasonable or fair to expect them to build more ships or employ more men than will enable them to conduct their industry with efficiency and with due regard to the shareholders and the well being of those who serve them. Over and above this, the provision of men and ships becomes a national concern and just as much a part of the rearmament programme as is the building of cruisers and other warships to protect our dwindling merchant fleet.
There are many other matters that want looking into in the conditions of the Mercantile Marine and I, like Lord Strabolgi, do not attack the big concerns but a great number of mushroom companies that spring up when there is money to be made and fade away afterwards. The conditions of service have been improved greatly of late but all at the expense of the owners. It does reduce the possibility of their adding to their fleet and helping to make up this deficiency. There is the training too. The Mercantile Marine does not want as many officers in peace time as are required in war time. You cannot expect them to engage more officers than they need, but at the same time they have got to be there and I
574
submit that the excess should also become a national concern. We want more ships. Those in excess of the needs of the Mercantile Marine to carry on their business should, when they cannot be employed profitably, be laid up and when trade improves they could be chartered, used by their original owners or chartered to others. Latterly I have been receiving several letters from Mercantile Marine officers as a result of some remarks I made at a meeting. They all point to the difference of treatment in some companies and in others. Some are mentioned with praise; with others it is quite the reverse. If one third of the stories I have heard are true I submit that an examination should be made of this matter in the interests of owners and officers alike. It has been said that merchant service officers are not an isolated class of the community and must be considered in relation to other bodies of employees. I contend that they are a class apart. They are indispensable and in reality they are national servants. If every shipping office closed to-morrow, the Government would have to take over all ships and officers and men and run the ships themselves.
I fully realise that I have touched on a big question, so big that I am convinced that what must come in the near future, and I hope in the term of the present Government, is a Ministry of Shipping presided over by a Cabinet Minister. That Ministry should have its budget and should have its estimates approved by Parliament, so that we should be able to secure the maintenance of a Mercantile Marine adequate to the needs of the nation. I do not propose that such a Ministry should interfere in any way with the normal business of shipping. It would, however, be able to make arrangements to keep a larger fleet in being than is actually required by business and be able to keep a sufficient number of officers to man it over and above what the needs of the shipping industry required. It would look after the interests of those who serve in the Mercantile Marine and in fact treat the Merchant Navy as what it is—an indispensable national service in peace and war. It would initiate a long-term shipping policy which would at least let everyone concerned know exactly where they were and inform the world that British shipping and its welfare would henceforth be supported by all the re-

575
sources of the nation. Meanwhile, I suggest in conclusion to the Government that the warning of the President of the Board of Trade as to the definite withdrawal of the subsidy should be retracted, and that the subsidy should be kept alive as a ready weapon in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade to allow him to come swiftly into action in any part of the world wherever British shipping wanted help in the national interests.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, in the few remarks I am going to make I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in congratulating my noble friend who introduced the Bill both on the pleasant facility with which he did it and the prudent brevity with which he economised his arguments. I could not help feeling a certain gratification when I heard him make the same speech in favour of a tramp shipping subsidy as I had been making for months and years before the Government was persuaded to take it up. The noble Earl, Lord Cork, mentioned the phrase which Government spokesmen have used about saving tramp shipping from disaster. It really is a very grave thing that the Government, in face of constant and repeated warnings, should have allowed such a situation to grow up in the prime industry of this country, and after two or three years' warning to make so humble a claim that they have just saved it from extinction. It is not very satisfying to some of us, especially in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, when he reminded your Lordships of the terrible danger—that is no exaggeration—in which this country exists to-day for lack of shipping to carry the food supplies of the country. I can only echo what Mr. Winston Churchill said the other day in another place. I am amazed at the complacency of Parliament, amazed that at the most critical period probably in the whole of our history we should not be more interested in or more concerned at the depletion in our shipping. In that connection I should like to ask the noble Earl if he could give us some quite definite information, because some of us feel that we make speeches in this House time after time asking for information and are very often not supplied with it.
I would venture to ask the noble Earl—I do not think he can claim that it
576
is not in the public interest to do so—whether he can tell us what the Government are going to do with regard to two main questions in relation to our shipping. The first is in relation to the Pacific shipping question which I have ventured to put before your Lordships on several occasions. It is two years ago now since first I raised the question of the probable extinction of at any rate one and of possibly our two lines in the Pacific. I do not think the Government paid very much heed at first when I suggested that there was every possibility that the British line competing with the Matson Line would be completely extinguished if the Government did not go to its aid. I remember reminding your Lordships of the speeches amongst others, of Mr. Neville Chamberlain and Mr. Runciman, saying that British shipping would not be allowed under a National Government to be swept off the seas. Nevertheless, the New Zealand Line no longer exists. This question was referred to the Shipping Committee. Very tardily the Shipping Committee has reported. We are now waiting to know the result of the negotiations taking place with the Dominions. Time goes on, month after month, year after year, and the situation is grave. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will be able to tell us to-day exactly when he hopes that some definite action will be taken to restore the line between San Francisco and New Zealand, and when something can be done, and what can be done, to give that essential help to the Northern Line which has been requested and for which a case has been made out.
The second question I would like to ask is whether he can give us any information as to the Government's decision as to the aid that must be given to our shipping in the Far East. I reminded your Lordships some few weeks ago of the terrible stress which has overtaken our shipping, at the hands mainly of Japanese competition, between Japan and India and elsewhere. I have not the figures with me at the moment, but I think I am understating and not overstating the case when I say that whereas only a dozen years or so ago the main bulk of the shipping between India and Japan was under the British flag, to-day at least 80 per cent, of it at both ends is under the Japanese flag. What is the Government doing about it? There is not time for these matters endlessly to be

577
referred to Committees, with the same delay that occurred in the case of the Pacific question, because the extinction of our trade between Japan and India would be almost fatal. Would the noble Earl tell us quite definitely what steps the Government are taking to meet this competition and to equip our shipping lines with the necessary powers to face that competition? Those are the only two questions that I want to ask, but I do hope that the noble Earl will give us clear and quite definite replies to them.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the debate which has taken place on this Bill has ranged over a very wide field. I will endeavour to do my best to reply to some of the questions raised although some of the points made, especially by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, were not really germane to the problem under discussion. My noble friend Lord Lloyd was good enough to give me notice that he proposed to ask these questions and I shall endeavour to reply to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked one or two questions. He first asked me whether the reduction of British tonnage had been arrested. My reply to that is that undoubtedly this subsidy has arrested the reduction in tonnage. The figure generally shows an increase, and it is expected that this will be shown when it is published at, I think, the end of June this year. He also asked me about the conditions of employment for seamen and officers under the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee. Applicants for subsidy are required to satisfy that Committee on various points in relation to each voyage in respect of which the subsidy is claimed. The members of the crew, including the officers, must be paid rates of wages in accordance with the appropriate National Maritime Board Agreement. In the course of 1936 the new rates of wages and increases were brought into effect in the National Maritime Board Agreement, and the undertaking required to be given to the Committee covers these increases as well. At the same time, the number of deck officers carried must be in accordance with the operative agreement which is in existence at the present time.
Then my noble friend asked me a question concerning the employment of Lascar seamen on British ships. Some vessels
578
carry these Lascar crews signed on under a Lascar agreement made in accordance with the requirements of the Government of India, and I think probably the noble Lord knows that the agreement is signed before an official of the appropriate Government Department in that country. These seamen are engaged in the East, and they are therefore outside the scope of the National Maritime Board Agreement. Since there is no National Maritime Board relating to the rates of wages applicable in such cases, the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee's requirement that the rate of pay must be in accordance with the appropriate National Board Agreement does not operate in respect of the crews. That is to say, the practice of employing Lascar crews, especially in vessels in India, is one of very long standing, and the employment under the Lascar agreement cannot, therefore, afford any grounds for withholding this subsidy. I hope I have made that point clear; I know it was raised continually during the discussions in another place. The subsidy for T936 has not yet been completed; payments have not yet been finally adjusted. I cannot give the noble Lord any definite date, but I am assured that a White Paper will be issued in the course of a short time setting out the full facts of where and how the subsidy was paid during last year.
Perhaps now I might turn to the question which was raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, concerning British shipping in the Pacific. My noble friend stated quite correctly that the Committee had examined the question of British shipping in the Pacific and that it had issued a Report. Perhaps my noble friend recollects that on previous occasions he has asked why this problem was not referred to the Imperial Shipping Committee until the spring of 1936. My noble friend has said that it should have been referred to that Committee at least two years before that date.
LORD LLOYD: If at all.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The policy to be followed up to that time had been discussed between the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, but no definite scheme had been put forward by the shipping com-

579
panies on behalf of the Canadian-Australasian Line for its future running, nor was there, apparently, any agreement among the Dominions concerned as to the course to be followed. My noble friend will know perfectly well that this Committee has now reported, and its Report is being examined by the Dominion Governments. At the same time, His Majesty's Government in this country are ready to take their share in these deliberations, and in order to facilitate a solution they have formulated certain proposals as to the course of action which have been forwarded to these other Dominion Governments for their consideration. I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on what agreement will finally be reached, but I can assure my noble friend that His Majesty's Government realise the necessity for reaching a decision as soon as possible.
LORD LLOYD: Might I interrupt the noble Earl, if he will forgive me? I would not interrupt my noble friend if we had not had this over and over again. My noble friend is merely giving me the same answer that my noble friend Viscount Halifax gave me over a year ago when he said that the Government could not take a lead in the matter. I asked him then why the Government could not take a lead in the matter. I should like to know why the Government could not take a lead in the matter, and why they cannot now. I never got a reply; that is what I want to know.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear. After this Committee reported, the Report was sent to the Dominion Governments, and His Majesty's Government in this country have made definite proposals which are now being considered by the respective Dominion Governments. I cannot give the noble Lord what he asks for, because I know of no further remarks which I can make that would satisfy the noble Lord. On the question of Japanese shipping, however, I think I have something which will satisfy him. We are already aware that Japanese competition is making itself very severely felt throughout the whole British Empire, and the Government are
580
doing all they can to assist British interests and British industry to meet that competition. As regards shipping, Japanese competition is to-day very strong in Far Eastern waters and, moreover, is lively, under the new arrangements which the Japanese Government propose to make to assist their shipping, to become even more severe. The Imperial Shipping Committee have therefore been invited to inquire into the position of British shipping in the Far East. The reason, here again, why reference was not made at an earlier date to the Imperial Shipping Committee is that it is only within the last few months that definite requests in this respect have teen made by British shipowners to the Government. My noble friend will be satisfied, I hope, but he will certainly be gratified to hear that this Committee have agreed to carry out this inquiry. Their first meeting to hear evidence is being held this afternoon, while this very debate is in progress. I hope that will give my noble friend a sufficient reply to the two points which he has made and which are not really germane to the matter we are now discussing.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, asked me a question concerning the continuation of the subsidy. As he will recollect, the President of the Board of Trade, in informing the industry that the Government would be prepared to continue the subsidy for another year, warned it that after that time he would not be in a position to guarantee that the subsidy would be renewed. I am in no position to add anything to that letter which was sent by my right honourable friend to the President of the Chamber of Shipping. I think I can say this though, that the industry must now make its plans on the assumption that this subsidy will not be renewed at the end of this year. On the other questions which the noble Lord raised I apologise to him, but I have absolutely no information. A large number of them, again, were not germane to this Bill. At any future date I shall certainly be happy to answer the questions which the noble Lord should see fit to address to me.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Bill deals with two questions only; first, it proposes an alteration in the law as regards the overloading of ships, and second, it proposes to amend the law as to life saving appliances carried on fishing vessels so as to carry out the recommendations of the Sea Fish Commission. The proposal to amend the law with regard to overloading arises immediately from the remarks made by Mr. Justice Greaves-Lord at the Central Criminal Court in the prosecution of the registered manager of the steamship "La Crescenta" and one of his employees, who were charged, among other things, under Section 457 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, with sending a British ship to sea in such an unsea-worthy state by reason of overloading that the lives of the persons on board were liable to be thereby endangered. I need not dwell on the facts of the case but your Lordships will remember that the verdict was one of acquittal.
As the law stands at present it is an offence under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1932, punishable by a fine, to overload a British ship. It is not an offence to send a ship to sea overloaded unless, the overloading is of such a nature as to come within the scope of Section 457 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and to render the ship unsea worthy and likely to endanger human life. Clause 1 of this Bill makes the sending to sea of a British ship which is overloaded an offence punishable by imprisonment. This is logical, for, if it is an offence to overload a ship, it is a more serious offence to take her to sea so overloaded. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 applies the clause to all British ships which are subject to Section 44 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1932, that is to say, to the ships of most important Colonies. Subsection (3) makes the new law applicable in all territories where Section 44 is in operation. This will give those parts of the Empire in which Section 44 is operative the power to take proceedings for an infringement in their territories of the new provision.
Clause 2 relates to the life saving appliances of fishing vessels. It has been realised for some time that the provisions of the law with regard to life saving appli-
582
ances on fishing vessels are out of date. The Sea Fish Commission recommended in their Report that legislation should be introduced with a view to giving the Board of Trade the same powers to make rules in regard to safety appliances on board fishing vessels as they already possess in respect of cargo vessels. Clause 2 therefore carries out this recommendation by repealing subsection (3) of Section 427 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The advantage to be gained by such a change of the law will be not only that effective provision can be made with regard to the life saving appliances of fishing vessels, but also that the rules can be kept up to date and can be adapted to the changing conditions of the industry. This is a very small Bill, which was approved in another place without a Division, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to congratulate the Government on bringing in a suitable and useful Bill, and I am very glad to do so on this occasion. The noble Earl describes it as a small Bill, but it is of great importance to the people concerned, and we welcome it. I was particularly glad to hear what he said about the fishing industry. That has changed very much. The modern deep sea going trawler is quite a large vessel, undertaking very extended voyages, with a numerous crew on board, and it is only right that she should carry the same appliances as vessels of her type and size in the ordinary Mercantile Marine.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I understand that the normal procedure with Bills like this, which is a purely Consolidation Bill, is that it should be read a second time and then sent up to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I believe it is very unusual to say anything on the Second Reading of a Consolidation Bill, but there appear to me to be two reasons why I might ask your Lordships' attention for a few minutes. This Bill has only been in our possession for a very short time, and it is almost impossible for a layman to be sure whether the Bill as now presented to the House is merely a consolidation of the other Acts, or whether there is new matter in it, but it does appear under certain clauses to present new matter. Apart from that, under the Bills which have been operating, particularly the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act of 1932, there were provisions for setting up juvenile courts to take over the responsibilities, which had hitherto been responsibilities of the Crown, of judging juvenile cases, and automatically it was suggested, although there was no mention of this in the Act, that the expenses should pass from the taxpayer to the local ratepayer. The provisions of this Bill, partly for that reason, have not been operative in Scotland except in two counties.
Two counties alone have taken the step of forming these juvenile courts, and one of them, the County of Fife, has challenged the position that the expenses automatically follow the transfer of the jurisdiction. That case is now on appeal to your Lordships' House, and therefore the matter is sub judice. From that point of view I think this matter should not have been brought at this stage into a Consolidation Bill and your Lordships asked to consider it. The point which would appear to me to be worthy of consideration is that we are also considering at the same moment the consolidation of the various services of the Scottish Office. All that is being done before a Committee, and it seems to me, therefore, inopportune that at this moment a Consolidation Bill of this kind should be brought before your Lordships' House. As regards the question as to whether or not there is new matter in the Bill, this no doubt will be considered in the Committee upstairs. As regards the other point, I merely represent to your Lordships that it is unfortunate that the matter, having been delayed so long, should now be pressed.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it was only this
584
morning that the noble Earl was good enough to tell me he intended to raise this point. I understand that what is worrying him is the question of the result of this appeal to which he referred; but my information is that, whatever the result of this appeal, it cannot affect the terms of the Consolidation Bill, which must simply reproduce the existing provisions of Part I of the Act of 1932. I want to stress the point that there is very good reason for not delaying the progress of this Consolidation Bill. The English Consolidation Act was passed in 1933, and the present Bill would certainly have been introduced last year but for the fact that the Education (Scotland) Bill contained amendments of the 1932 Act which it was desirable to include in this consolidation. I am informed that even if the decision in the pending appeal did involve further legislation, that would probably take the form of an addition to, rather an amendment of, the existing enactments. I cannot help feeling that all the points to which the noble Earl has drawn attention are just those points which it will be the task of the Joint Committee to examine.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (ADDITIONAL DAYS AND WAITING PERIOD) ORDER, 1937.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE): My Lords, I have pleasure in moving the Motion that stands in my name. I do not think it is necessary at this late hour for me to give your Lordships a large number of figures, and I am sure that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strabolgi, will understand that this is really a non-controversial measure which passed in another place without a Division. We are all extremely gratified that the Fund is

585
in such a position that it is able to provide this extra relief for those who benefit under the Insurance Acts. The Statutory Committee which was appointed under the Acts of 1934 and 1935 reports from year to year on the financial position of the Fund and makes recommendations. This year it has found there is an estimated accumulated surplus coming along of £39,000,000. That is £6,700,000 more than was estimated last year. The estimated surplus for this year is £12,275,000. The Committee recommend that we should proceed on the basis of 80 per cent. of that potential surplus, which works out at £9,820,000. Add to that the £6,700,000 already realised, and we get a total of approximately £17,000,000, including interest over the period in which this money is to be spent.
The Committee recommend that this sum should be used over a period of eight years, which is known as a "trade cycle" of eight years, and they are devoting this sum to relief in the way they now recommend. They recommend that the waiting days should be reduced from six days to three days, and that those who have long periods of employment to their credit should receive additional days benefit as a result of this surplus. The reduction in the number of waiting days will cost the Fund £1,225,000 per annum, and the additional benefits over the eight years will cost a total sum of £9,700,000. I do not propose to go into the technical jargon to show how these benefits are worked out, but additional days are added to the standard benefit of 156 days which a man, after long employment, is entitled to when his employment ceases. That will cost £1,000,000 per annum, or an amount of £8,000,000 over the whole period. These figures show that the Fund is progressing. There is one other point. The Committee, after examining the Fund, believe that at the end of eight years it will be sufficiently solvent to continue these benefits which have now been given as the result of the surplus of this last year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
INDIA AND BURMA (TRADE REGULATION) ORDER, 1937.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (IMMIGRATION) ORDER, 1937.
INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS)ORDER, 1937.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1937.
INDIA, BURMA AND ADEN (TRANSITORY PROVISIONS) (TAXATION) ORDER, 37.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (COUNSELLORS) ORDER, 1937.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (HIGHCOURT JUDGES) ORDER, 1937.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (HIGHCOURT JUDGES) ORDER, 1937.
INDIA AND BURMA (TRANSITORY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1937.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT)ORDER, 1937.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I have pleasure in moving the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that Orders be made in the form of the drafts approved by the House on Thursday last.—(The Marquess of Zetland).
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF INDIAN LAWS) ORDER, 1937
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (ADAPTATION OF LAWS) ORDER, 1937.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that Orders be made in the form of the drafts approved, with Amendments, by the House on Thursday last.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SPANISH FRONTIERS OBSERVATION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to merchant shipping for the purpose of enabling effect to be given to an international agreement for establishing a system of observation of the Spanish frontiers, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I take advantage of the First Reading to ask when it is proposed to take the Second Reading and whether it is proposed to take all stages in one day, which we are prepared to facilitate? On behalf of my noble friends, I may say that we have consulted together, and if it is desired to take all the stages in one day we are prepared to facilitate that.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, with, regard to the first question that the noble Lord has asked, we propose to take the Second Reading to-morrow. While my noble friend and I greatly appreciate the noble Lord's expression of willingness on his behalf and on behalf of his noble friends
588
to facilitate the passage of all stages of this Bill in one day, I am advised that that would not, in fact, have the effect of accelerating the programme as between the two Houses. While therefore being very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, I do not think we shall be prepared to take advantage of his offer. As at present advised, we shall take the other stages of the Bill on Thursday.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I would like to point out that what I have just said will make a change in the order of business for to-morrow, in that this Bill will be down for Second Reading. It may be of interest to your Lordships also to know that Lord Elton has removed his Motion from the Paper and has transferred it to a date after Easter.
LORD STRABOLGI: Does that mean that the Second Reading of this Bill will be the first Order?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: No, second. The first Order is a Bill standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Gage.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bedford),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Colwyn Bay),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ealing Extension),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (East Hertfordshire Joint Hospital District),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Somerset and Wilts),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Waltham Joint Hospital District),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wisbech Joint Isolation Hospital District).

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Lancashire Electric Power,

Liverpool Exchange.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

EASTBOURNE EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 8th and 23rd of February last discharged, and Bill committed.
KINGSBRIDGE AND SALCOMBE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 8th and 23rd of February discharged, and Bill committed.