Sitting of 10 March 1937

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Nottinghamshire Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received in his Department in regard to refugees from Abyssinia; whether any members of the armed forces in Abyssinia have crossed the Abyssinian frontiers into British territory; whether any women and children have accompanied them; what is the total number of refugees now in British territory; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards these refugees?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): According to my latest Information, there are about 442 refugees from Abyssinia in territories in which His Majesty's Government have administrative responsibility. Of this number, about 70 are in the Sudan, 273 in British Somaliland, 55 in Palestine, 32 in Aden and 12 in Kenya. There are also in the Sudan some 1,500 natives of Arab origin, who fled there from the intertribal fighting which took place last year in Beni Shangul, a province in Abyssinia adjoining the Sudan frontier. The refugees include men, women and children. They are being cared for, but it is required of them that they should not attempt further hostilities in Ethiopia. The details connected with their admission are being dealt with by the local authorities.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is any arrangement made whereby the League of Nations takes responsibility for the care of these refugees?
  Mr. Eden: I think that at the moment it is we who are doing it.
  Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to take any action at the Council of the League of Nations with respect to the violation of the laws of war committed by the Italian troops in their massacre of unarmed civilians at Addis Ababa; and whether any remonstrance on the subject has been addressed by His Majesty's Government to the Italian Government?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir.
  Lieut.-CommanderFletcher asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Ras Desta was brought to trial or not before being executed?
  Mr. Eden: I have no information on this point.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the very circumstantial reports that this brave and patriotic chief was executed without trial, and is not such conduct contrary to all dictates of justice, civilisation and decency?

  EGYPT (BRITISH POLICE).
  Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how many British officers and constables of the Egyptian city policy have, up to the present time, lost their employment in consequence of the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty; on what scale has compensation been paid to them by the Egyptian Government; how many have been re-employed in the public services of British, Colonial, or Mandated territories; and at what rates of pay;
  (2) how many British officers and constables of the Egyptian city police are at present under notice of discharge in consequence of the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty; what progress has been made in the discussions between His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo and the Egyptian Government with regard to

  1121
  their compensation by the Egyptian Government; and what is the prospect of other employment being available for them on their discharge?
  Mr. Eden: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  The contracts of the British officers and constables of the Egyptian City Police do not expire until 31st May next, from which date seven British officers and 77 constables have received notice of discharge. Two additional British officers and six constables have resigned voluntarily. As regards compensation, the Egyptian Government on 7th March approved, for officers and constables not previously compensated, a gratuity of one month's pay for each year of service (subject to a maximum of 12 months) and effective repatriation expenses on the following scale:—One month's pay for those in receipt of salaries of not less than £50 a month, and six weeks' pay for those receiving a salary of less than £50 a month.
  With a view to finding other employment for these men every assistance is being given locally, and 24 European officers and men, 20 of whom are British, have already secured fresh employment. Further, every hope is entertained that seven British subjects will be given employment in the Malta Dockyard Police and possibly some others at Gibraltar. As regards employment in the Colonial Service, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies that it has not yet been found possible to offer employment to any of the British commissioned officers, and that in any case suitable vacancies are of a very infrequent occurrence. As regards the British constables, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 27th January. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has as yet received no information on the outcome of the discussions between certain Colonial administrations and His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo regarding the possibilities of absorbing any of the British constables, except in the case of Palestine, where I understand employment with the British section of the Palestine police has been offered to four British constables, only one of whom was, how-
  1122
  ever, prepared to accept this employment. Further, there is a possibility that employment may be found for 12 more constables in Palestine.

  SPAIN.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the possibility of recalling all foreign troops and volunteers for Spain is under consideration by the Non-Intervention Committee?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is any delay that is occurring in this matter due to reluctance being shown by any member of the Non-Intervention Committee to recall volunteers?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir, not so far as I am aware.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received details of the note despatched by the Spanish insurgent authorities to the signatories of the treaties relating to Morocco, referring to the situation on the borders of Spanish Morocco?
  Mr. Eden: A communication on this subject from the insurgent authorities was received in the Foreign Office yesterday. It is now under consideration, and I am not in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. Brocklebankasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any specific regulations are contemplated regarding the issue of passports to British subjects intending to visit Spain?
  Mr. Eden: With a view to giving practical effect to the obligations of His Majesty's Government under the recent extension of the Non-Intervention Agreement to cover the despatch of volunteers to Spain, British passports will cease to be regarded until further notice as valid for Spain or the Spanish zone of Morocco unless they have been specifically endorsed for travelling to either of these destinations on a date subsequent to Saturday, 10th February, 1937. These special endorsements are being granted on a temporary basis, and are issued only to persons who are able to satisfy the

  1123
  Passport Authorities or His Majesty's Consular officers abroad that they are travelling for urgent business reasons or for other special and approved purposes. I am informed that the passports of British subjects proceeding to Spain via French territory require in addition to be counter-endorsed by a French Prefect.
  Captain Heilgers: Would it not be a good thing to suspend temporarily the issue of week-end passports to the Continent?
  Mr. W. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a declaration by General Franco that all foreigners found in cities which are delivered will be placed against a wall and shot; and whether he will make representations to the authorities at Salamanca to ensure the protection of British subjects in Spain?
  Mr. Eden: I have seen notices in the Press in which it is alleged that, according to a statement issued by the Spanish insurgents, foreigners captured with arms will be shot. I have no information on this subject beyond what has appeared in the Press.
  Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether the leaflets which are being dropped on Spanish towns do not include noncombatants as well as combatants?
  Mr. Eden: I have no information except what I have seen in the Press.
  Sir Percy Harris: Is it in accordance with international practice to shoot men who are foreigners in a country merely because they have arms?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir; I never suggested for a moment that shooting in any circumstances was something to be approved of; but I think the House must appreciate the fact that many warnings have been issued, and the difficulty in which I am placed in trying to help at all.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that these warnings justify General Franco in shooting foreigners with arms; and is it not a fact that the Government of Madrid have given most stringent orders against any shooting of prisoners—[Interruption.]—
  1124
  and that less than a fortnight ago the "Times" reported the shooting of two officers?
  Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Eden: I should like to be allowed, if I may, to answer that question, because I should not wish my words to bear any such interpretation as the hon. Gentleman puts upon them. I want to make it quite clear that that was not my intention.
  Mr. W. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the plan now under consideration for the control of the entry of volunteers and munitions of war into Spain will include the control of the importation of munitions into Spain by ships belonging to the Spanish Government or the rebels?
  Mr. Eden: I understand that this point is not covered by the international scheme of observation which has been recently adopted.
  Mr. Roberts: Do I understand that under the non-intervention control agreement it will be possible for foreign Powers to seal a ship and its load of arms, and that the controlling authorities will have no right to prevent that ship from going through?
  Mr. Eden: I do not think that that is the question on the Paper; if the hon. Member wishes for an answer to it, perhaps he will put it down.
  Mr. Roberts: Does not my question really fully cover that possible situation, and am I not entitled to an answer?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member asked me about Spanish ships, and I have given him the answer.
  Mr. Mander: If a ship is sold by another country to Spain, is it not Spanish property?
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British agent in control of the application of the non-intervention agreement in Portugal will receive the necessary facilities from the Portuguese authorities to enable him to supervise the movement of arms and munitions in Portuguese ports and railway stations and to control their transport to and from armament factories, arsenals, and other stores?
  Mr. Eden: Under the arrangements made with His Majesty's Government, the Portuguese Government have agreed to grant full facilities to the British observers in carrying out their duties, and will afford free access to, and examination of, all relevant localities, documents and facts. The duties of these officers will be to observe the nature of goods and the number and nationality of travellers crossing the Portuguese frontier into Spain and to report to His Majesty's Ambassador at Lisbon such facts as may come to their notice. They will, therefore, be stationed, not at the ports, but at the Spanish-Portuguese frontier. The observers, as Attaches to His Majesty's Embassy, will enjoy all usual diplomatic privileges. They will be at liberty to ask for information from the local authorities, including statements of clearances or passage of cargo and passengers. The observers will further be permitted to request the competent Portuguese authorities to take such steps as may be possible to verify or disprove fears that breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement were being or about to be committed. The observers will also be at liberty to communicate freely among themselves and with His Majesty's Ambassador. As I have stated, observation will be carried out on the Portuguese-Spanish frontier, and it is considered that the officers, who will be stationed at frontier crossings, in particular at railway stations and on major and secondary roads, will be in a position to establish all facts necessary for the proper observation of the application of the Non-Intervention Agreement.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If the number of persons is not sufficient in practice, will it be possible to increase them?
  Mr. Eden: I should like notice of that question, but I think the House will agree that this is a very satisfactory arrangement.
  Sir P. Harris: How soon will this scheme come into effective operation?
  Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will put a question on the Paper.
  Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by which of the delegates objections have been raised on the Non-Intervention Committee to the proposed allocation of cost and on what
  1126
  basis; and whether these objections have been responsible for the postponement of the date by which the land and naval control scheme can be put into action?
  Mr. Eden: I understand that no objection has been raised in any quarter to the principle upon which the allocation of costs has been based. The answer to the second part of the question is No, Sir.
  Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the agreement to stop volunteers from proceeding to Spain came into force; and whether the agreement is being observed by all the naitons concerned or, if not, by whom it has been violated?
  Mr. Eden: The agreement came into force at midnight on 20th-21st February; His Majesty's Government have received no evidence that it has been violated.
  Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what date it is proposed to bring into operation the land and sea control scheme for Spain; and what are the reasons for postponement?
  Mr. Eden: I have every reason to believe that the scheme will be brought into force within the next few days. The Naval Powers which have agreed to undertake the duty of naval observation have notified the International Committee that they will be in a position to begin the duties which they have agreed to undertake on Saturday, 13th March.
  Mr. T. Williams: Did all the observers fail to observe the 15,000 Italians who landed after the agreement?
  Mr. Eden: The agreement came into force at midnight on 21st February. We have no information that it has been violated.
  Mr. Williams: Has no information been received in the Department of the 15,000 Italians who are alleged to have gone there?
  Mr. Eden: My answer is quite clear.
  Mr. Hepworthasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Powers interested in non-intervention in Spain have issued any warning to their respective subjects now assisting on one side or the other in Spain, as to the possible loss of civil rights in the country of their birth?
  Mr. Eden: Not so far as I am aware.
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the new system for the control of the Spanish coasts, there will be any, and, if so, what, British naval vessels in or near ports under the control of the Spanish Government?
  Mr. Eden: His Majesty's ships are responsible under the control scheme for the supervision of the northern coast of Spain from the French frontier to Cape Busto and for the southern coast from the Portuguese frontier to Cape de Gata. The supervision of the above zones will constitute a very considerable additional commitment for His Majesty's ships in Spanish waters. I regret that I cannot indicate at the present stage what forces it will be possible to maintain in or near ports under the control of the Spanish Government. In spite of these additional demands, however, I understand that His Majesty's naval authorities will take steps, as heretofore, to maintain touch with His Majesty's diplomatic and consular representatives at Valencia, Barcelona and Palma.
  Mr. Mander: Are we to understand that there will be British vessels in the three ports mentioned under the new scheme?
  Mr. Eden: I cannot give a definite pledge about that, but we shall do our best to keep in touch with our representatives.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Does it mean that British subjects will not patrol that part of the coast which is under the control of the Spanish Government?
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the ships from Spain loaded with iron ore for Great Britain which have recently been stopped by the rebels, the crews changed, and the ships sent on to Germany, some of them coaling in an English port; and, in view of the fact that the ore had been paid for by British firms and is urgently needed here, what action has been taken in the matter?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I understand that two Spanish vessels, the "Mar Baltico" and the "Fernando L. de Ybarra," carrying British owned cargoes of iron ore for
  1128
  British ports were in the course of February intercepted by Spanish insurgent warships and taken either to Pasajes or Ferrol. I have no information as to what has since happened to these ships. His Majesty's Ambassador in Hendaye has been instructed to protest to the Salamanca authorities against this interference with British property on the high seas, to ask for the release of these cargoes and to state that His Majesty's Government reserve the right, if necessary, to claim damages.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Do not these acts constitute, under international law, acts of piracy; and is this country merely to content itself with making protests?
  Mr. Eden: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to think that, but he will observe that these cargoes have been carried in Spanish ships which does not add to the complexities.
  Mr. Hicksasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why a British destroyer was placed at the disposal of the British Consul at Bilbao in order to enable him to persuade the Honourable Jessica Lucy Freeman Mitford to return home from Spain, at considerable public expense, for personal affairs, when it might be engaged in more essential duties?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Stanley): There is no foundation whatever for this assumption. A destroyer proceeds between St. Jean de Luz and Bermeo for communication with Bilbao, whenever the weather allows, as part of its normal routine duties which include the conveyance of His Majesty's Consul when necessary. On the occasion to which the hon. Member refers the destroyer went to Bermeo in order to repatriate Spanish subjects and returned with a number of refugees, and the Consul took passage on board on the outward journey. I am informed that his return to Bilbao had no connection with the presence there of Miss Freeman Mitford.
  Mr. Hicks: Do I understand that Miss Jessica Lucy Freeman Mitford was not one of the ladies brought by this destroyer from Bilbao?
  Lord Stanley: I have answered the question fully. The destroyer did not make any special journey in connection with this case.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask my Noble Friend whether he thinks the questioner would consider it more an essential duty rescuing Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell for the third time from the hands of the Royalists?

  THE CORONATION.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will invite the League of Nations to be represented officially at His Majesty's Coronation?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. The Secretary-General will, however, receive an invitation to attend in his personal capacity.
  Mr. Henderson: Would it not be possible to establish a precedent by inviting the President of the Council to represent the League of Nations officially?
  Mr. Eden: All Members, I think, are being asked individually; I do not think there is any need for any collective action.
  Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received representations from the provincial councils of the Gold Coast on the desirability of inviting a representative chief from the Gold Coast to the Coronation?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Yes, Sir. In view of the difficulty of discriminating between the numerous Chiefs in the Gold Coast I decided to accept the advice of the Governor that the territory should be represented by two private individuals. Both of these gentlemen are Africans, (1) Dr. Nanka-Bruce, 0.B.E., former Member of the Legislative Council, and (2) Mr. Asafu-Adjaye of Ashanti.
  Mr. Paling: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these two people are representative?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think they are very representative leading Africans.

  DANZIG.
  Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of Danzig citizens now imprisoned without trial; and what steps are being taken
  1130
  by the League Committee to restore to the people of Danzig their constitutional rights?
  Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the question, I have no information on which an accurate estimate could be based. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 24th February, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. Jenkins: Is it not a fact that Danzig citizens are rapidly losing the whole of their constitutional rights by the steps that are now being taken; and, as the right hon. Gentleman is the rapporteur of the League Committee, ought he not to be in a position to supply the House with fuller information than has been supplied in his previous answers?
  Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member will look at the answer to which I have referred, he will see what the position actually is.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Would it be possible for the Minister to ask the new High Commissioner to report on the allegation that during the past few weeks more than 200 minority politicians have been arrested by the Nazi authorities in Danzig?
  Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that, too, is covered by the answer to which I have referred. The new High Commissioner has only just arrived.

  GERMANY (BANNED MAGAZINE).
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in connection with the banning of the magazine named "The Banker"; and whether any reasons were given by the German Propaganda Minister for banning this journal from Germany?
  Mr. Eden: I have no information on this subject.
  Mr. Thorne: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen the reports in the newspapers about the matter; and is he not aware that the reason why the magazine was banned was because it exposed the German Fascists?

  POLAND AND LITHUANIA.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the present relations between Poland and Lithuania?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member will be aware of the long-standing difference between the two countries in respect of the Vilna district, as a result of which the Polish-Lithuanian frontier remains closed and the two countries are not in diplomatic relations. There were indications last year that steps might be taken which might tend to the resumption of normal relations. But I understand that this has not yet been found possible.
  Mr. Henderson: Does the Foreign Secretary attach any special significance to the speech of the Lithuanian Foreign Minister last week, in which he referred to the threats of the Polish Foreign Minister and threatened to bring the matter before the League of Nations?
  Mr. Eden: I would rather not express an impromptu opinion.

  BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).
  Mr. Liddellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to protect British investments in the Leopoldina Railway Company and the Leopoldina Terminal Company, in view of the fact that the directors of those two concerns have not been able to prevent default to British proprietors owing to the regulations imposed by the Brazilian authorities, with the consequence that they have had to obtain a loan from the Brazilian Government?
  Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on 1st February, to which I have nothing to add.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    RAW MATERIALS COMMITTEE.
    Sir Robert Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that a committee of the League of Nations, formed to discuss the question of raw materials, has proceeded to consider matters affecting the transfer of territory and other subjects concerning the sovereignty of Great Britain in
    1132
    the British Colonial Empire, he will give to Parliament information as to the origin of this unfriendly action?
    Lieut.-Colonel Wickhamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Committee on Raw Materials at Geneva is discussing questions affecting the disposal of British Colonies; and whether he has lodged a protest and requested the withdrawal of such suggestions from the agenda of that committee?
    Mr. Wiseasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to proposals which are being considered by the Committee on Raw Materials at Geneva, which suggest the transfer of British possessions to some other sovereignty and other matters which have no concern with the subject of raw materials; and, if so, what action His Majesty's Government propose to take?
    Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croftasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether his attention has been called to the memorandum which the secretariat of the League of Nations has prepared for the Committee on Raw Materials; whether he is aware that that report refers to suggestions which have been offered as to preferential agreements and the domestic arrangements existing within the British Colonial Empire; and on whose behalf were these suggestions offered;
    (2) whether he is aware that it is suggested in the memorandum prepared for the Committee on Raw Materials that there should be a transformation of colonies into mandated territories or the transfer of their administration to an international authority; whether His Majesty's Government have consented to this discussion on the disposal of the British Colonial Empire; and what country is responsible for tabling suggestions which interfere with British sovereignty in His Majesty's territories overseas;
    (3) whether it is customary for the Secretariat of the League of Nations to frame memoranda with proposals affecting the sovereignty of member States without stating from what country such suggestions emanate; and whether His Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to protest against such procedure?
    Mr. Eden: I think that there is some misunderstanding on this subject. The terms of reference of the League Committee now sitting at Geneva were clearly defined in the report of the Polish delegate to the League Council last January. A copy of that report is in the Library of the House. It will be seen that, under these terms of reference, the League inquiry is strictly limited to the question of equal commercial access for all nations to certain raw materials. Any discussion of territorial redistribution of colonies or mandated territories, or any change in their administration is entirely precluded. I am arranging to place in the Library a copy of the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat of the League to which reference has been made. This document does not in any way constitute the agenda of the present inquiry. The Committee are not working on its basis. It represents merely a collection of views of a general character which have been expressed in publications, official and unofficial, in recent years. The origin of these views will be found clearly indicated in the memorandum itself. It is naturally nowhere stated by the Secretariat in the memorandum that these views ought to be discussed by the Committee. The particular views regarding territorial redistribution and change in administration to which my hon. Friends have drawn attention, are in any case outside the scope of the Committee's terms of reference, and the Committee is, therefore, precluded from considering them.
    Sir H. Croft: Were the views that were offered, offered by States members of the League or were they unofficial suggestions which have been put forward from other sources, and have the Government protested against the idea that these questions can be discussed?
    Mr. Eden: As I understand it, there never was any suggestion that they should be discussed. What have been collected have been various expressions of opinion on the subject recently. They are not on the agenda.
    Mr. Wise: In view of the fact that these subjects are being mentioned whether they are on the agenda or not, would the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions to the British delegation that they are to withdraw from the committee if such suggestions are discussed?
    Mr. Eden: If my hon. Friend has read the speech of Sir Frederick Leith Ross in the committee last Monday, he will see that the position has been safeguarded.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Which country initiated the inquiry?
    Mr. Eden: We originated the inquiry.
    Sir H. Croft: Is the House to understand that it was on the initiation of this country that it is suggested that all Colonies should become mandated territories?
    Mr. Eden: No. I have made it clear that this matter is not on the agenda at all. What has been issued by the Secretariat is a collection of opinions by persons of various countries. They have no authority or support from His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not a great pity that these ideas are excluded from discussion?

    COVENANT (ARTICLE 16).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether The Government adheres to the interpretation placed upon Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations under Annexe F to the Treaty of Locarno, to the effect that this article obliges each member of the League to co-operate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant, and in resistance to any act of aggression to an extent which is compatible with its military situation and takes its geographical position into account?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TURKEY (WOOLLEN IMPORTS).
    Mr. Hepworthasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether woollen goods imported into Turkey are subject to quota, and, in that case, whether he will state the percentage; and whether he has recently made any representations with the object of increasing the quota?
    Mr. Eden: Certain woollen goods imported into Turkey from the United Kingdom are subject to quotas. The quotas are given in the form of specified annual amounts in metric tons, and not percentages of total imports into Turkey. The answer to the last part of the question is, No, Sir.

    GOLD COAST.
    Captain A. Grahamasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the increasing trade of the Gold Coast, he will consider the desirability of making a survey of all the local harbours, ports and open roadsteads in order to find out whether the construction of another first-class modern harbour for deep-draught ships at Accra or elsewhere, apart from- the existing port of Takoradi, would be economically advantageous?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have no reason to believe that the trade of the Gold Coast is increasing beyond the capacity of the existing ports, and I am sure that the Gold Coast could not economically maintain two first-class deep water harbours. The question of the provision of additional deep water wharves at Takoradi is at present engaging the attention of the Government of the Gold Coast.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Colonel Baldwin-Webbasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the shortage in the iron and steel industry, he will, until such date as the Iron and Steel Federation can supply, suspend the quota position in a manner which will leave the market with absolute freedom without the intervention of the federation?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): The quota regulation of iron and steel imports has been adopted by the Government on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in pursuance of arrangements made between the British Iron and Steel Federation and the Continental Iron and Steel Cartel. The present system aims at an equitable distribution of iron and steel supplies at reasonable prices, and its abandonment at this moment would, in my view, increase the existing difficulties both as to supplies and prices. I am advised that every effort is being made to obtain increased supplies in this period of world shortage, and in these circumstances my right hon. Friend is not prepared to take the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    EXPORTS.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of
    1136
    United Kingdom exports in 1936 to those countries included in the Ottawa group, and the figure for the year 1930?
    Dr. Burgin: Exports of United Kingdom goods to countries with which agreements were concluded at Ottawa were valued at £161,400,000 in 193o and £147,670,000 in 1936.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact that over 130,000 more men were employed last year in inter-Dominion trade than in the Ottawa year?
    Dr. Burgin: I cannot give the figures without notice, but that may be so.

    STEEL HINGES (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
    Mr. Smedley Crookeasked the President of the Board of Trade what action, if any, is being taken to adjust the unfair foreign competition by the Swedish and German manufacturers of steel hinges by which the British manufacturers are forced to sell their goods at prices below cost if they are to retain any substantial proportion of the home trade?
    Dr. Burgin: Under the trade agreement with Sweden the import duty on butt and tee hinges cannot be increased above 20 per cent. ad valorem. Representations on this subject which have been received from the manufacturers concerned will be borne in mind when any revision of this agreement is under consideration.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CADETS.
    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of cadets entered at Dartmouth College and from public schools, respectively, each year from 1931, who were from state-aided secondary schools, and the percentage they formed of these totals?
    Lord Stanley: The preparation of the information asked for would entail a prohibitive amount of labour. A sample investigation suggests that only occasionally does a boy from a state-aided secondary school go to Dartmouth, but the public school entry on the basis of an analysis of the entry for 1937, would appear to include about 25 per cent. from state-aided secondary schools.
    Mr. Alexander: Does not the answer of the Noble Lord show clearly how useless it is to go on with public expenditure upon education, if you do not take the result of the expenditure into your public services?
    Lord Stanley: It shows that we are determined to get the best officers we can from whatever source.
    Mr. Paling: If that is so, why is there such a small number of boys from State-aided schools going there?

    PROMOTION.
    Mr. Woodsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of lieutenant-commanders and lieutenants, ex-warrant officer, now serving who were promoted under the accelerated promotion scheme; the number who are likely to complete the necessary service for promotion to commander; and when the promotions to commander, which were part of the scheme, are to commence?
    Lord Stanley: There are at present 27 lieutenants who were promoted under this scheme. These officers will not be eligible for consideration for promotion to commander until they have attained lieutenant-commander's rank, which the first of them should do in June next. It is likely that 19 of them will ultimately become eligible for consideration for promotion to commander. One shipwright lieutenant-commander promoted under the scheme was recently promoted to shipwright commander.
    Mr. Paling: Can the right hon. Gentleman state at what date the democratisation of the Navy is to take place, if these promotions go on at this rate?
    Sir Robert Youngasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of engineer officers who have qualified in the advanced engineering course in each year since 1931, and the number of these officers who were commissioned from artificers?
    Lord Stanley: As the information involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    1138

    Officers who have qualified in the Advanced Engineering Course—1931 to 1936.

    Years.

    Total Number of officers who qualified in the advanced engineering course.

    Number of officers included in column "B" who were promoted from Engine Room Artificer direct to commissioned rank.

    Number of officers included in column "B" who were selected as Artificer Apprentices for commissioned rank.

    (A)

    (B)

    (C)

    (D)

    1931

    6

    1

    1

    1932

    3

    1

    —

    1933

    9

    1

    1

    1934

    7

    1

    —

    1935

    6

    1

    —

    1936

    8

    1

    —

    NOTE.—The officers in column "D" were promoted through the rank of Midshipman (E).
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the annual basic pay and allowances drawn by a non-specialist lieutenant-commander, aged 30 and unmarried, serving on a battleship or cruiser in the Home Fleet; and what is the average promotion to the rank of lieutenant-commander?
    Lord Stanley: The basic pay of a non-specialist lieutenant-commander serving in a battleship or cruiser in the Home Fleet is as follows:

    Lieutenant-commander on promotion, 27s. 2d. a day.

    Lieutenant-commander after three years, 29s. a day.

    Lieutenant-commander after six years, 30s. 10d. a day.

    There are no allowances beyond the money allowance paid direct to the officers' mess in connection with their victualling. There is no differentiation between married and single officers. The average age for promotion to lieutenant-commander is just under 31, and only a small proportion of officers become lieutenant-commanders by the age of 30.
    Sir R. Youngasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the numbers each year since the introduction of the new sub-lieutenant (E) scheme of promotion in 1933 who have been reported on the special form from the shore-training and other establishments and ships as likely to make suitable commissioned officers; and what has finally happened to these officers?
    Lord Stanley: As the answer includes a tabular statement, I will, with the hon.

    Number of confidential reports on Engine Room and Stoker ratings in the years 1931–1937.

    Year.

    Number started during year.

    Number terminated during year.

    Number of ratings concerned promoted to commissioned rank during year.

    Aggregate Number of reports continuing at the end of the year.

    1931–32

    …

    …

    23

    3

    1

    19

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    24

    8

    2

    33

    1934

    …

    …

    …

    13

    14

    3

    29

    1935

    …

    …

    …

    12

    16

    3

    22

    1936

    …

    …

    …

    24

    8

    4

    34

    1937

    …

    …

    …

    6

    1

    —

    —

    102

    50

    13

    39

    Confidential reports were terminated for the following reasons:—

    (a) Unsuitability of the rating for commissioned rank

    …

    …

    …

    22

    (b) Passing over the age limit

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    16

    (c) The rating concerned no longer being a candidate for promotion (e.g. on marriage)

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6

    (d) Two failures before a Selection Board

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    (e) Reasons unknown

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    50

    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ratings who have been reported on the special form and who are qualified to be recommended for sub-lieutenant?
    Lord Stanley: Fifteen seaman ratings have been reported on the special form and are qualified to be recommended for promotion to sub-lieutenant.
    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, seeing that lower-deck candidates for commissioned rank are reported to the Admiralty as soon as considered by their commanding officer as potentially suitable, and thenceforward the Admiralty and future captains under whom they may serve keep a careful watch on their training and development, so few candidates out of the total number actually obtain a commission?
    Lord Stanley: As my right hon. Friend and I have previously stated, the Admiralty are at present conducting an investigation on this very point.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME.
    Miss Wardasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has information to give the House regarding the 1937 naval programme?
    Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    Lord Stanley: The printed statement recently circulated with the 1937 Navy Estimates indicates the numbers of vessels of various types included in the 1937 new construction programme, and the building allocation as between His Majesty's Dockyards and private contractors is shown on pages 374–391 of the Estimates. Distribution of orders to the several shipbuilding firms will be announced as and when contracts are placed.

  PALESTINE.

    MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will prepare, in consultation with the Foreign Office, an estimate of the proportion of the recent military expenditure in Palestine which was due to the necessities of the international situation rather than to local causes?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. The sole object of sending reinforcements to Palestine was, as I thought I made clear when speaking on the Supplementary Estimate for the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services on 22nd February, to deal with the local disturbances, and no other motives entered into the decision of

    1141
    His Majesty's Government to reinforce the garrison of Palestine last September.
    Mr. Williams: As something in excess of £1,000,000 is clearly a heavy burden for Palestine to bear, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the international situation at that moment also had an effect upon the sending of the number of troops that were required in Palestine to quell the riots?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is a matter of opinion. I have told the hon. Gentleman my opinion as to the object.
    Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman, before apportioning the total cost of the arms and forces that we sent to Palestine, have the question reconsidered in the light of the possible implications of the international situation at the moment?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not a question of the total cost to Palestine, but the difference between the cost of maintaining the troops in other garrisons and the cost of their maintenance in Palestine.

    CADET DISTRICT OFFICERS.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Izzed Din Shawa and Rashad Shawa, district officers in the Palestine civil service who were dismissed from the service, were dismissed on account of political activities during the recent disturbances; and, if so, why the report of the Royal Commission was not awaited before taking such a decision in regard to Government officials?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: These two men were appointed temporarily on probation as cadet district officers. Izzed Din Shawa has not been dismissed and is still in the service, although his appointment has not yet been confirmed. Rashad Shawa's appointment was terminated by three months' notice which expired on 13th January. He was known to have extreme political views, but quite apart from this fact he was found generally unsuitable for the post. The second part of the question does not appear to arise.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not clear that a similar attitude has been adopted towards these officials in Palestine as that which was adopted towards the dismissed dockyard workers in this country?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter which arises out of the question.

    EDUCATION.
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of money provided for education in Palestine during the next 12 months, and the amounts spent each year since 1921?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the reply contains a large number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many areas in Palestine the people have to bear the cost of education? Can he not make representations to see that the Government bear the full responsibility of education in Palestine?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Member will see from the figures for which he has asked that there has been a continuous rise every year since 1921 in the amount of money found by the Palestine Government for education.
    Viscountess Astor: In view of the money that is spent on education, is it not necessary to see what they are teaching the people?
    Following are the figures:
    The annual expenditure of the Palestine Department of Education is as follows:

    Actuals.

    £

    1921–22

    88,158

    1922–23

    89,232

    1923–24

    97,278

    1924–25

    100,099

    1925–26

    101,392

    1926–27

    113,890

    1927 (nine months, 1st April to 1st December)

    100,039

    1928

    137,115

    1929

    139,789

    1930

    143,555

    1931–32

    146,988

    1932–33

    159,520

    1933–34

    179,635

    1934–35

    201,498

    1935–36

    221,087

    It will not be possible to state what provision is to be made for the year 1937–38 until the Estimates for that year have been approved.

    ROADS AND BRIDGES.
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount of money that the Government of Palestine intend spending during the next 12 months on roads and bridges, respectively, and the amounts spent each year since 1921?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the reply contains a large number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a large number of areas in Palestine the roads and bridges are in a deplorable state, and that when representations are made even for the smallest amount to be spent on bridges, which I myself saw are in a dangerous condition, no replies are made to the complaints that are being continually made?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would point out that in the figures for which the hon. Member has asked the amount of money spent on roads in 1935–36 was more than double the amount spent in any particular year.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the money spent on roads is necessitated for military purposes?
    Following are the statistics:
    Expenditure of the Palestine Government on bridges is not shown separately except in a few special cases. Figures are not available for the period prior to 1924–25. Expenditure on roads and bridges from that date to 1935–36 inclusive is as follows:

    Construction.

    Maintenance.

    £

    £

    1924–25

    14,646

    32,638

    1925–26

    35,581

    44,255

    1926–27

    48,724

    58,194

    1927 (nine months)

    62,175

    51,041

    1928

    69,185

    62,774

    1929

    48,042

    62,243

    1930

    53,865

    73,966

    1931–32 (15 months)

    40,848

    99,099

    1932–33

    36,116

    91,894

    1933–34

    70,510

    93,816

    1934–35

    81,852

    122,916

    1935–36

    201,010

    126,338

    It will not be possible to state what provision is to be made for the year 1937–38 until the Estimates for that year have been approved.

    SOCIAL SERVICES.
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government of Palestine to introduce any measures of social reform, such as unemployment and health insurance, children's clinics, etc., for general health improvement?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In 1932 the Labour Legislation Committee appointed by the High Commissioner for Palestine considered that the introduction of compulsory health insurance would be premature as large sections of the labouring population, especially Arabs, are ununorganised, and among them legislation of this kind would be inoperative. The Palestine Government is still of the opinion that any such measure should be deferred until its general success can be more definitely assured. Similar considerations apply to the question of compulsory unemployment insurance. The Palestine Government endeavours to arrange its public works programme to meet the needs of relief in the event of any section of the population suffering from unemployment. As regards public health, the Palestine Department of Health is providing for the expansion of existing special health services, such as maternity and child welfare, the teaching of hygiene, ophthalmic services, etc. Anti-malarial measures are maintained at a high level of efficiency, and apart from a very complete Jewish infant welfare service, to which the Government pays an annual subvention, there are 20 infant welfare centres maintained by Government, principally in towns, open to all communities, and 10 Government infant welfare clinics in purely Arab villages.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment and health insurance is largely borne by Jewish wage earners, and does he not think that it is a discreditable thing that the duties of the Government have to be shouldered by the working class section of the population out of their scanty wages?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand that Jewish workers' wages are higher than

    1145
    Arab wages. The question is whether the Government should apply compulsory health and unemployment insurance to the Arab people.
    Mr. McGovern: The working classes—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is giving information.
    Mr. McGovern: I am making suggestions.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make suggestions at Question Time.
    Mr. McGovern: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make representations to see that the catering of the social services is made in order to assist the Arabs, who are mostly in need of social reform.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I agree that the Arab population needs social reform. If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make, I should be glad if he would make them to me so that I can consider them, rather than putting questions in Parliament.

    CATTLE RAID, MISPAH.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the cattle raided from the Jewish colony of Mispah and carried off to the Lebanon can be recovered, or will compensation be paid?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not at present in a position to give the information requested by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am asking the officer administering the Government of Palestine for a report.

    IMPERIAL SHIPPING COMMITTEE.
    Captain Cunningham-Reidasked the Prime Minister whether vacancies at present exist on the Imperial Shipping Committee; and, if so, when it is proposed to fill them?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): The seat formerly occupied by the High Commissioner for Newfoundland is at present vacant, and so far occasion has not arisen for filling it.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is not Newfoundland entitled to be represented as a Dominion?
    The Prime Minister: I have answered the question. Perhaps if my hon. and gallant Friend has any further questions, he will give me notice of them.

  DEFENCE.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether the statement by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence at Fareham, on 28th February, that our armed forces will never be used except in defence of undertakings we have given to protect, collectively, France, Belgium, or, on the other hand, Germany if anybody were to attack Germany, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    The Prime Minister: The question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is apparently based on an incomplete summary of the statement made by my right hon. Friend on the occasion in question. In his statement, my right hon. Friend based himself on the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Leamington on 20th November, and summarised and in part quoted a passage from that speech which had been already quoted by me in the course of the Debate on 18th February last. That speech, as has already been stated, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not rather unfortunate that the House has to rely for these statements of public policy on speeches made at Leamington and other places in the country and not in this House?
    The Prime Minister: I would remind the hon. Member that that speech was twice specifically quoted in this House.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Why was it not made originally in this House with the authority that should always attach to speeches made at that Box?

    ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what arrangements have been made for the provision of specific essential requirements in the event of war of which there is no available supply in this country at the present time?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): These arrangements vary in character according to the commodities concerned. They cover a wide field and are an essential part of the Defence plans.
    Miss Ward: Will it be possible to let one know exactly what arrangements have been made so that one can see whether there will be any chance for Special Areas manufacture?
    Sir T. Inskip: If the hon. Lady will specify the particular commodity about which she wants information, I will see whether I can supply it.

    ELECTRIC FURNACE PRODUCTS.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will examine the electric furnace products for the purpose of ascertaining, in consultation with interested manufacturers, how far it would be practicable to manufacture these products which are not already manufactured here in the Special Areas?
    Sir T. Inskip: As regards the various electric furnace products which are imported for defence purposes, close contact is being maintained with appropriate undertakings as to the possibility of manufacture in this country. The claims of Special Areas will, of course, not be overlooked.
    Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider informing the House what arrangement has been made for the manufacture of these products?
    Sir T. Inskip: I will consider that when I know what final arrangements have been made.

    ARMAMENT FACTORIES (EQUIPMENT).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in the equipment of armament factories or in the enlargement of existing factories to execute Government orders, he will see that preference is given to British-made equipment?
    Sir T. Inskip: Where the purchase of equipment is financed by the Government, preference is at all times given to British manufacturers. In exceptional cases, as for instance, where a particular type of equipment is required, or where the equip-
    1148
    ment is needed in advance of delivery obtainable from home makers, recourse has to be made to foreign purchase. Where, however, new factories or extensions to existing factories are privately financed, the source of origin of the equipment is not a matter in which the Government can claim to interfere.

    CONTRACTS (INTERFERENCE).
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will give particulars of any reports he has received of interference with the completion of urgent orders that have been placed for and on behalf of the Government, either with electrical, machine-tool, and/or aeroplane factories; and whether same has caused any delay to the Government's arms undertakings?
    Sir T. Inskip: The question asked by the hon. Member is so wide in its terms that it is difficult to frame an answer to it. If he will state more specifically what interference he has in mind I shall be ready to look into it.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any fires occuring in any of the establishments?
    Sir T. Inskip: I am not aware of any, but if the hon. Member has any reason to believe that there have been fires, perhaps he will inform me.

    INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.
    Mr. Morganasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has conferred with the West Indian Committee with regard to the policy to be adopted by His Majesty's Government at the coming International Sugar Conference with regard to the colonial sugar problem; and, if not, whether he will consult that body at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have arranged to have available, in connection with the coming International Sugar Conference, a committee of representatives of the principal Colonial producers, and the West India Committee have been asked to nominate gentlemen to serve on that committee on behalf of the West Indian Colonies generally.
    Mr. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman in touch with the Sugar Commission in regard to the extension of the beet sugar industry in this country in relation to the Colonial industry?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: At the International Sugar Conference the Minister of Agriculture represents the interests of this country, and I represent the interests of the Colonial producers.
    Mr. Alexander: Am I to understand that the Sugar Commission never consults the Secretary of State for the Colonies?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I did not say anything of the kind. This is an advisory committee.
    Viscountess Astor: Does nobody represent the consumers of sugar, and can it be made known what is the cost of the sugar beet industry in this country?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This is a question of a conference in regard to a purely Colonial matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade represents the consumers at the conference; it has nothing to do with me.

    NIGERIA (DEFENCE, CONTRIBUTION).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the contribution by the Nigerian Government to the cost of the rearmament programme has been made after consultation with representative leaders of native opinion; how the contribution will be derived; and whether, in view of the urgent necessity of expanding and building up native welfare schemes, he has satisfied himself that the contribution will not prejudice the existing native services and restrict their fair development?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The proposal to make this contribution was approved unanimously by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council of Nigeria, on which African opinion is represented. The contribution will be paid out of the surplus of revenue in the current year which, owing to the recent rise in the price of Nigerian exports, has exceeded expectations. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the economies in native welfare services during the
    1150
    slump period, will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind this aspect of the problem?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I certainly will, but it may be said that the services in Nigeria are native services, because it is entirely a native country.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Nigeria the natives are not in a position to make this contribution, because in Nigeria the rents go into the Government's pocket?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is not so.

    BRITISH GUIANA (SEA DEFENCE WORKS).
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sums have been spent on sea defence works in British Guiana during the last three years; and whether a permanent solution of this problem has now been found?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: On the information available total expenditure in connection with sea defence works in British Guiana during 1934–35–36 was as follows:

    1934.

    1935.

    1936.

    $

    $

    $

    591,735

    424,895

    302,290

    These figures include costs of administration, maintenance, and capital works. The figures for 1936 are approximate only as final figures have not been received.
    As regards the second part of the question, I regret that I cannot state that any permanent solution has been found. Experts have recently visited Holland to study methods adopted there in dealing with similar problems, and special hydro-graphic surveys have been instituted in the Colony with a view to determining future policy.
    Mr. Robinson: Is it not vital that a final solution should be found quickly in view of the serious and continuous drain on the financial resources of the Colony?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: When I was in British Guiana in 1922 this was considered an urgent problem, but the physical difficulties of the Atlantic are very great.
    Mr. Robinson: If it was urgent in 1922, is it not more urgent now?

    SOUTH ORKNEYS AND FALKLAND ISLANDS.
    Captain Cunningham-Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, upon what terms the Argentine Government were permitted to erect a meteorological station upon Laurie Island, in the South Orkneys, a dependency of the Falkland Islands; whether this permission either expressly, or by implication, established an admission by the Argentine Government that the Falkland Islands are British possessions or, alternatively, whether he will make a continuance of this permission dependent upon such an admission by the Argentine Government?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The meteorological station in question was established in 1903 by the Scottish Antarctic Expedition under Mr. W. Bruce. In the following year His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Aires communicated to the Argentine Government an offer from Mr. Bruce to place his observatory in the charge of four Argentine scientists. This offer was accepted and since 1904 the Argentine Meteorological Department has maintained the observatory. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. I would draw attention to the fact that the South Orkneys were only made a dependency of the Falkland Islands in 1908, four years after the above-mentioned offer was accepted. As regards the third part, His Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to impose the condition suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. They do not regard the Argentine maintenance of the observatory as constituting any claim to sovereignty over either the South Orkneys or the Falkland Islands, both of which His Majesty's Government consider to be British territory.

    AFRICA (NATIVE TAXATION).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the fact that the beneficent part of Lord Moyne's proposals is being held in abeyance; and whether he is prepared to inform the Governor that the whole matter of the Moyne proposals, both the beneficent part and the restrictive part, are to be held in abeyance?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind, but I
    1152
    assume that he is referring to Lord Moyne's proposal to establish a Betterment Fund. As I stated in my reply to him on 24th February, the expenditure on the four main native services has in fact been very close to the amount which would have been available on Lord Moyne's proposal and in the current year is expected to exceed it. In the circumstances I do not think that any representation to the Colonial Government is required.

    RIVER NIGER (SURVEY).
    Captain Alan Grahamasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, in view of the recent continuous silting up of the Forcados Bar or main mouth of the River Niger and the deepening of the Nun branch of the delta, he will arrange for a re-examination of all existing data to be undertaken in connection with a survey of the regime of the River Niger and its tributaries, in order to improve the shipping and trade of Nigeria and thus give more employment in Great Britain in connection with the Special Areas and the export trade;
    (2) whether he will consider asking for the co-operation of the French Government in connection with the need for a fresh survey of the régime of the River Niger, with a view to the improvement, not merely of Franco-British, but of world trade in those waters?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am aware that the silting up of the Forcados Bar is giving cause for anxiety, and I have recently asked the Governor for a report on the subject. Consideration of problems connected with communications in Nigeria is now co-ordinated under the Director of Transport who is assisted by an Advisory Transport Board. No proposal has been made for a survey of the River Niger and its tributaries, and I know of no circumstances which would justify such a step until all existing transport facilities by road and rail are shown to he inadequate. In the circumstances, the question of seeking the co-operation of the French Government does not arise.

  AVIATION.

    PROPELLER BLADES.
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueterasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether blades made of compressed

    1153
    wood laminae for use in variable pitch propellers have yet been tested in England; whether he has any information as to their efficiency, weight, and cost in comparison with metal blades; and whether he has any information as to such blades having been satisfactorily tested in Germany and being already adopted for use on German aircraft?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first part of the question, there are two types of airscrew blades using compressed laminated wood for the whole or part of the blade. One type is being tested in this country, and it is hoped to commence tests with the other in the near future. As regards the second part, I am advised that although such wooden blades may be lighter and cheaper than metal blades it is unlikely that they will prove as efficient. As regards the last part, it is understood that such blades have been tested in Germany but that they are still in the development stage.

    ATLANTIC SERVICE.
    Sir M. Sueterasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the experimental flights across the Northern Atlantic are likely to commence; and whether any arrangement has been reached with an operating company to carry British air-mails across the Southern Atlantic, as has been done by France and Germany for many years?
    Sir P. Sassoon: As regard the North Atlantic, it is hoped to commence experimental flights towards the end of May, when ice conditions in Newfoundland should permit of the operation of the flying boats. As regards the South Atlantic, I am not as yet in a position to make any statement.

    SEAPLANE BASES (SITES).
    Mr. Loganasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the site on the Merseyside extending from Birkenhead to Bromborough; and, if not, will he inspect it and consider it for the purpose of establishing a seaplane base?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, additional sites for seaplane bases are not being sought for at present.
    Mr. Logan: Is it not possible for this site to be surveyed in that it might be necessary as an ancillary to the Speke site?
    Sir P. Sassoon: If it is necessary it will certainly be considered.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. Dayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many collisions have occurred in mid-air between Royal Air Force aeroplanes during the previous 12 months; what has been the loss of life and the original cost of the machines involved in these accidents; and what steps have the Ministry and their expert advisers taken to further safeguard the personnel of the Royal Air Force from these accidents?
    Sir P. Sassoon: During the period in question there have been 15 collisions in the air; in six of these one or more of the occupants were killed, the total deaths being 12. The original cost of the aircraft involved would be about £119,000 but this was not all loss, for in many instances the aircraft were not seriously damaged. All practicable steps are taken to eliminate the risk of collision in the air. In training units the aircraft are coloured yellow in order to render them more readily visible to pilots under training, while for years past training in the Royal Air Force has been particularly concentrated on making pilots observant of other aircraft in their vicinity.
    Mr. Day: Can the Under-Secretary say whether any new regulations have been issued in order to minimise the number of accidents?
    Sir P. Sassoon: They are always being considered.

  TRANSPORT.

    LORRY DRIVERS' HOURS (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Transport how many summonses were issued against Messrs. Bentley and Sons (Colne), Limited, wholesale fruiterers, of 6, Parliament Street, Colne, Lancashire; will he state the excessive hours worked by their motor lorry drivers; and whether he is aware that the time sheets were improperly kept?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am informed that 35 summonses were taken out against this firm alleging that their employés had been driving for continuous periods exceeding 5½ hours. These summonses were dismissed on payment of £5 costs. Nine summonses were also taken out in respect of the incorrect keeping of records. The company was found guilty on each of these charges and ordered to pay a fine of L2 on the first summons and costs on the other eight.
    Mr. Thorne: Does not the Minister think that more stringent measures should be taken, especially in cases where firms are responsible for their drivers not keeping a proper log?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: A more stringent method than prosecution cannot be taken, and it is for the courts to decide on the penalties.
    Mr. Paling: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this kind of administration of the law is likely to have any effect?

    CAR PARKS.
    Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Transport the amount of the additional car-parking facilities provided by local authorities in London as a result of the powers given to them under the Ribbon Development Act to provide buildings and underground parking places; and is he satisfied with the progress made to date?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am not satisfied at present with the progress that is being made, and it is for this reason that I am urging upon the local authorities concerned the desirability of exercising their powers as soon as possible.
    Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Transport how many local authorities have taken advantage of the Order made by him last October giving them power to acquire land for car-parks, to provide buildings for use as parking places, and to provide underground car-parks; and has this Order been issued to the London County Council?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Two local authorities in London have formulated proposals and a number of others have informed me that they are examining the matter. The Order does not confer any powers upon the London County Council.
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Transport whether he has estimated the initial cost to local authorities of providing garages which would be sufficient to accommodate the number of vehicles normally parked in streets and squares; and what would be the approximate initial cost of such garages for London and Birmingham, respectively?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Parliament imposed this responsibility on local authorities.
    Sir J. Mellor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable, having urged local authorities to make full and prompt use of their powers under the Ribbon Development Act, to give them some indication of what it is going to cost?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, but I think the estimate must have some relevance to the particular type of land to be acquired and the type of garage to be built.
    Mr. Smedley Crookeasked the Minister of Transport whether, before taking any action with reference to the proposed closing of public car-parks, he will consider the hardship such closing would inflict on many disabled ex-service men employed as attendants and for whom it would be difficult to find other employment?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The proposals should not have this effect.

    CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give particulars of any decision that has been arrived at following the Committee's Report on Charing Cross Bridge?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There has been no decision.
    Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman still waiting for further reports on this matter?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I referred this matter to the London County Council, and I am at present in correspondence with them.

    FREIGHT-CARRYING CHARGES.
    Mr. Walkdenasked the Minister of Transport whether the Traffic Advisory Council is giving active consideration to the question of the regulation of freight-carrying charges to ensure equality of rates and other conditions as between

    1157
    roadway and railway undertakings; and, if so, when the council may be expected to present its report on this subject?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, but I do not know when the investigations will be completed.

    LONDON TRAFFIC.
    Wing-Commander Wrightasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the serious overcrowding in the London tube trains during the rush hours; whether he has considered the dangers in the event of fire or accident; and whether he will direct the attention of the London Transport Board to the necessity of dealing immediately with this state of affairs?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The board have in hand an extensive programme of works to deal with the problem of the growth of London's traffic.

    STEAM ROAD VEHICLES.
    Mr. George Hallasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the representations made to him by the Coal Utilisation Council as to steam vehicles on roads?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. I propose to allow a maximum laden weight of 14 tons for four-wheeled vehicles and 20 tons for six-wheeled vehicles of this type as against the 12 tons and 19 tons respectively, allowed for similar vehicles of other types. Vehicles equipped with pneumatic tyres will be allowed a speed of 20 miles per hour: vehicles above the present permitted weights, if on solid tyres, will be allowed a speed of 12 miles per hour.
    Mr. Hall: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the concession, is he aware that there are still a few small matters that might be dealt with, and will he meet a deputation?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. It will be a pleasure to consider those matters if the hon. Member will let me have information as to what they may be.

    ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION CHAMBERS (EXPLOSIONS).
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to recent explosions in electrical
    1158
    distribution chambers built under the footway, one on 1st March at King's Road, Chelsea, and a second on 8th March in the Kentish Town Road; whether he is aware that in each case the heavy cover let into the pavement was blown upwards; and whether, with a view to prevention, he will invite research into the cause of this recurring danger to pedestrians?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am obtaining information in regard to these occurrences.

    CUSTOMS HOUSE (LOWER THAMES STREET).
    Major Carverasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is now prepared to remove the staff of the Customs House from the wooden buildings on the terrace in Lower Thames Street and restore to the public the right of way and amenities which were taken away in the War and so give back to City workers the only place of recreation there?
    Captain Hope (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The position is still as stated in the answer which was given to my hon. and gallant Friend on 28th July last.
    Major Carver: Is it not time that this war-time restriction was removed, and as it is part of the Tower Hill improvement scheme, ought not the Customs officials to be asked to find some other accommodation and so give the public its rights?
    Captain Hope: I will convey my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCES.
    Mr. Walkdenasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the imperative necessity for the avoidance of delays in bringing anti-aircraft defences into operation in the event of a sudden attack upon this country, he is considering the desirability of having such defences manned by Regular troops instead of by Territorials, many of whom might not be readily available in such an emergency?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): My right hon. Friend has, in conjunction with his military advisers, given very careful consideration to the problem of ensuring that in the event of a sudden attack the anti-aircraft defences of this country are promptly and efficiently manned, and the possible employment of Regular troops for the purpose has naturally not been overlooked. After full examination of the question, however, he is satisfied that the arrangement now in force, whereby this important role is entrusted to the Territorial Army, is the most suitable in the circumstances.
    Sir A. Knox: Is it not a fact that these anti-aircraft Territorial Divisions have only half their established strength?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir, I hope we shall get them up to a far greater strength.
    Earl Winterton: Is the Minister aware that there is very great support for the suggestion made in the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and will he ask his right hon. Friend in the course of the Debate on the Estimates to explain his reasons for coming to the decision which has just been announced?

    GAS MASKS AND AMMUNITION CONTAINERS (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War whether the contracts for gas masks and shell cases placed with Messrs. Huntley, Boorne and Stevens, Limited, a subsidiary of Messrs. Huntley and Palmer, biscuit manufacturers, were given after the receipt of competitive tenders; and whether the firm had any previous experience in the manufacture of gas masks and shell cases?
    Sir V. Warrender: No contracts for gas masks have been placed with Messrs. Huntley, Boorne and Stevens, Limited. Contracts were placed with the firm during 1936 for various metal components of gas masks after the receipt of competitive tenders. The firm had had previous experience of the manufacture of these articles. It is presumed that by "shell cases" the hon. Member refers to ammunition containers. The order placed in June, 1936, with Messrs. Huntley, Boorne and Stevens, Limited, for 2-pr. ammunition containers was the first Army contract for this article and was placed after the receipt of competitive tenders.
    1160
    A subsequent order, again after competition, was given to the firm in November, 1936.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Were the tenders of this firm in each case the lowest tenders, and if not, on what grounds were they given preference?
    Sir V. Warrender: I think I am right in saying that they were the lowest tenders, but perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

    WAR OFFICE (MECHANISATION).
    Mr. GrahamWhite asked the Secretary of State for War whether the process of mechanisation within the War Office and also in the outstations has now been completed?
    Sir V. Warrender: No further extension of mechanical methods within the War Office is at present contemplated. As regards outstations it has been decided to adopt mechanical methods for accounting for soldiers' pay in Pay Offices, and machinery for the purpose is being installed. Experiments in Ordnance Depots on the improvement of existing methods of store-accounting, wage-accounting and costing are still in progress.
    Mr. White: May I take it from that reply that suitable mechanical processes have already been adopted by the War Office in appropriate cases?

  BILL PRESENTED.
    COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES (AMENDMENT) BILL,
    "to authorise an increase in the amount of certain payments by County Councils to the County Councils Association," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte; supported by Sir Francis Acland and Sir William Jenkins; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Evesham and Pershore Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Port of Manchester) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Wessex Electricity Company and for other purposes." [Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords.]

WESSEX ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table.
Report to be printed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Resolution [2nd March] reported.

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1937 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    "That a sum, not exceeding £175,660,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance, and other Grants, and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, namely:"
    [For details of Vote on Account see OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1937; cols. 193–196.]
    Resolution read a Second time.
    3.48 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, to leave out "£175,660,000," and to insert "£175,659,900."
    In a Debate of this kind, there is necessarily a wide field to cover, but it is not necessarily a controversial one. I desire at the outset to make a few observations on three subjects. In the first place, I wish to refer to the subject of parking, which has been a matter of newspaper controversy in recent times. A good many hon. Members on this side of the House are somewhat strongly in agreement with the Minister on the question of parking. We are willing that such matters should be proceeded with cautiously, and without undue disturbance of settled habits, even if they be bad habits; but the general employment of the highways as a warehouse or garage is something against which we are willing to support any Minister who will set his face firmly. The highways are extremely expensive as warehouses or garages, and they are not intended for that purpose. The effect of parking for long periods is a sudden, capricious and substantial limitation of the width of the roads which are in general, of course, already too narrow; and if parking is not conducted with extreme care and consideration, as it often is not, it involves elements of considerable danger in connection with road accidents. It is the sort of bad habit that it is easy for owners and drivers of both commercial and private vehicles to
    1176
    slip into, and it is partly due to selfishness, partly to laziness and partly to meanness. I hope that the Minister will press on with the policy which has been indicated as rapidly as may be, without undue disturbance of settled practice. The encouragement of the provision of proper garage space, especially by municipalities, ought to be a considerable help in this respect.
    The next matter to which I wish to refer is the perennial and tragic topic of road accidents. If it were practicable to prepare estimates, I think it possible that, having regard to the almost fabulous mileage which is run by motor-vehicles nowadays, it would be found that in one sense of the phrase, accidents to-day are actually less frequent than they were in the days before motor cars. But that is no comfort to anybody who takes an interest in this matter. Everybody, I think, agrees that the accident rate must be brought down at almost any cost. I think everybody also agrees that it is an extremely difficult thing to do. There is no royal or easy road to it. The solution is probably to be found in a great many different things—in improved roads, in improved and multiplied safeguards, in a better standard of driving and in many other matters as well.
    I press on the Minister, however, the extreme importance of maintaining and increasing the use of the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit on roads which are at all built-up or frequented, whether they are designed as parts of big schemes of fast traffic roads or not. A great many people drive fast with perfect safety while many other people drive dangerously at 20 miles an hour, but the fact remains that added speed is an added danger factor. If one person may drive fast with safety, another person may not do so. I await with interest the results of one experiment, if I may so call it —the attachment of a 30-miles-an-hour speed limit to Westway within the borough of Hammersmith. I am anxious to see whether that will show, as I hope it will, a fall in the accident rate. If it does, I hope it will encourage the Minister—though I know he is not entirely his own master in the matter—to be more generous in the distribution of further restrictions.
    It is more than usually difficult in connection with this matter of road accidents

    1177
    to ascertain genuine public opinion. The moment interests become involved, it is never easy to ascertain public opinion. I need not particularise, but in connection with this problem there are interested bodies on both sides, and although, to put it bluntly, there is no money in the pedestrians, still there are organisations which seek to look after the interests of the pedestrians, and they get a specialised mind in regard to their grievances—like lawyers and politicians, and lots of other people. The consequence is that the views which they express may very easily cease to be a true record of public opinion. It is sometimes said that if you want unspecialised public opinion on political matters you have to go to the bar of a country inn to get it. I do not know where one should go to get the unspecialised views of the pedestrian on this question of road accidents, but I think the pavement of a crowded traffic artery would be a very good place to gather wisdom on that subject. The trouble, of course, is that true public opinion is inarticulate on that subject, as working-class or general mass opinion is on a great many subjects, but I hope and believe that the Minister will not ignore it.
    I pass to a matter of less general interest, by which I mean of more specialised interest, although it is of general importance. I refer to the question of the electricity supply. It is a question which is giving to a great many people inside and outside the House, a good deal of anxiety. It is largely felt that on the production side of the electricity industry we have arrived, not very quickly perhaps, but by degrees, at a fair measure of order. The difficulty is that we have not reached anything like the same order and efficiency in the matter of distribution. It is no use making a good article unless you distribute it, any more than there is any use in efficiently distributing an article which ought to be thrown away. On the distribution side of the electricity industry there is still a very large amount of muddle. There are too many distributors with too many sectional interests, sometimes with very small production and sometimes with very large production, with great variations of frequency of pressure and of alternating or direct current.
    There are tremendous inequalities of price as between district and district, and almost as between street and street, and
    1178
    the general level of prices, which has hardly fallen at all over a great many years, although production has been cheapened, is a great deal too high. The public, both in town and country, are puzzled, and many people who might use electricity illuminate their houses by means of gas or oil. What we on this side demand and seek for is an industry that is fully socialised on the distribution as well as the production side. We do not pretend—indeed we assert the contrary—that a large measure of improvement cannot be obtained without a measure of that kind as a condition precedent. We believe that drastic simplification and reorganisation can easily be achieved, but, as everybody knows, that calls for legislation. I gather that the Government are not indisposed to legislate, but I would like to know more about their proposals. The proposals in the McGowan Report have a good many merits. I shall not attempt to discuss their merits or demerits, but the view is largely held that the report of itself is not nearly enough.
    I am not sure whether anything effective is being done to achieve something in the nature of co-ordination between the electricity and the gas industries. I think it is broadly true that at present, where the two services are available under approximately equal conditions, the use of the one or the other is determined by the arts of the salesman and the publicity agent. That is a very expensive and inefficient method of deciding which is the better service to use. Are the electricity and gas industries to go on spending money in fighting each other, in order to persuade the public to use one or the other, irrespective of the true merits—which must sometimes favour one, and sometimes the other—or is some measure of economic peace to be arrived at between them?
    One other wider matter upon which I would like enlightenment is whether the Ministry is pursuing any active policy with regard to the balance of transport, heavy and long distance transport, as between road and rail. Of course, at the present time in this completely anarchic world, the question whether you send goods by road or rail depends on which of the interests can persuade you with the greatest vigour, but I would be glad to know whether the Government have

    1179
    any positive policy on that matter; and particularly in relation to electrification I would like to know whether the Government have any policy with regard to the electrification of trunk lines. Of necessity we are spending enormous sums of money in building trunk roads. So long as the money is spent according to some prudent plan, few will object to that development, but some heavy traffic must continue to be carried on the railways—probably a very great deal of it. Are the Government deliberately intending to coax heavy traffic on to the railways. and if so have they a genuine justification for doing so; and in particular are the Government considering the encouragement of electrification of long-distance lines, which must make some difference to transport? I suppose that the frequency of traffic is one of the most important elements for consideration. Is there some consistent and coherent policy with regard to road construction and railway electrification; what is the relation between the two, and what proportion of traffic should go on the one and on the other? My desire is more for information than to make party points, for party comes into the matter to only a very small extent.
    4.3 p.m.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. HoreBelisha): The hon. and learned Gentleman has touched on some aspects of the work of my Department, whose responsibilities, as the House well knows, are widespread and diverse. It is concerned with the provision of power, heat and light; it is concerned with every means of communication by road, rail or canal; it is concerned with harbours, docks and ports. And yet it is a Ministry with few actual executive powers. The supply of electricity, like the various forms of transport, remains in independent control. The function of my Ministry has been to create the conditions in which the various activities which it supervises and having the character of monopoly or public utility, can best flourish and be helped to form part of a coherent system. In fulfilment of this purpose it has sponsored a whole series of reconstructive legislative proposals. One hundred and twenty-one separate railway undertakings were consolidated into four main lines; 1,100 local authorities, dividing between them the power to license passenger
    1180
    vehicles by road, were replaced by 12 traffic commissioners. The same commissioners were subsequently vested with the duty, by means of licences for commercial vehicles, of trying to secure more orderly arrangements for the carriage of goods by road and a more equitable relationship between this service and that rendered by the railways.
    A system of inspection under a staff of examiners has been instituted to ensure that no passenger or goods vehicle should be used on a public highway if it does not conform to a standard of fitness. An examination of the position over 12 months to March last disclosed that 18,000 of these classes of vehicles had such defects as to render them mechanically unsafe. Out of 560 specially observed brake tests, in 240 cases braking efficiency was under 30 per cent., in 180 cases braking efficiency was under 25 per cent., and in 130 cases braking efficiency was under 20 per cent. One is appalled if one wonders what must be the condition of the brakes of the nearly 2,000,000 private vehicles which are not subject to such test.
    A Central Electricity Board unified electricity generation throughout the country, and this is now to be followed by the co-ordination of supply, so that the grievances of the consumer who complains either of his inaccessibility to the current or the basis on which he is charged for it or the variety of systems and voltages to which he is called upon to adjust his apparatus, may be reduced or eliminated. The Government has accepted with two qualifications the McGowan Committee's Report. which will deal with the internal reorganisation of the electrical industry—not the organisation of that industry in relation to gas, which comes under the Board of Trade, but the internal reorganisation of the industry in itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall also that the Government guaranteed loans to facilitate electrification schemes upon certain of the railways, and we are always pleased to hear of any further proposals, some of which indeed are now before us.
    The most recent legislation with which the Ministry has been associated has directed attention to the urgency of improving our communications by road, and money has been made liberally available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a long-term programme. Schemes submitted

    1181
    by highway authorities to date are estimated at £140,000,000, which is, of course, exclusive of many other millions of pounds to be spent in the ordinary way. The problems of traffic cannot be regarded with complacency, nor should the means of solving them, deliberately conferred by Parliament, be allowed to remain sterile. Compared with four years previously, the last census, that of 1935, showed an increase of 35 per cent. in the number of vehicles passing 4,900 selected points on Class I roads. Although 1,700 million passenger journeys are made annually by rail, no less than 10,000 million such journeys are made in public vehicles by road. The tonnage of goods carried is increasing, not only by rail, but at a phenomenal rate by road also. For every 100 mechanically-propelled vehicles that were licensed in 1931, when the National Government took office, there are 125 to-day. The net increase since this time is 550,000 and, as I have already informed the House, for the past three years—and there is no abatement —the net increase in the number of cars on the road has been at the rate of between 400 and 500 every day.
    Hon. Members who live in London will realise what this means when I tell them that censuses of traffic taken by the Metropolitan Police during a day of 12 hours in July, 1931 and again in July, 1935, showed that the number of vehicles recorded at Marble Arch had increased from 38,000 to 60,000, and at Hyde Park Corner from 59,000 to 83,000. A motorist can make the entire northern circuit of London from Chiswick to Ilford, 23 miles, by the North Circular Road, in less time than it takes him painfully to thread through the traffic of the direct route, and this, as the Commissioner of Police has frequently pointed out to me, is largely due to the presence of standing vehicles, which not only impede the flow of traffic but are a source of danger to His Majesty's subjects. It is not surprising that the London Traffic Committee have repeatedly recommended to me that:
    "The parking of vehicles in a public street is a privileged use of the highway and not one contemplated by the law at present governing the use of the highway, and should, so far as it is permitted, be confined within the narrowest possible limits, and further that the establishment of definite parking places can only be justified in so far as they provide alternative accommodation for vehicles which drivers would otherwise have no alternative
    1182
    but to leave standing in busy thoroughfares, with serious inconvenience to through traffic."
    Under such pressure as this, insistently put upon me, I could hardly refrain from stating in a public communication which I made in October, 1936, and which I also embodied in a letter directing the attention of local authorities in London to their powers:
    "It would be the Minister's intention in cases where appropriate accommodation for waiting vehicles is provided off the highway at reasonable rates, to review the existing public parking places which are appointed on the carriageways in the neighbourhood, and to consider whether their retention is necessary, and, if so, whether the area which they occupy, or the period during which vehicles may wait thereon, could advantageously be curtailed."
    While I wish to give, and wish most sincerely to give, to every motorist every facility, I think the best facility I can give him is free passage through the streets. Any statement made by me about the general use of the streets for waiting which purported to countenance more than taking up and setting down, would prejudge the law of obstruction as it might be applied in any given case. There is a further aggravation of the difficulty. It is disconcerting to see with what optimism roads serving houses previously occupied by single families are suddenly expected to provide the needs of substituted blocks of flats inhabited by many hundreds of families. If order, safety and amenity are at the same time to be secured, each section of the community must make its contribution, and the boldest and most imaginative measures must be taken by all the authorities who are responsible.
    The fullest information on which to proceed is now made available. Censuses showing the volume and trend of traffic are now taken every three years. After a thorough research into all the factors and the requirements, my Department recently issued for guidance a Memorandum on the Construction and Lay-out of Roads. I have just received the results of the most elaborate analysis of road accidents hitherto compiled. It contains particulars of 100,000 accidents, not only fatal, but non-fatal as well, and it entirely confirms the principles recommended to highway authorities in the memorandum to which I have referred. For instance, this analysis reveals that over 40 out of every no accidents occur at junctions. While reflection upon this figure will doubtless

    1183
    inspire us all with an added care as we negotiate such places, it will serve to indicate to highway authorities how desirable it is that the proposal in the memorandum to reduce the number of such intersections on new roads to a minimum, and on main traffic routes to space them not less than a quarter of a mile apart, should be observed. The memorandum further enjoins that:
    "Major traffic routes should, where practicable, be rendered completely independent of local roads by being carried over or under them by bridges or subways."
    And where this is not practicable, it prescribes staggered crossings or roundabouts. Forty out of every 100 of these 100,000 accidents to which I have referred were due to collisions between moving vehicles, whether mechanically propelled vehicles or bicycles, 4,000 of them being head-on. A further 30 out of every 100 were collisions between vehicles and pedestrians. It is clear that the safety of each separate class of road-user can best be secured by a separate track for each on the lines that the Memorandum recommends, and that there should, in particular, be physical barriers to prevent pedestrians from straying on to the carriageway at points which are not selected as crossings. I appeal to all local authorities to make progress with the institution of guard rails. It is not a matter in which we can afford to delay. 4,600 of these accidents were collisions between moving and stationary vehicles; 3,700 of the accidents occurred in circumstances in which movement was masked by a vehicle or object. Such figures reinforce the paragraph in the Memorandum, which says:
    "The parking of cars on the highway should be discouraged and provision for the purpose made on land which does not form part of the highway."
    I do not intend to take the House right through this Memorandum, but a mere perusal of the Index referring to subject matter on public safety, standard widths, curves, gradients, traffic lanes, pedestrian crossings, service roads, surfaces, footpaths, drainage, amenities, alignment, superelevation, visibility, refuges, street nameplates, foundations, camber, kerbing, grass verges and tree planting will show how comprehensively we are aiming at making our roads models in every particular. By way of preparation for
    1184
    our new responsibilities in regard to trunk roads, which the Ministry takes over from next April, we now have a survey in progress. As 220 feet on either side of the middle of 60,000 miles of roads are now preserved from indiscriminate building or access, the highway authorities can proceed without hindrance to adapt their communications to those ideas and standards which modern enlightenment demands.
    Leaving the countryside, I hope that each city will consider making a survey of its needs, such as Sir Charles Bressey, in conjunction with Sir Edwin Lutyens, is undertaking in the preparation of his highway plan for London. He was instructed by the Government to make this plan so that local authorities, each in their different spheres, would be able to relate their programme of improvements to a pattern of the whole. The plan may provide for orbital and radial roads, parkways, viaducts and tunnels, communications to aerodromes, railway stations and docks, such as can be considered adequate for the London Traffic area of, it is true, only 25 miles radius, but containing one-fifth of the population and one-quarter of the rateable value of the whole United Kingdom.
    I have endeavoured to give the House a picture of what the highways of the future should be, and it is a picture which we are aiming progressively to translate into reality. In view of the steps we are taking to preserve and enhance the natural setting of roads I hope it will be realised that neither the Ministry nor the highway authorities are inspired by purely material conceptions. Nor are our long-term projects in the least inconsistent with the short-term policy of regulating traffic in the conditions which exist, and which must remain, on any view of the subject, until they can be gradually ameliorated. Nor can we conceal from ourselves the insistent fact that such streets as we have are being ever more densely used, in some cases, unfortunately, abused. We must for the common good both individually and sectionally submit to correctives, unless accidents are to increase commensurately with the growth of traffic.
    We can derive some encouragement from the reflection that whereas from 1931 to 1934 there was a continuous rise in accidents in relation to the number of

    1185
    vehicles, that tendency we have happily reversed. Here are the figures of the total killed and injured per 1,000 vehicles licensed. In 1931, 94 per 1,000 vehicles licensed; in 1932, the figure was 95; in 1933, it was 97; in 1934, it was 99; and then we reversed the tendency. In 1935 the total killed and injured per 1000 vehicles licensed had fallen to 88, and in 1936 to 85.
    I must thank all those who have contributed to this result, whether they be public authorities or private agencies, such as the National Safety First Association, or whether they are school masters or ministers of religion—[An HON. MEMBER: "Cinemas"]—cinemas, broadcasting or the newspapers—every one; for the task of diminishing the heavy incidence of injury and suffering, so often needlessly and thoughtlessly caused, is one of national concern, and whatever laws may be passed, or however the laws may be administered, this must remain the concern of each one of us.
    4.26 p.m.
    Mr. Holdsworth: I would like to congratulate the Minister on his interesting speech. I have always felt that he has the most difficult job of any Minister, if I may use the phrase that is used outside. Whenever people talk on anything about transport, the name of Mr. Hore-Belisha is mentioned, and I have felt times without number that I should like to meet him in this House. I have felt that he was suffering from untoward criticism of which there is always a certain amount. The right hon. Gentleman inherited the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit, and much of the legislation of which he is called upon to carry out; and it is the duty of every Minister whether it be a popular or unpopular law to carry out that law as laid clown in this House. I want also to congratulate him upon not being a mere automaton—that he really has to fight things out in this particular job. I believe that one of the weaknesses of Ministers, of Ministers in this Government, is that they are very often tied down by their Department and officials. I think it a weakness of modern Government that we are more or less, even Members of Parliament, always being made into automata, and I want to congratulate the Minister sincerely for his courage in trying many times what are not popular things. I think he is entitled
    1186
    to say there are Members who do not share some of the expressions which have been made with regard to the experiments which have been carried out to bring down the rate of accidents.
    He has also suffered from time to time from what we all suffer from as Members of Parliament, that is, not altogether adequate reports of one's speeches. His speech in regard to parking was completely misunderstood. I have even seen in my local paper this morning a wrong idea of it. Everybody thought that parking was to be completely stopped in all circumstances. I understood from the Minister's reply on Monday that he was making no alterations in the law; as a matter of fact, I do not think he has the power to do it even if he desires to. I understand the law in regard to parking to be that the length of time for which a car may be parked on a public highway, whether or not it constitutes an obstruction, is determined with reference to each particular case. That seems to be good in theory, but I wonder whether it is carried out in practice. It has always struck me that it must be a mutual thing between the police and the users of the roads, but in many streets where no obstruction can take place periodic visits are paid by the police, summonses are issued, and people find themselves in the position of having been summoned for doing something which they have been doing for weeks and which has never caused an obstruction. This is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman; the Home Office is responsible for it.
    On the other hand, there are streets where no parking ought to take place and where it takes place regularly and causes obstruction. I suggest that it might be well if there could be some working together of the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office with regard to the administration of the law which carries out the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. We all ought to congratulate him on what he said about residential streets and squares. If I were a resident in one of those streets or squares, I should object very much to the front of my house being made a public parking place. There can be no complaint against the right hon. Gentleman for stopping that kind of thing. Parking is a difficult problem, and I want to make a suggestion. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could

    1187
    agree to set up a Select Committee to help him find the best solution of the problem. We would all like to help him in this direction, and the public generally would like to help too. There are reasons for parking. Take the case, for instance, of the commercial traveller who wants to make 10 or 20 visits in a day. If it is to be laid down that a man must take his car into a garage where stiff charges are made, the overhead charges of his business will become prohibitive. If the municipalities are to be encouraged, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman is encouraging them, to set up garages under the powers they have in the Ribbon Development Act, I suggest that they might issue a ticket which would last a man a whole day, so that for an inclusive charge in a given area he could put his car in the various garages.
    May I reiterate my suggestions for a Select Committee, for I feel that if we are ever going to settle this question of congestion and accidents we must have everybody's good will. So many accidents are caused which ought not to be caused simply because one person is determined to get to a particular place one second before another person. Some weeks ago I was travelling from Bradford to Wakefield and my driver persisted in passing another driver who, in turn, persisted in passing my driver. I gave instructions to my driver to let the other man go on. The distance between the two cars on arrival at our destination was only five yards. If we are to solve the problem of accidents we have to seek the good will of all sections of the community. I would like to congratulate the Minister on appointing Sir Charles Bressey. I wonder whether we ought to take too definite action even with regard to parking until we have received his plan. That work seems to me to be particularly constructive for he is looking into the future. The reason we find this problem almost insoluble is that we perhaps did not use enough foresight some years ago.
    With regard to the question of road construction the policy of the Minister ought to be to make the roads fit the traffic rather than try to fit the traffic to the roads. Any attempt to damp down the enthusiasm of road traffic is a mistake and a retrogressive policy. The modern development of traffic is road traffic, and
    1188
    instead of trying to make legislation in order to knock vehicles off the roads, we ought to try and make the roads meet the needs of modern transport. The Minister was very guarded in his reference to the five-year plan. I noticed that he threw a little bouquet to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his generosity in this direction. I am not certain about my figures, but I understand that in the year just completed the Ministry of Transport spent £2,750,000 on that programme, and I understand that the estimate for the current year is £7,000,000. I would like to know how the plan is getting on. I was disturbed some weeks ago by reading a leading article on this question which suggested that there might be a balance in the fund which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take towards financing the rearmament programme. Some of us on these benches objected to the Chancellor taking the money from the Road Fund and putting it into the general fund. We believed that road construction might be hindered by that policy, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to assure the Committee that no such thing will take place. Every penny that we can get for the roads is essential. Even on the question of Defence one of the essential features is an adequate road system. I suggest to the Minister that he should watch this point very carefully.
    On the question of lighting, I speak from experience when I say that I do not believe that half enough attention has been given to it. I have to travel from business along a road most of which is lit only on one side, with the consequence that on the other side one travels in the shadow. The driver of a motor vehicle knows that one of the most difficult things is to drive in semi-light. Could the Minister give the Committee any information whether anything is being done on this subject? I am the last person who would want to give more bureaucratic powers to anybody, but I do think sometimes that we suffer from inadequate provision of social services in many ways because of backward rural district councils. It is often argued in their favour that they have cheap rates, but they give very little service, and it is mainly in the areas of such councils that the lighting system is inadequate. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) asked what was being done about the co-ordination of road and rail services. I

    1189
    understand that there is a sub-committee of the Transport Advisory Council, and I would like to know whether there is any representative of road haulage on it. Many hon. Members have received letters on this question. A passage from one that I have received states:
    "We are amazed that insufficient representation has been given to 'A' and B 'licence holders on the Transport Advisory Council. We desire to record our complete lack of confidence in the present constitution of that body, and to request you to use your best endeavours to secure that the interests of 'A' and 'B' road operators, whose livelihood will in the near future be dependent on the decisions of that body, are properly represented on the Transport Advisory Council."
    Five seats are allotted to the users of mechanically propelled vehicles, but, of those five, only one is a haulage contractor. The sub-committee is studying co-ordination, and I understand that a railway general manager has been co-opted on to it. Everybody knows that if anything is to be done about co-ordination, it will mean that the interest of the haulage men will be seriously affected. There is no suggestion for a moment that the railways will be further restricted. If anything is to be done, it will be done at the expense of road haulage. Those of us who took part in the proceedings on the two road and rail Bills must have realised the tremendous penalties which have been put upon road hauliers. The voice of the railway director is heard very often in this House. The railways have a marvellous representation. I wish to say definitely that I have not the slightest interest of any description, financial or otherwise, in the road haulage industry. What I want is to see the fair thing done.
    We may do what we like by legislation, but we cannot drive certain traffic back to the railways. Any man interested in industry knows that in his own business he is not going to have his own traffic driven back on to the rail. Road transport is cheaper and quicker, and from many points of view far more satisfactory. The appeal I want to make to the right hon. Gentleman is that we shall not get the same trouble arising from the report of that co-ordination committee as did arise from the Salter Report. The road hauliers have never been satisfied with that report. They were never satisfied that they had adequate representation on the committee, and I would suggest, though not in any spirit of criticism, that if the Minister wants a really agreed
    1190
    report the road hauliers must be satisfied that they have adequate representation on that committee. It looks rather dangerous to see a fourth representative —a fourth general manager, I believe—of the railway companies co-opted on to that committee. I believe that in the constitution of the Transport Advisory Council provision was made by law that there should be only three representatives of the railways on it. I end as I began by congratulating the Minister upon showing a bit of the old individualism in his job. It seems to me that we are getting stamped bit by bit, and I congratulate him on showing initiative. My last word is, "Give the road haulier a fair deal in the transport industry."
    4.48 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Spears: I wish to deal with only one aspect of the question which we are discussing this afternoon, and that is parking. From what I have heard it seems to me that there is a certain confusion of ideas on the subject. We are told that parking is the great cause of the slowing up of traffic in the City and elsewhere, and that for that reason drastic measures must be taken to deal with it. I belong to the large community of owner-drivers. I drive about London a great deal and I believe that I am a good driver; at any rate I have escaped the clutches of the police so far, and my observation is that in the roads where it is important that traffic should move easily very few cars belonging to owner-drivers cause any obstruction at all, for the very simple reason that the police, quite rightly, will not allow them to stand. The main cause of the slowing up of traffic in London streets, according to my personal observation, is to be found in horse-drawn vehicles, empty omnibuses, idling taxicabs and, sometimes, the unloading of vans at busy times.
    We ought to deal with this problem in a sensible way. There are certain streets which are essential for traffic and should be kept clear for traffic and in which cars, whatever cars they are, should be allowed to stop only to enable people to get into or out of them. But that restriction is not necessary in many of the quiet streets through which no traffic flows at all. To wish to apply the same rule to the little side streets as to the main arteries is completely and absolutely

    1191
    absurd. I have sympathy with people living in streets or squares which have been turned into permanent car parks, but, again, each one of those streets or squares requires to be dealt with differently from the others. In an immense square like Belgrave Square it is obvious that nobody living in the large houses there is in the least inconvenienced by cars parking around the gardens in the centre of the square; and even though there may be some inconvenience it is a temporary measure, because the day will come, we hope, when adequate alternative accommodation will be provided for those cars.
    Mr. Holdsworth: The people living there will be dead by then.
    Brigadier-General Spears: I should like to know whether hon. Members have considered the case of the vast number of people who have taken houses at a certain distance from London and who depend absolutely on their cars to attend to their business. I believe that about 80 per cent. of the cars driven in the City belong to owner-drivers, and anything done to injure their interests will injure the interests of the motor industry as a whole in a very serious way. It is not a matter to be treated in any way lightly. Unfortunately, I was not here on Monday, and did not have the opportunity of listening to the Minister's answers to a certain number of questions, some of which I had put down myself. What I should like is a positive assurance that no attempt will be made to prohibit the leaving of cars in the streets or to diminish the number of parking places until alternative accommodation has been provided. A great deal of alarm was created by a speech made by the Minister on this subject. I am only too glad to learn that the meaning which most people placed on his words was not the meaning which he had intended to convey. This is what he actually said:
    "I shall consider fixing a date after which the leaving of cars in streets except for the immediate purpose of taking up and setting down at houses or shops will be prohibited."
    He went on to say:
    "I shall appoint no more parking places, and progressively diminish the number of existing parking places."
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Will the hon. and gallant Member read the sentence which comes between?
    Brigadier-General Spears: There is this sentence in the middle:
    "In other words, after the date in question, which would be when local authorities have had time to take advantage of the Ribbon Development Act."
    Mr. McGovern: Why did you leave that out?
    Brigadier-General Spears: Simply because it is not relevant. [H0N. MEMBERS: "It is."] The point is that it does not matter in the least what date the Minister fixes if on that date there is no accommodation.
    Captain Arthur Evans: Has not my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made it perfectly clear that he does not propose to fix that date until alternative accommodation is available?
    Brigadier-General Spears: That is why I said that I was glad to hear what the Minister stated on Monday, but I want to be absolutely certain that that point is made perfectly clear, because to say that he will consider fixing a date without reference to whether there is accommodation or not is not what we want. There is this further point with which I should like the Minister to deal. I hope that when the garages are established he will see that they make charges which the ordinary motorist can pay. The Minister said in his speech that at the present time the public did not, perhaps, take full advantage of the garages which are available. The charges at a great many of those garages are extortionate. Perhaps they stand on very expensive sites, but their charges are very heavy indeed, and it is very necessary that garages should not make excessive charges.
    I absolutely agree with the Minister when he says that one of the most frequent causes of accidents is cars halted on main roads. One cannot always tell whether a car some distance away is halted or moving, and what often ocurs is that a car coming up behind the stationary car suddenly swerves out in front of another car, and that frequently causes an accident. Not only should the halting of cars on main roads be prohibited, but I suggest that means might be devised for fixing a sign on a tripod a few yards behind a stationary car, so that oncoming traffic might have some warning that a stationary car was there. I believe that might save a great many accidents.
    4.59 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I think the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) is a little ground swell from the storm in a teacup which blew up in the House on Monday, when there was such an exhibition of brotherly love and team spirit in the questions which were addressed to the Minister of Transport. From what the hon. and gallant Member has said it is clear that he still does not appreciate either what the Minister has said in his speeches outside this House or what he said in reply to questions on Monday, because he has asked for an assurance which the Minister gave in the most definite terms on Monday. The point at issue in this question of parking is, to my mind, that if the Minister allows the existing state of affairs to continue while new cars continue to pour on to the roads at the rate of 150,000 a year, it will be only a question of time until the roads are completely silted up with cars. My impression is that motorists and house owners will welcome the Minister's proposals when they are thoroughly understood. It has been said already that the streets are not garages. It costs, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000 per mile to widen London streets. Is that money spent in order to facilitate the parking of cars in those streets? Squares have been mentioned. People who live in them pay high rates and high rents in order to enjoy certain amenities, among which the greatest, perhaps, is quietness. Why should they have a public garage brought to their doors as at present? Shopkeepers—
    Mrs. Tate: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a Conservative.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: It is the custom of Conservatives on those rare occasions when they hear anybody agreeing with them, to say immediately: "You are a Tory." Shopkeepers also complain about this kind of parking. I had an experience of it the other day. I was having my hair cut and left my car outside the hairdresser's shop. When I came out, I found there a big lorry belonging to the Office of Works, the driver of which had moved my car and put it right across the carriageway to another establishment. He had left it standing two and a-half feet wide of the kerb. I should,
    1194
    therefore, have been liable to prosecution and fine on two charges. When I remonstrated with him, I am sorry to say that he answered in language which would have caused great pain to an old Wykehamist though not perhaps to the Old Etonian who answers in this House for the Office of Works. The hon. and gallant Member said he hoped the day would come when all these matters would be regulated. The day will certainly not come unless pressure is brought to bear upon local authorities to construct garages; but they will not do so as long as the streets may be used as garages.
    I would like to quote three Press comments made in regard to the Minister's speech on parking. I see that it is attributed to him that he wishes to extinguish the private car-owner. Further, there was the threat that, if the Minister has his way, motorists will stop motoring. The third suggestion was the best of all. It was that the Minister made his speech because he had been got at by the London Passenger Transport Board. There are two particular points I wish to mention. To facilitate traffic on our roads, horse traffic will have to be still more restricted than it is at the present time. I hope that that may be done without hardship to the small business man who employs horses. It will, at any rate, end the long agony and martyrdom which horses have been suffering upon our streets since the surfaces were adapted for motorists. Another question is whether it is possible for a certain amount of loading and unloading of delivery vehicles to take place between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. and in that way to get a certain amount of heavy traffic off the roads during the daylight hours.
    I would pass to that aspect of road transport which is bound up in the question of Defence. I imagine that the Trunk Roads Act is part and parcel of the Defence programme. If we are to fit the new roads into the Defence scheme, it is necessary to start absolutely de novo with a planned road system. This is probably the last opportunity that we shall have in this country to achieve a planned system of national highways, and it is a tremendous opportunity. I hope it will be taken, and that the new road construction will be looked at from a national and not from a local point of view. If we are to have a planned road system, the construction must be put

    1195
    through speedily and according to schedule. A system of main trunk highways will be found absolutely essential in war-time. Railways are liable to sabotage and bombardment, and large vital sections of them may be put out of action for days at a time when the only alternative will be road transport, which will be efficient only if we have a national highways system.
    Are any plans in existence for distributing food by road? I notice incidentally that there is no cold storage west of Southampton. Are there any plans for feeding, by road transport, the congested populations round London? East Coast ports may be bombarded and put out of action, and we may have to organise the distribution of food from previously not used, or little used, ports or harbours, whence there is no efficient road system. I wonder whether any part of the Defence Loan is to be used for those roads which, in war-time will have to be employed by mechanised units, when rapidity of transport of searchlights and aeroplanes will be essential.
    I turn to the subject of accidents. Road transport has become a very big industry, but unfortunately it bears the stigma of being more deadly than any other industry. Playing about with road signs, speed limits and police traps will never remove that stigma. The first essential, if we are to reduce accidents and promote road safety, is to improve the layout of the roads. The second essential is that users of roads should co-operate and get together. There is a great tendency for various classes of road users, pedestrians, horsemen, cyclists and motorists, to split up into different factions. The result is that we have bad roads and a lot of accidents. If they would co-operate and recognise that their interests are identical, we should get good roads and fewer accidents. The third essential is that, in all new roads and road improvements, we should separate fast traffic from slow traffic and provide dual traffic-tracks. I notice that 62 per cent. of accidents take place in built-up areas. The lay-out of the roads is wrong.
    Safety will cost a lot of money. Safety on the roads will certainly be expensive to achieve. What has been mentioned to-day, the carrying of crossing roads over
    1196
    or under trunk roads, will, for instance, be enormously expensive to effect; but when we are thinking about the expense, let us think also of the figures of accidents for January, 1936, when there was an accident every two minutes. Those figures show that 100 children were killed every month and that 4,464 people were killed or injured weekly. If that happened in any particular week there would be such an outcry that money would be forthcoming to do all that was wanted on the roads, but because it happens every week, the country seems to be getting apathetic, or, at any rate, resigned about it. In the Boer War, which lasted two years and eight months, 5,744 were killed and 22,829 wounded. In 1936, the number of people killed on the roads was 6,489, and 225,689 were injured; far more casualties in one year on the roads than in the whole course of the Boer War. That these accidents are largely due to the lay-out of the roads is confirmed by some most interesting figures and facts given by the county surveyor of Oxfordshire. I have seen them variously quoted with a little discrepancy in the figures, but, as I understand them, they show that 60 per cent. of accidents in that county have been found to be due to the lay-out of the roads on which they occurred. By improving the layout of the roads, the county surveyor has succeeded in reducing the number of fatal accidents in a year from 52 to 29. I believe that the figures of the Ministry of Transport ascribe rather a smaller percentage than that to the lay-out of the roads, but I believe that the Ministry have not taken into account all those road defects which were taken account of by the county surveyor of Oxford. I believe that the Ministry concerns itself only with dangerous bends and slippery surfaces, but many additional factors need to be brought in, when considering a good or bad road lay-out.
    The question of lighting has been touched upon. The densest traffic peak is in the evening, when drivers are feeling the strain. Statistics I have seen from America show that night accidents are increasing, and that half the daily total of accidents takes place at night. I was specially interested in what has been said about the lack of uniformity in lighting. I drive up here and go back every day along King's Road. In that part of the King's Road which is in Fulham you get

    1197
    one of the finest lighting systems which I have ever come across. It is most beautifully clear and well-diffused light, without any dark pools of blackness or shadows. Every vehicle and every individual on the road is clearly discernible. When you pass from King's Road, Fulham, into King's Road, Chelsea, the lighting system becomes abominable. There are dark corners, pools of darkness, shadows and every defect of a lighting system.
    Mr. Kelly: That is a Tory borough.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: And consequently in the dark it does seem most unfortunate, when there are such good systems of lighting in existence, that the best system cannot be standardised and made compulsory throughout the country. The same is true about surfaces. I see that not many accidents are attributed to skidding, and I cannot understand that. When I drove away from here last Friday, the rain had just begun to fall. Two cars with perfectly good tyres came as nearly as anything broadside on to me. They were perfectly carefully driven; there was no careless driving or anything of that sort, but the drivers were helpless on the road surface in question. I am sure that a great deal of danger on the roads is due to these "skiddery" surfaces. As hon. Members well know, a thin skin of non-skid material is now being adopted. There is a particularly good example of one of these non-skid carpets quite near to this House. It is made up with granite chippings, which I believe to be the best material of all for this purpose. I think it is a great pity that the best non-skid surface cannot be decided upon and made compulsory throughout the country.
    I should like to say a word on behalf of the driver in connection with road accidents. He is controlled by a mass of legislation, while the pedestrian is controlled by no legislation, though, as far as I can see, the pedestrian always walks on the "suicide" of the road. Certainly in many cases, if the driver showed himself to be half such a fool as the pedestrian does, he woud be very heavily fined. Every time I drive up and down to this House I believe I save somebody's life. You still meet constantly the pedestrian who steps off the kerb with his back to the traffic, endangering far more lives than his own by doing so. He is not fined for
    1198
    doing it. But a driver who, at this time of the year, with his thoughts very naturally turning towards the spring, is found driving with his arm round the girl's shoulders, would be immediately had up and fined.
    Many compliments have been paid to the Minister this afternoon, with most of which I associate myself, but one thing at which I think we all rejoice is that the importance of transport in the modern world has been recognised by making the Minister of Transport a Member of the Cabinet. That is giving transport its proper place in the Government. After all, the internal combustion engine has affected the national life far more than the steam engine ever did, and it is time that the State abandoned the semi-hostile attitude which it has so far adopted towards the motoring community. I think the Minister has done a great deal to make the nation safety-conscious. His beacons have added very considerably to our stock of good stories, and they have also made for the more orderly use of the roads. I do not think we get full value from these beacons and crossing-places at present, because there still seems to be great uncertainty on the part of the pedestrian as to what exactly his rights are at one of these crossing-places.
    I look forward to co-operation growing up between the motorist and the pedestrian in regard to the use of these crossings, and I believe that that will be a useful and valuable addition to safety. I must say that I do not think they are necessary at light-controlled crossings. The guard rails also are good, and I would like to see their use greatly extended. I can tell the Minister of a place where they might usefully be put, namely, between St. James's Park Station and Queen Anne's Mansions. That is a most dangerous corner. During holiday time a great many school children come to St. James's Park Station in order to go into the park. When they come out of the station, of course, they "blind" across the road to get to the park, and guard rails at that particular point would, I am sure, be very valuable. The traffic lights save time and money, and I think all drivers agree that they are a boon.
    The driving tests will take a long time to show their value. I am very much more impressed by the number of bad

    1199
    drivers that there are on the roads than by the number of dangerous drivers. There is still an enormous number of bad drivers, with no mechanical sense, no sense of pace; they have a slow reaction time and consequently fumble, hesitate, and almost always do the wrong thing. The bad driver is a far greater menace than the dangerous driver. In fact, I have only seen one dangerous driver when travelling between Wimbledon and this House. I reported him to the police, and the police declined to take any action, so now I do not worry any more about the dangerous driver.
    I look forward to watching the Minister grappling with the problem of trunk roads. I believe he will go down to history as a bigger and brighter Colossus of Rhodes. I would end with two quotations. The first is from Kipling:
    "Transportation is civilisation."
    That is truer to-day than when he wrote it. Transportation to-day is indeed civilisation, and, therefore, I hope the Ministry will not find itself short of that executive power to which the Minister referred in his speech. The second quotation, which seems to me to be apposite to the criticisms that are levelled at the Minister, is from Bret Harte:
    "Don't shoot the pianist; he is doing his best."
    I really believe that the Minister is doing his best, and, therefore, I think we ought not to shoot to kill, but I think we must keep up a certain amount of fire on him; we must shoot near him, so that he will realise that, if for one minute he relaxes his energies or falters in his stride, he will speedily pass out of existence.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. H. Strauss: So many subjects fall within the province of the Minister of Transport that there are several on which one would like to say something, but, knowing how many Members wish to speak, I propose to confine myself to one topic only, namely, road safety. I wish to put before the Minister certain concrete suggestions which I think may help to solve a problem the seriousness of which is recognised in every quarter of the House. The Minister has given certain statistics. The statistics which I have, and which are not, I think, in conflict with the Minister's, may not be so up to date, but, as they deal with
    1200
    a slightly different point, I will give them to the House. Nearly 70 per cent. of fatal accidents occur on straight roads, or open roads with a good sight line; more than 85 per cent. occur in clear weather, and two-thirds in daylight. Road behaviour is accountable for nearly 90 per cent. of the fatal accidents, and I do not think it will be disputed that the two main causes of accidents on the roads are careless driving and careless walking.
    I desire particularly to deal with a factor which, I believe, contributes to both these main causes of road accidents. I do not believe that road accidents will be immensely diminished by improved roads. In saying that, I am not suggesting for a moment that improved roads are not necessary; of course they are necessary; but I do not believe that improved roads alone will lead immediately to a great reduction in road accidents. One of the main factors contributing both to careless driving and to careless walking is the abuse of the motor horn. As long ago as 1933, the "Times" remarked in a leading article, with which a great many expert motorists and motoring organisations at once expressed their agreement:
    "The motor horn is regarded as an instrument of safety. It is safety's greatest enemy. It is the possession of a penetrating horn which encourages the bad driver to go full speed into danger."
    There are two distinct abuses of the motor horn. The first is unnecessary hooting; the second is hooting with un-necessary noise. Each abuse by itself would be dangerous; together they lead to the dangerous habits of careless driving and careless walking—the two most prolific causes of road accidents. There is probably no single practice that has caused so many accidents on the roads as the practice known as "driving on the horn." The driver who indulges in that habit, instead of driving his vehicle at such a speed and keeping it under such control that he can stop in time to avoid an accident should something un-expectedly cross his path, relies on his horn to spread noise to such a distance and ad ahead of him that everything will keep out of his way, and he may thus be enabled to travel much faster than he would otherwise dare. Needless to say, that habit is universally condemned, but it is directly encouraged by the excessively loud and strident motor horns which are frequently fitted. Not

    1201
    only are such horns fitted as standard, but advertisements appear in the Press advocating such instruments in the following terms: "A necessity for fast touring"; "the loudest on the market, with a very impressive sound carrying an enormous distance. "I have another and more recent example taken from one of the motoring journals:
    "Ideal for racing or fast touring owing to its extremely powerful, penetrating, yet polite note of warning."
    I know, of course, that the Minister disapproves of that sort of thing as much as anyone in the House, and I know, too, that he takes steps to get advertisements of that type withdrawn; but does he stop the sale and use of the thing advertised? It is quite insufficient to stop the advertising of these instruments of danger, or instruments of torture, if in fact they are fitted to vehicles on the road and encourage dangerous driving. There are three distinct ways in which these instruments contribute to the volume of accidents. In the first place, they encourage the dangerous driving which I have already mentioned. Secondly, I think that every lawyer, every coroner, and every chief officer of police is familiar with the fact that many accidents are caused by action taken in terror inspired by a sudden strident horn. I believe there are few motorists who have not themselves experienced the difficulty caused by somebody sounding one of these instruments in the act of overtaking, and who do not know the difficulty of retaining at that moment all their concentration and control. Thirdly—and this is a point which is generally overlooked—the more excessive hooting is permitted, the more careless does the pedestrian become. As long as this sort of hooting is permitted, the pedestrian will continue such lunatic action as stepping on to the road without looking.
    In the cities of Finland, where for years hooting has been prohibited, accidents have been reduced by approximately a half. In Rome and other cities of Italy an enormous reduction of accidents has followed the total prohibition of hooting. There is any amount of experience abroad to show that, if you prohibit hooting, you increase public safety, in addition to contributing to the amenities. In Sweden hooting is prohibited except in two cases. It is allowed in case of emergency, that is to say, to
    1202
    prevent an accident not otherwise avoidable. It is also permitted in the country —and I believe enjoined—to the motorist in the act of overtaking. I believe that this prohibition works exceedingly well. No motor organisation is in any position to dispute this excess of hooting, because the Automobile Association itself admits it by drawing attention from time to time to the good results which follow from the notices that it puts up not to hoot outside hospitals. Hooting is either necessary in the interests of public safety or it is not. If it is necessary, it is just as necessary to hoot outside a hospital as anywhere else. If it is not necessary, it is not only the people in hospitals who have a right to have their nerves preserved.
    Let me deal with the two excuses that are frequently put forward. First there used to be a widespread delusion that the motorist was under some statutory obligation to give audible notice of his approach. Needless to say, that is not, and never has been, the law. If it was the law, it would, of course, follow, since every motor car in motion is continually approaching something, that every motor car in motion must hoot continuously. The law though sometimes asinine has never been as asinine as that. What the law said in regulation 72 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1931, was that a motor car must give audible warning of its approach whenever necessary—a very different thing. I am very glad to say that in the proposed new regulations that regulation is to be omitted altogether. There is, of course, no more reason to have a positive regulation saying, "Hoot whenever necessary," than there is to have a regulation saying, "Use your brakes whenever necessary." A careless or negligent driver will be liable without such a regulation, and I am glad to say that the Minister is, very sensibly, not proposing to repeat such a regulation in the new regulations that are now proposed. I also wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend most heartily on the enormous improvement that he has made in this respect in the Highway Code. In the original Highway Code there was a fantastically idiotic suggestion that you should sound your horn when approaching a danger point or when about to overtake, unless you were satisfied that such a precaution was unnecessary. Then it went on to say:

    1203
    "Do not take it for granted that your warning has been heard; in no circumstances can the sounding of a horn excuse a driver from taking every other precaution to avoid an accident."
    If other precautions are taken, hooting is rarely necessary. If they are not taken, the hooting driver remains dangerous. The order to sound your horn when approaching a danger point which was in the Highway Code for many years, shows that the Ministry during those years shared the superstition which is common among primitive savages that to make a noise at a dangerous place renders the place less dangerous. The intelligent know that it merely makes it more noisy. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that improvement. The original Highway Code also contained this sentence:
    "Motor horns should not be used unnecessarily, and always with consideration for others."
    I have an idea that it was intended to say that motor horns should never be used unnecessarily or without consideration for others, but unfortunately the draftsman got flustered with his negatives and conjunctions, with the result of the superb example of the King's English which I have quoted. I do not suppose for one moment that the legal department of the Ministry was in any way responsible.
    The other excuse that is put forward for excessive hooting is that the question is very often asked by the coroner and in police court proceedings, Did the driver sound his horn? As long ago as 1929, when Sir Henry Maybury's Committee on Road Traffic Noises reported, attention was rightly drawn to the deplorable result of treating a negative answer to that question as any indication of responsibility for an accident. I think that, as the result of my right hon. Friend's improvement of the Highway Code and the proposed improvement of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, that habit has changed, and most sensible magistrates and coroners now realise that, in cases of direct collision on the high road between two vehicles, the fault is much more likely to reside with the party who was blasting his horn to indicate the fact that everything had better keep out of his way because, if anything crossed his path, he would not be able to stop in
    1204
    time to avoid an accident. That is too often the meaning of the motorist's blast if it is honestly interpreted.
    I congratulate the Minister on proposing to omit the regulation about giving audible warning of approach whenever necessary, and I congratulate him heartily on the improvement in the Highway Code, which does not now from beginning to end contain a single recommendation to sound the horn in any circumstances whatever. But I suggest that he might well go further in two respects, first of all in regulating the use of the horn and, secondly, in prescribing the nature of the instrument. He might well look at the foreign examples of Finland, Sweden and Italy, as well as some very interesting experiments in Belgium, France and Germany and consider carefully whether he will not issue a regulation prohibiting, at least in built-up areas, the use of the horn except in case of emergency. I admit that that is controversial. I do not say that there is not something to be said on the other side, but I ask him to consider it very carefully.
    It may be said in reply that he has already offered to make such a prohibition in any area if the local authority applies to him to do so, but that is not a satisfactory way of making the experiment. An individual local authority very naturally hesitates because it thinks it would be dangerous, for this reason. If you are going to have any such rule, it must be done either everywhere or in some well known place, like London, so that every one is aware of the regulation. If it was done in some chance place without it being sufficiently known, and it was not the practice elsewhere, that diversity of practice might itself be dangerous. I, therefore, appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider carefully the results of these experiments and, if he thinks it is justified, to make the experiment of such a regulation in London.
    The main thing, however, that I wish to ask him to do is to limit the power of the instrument that may be fitted, for it is really a negation of common sense and civilisation that some of the instruments should be fitted which are at present allowed to torture the ears of the public and to endanger their lives. The object, in designing a motor horn, should be to give the very least noise that is

    1205
    necessary for drawing attention to the fact that something is there. What the motor car manufacturer often does is to fit an instrument which is the loudest possible that does not incite those who hear it to riot.
    I believe the Minister has referred this question to an expert committee. That ought to have been done 10 years ago. I believe it was done years ago but the committee has apparently not yet reported. When it does report, I hope the Minister will not take too much notice of any representations from vested interests such as the manufacturers of the instruments of torture. It would be just as sensible, if you wish to promote public safety, to pay too much attention to the manufacturers of motor horns, as it would have been if, when torture was abolished from our judicial proceedings, a deputation of rack manufacturers had waited on the Lord Chancellor to draw attention to the unemployment that would be created in the rack manufacturing trade. The inquiry into these motor horns should be expedited, and the Minister will not do anything useful in prescribing the motor horn or limiting its power unless he has the courage, as I believe he has, to introduce such regulations as will make some of those that are at present being fitted to cars as standard wholly illegal.
    I believe this question of the intimate connection of noise and danger to be very important indeed and worthy of being brought to the attention of the House. In making this plea for further regulation of the use of the motor horn, I am not doing it primarily from the point of view of noise abatement, though I am not in the least ashamed of being both on the Council and Executive Committee of the Anti-Noise League. I am advocating such regulation in the interests of public safety. Nothing will have an immediate effect on the number of road accidents except something which will lead motorists to drive more carefully, and pedestrians to be less foolish, and what I have advocated will do both. I invite the attention of the House to the correspondence that ensued in the public Press when the Minister first stated that he would consider the 24 hour ban in the use of the motor horn. Motorists in great numbers wrote to the motoring Press, and other journals, as they generally do.
    1206
    The general tenour of their letters can be well summarised in what one actually wrote in a motoring journal. He wrote something to this effect:
    "The suggestion of the banning of the motor horn is idiotic. I tried it the other day as an experiment, and I found that the increased care which I had to take made me tired much sooner."
    There is nothing whatever easier than to drive dangerously, thinking that, if anything should wish to cross the road, you have a sufficiently loud motor horn, if all goes well, to avoid an accident. There are to-day thousands of motorists on the road who have never driven their cars with due care except during periods when mechanical or electrical breakdown has temporarily deprived them of the use of the horn. I hope that the House will excuse the length at which I have dealt with a topic which has a direct bearing on public safety and which, I may say, when I wrote on it in the journal of the National Safety First Council, led to no opposition whatever from expert opinion.
    5.48 p.m.
    Captain Arthur Evans: I do not know whether it is the birthday of my right hon. Friend to-day, but he seems to be getting a large number of bouquets, and I would certainly join with my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) and others in congratulating him upon the way in which he has reviewed the work of his Department in the House to-day. I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) in his long, careful and critical examination of the question as to whether you should drive with or without a horn, or whether my right hon. Friend should regulate the use of a horn or deal with the question of connection between noise and danger. It is undoubtedly a question which has its importance, certainly in London, and it is true that it has been tried with some measure of success in Italy. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has been to Italy lately or not, but in the City of Rome, and even in small places, like Livorno and Antignano, he will find the question of regulating the use of a horn has been carried out with some success. Last summer I motored down as far as Naples, but I found, in motoring through cities, that the prohibition of the use of a horn on a

    1207
    motor car undoubtedly had a tendency to make the pedestrian very careless. It is not only extremely difficult to drive —one knows how careless pedestrians are in this country—even with the use of a horn, but when its use is prohibited they feel that they have a sense of safety which, in fact, they do not possess. I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine this question in all its aspects before arriving at a decision, in spite of the long appeal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) regretted in his speech that he was not in the House on Monday last when the Minister of Transport replied in some detail on the very difficult and complicated question of parking. I am sure that the House regretted his absence as much as he did himself, but if my hon. and gallant Friend had taken the trouble to read the OFFICIAL REPORT the next morning, there would not have been any doubt in his mind as to the exact meaning of the speech of my right hon. Friend. It is a matter for regret, that after the very clear and explicit explanation which was made then, misapprehension should again be raised in this House and so excite the public anxiety on this particular point. It is obvious that it is one of the first duties of my right hon. Friend, if he feels that the authorities who are charged with giving effect to the law of Parliament are not paying sufficient attention to a certain aspect of the case, as they ought to do—and perhaps the country as a whole is rather apt to view the question with complacency—to seek a suitable opportunity for reminding the local authorities of their duties in this matter. What more suitable audience could he find than that at a dinner of surveyors, those whose duty it will be to play an important part in providing the facilities which Parliament desires to see made available under the provisions of the Ribbon Development Act?
    If one thing has been obvious in this Debate this afternoon—it has been made abundantly clear by Members on all sides of the House—it is the desire that the Minister of Transport for the time being should take the long view of the traffic problems. The short view of these difficulties must indeed lead to chaos.
    1208
    The House welcomed the announcement which the Minister of Transport made as long ago as 1934, when he told us that he had appointed that very distinguished surveyor Sir Charles Bressey, with a staff and offices of his own, and with complete liberty of consultation and conception, to make a survey of London and prepare plans of what London really should be. I believe that since his appointment he has had a census taken to ascertain the origins, the volumes and the destinations of traffic, so that he can re-design and make recommendations for communications, which, at the present moment, are not adequate. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton said in his speech, I believe that that report will be received by the Minister at the end of this year, and I hope in the meantime, that the Department concerned and my right hon. Friend will see whether it is possible to ascertain from Sir Charles at this point, whether there is any useful information which he has acquired as a result of the census which has been taken under his auspices which would enable him to take that aspect of the question into consideration in conjunction with any permanent plans for parking arrangements which might be made.
    It it very clear—it has been made clear again this afternoon—that local authorities already have power to deal with this subject, and there are one or two outstanding instances where they have dealt with the problem with considerable success. For instance, at Hastings. I believe it is not very long ago since the Minister of Transport opened a very large and efficient underground garage on the front at Hastings which is more than sufficient for dealing with the number of cars it is desired to park on the sea-front at that resort. We all realise that the question of parking is not so much one of moment in the Provinces or indeed at seaside resorts; the real difficulty is in the City of London and in the West End. It has been suggested that it is not practicable for private enterprise to establish garages in parts of London where the ground sites are at a very high figure and where other charges would be of such a character that it would not be an economic proposition for them to undertake. I wonder whether that is strictly the case? We know of one particular site in London within a stone's

    1209
    throw of Marble Arch, where a very efficient underground garage has been built by one of the best known firms in the country. In the middle of one of the most expensive frontages of London an underground garage is being erected to accommodate many hundreds of cars if not over a thousand. It is not only a question of parking as such, but the real problem raised by this controversy is the question of whether a person, either for the purpose of making a business call or of shopping, should be allowed to leave his car not for a period of two hours, but for a temporary period which would allow him to carry out the business in hand. That is really the crux of the problem which makes the House a little anxious. There has been an experiment—and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when he comes to reply will he good enough to deal with this particular point—of leaving cars for a very limited period on one side of the street on alternate days in such narrow thoroughfares, for instance, as Jermyn Street. If the owner-driver motorist or the commercial traveller who wanted to go into a shop for any period up to say a quarter of an hour did not abuse such a privilege, it would go far towards overcoming our difficulties at the present time. As an owner-driver motorist myself of some years standing, I know how very selfish we are apt to be on the question of parking cars, and especially when it comes to our own cars, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should see whether it is possible for him, after conferring with the Commissioner of Police, to extend that facility, making it quite clear that the time which a car could be left in any one spot was definitely limited to a reasonably short space of time so as to allow other cars to enjoy that facility as well.
    The suggestion has been made that the squares of London should be utilised for the purpose of the parking of cars. Local authorities are concerned with putting that into operation, and also with another important problem, and that is, making what arrangements are necessary in their view to provide defences and refuges in time of aerial attack in war. I wonder whether it will be possible for the local authorities, as an experiment, to construct in one of the squares of London an underground garage which would serve the purpose of garaging
    1210
    cars in peace time, and the purpose of a dugout in case of an aerial act of aggression in time of war. No one knows better than my right hon. Friend that the only way to get a sound and practical solution not only of parking problems, but, indeed, of any transport undertaking is by a system of experiments. I hope that he will take an early opportunity of placing himself in communication, particularly with the Westminster City Council, to see whether it is possible to encourage them in some way to make this experiment. If, of course, the underground garage can be made an effective proof against bombs, the Westminster Council would be entitled to ask the Government for a grant towards the cost of the erection of such an air raid shelter.
    My hon. and gallant Friend, to whose speech I listened with considerable interest, referred to the question of trunk roads as they affect the defences of this country. The House as a whole was very gratified that His Majesty's Government took the opportunity of disclosing their plans in connection with the trunk roads, because it is obvious that that is very important from the standpoint of Defence in time of war. Now I fear that I am going to touch a thorny subject and I am not sure whether I am in order in raising it on this Bill or whether it would be better to raise it on Friday in the Special Areas Debate. In regard to the trunk road to the City of Cardiff, a place which should be the capital of Wales, it would be a great advantage if that trunk road were facilitated by the erection of the Severn Bridge. This question has been discussed and considered by a Select Committee of this House. I realise that the question of the Severn Bridge is not an isolated one so far as my right hon. Friend is concerned. He has to consider the question of the Severn Bridge and the Firth of Forth Bridge—
    Mr. Ede: And the Tyne Bridge.
    Captain Evans: Yes. If the House is going to view this question of trunk roads from the point of view of Defence we are legitimately entitled, apart from the obvious reasons of the desirability of building these bridges in the interests of industry and commerce, to ask my right hon. Friend to consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister

    1211
    for the Co-ordination of Defence and see whether it is possible to further this plan at an early date. Finally, to come back to the difficult question of parking, may I say that now that the Minister has made himself clear, we should do all we can to encourage local authorities to carry out the will of Parliament? If they do not do so, do not let us seek the opportunity of criticising the Minister for carrying out his duties, but if the local authorities are not prepared to co-operate, at least let us show them the way from the national point of view, and let Parliament re-examine the whole question afresh.
    6.3 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: The Minister has received many congratulations, and I notice that the hon. and gallant Member congratulated him on his speech. That is as far as my congratulations will be able to go this afternoon. I want to mention a matter which is giving the greatest concern to my constituency and has done so for many years. I had the honour of introducing a deputation to the Minister on the subject, and I think that every one except the Minister went away from that meeting feeling that the morning had been thoroughly wasted. The problem of communications across the Tyne, near the mouth, is one of the outstanding difficulties of that part of the country. It is alluded to in the third report of the Special Commissioner for England and Wales, in which he said that there were three alternative ways of dealing with the matter—the possibility of a bridge across the river, the possibility of a tunnel, and the possibility of improved ferry services. Local opinion is unanimous that the third alternative is no answer to the problem. Therefore, that is the one solution that the Minister is prepared to help. He cannot wonder that, after that, there is a very serious feeling of disappointment in the locality. I believe that feeling of disappointment has been conveyed to him, and if it has been conveyed to him in the direct language in which it was conveyed to me, I wonder at his continued stubbornness on the point.
    His answer to the request that the A19 road should be made continuous either under or over the river is that he will build a bridge to the West of Newcastle.
    1212
    Obviously, that is no answer to the problem that concerns the two harbour boroughs of South Shields and Tyne-mouth. It seems that all the traffic that originates in Middlesbrough, Stockton, Sunderland, Hartlepools and the other great industrial centres along the Durham coast, have to cross the Great North Road in order to get to this bridge. If the traffic wants to get back, after it has crossed the Tyne, to places like Blyth or any Northumberland town on the coast south of Berwick, it will again have to cross the Great North Road to reach its destination. Therefore, a bridge to the West of Newcastle is no answer to the problem that concerns these two harbour boroughs. I doubt very much whether the heavy industrial traffic that originates in the towns I have mentioned will ever be attracted to ferry services, no matter how efficient the ferries may be. The delays and the difficulties confronting them when they reach the ferry and after they leave it will always prevent them from using it.
    The only real alternative is one of the other two mentioned by the Special Commissioner, and I hope in view of the answers that he is receiving from the two harbour boroughs on this matter that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the question and endeavour to arrange that either a bridge or a tunnel shall be constructed so that there shall be an uninterrupted flow of traffic across the River Tyne, near the mouth. It must be clear that in the event of a serious accident to any of the bridges in Newcastle during war-time, the possession of this alternative route near the mouth of the river would be of the greatest advantage to the defences of the country, and I should imagine it would be regarded by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence as one way in which he could keep England and Scotland co-ordinated in the event of military difficulty.
    I have been abused this afternoon as a pedestrian. I have never driven a motor car. I have no ambition to drive a motor car, and I always feel safer outside one than in one. I regret that on occasion it is necessary to use a motor car. Even in these days the pedestrian has some right of protection against the highly privileged community of motorists. Much as I enjoyed listening to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), I could not help wondering

    1213
    why a member of this party, which gets so little help from the motorist at critical moments in the course of our existence, should be so eloquent a defender of their privileges.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I made an appeal for co-operation between motorists and pedestrians.
    Mr. Ede: It seems to me to be co-operation the wrong way. I would welcome the co-operation of the motoring community. My hon. and gallant Friend seemed to think that we need co-operation from the pedestrians. I am only here because there are more pedestrian voters in my constituency than there are people who wait for a motor car to pick them up and take them to the poll. The pedestrian has still some rights left in this country, and I am bound to say that I think the Minister of Transport should do a great deal more to help. Is he satisfied with the way that the Rights of Way Act, 1932, is being fulfilled?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I have never heard of it.
    Mr. Ede: The Parliamentary Secretary says that he has never heard of it. I did not expect that he had. Is that all the care that the Parliamentary Secretary has for the pedestrian. The Rights of Way Act places on local authorities the responsibility of preparing maps of the rights of way in their respective areas, and provides that when the map has been agreed upon those rights of way should be secured to the public for ever. The highway authorities have the responsibility of preparing the maps. Has the Minister of Transport taken any step to ascertain how far these duties are being discharged? Has he insisted, as he has the right to insist under the Highways Act of 1835—which is sufficiently far back for even the Parliamentary Secretary to have heard about it—that the end of every footpath where it joins a main roadway shall be signposted? It would be a great relief to those of us who are pedestrians if we could get further away from the company of motorists than we are able to do, and any scheme which would enable the footpaths and bridle-ways to be made more generally available for the pedestrian is a thing which I should have thought in existing circumstances
    1214
    the Minister of Transport would have been prepared to bring about.
    The Essex County Council has spent a substantial sum of money in the provision of sign-posts marking the entry to the footpaths where they leave the roadways. The Kent County Council has included in the next year's estimates a substantial sum of money for this purpose, and the Minister of Transport might very well press other county councils to follow that example and see that these footpaths and bridle-ways are kept open. I had a most amazing experience in the county of Surrey some time ago. I was walking over an undoubted footpath, just before the opening of the pheasant shooting season and was stopped by a gamekeeper in the employment of a duke, who said: "Do you know that you are on private land?" I said: "Yes." He was very surprised. I said: "I have not given the usual answer, have I?" and he said: "No." I then remarked: "Has it occurred to you that it would not be called a public footpath unless it was on private land. What are you going to do about it?" He replied: "Nothing. I have no instruction other than to ask that question." I asked him if he would like my name, and he replied: "No. I do not want your name." Someone who was with me said: "You would get a shock if you did have it." It was quite obvious that the gamekeeper was put there to frighten people off by asking a question that had no relevance to the matter at all.
    There were three or four members of the party with me who undoubtedly would have turned back, because they would have thought that they were trespassing. I do not know what would have happened if they were trespassing. One sees notices about trespassing, but we can safely ignore them, possibly with subsequent recourse to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir Stafford Cripps), if one could afford him. I suggest to the Minister that all attempts to deprive the people of this country of the most ancient means of transport, "Shanks's mare," ought to be resisted and that local authorities who have duties imposed on them by the Rights of Way Act of 1932, should be kept up to their responsibilities.
    I hope that in the construction of trunk roads and the widening of other roads the Minister will not interfere with the

    1215
    ancient commons of the country. I hope that no roads will be cut across commons. You do not halve the value of a common by driving a road through the middle; you destroy its use for those people who desire to get away from the motorist. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman about one of the most impudent proposals that have come to my knowledge for a long time. It is a proposal to take 16 feet off one side of Mitcham Green, one of the most historic open cricket grounds in the country, in order that the main road might be widened. It would completely destroy the green for this ancient and well-established purpose and would deprive the people of London of one of the best means of recreation they have at week-ends. I know of nothing more interesting on any fine Saturday afternoon than to see Mitcham Cricket Green with eleven local men contending against eleven other men and an umpire from some other place, with 3,000 or 4,000 people, not less, stretched out on the green watching the game.
    I hope the Minister will realise that fast moving traffic is not the only thing which is necessary in this country, and that there will still be left to those who like to stand on the old ways in these matters an opportunity of enjoying quiet and rest and a feeling of remoteness from the turmoil of some of the things of this modern world in circumstances where we shall not be reminded that we live in a mechanical age. If the Minister can do these things, I hope that on the next occasion I may be able to adopt a more friendly attitude towards him than I have done this afternoon.
    6.18 p.m.
    Mr. Bull: During the course of a very interesting discussion we have heard speeches about parking places, trunk roads and other matters, very important questions, but I want to raise the question of the travelling facilities on some of the branch lines of the London and North Eastern Railway Company. As regards the branch lines running from King's Cross to places in the north of London, there are many things which should be done to improve the conditions on almost all these branch lines, but the conditions which exist on most of these lines pale into insignificance compared with those which exist on the branch line from Liverpool Street through Tottenham and
    1216
    Edmonton to Enfield Town. Anyone who has made this journey at any time of the day or night and who has any knowledge of the railway conditions in other parts of the world will agree with me in saying that the only railways with which this branch of the London and North Eastern Railway can compare favourably are the railways in Russia and in some parts of China. I should like to hear something about the possible electrification at an early date of these branch lines. We have been told that it may be considered in two or three years' time, when the present schemes have been carried out. Two or three years is a long time, and meanwhile many people are living in these crowded and growing districts. I would urge the Minister of Transport to do everything he can to ensure that these lines are electrified at an early date.
    6.21 p.m.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The subject which we are debating to-night is probably one of the least effective politically that hon. Members can consider, and particularly that aspect of the administration which is concerned with road transport. The speeech which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) could very easily have been made by an hon. Member opposite. The Minister has said that he wants the boldest and most imaginative steps taken by local authorities. Does the right hon. Gentleman want all local authorities to adopt such a policy? He also said that he wants every city to make a survey of its needs and relate its improvements to the plan as a whole. Does he want every city and municipality to make a survey of that character? Indeed, is he satisfied with the administration of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in all areas? That Act says in regard to road service licences:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Section the commissioners may grant to any person applying therefor a licence."
    And paragraph (d) says:
    "The needs of the area as a whole in relation to traffic (including the provision of adequate, suitable and efficient services, the elimination of unnecessary services and the provision of unremunerative services), and the co-ordination of all forms of passenger transport, including transport by rail."
    Prior to the granting of a licence the commissioners are supposed to take into

    1217
    consideration those provisions. In addition the Act also says:
    "The fares shall not be unreasonable."
    I want to ask the Minister whether he considers that the fares in the area I represent are reasonable? Does he consider they are reasonable compared with the fares charged by transport authorities in other areas? The Minister's policy is one of national co-ordination, that order should be brought into all forms of traffic. I am familiar with Manchester and Sheffield, and many other cities, where the traffic is a credit to the municipality, where there is complete co-ordination, where they have joint services running with other companies in the vicinity of the town, and where the employés engaged have relatively good wages and good conditions. In the area I represent there are approximately 300,000 people. There is no co-ordination of the services, and the fares are relatively high, that is, compared with the fares charged in many of the big municipal transport services of the country. These fares should have the early attention of the Minister. In this district many slum areas have been cleared and the poorest of the poor have been made to go and live on large housing estates, where they have to travel several miles to their work which has, of course, an important effect on the income and expenditure of these homes. Therefore, I want to plead with the Minister to give his attention to this area which, owing to its geographical situation, ought to be co-ordinated. Its traffic facilities should not be allowed to run in the way they have for some time, with some 57 transport authorities running their own services.
    This lack of co-ordination, of course, means greater danger to pedestrians. The statistics which have been provided by the Ministry in reply to questions by me prove that the road accidents in this district are higher than in any other, and the amount of overlapping which takes place should have the urgent attention of the Department. Some 17 of the local authorities in the North Staffordshire area, constitutionally elected, put before the House a private Bill. They did all they possibly could to deal with local interests. They agreed to compensation in order to bring about an agreement between the various interests, but despite all that, vested interests were so well
    1218
    organised in this House that the Minister of Transport, whom I had looked upon as being a big man capable of dealing with big issues and with big vested interests, proved himself unable to stand up against these vested interests and sup., port a co-ordinating scheme, and the Bill was defeated. Having been beaten on that issue by highly organised vested interests in this House, I am now asking the Minister to apply his scheme for national co-ordination to this area and to meet the City Council of Newcastle-under Lyme and the Stoke Corporation in order that this district may receive the benefits of the Minister's policy in the same way as other districts in the country.
    6.30 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen: I was delighted to hear the Minister say, in his opening remarks, that his function is to create the conditions in which various activities can best flourish and form part of a coherent system. To my disappointment, he went on to say that he intended to make our roads models, and if he will look up the word in the dictionary, he will find that it means a small imitation of the real thing. That is partly the trouble with our roads to-day. They are far too small, and the country has to suffer from a restriction of existing facilities in order to make up for the deficiency of space. I think the public in general will be relieved to know that there has been a misunderstanding as to what the Minister was alleged to have said about parking spaces. I would like to reinforce what was said on this matter by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). The question of parking is a tremendously complicated one, and there has been far too much generalisation about it and far too few details. I think there should either be a public inquiry or a Select Committee of this House which could adequately bring to the notice of the public, for the careful consideration of all concerned, the various aspects of this problem. I would like to underline the hon. Member's remarks about costs.
    I have been amazed that in all the discussions we have had there has not been any suggestion that crawling taxicabs or taxi ranks in such streets as Regent Street cause some of the congestion, and are part of the difficulty which has to be surmounted. From

    1219
    what the Minister said, I rather fear that he is trying to use motorists, through his threat about parking, as a lever with which to move local authorities, but the Minister can make local authorities move without using motorists as a lever, and I hope he will not so use them. We are all aware of what would be the consequences of too great a restriction on parking. It would be bitterly resented by the public and would, to a great extent, destroy the value of the car, and this would have repercussions on the manufacture of cars and the people employed in manufacturing them. Moreover, I would remind hon. Members that a great many of the motor factories are shadow factories for use in case of national necessity. We cannot afford to destroy the employment they give or to lessen the work they are doing for the country. Traders will be seriously affected if parking is either destroyed or diminished. I know that the Minister says that garages should be built to make up for the restriction, but if those garages are not reasonably cheap, the effect will be the same as if parking places were completely destroyed. A greater burden ought not to be placed on motorists, whether private motorists or traders, by forcing them to go to a garage and pay high rates. If that were done, it would cause a severe reduction in the number of cars on the road. On the other hand, if there is a reduction in the number of people who come to London in cars to do their shopping, there is bound to be an increase in the number of delivery vans. Motor cars in the hands of private owners keep many delivery vans off the road.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that the local authorities should incur expenditure in making parks for motorists?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen: The Minister has said that the road space which is being used for parking places should not be allowed to be utilised in that way, and that garages should be built for the purpose by local authorities. My point is that if the garages are built and the cost of leaving cars in them is too high, the effect will be to drive motorists off the road, and that will have very bad repercussions. If great care were not taken, the repercussions on the theatrical
    1220
    world and on. shopkeepers in London, for instance, would be very great. I urge the Minister to set up a public inquiry or a Select Committee in order that every aspect of this great problem may be carefully examined and discussed. We should then be able to understand the real problem and not talk in generalities as at present. I would like, in conclusion, to refer to the question of "A," "B" and "C" licences for road vehicles, and to urge the Minister that these matters should be kept secret by the licensing authorities. Last week the House allowed me to present a Bill which contained a Clause to enforce secrecy upon the licensing authorities. If that Bill does not get any further, I hope the Minister will take up that particular Clause and make it effective.
    6.36 p.m.
    Mr. Montague: I do not know whether the Minister of Transport regards himself as one of the seven wonders of the world. It has been suggested that he will go down in history as a Colossus of the roads. I imagine that the Pharos lighthouse off Alexandria would be more appropriate, but possibly the answer to the question will be a Belisha. The right hon. Gentleman is more likely to go down in history as the Minister responsible in this House for one of the most miserable pieces of political meanness on record. The subject is one that I cannot discuss on this Vote, and I leave it to the Minister to realise the point I am making, which, of course, has to do with the question of roads, and particularly a most important road that will be built across the Thames in London.
    I agree with the suggestion that has been made, with regard to the question of parking and the control of motorists on the road, that there should be a Select Committee. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) was the only hon. Member taking part in the Debate who referred to one question about parking which I regard as very important. I feel that if the matter is not very carefully considered, and if the Minister does not proceed in a very cautious way, he will land himself in complete chaos. I am referring to the needs of business people, and particularly commercial travellers. I happen to be an honorary official of the National Union of Commercial Travellers, and I think I

    1221
    may claim to know their point of view. The solution of the problem of commercial travellers is not only a question of providing parking places, but is partly a question of providing parking places at a reasonable charge. There are in this country something like 150,000 commercial travellers, probably one-third of them using motor cars. In most cases the cars are owned and run by commercial travellers, and I suppose that each of them covers an average of about 20,000 miles a year. They pay in horse power and the petrol tax probably £1,500,000 a year. Each one makes anything from 15 to 30 calls a day.
    In one or two parts of London to-day, although it does not apply to the centre of London at all as far as I know, there are garages where a charge of 3d. an hour is made, but even if that were made more or less universal, under municipal control or in some other way, it would be a great financial burden on commercial travellers who have to park their cars 20 or 30 times a day, quite apart from the chaos caused in getting the cars in and out. But there is more to the problem than that. A commercial traveller does not know how long he is likely to stay with his prospective customer; it may be for a few minutes, or it may be for a long time—that depends upon the customer and upon the commercial traveller's powers of eloquence. A commercial traveller once called upon a prospective customer, after having climbed two flights of stairs, and announced himself, by way of breaking the ice, as a little stiff from bowling. The prospective customer said he did not care who he was, he would not give him an order. The commercial traveller has to make out his case and endeavour to sell his goods, and the idea that he can park his car in a particular area and take his samples round is one that arises from a lack of knowledge of the conditions of commercial travelling. Not all commercial travellers have a small attaché case; usually they have a large number of samples and must have them available. If parking in the streets is abolished, it will be necessary to insist that those commercial travellers should employ a chauffeur, and if the chauffeur has to drive the car around the streets until the traveller's interview is ended, I imagine it would be more of a menace to public safety than anything else. Apart from
    1222
    the question of commercial travellers and, as a matter of fact, the ordinary users of motor cars, a car that is standing still is at any rate a safer vehicle than one that is running over somebody.
    We have heard a great deal this evening about the woes of the motorist, and I think something ought to be said about pedestrians, particularly in the country areas. It is calmly assumed that the problem is only a town problem, but it is not anything of the kind. Let it be remembered that 70 per cent. of the roads of this country have no footpaths at the side. Sometimes I like to go along a country road alone, singing a song to myself and to the open road and the sky, and I do not want always to be warned that some tremendous instrument of destruction is following in my wake. I would like to say a few things to the Minister on the subject of footpaths. There are not only adult pedestrians, but children. An Inter-Departmental Committee on road safety for children issued its report recently, and mentioned the fact that 70 per cent. of the roads are without footpaths and that many thousands of children have to use those roads. To talk about jay-walkers and pedestrians is surely to look at the matter from the wrong end. Surely the right thing would be to insist that there should be no motor car that could not pull up within the limits of human safety.
    One hon. Member quoted advertisements of motor horns. I could quote advertisements of motor cars in which eloquent appeals are made to prospective purchasers on the ground that the cars can go along the roads at anything from 50 to 70 miles an hour. The Inter-Departmental Committee stated that the high speed of motor traffic must be cited as a frequent cause of accidents because the greater the speed the less the margin of safety. They pointed out that a motorist travelling at 15 miles an hour might be able to avert an accident to a child who had suddenly darted into the carriageway a few yards ahead of his car, whereas, if he were travelling at 40 miles an hour, his chances of doing so would be remote. We have heard a lot about motor horns and parking places, but, as one hon. Member has pointed out, the important thing is that the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents on the roads in one year is more than the

    1223
    number of casualties in the whole of the Boer War. We are on a war-time basis as far as the roads of the country are concerned, and I am not sure that people are going to tolerate it much longer. After all, motorists are only a fraction of the population. They are, I admit, a fairly big fraction, but the majority of the people are not motorists, and they are entitled to use the roads of the country in safety, and the mothers of the country are entitled to the assurance that their children will not be run over and mangled on the roads. This is not a question only of the towns. The Inter-Departmental Committee said that as a rule there was less serious danger to children and other pedestrians in areas of dense traffic where speed was necessarily limited, whereas on roads on the outskirts of towns where speed was higher there was a greater proportion of fatal accidents. That suggests, surely, that in considering the control of traffic and of speed we ought to look at the question from a different point of view—not from the point of view of how few places we can apply restrictions to, but of how many places are suitable for allowing free use of the highway to motor traffic.
    As a matter of common sense it must be recognised that there are many roads in many parts of the country where high speeds are not dangerous. I was a member of the Royal Commission on Transport which had evidence from many sources, about conditions in various parts of the country, and my view is that if we allow the free and unfettered use of roads such as those I have indicated, we ought at the same time to give a liberal interpretation to such phrases as "the outskirts of towns" and "areas of restriction." The idea that speed is necessarily the same thing as progress is one which I am not prepared to accept. Instead of troubling about cars which are standing still, the Minister ought to give urgent attention to the question of the speed of cars and also to the question of providing footpaths on the 70 per cent. of roads which are now without them. I submit that to do so would be tackling the problem from the right end.
    As I say, the great majority of people do not use cars, and I warn the Minister that they will not much longer tolerate the present slaughter on the roads, in the interest of something called progress,
    1224
    which is apparently only speed lunacy. They will not tolerate the continuance of the present condition of affairs for the sake of those who want to save a few seconds in getting somewhere, and do not know what to do with the time they have saved when they get there. The people will demand that the present slaughter shall come to an end, and that pedestrians, as ordinary users of the road and those who happen to possess cars shall be treated as of equal importance. I hope the Minister will consider these questions, particularly the question of safety and the regulation of speed. I frankly admit that there was a great amount of evidence before the Royal Commission in favour of doing away with the speed limit, and I was to some extent affected by it. I thought there was a great deal to be said for it. But we have had experience and the experience shows, according to the Inter-Departmental Committee's Report, that, looking at the question from the point of view of how much we can give to the motorist instead of from the point of view of how far we can protect the general public, it is leading to a tremendous amount of slaughter which ought to be stopped.
    6.51 p.m.
    Captain Hudson: We are having a very interesting Debate on the subject of road safety and various other aspects of the work of the Ministry of Transport, and it may be convenient if I intervene at this stage to answer some of the questions which have been put to my right hon. Friend the Minister. As regards the parking of cars, my right hon. Friend has, I think, made his views clear. He has expressed his desire to see adequate parking accommodation provided off the streets in place of the inadequate accommodation now provided on the streets. He has made it plain that he cannot deal with the question of cars being left in the streets so as to cause obstruction. That matter must be dealt with on the merits of each case by the police, and nothing that my right hon. Friend has said has altered the position in that respect in any way.
    Certain hon. Members have asked whether my right hon. Friend will hold an inquiry or cause a Select Committee to be set up to deal with this matter. I must point out that the Minister already

    1225
    has two committees to advise him, and that one of the duties entrusted to him by Parliament is that of dealing with such questions as parking. Parliament has also laid down the procedure which is to be followed, and I cannot help thinking that if any inquiry is necessary, it should take the form of local inquiries so that local areas could decide on what they considered to be best for themselves as regards the provision of adequate facilities, and could then, if they wished, seek the Ministry's advice. Other hon. Members have referred to horse drawn traffic, crawling taxi-cabs, and half-empty omnibuses as causes of congestion. Every one of these has been and is being dealt with by the Ministry. There are certain streets in London in which horse traffic is not allowed. There are rules about crawling taxi-cabs, and the question of half-empty omnibuses during the slack periods is being dealt with. In fact, there are fewer omnibuses now on the streets at those periods than there were before the passing of the London Passenger Transport Act.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) and another hon. Member raised the question of garage charges. My right hon. Friend will do his best to see what can be done to avoid excessive garage charges. The question of unilateral parking was mentioned by one or two hon. Members including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans). We consider that it is worthy of further attention and my right hon. Friend has already promised to give it that further attention, but he must do so in consultation with the police, and I may as well tell hon. Members that the police have found unilateral parking difficult of achievement in view of the peculiar circumstances of London traffic. As I say, however, we are going to see whether something further in that way cannot be done.
    The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) asked a question about the five-year programme. Grants have been made or indicated for works estimated to £68,000,000, of which we are paying £41,000,000, and the total plans submitted come to £142,000,000. I would remind hon. Members of the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    1226
    that the alteration in the finances of the Ministry in last year's Finance Act, would make no difference to the carrying out of this five-year programme. The hon. Member also asked a question about the Transport Advisory Council, and quoted a letter which, I think, has been received by every hon. Member. The composition of that Council is laid down in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. There are on it five representatives of the owners of mechanical vehicles, including three representatives of the owners of commercial vehicles.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), in his interesting speech, dealt to a certain extent with the question of road accidents on which I shall have something to say later, and also asked whether consideration was being given by the Department to the question of the distribution, by road, of food and other essentials in time of war. I assure him that that aspect of affairs is being very closely considered. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff, South, also referred to the Severn Bridge project. That project came up in a private Bill, and was not accepted by the Committee of this House which dealt with it, and it is, therefore, for the promoters, if they wish to do so, to bring forward another Bill. We intimated to the promoters of the Bill that if they could get it through we were prepared to give a grant.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: The Parliamentary Secretary is surely aware that the Commissioner for the Special Areas has since reported upon the Severn Bridge scheme and those who objected to the proposal may have a different point of view now.
    Captain Hudson: All I can say is that my Department did everything it could to help the promoters of the Bill, and it was because the promoters could not make out their case before the Committee that the scheme was rejected. I think I may say that we were very disappointed that it was rejected, and if the promoters feel that they have a better case now, I assure them that we would again try to help them in any way we could. But when a Parliamentary Committee had thrown out the scheme when it was presented in a private Bill, we did not think that we ought to try to force it through the House by any other means.
    Mr. Hopkin: Is there any possibility of the Government bringing in a new Bill of their own for the construction of this bridge?
    Captain Hudson: I think I have answered that question in what I have said. The House having rejected the scheme it is not up to us to try to bring it in by another method. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) first mentioned the Tyne crossing. We have to consider the national rather than the local aspects of this question. He will know that we have given a great deal of time and trouble to this important problem, and we have finally decided that a bridge on the western side of Newcastle-on-Tyne is better than one near the mouth, and this has been done after careful inquiry. We have tried to help by freeing the ferries and freeing the toll bridges. I know it is a disappointment to the local authorities there, but the Department had to try to do the best they could from a national rather than a local point of view.
    Mr. Ede: Have they asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what he thinks about the problem of the road communications in that area?
    Captain Hudson: Yes, we have. The hon. Member next referred to the Rights of Way Act, and he was rather surprised when in an aside with my right hon. Friend I said I had never heard of it. I find the reason I have never heard of it is that it is not operated by us, and we have no responsibility for its operation. While we have sympathy with its objects as described by the hon. Gentleman, at the same time it is not an Act which is our responsibility. I gather that the responsibility for working it is local rather than national. He mentioned, also, a point with which we are all agreed, that commons should be preserved as much as possible when road construction and improvement are going on. I can assure him that we take the utmost steps we can to avoid any interference with commons, and if a part of a common has to be taken, compensation must be given in the form of another piece of land, and the fairness of such compensation is decided not by the Minister of Transport but the Minister of Agriculture. He mentioned Mitcham Common. We have no knowledge in my Department of any suggestions by the Surrey County Council to cut off a piece for road improvements.
    Mr. Ede: They would not do any such wicked thing. It is the Mitcham Borough Council who are doing this. I wrote to the Department about it.
    Captain Hudson: We have no knowledge of any part of Mitcham Common being taken. Apparently, my hon. Friend and I are at variance as to the facts of this local case, but we are as anxious as he is that commons should not be disturbed, and, if they are, compensation in the form of an equivalent amount of land must be given.
    The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) dealt with the proposed electrification of the Enfield line. I can assure him that I feel deeply with him in this matter, because the line goes through my own constituency. We have been promised by the railway that this electrification will be considered as soon as their present programme is finished, and I am afraid that I cannot go beyond that. Some years ago in this House we had a Bill which Parliament passed which provided for a large number of electrification schemes and extensions of tubes in the London area. At that time it was felt—I confess to my personal disappointment—that this line was not in the immediate priority list. We endeavoured to persuade the railway company to do this work at the earliest possible moment. They have promised to consider it as soon as possible.
    Mr. Montague: If the hon. Gentleman is in touch with the London and North Eastern Railway in regard to the electrification of the Enfield line, will he ask them to consider the possibility of an escalator from the tube to the North Eastern platform at Finsbury Park. It would remedy the state of affairs considerably.
    Captain Hudson: I will certainly promise to pass that suggestion on to the company and see if something can be done in that respect. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) was naturally disappointed that a Private Bill of last Wednesday was not accepted by the House. He had a lot to say about the fares charged in his area. This is a matter for the Traffic Commissioners set up by this House as independent of the Ministry, and they have this matter in hand.
    Mr. Holdsworth: A lot of statements were made last Wednesday. Is it possible for the Minister of Transport to draw the attention of the Traffic Commissioners for that area to them, because if some of the things that were said are true, there is something lacking in that area?
    Captain Hudson: Any Member of Parliament or anybody else can draw their attention to what was said.
    Mr. Holdsworth: I am asking whether you can.
    Captain Hudson: The Minister can, but one has to be extremely careful in matters of this kind, because when the House has laid it down that the body should be independent and semi-judicial I do not think that the House would be pleased if the Minister tried to bring pressure to bear on such an independent body, whatever the merits of the case might be. The Member for Birkenhead West (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) dealt with parking, to which I have already referred, and asked that secrecy should be observed at the inquiries which are held in connection with the granting of licences. It is a Clause of the Bill which he introduced under the Ten Minute Rule and my Department are closely examining that Bill in all its details. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) asked about footpaths. I can assure him that we attach the greatest importance to having adequate footpaths on all possible roads. It is laid down in the memorandum which has been sent to all local authorities on the lay-out and construction of roads. The last figure I have is that some 1,200 miles of such paths were constructed in 1935. So that he will see that we are not neglecting this important side of road construction.
    Mr. E. Smith: In view of the serious state of affairs put before this House last Wednesday night, and seeing that I have drawn the attention of the Minister to this state of affairs, is he going to take any step to use his influence with a view to dealing with this matter?
    Captain Hudson: I think I dealt with that point just now. It is a matter for the Traffic Commissioners and I have no doubt they will have read the reports of this Debate, and will have seen what hon. Members said when that Bill was before the House. But I say categorically that
    1230
    in my opinion it would be most improper for my Department to interfere with the Commissioners, seeing that this House laid it down that they were to be an independent semi-judicial authority.
    With regard to road accidents we have had, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, an analysis of road accidents. That analysis tells us some rather extraordinary things. First we find that some 90 per cent. of the accidents are due to the human element—in both motorists and pedestrians. We find that some 50 per cent. of the accidents happen on straight roads, which makes one rather wonder whether it is faulty construction of roads, which so many Members seem to think is the most important of the factors in dealing with road accidents, or something else which is causing the serious number of accidents we continue to have. Taking the main causes of accidents, some 33 per cent. are caused by motors, some 28 per cent. by pedestrians and some 26 per cent. by cyclists. This analysis will prove of great assistance both to ourselves and to other people who are interested in getting down to the causes of accidents and finding the best way of remedying them.
    Hon. Members have mentioned the lighting of the roads. As they know, that is a local matter, but the Minister has taken power in the Trunk Roads Act to enter into agreements with the local authorities to improve the lighting of such roads and a committee has been sitting dealing with the subject. Road surfaces also have been dealt with. We entirely agree that the provision of proper nonskid surfaces is most important, and we go as far as to withhold a grant where a local authority refuses to provide what we consider an adequate surface for roads. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) dealt at some length with the question of horns. We have noted with interest his views on non-hooting both by day and by night. As regards the stridency and noise of horns, a committee which has been sitting dealing particularly with the noise created by motor cars and motor cycles has now turned its attention among other things to the stridency of motor horns. It is a committee which has done extremely good work up to date and I am certain that we shall get from them a most interesting report.

    1231
    I want to deal finally with what I consider to be a very important part of our road safety campaign and that is the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit. The Minister in carrying out his obligations under the 1934 Act in this respect has had in his mind the object for which that legislation was introduced, which is the prevention of road accidents. That speed limit of the Act of 1934 was an innovation and it might have been a great success or a great failure. There were, in my opinion, two dangers which might have led to failure and which we have been endeavouring to avoid. The first one is that if the speed limit is put on in unsuitable places it will not be observed and will be treated with the same contempt as the 20-miles-an-hour speed limit suffered from in the years before, and, secondly, highway authorities will tend to neglect necessary road safety precautions, such as pedestrian crossings, light signals and guard rails. I would like to emphasise how much we agree with the hon. Member who said that he considered that guard rails were an important part of road safety precautions. The highway authorities might be tempted to neglect this part of the precautions and to rely on the speed limit alone.
    Those were the two great dangers. As regards the first, that motorists might disregard the speed limit, or that it might fall into disuse, I think we can say it is observed now by the vast majority of motorists. They co-operate in its working, and I wonder often if that would be so if we had taken the advice sometimes given us to put a limit on all by-pass roads. With regard to the second point, the policy of scrutinising most carefully all applications for the introduction of speed limits has prevented that being realised. Incidentally last month's figures, which show that 321 persons were killed on unrestricted as against 140 on restricted roads, reveal how unwise it would be to rely on the speed limit alone for preventing road accidents. In giving those figures I would like to say that I agree with the hon. Member opposite that in the case of restricted roads only 2 per cent. proved fatal as against 4 per cent. on the unrestricted roads, which of course proves that people, if I may put it that way, are hit harder on the unrestricted roads and, therefore, the percentage of
    1232
    fatal accidents is greater. But I am making that point only to show that we cannot rely on the speed limit alone to bring about a large reduction of accidents.
    There has been a criticism of our policy of de-restricting certain arterial and bypass roads in London, and all I would say is that we believe that if we did not keep to the policy it would tend not to lessen but to add to the accidents; one reason being that if you restricted such roads the motorist would not use them, because they are longer than the old roads, and you would have many more accidents on the old roads which the by-passes are to supersede. In this view we are supported by the Commissioner of Police, and again, what I said before about the speed limit not being observed would apply. But I would say to hon. Members who have been anxious about arterial roads that we are prepared to take all necessary steps on arterial roads where special circumstances exist, to see whether those sections should or should not be subject to restriction. We see now that the death roll has fallen from the peak of 7,300 in 1930 to about 6,500 last year in spite of an increase of some 480,000 motor vehicles.
    Everybody wants to bring those figures down, and we agree that the 30 mile an hour limit, together with other suggestions which we are carrying out, and which have been made even to-night by hon. Members in this House, are a valuable help in this respect, but the limit must be made to work fairly and be only applied in suitable cases. It is in that spirit that we are endeavouring to administer the Act. A number of suggestions have been made in the Debate to-night, and I can assure hon. Members that those suggestions will be considered most carefully by my Department, to see whether they can be carried into effect.
    7.22 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I think it is discouraging to have a Supply day of so short a time on such an important subject as the Ministry of Transport. But we have been particularly happy in having two Ministerial speakers in a 3¼ hours' Debate. That only shows what vast fields there are to cover that come under the Minister of Transport. Do not think for a moment that because there are only a few Members here that

    1233
    there are only a few in the House who would like to say a word on the matter; they were discouraged from entering because they thought there was small chance of getting in in so short a time. I do not propose to take up any of the points that have been dealt with by the Minister to-night, but I want to put before him something which I think of great interest to the country economically, especially from the point of view of the distressed areas. We have to remember that road transport in this country can be grouped under three forms of propulsion—electrical, steam and the internal combustion engine. It has been unfortunate from the point of view of this country that the electrical vehicle has not been a success altogether, because that of course was charged by energy derived from coal, which is, after all, a native product.
    Then we come to the steam vehicle which also has, I am afraid, not been a very great success when generating steam by coal. Also the steam vehicle when generated by petrol has not been a success. Therefore we fall back upon the internal combustion engine, which means to-day the importation of a foreign fuel. There has been an artificial change from the petrol position to the diesel position, but that really has had no economic significance except from the point of view of the operator who wanted to get a cheaper fuel and wanted it to take him further per mile per gallon. But from the point of view of the general country that has had no effect. We hear an enormous lot about the possibility of getting our oil fuel from coal, but if you view that really from a general point of view it looks to the ordinary observer as being, in the long run, practically impossible. The turning of coal by hydrogenation straight into oil requires such an expensive capital charge that to do enough of it to really take the transport of this country would really mean the creation of a plant too expensive to contemplate. We could not face up to it. You come to the second proposition—the oil derived from low carbonisation processes. From that quarter we get but little oil per ton—about 20 gallons—
    but it has this great disadvantage, which the Board of Trade always bring forward, that it is at the same time producing an alternative fuel which can compete with the ordinary house coal.
    I want to plead with the Minister of Transport to see whether he will advance a new form of transport—an internal combustion engine deriving its fuel from the gas-producer. There you are turning your coal straight into transport rather than first into oil and then from oil into transport. The best fuel at the present moment for the producer is anthracite, a form of fuel of which we could well sell more in South Wales. But there is practically no encouragement given for vehicles of that kind. It is not so in any other country. In Germany, in order to get lorries on the roads consuming coke fuel, the Government give them material grants per vehicle, and in France, where they run on charcoal, there is also a subsidy. I do not believe there is a subject of more importance than what fuel is used for our transport. We should do all we can to run on home-produced fuel rather than on imported fuel. There is nothing wrong with the efficiency of these gas-producer vehicles nor with their economics. It comes out at petrol equal to 2½d. a gallon. There are enormous economic advantages to be explored which would have great repercussions, I believe, in South Wales and other parts of the country. The Minister, apart from issuing regulations, has to think of the future, not only from the point of view of putting up a road system but in other ways as well. He must have imagination, and I would ask if he would investigate this problem and give, as has been done abroad, a prize for the best type of vehicle, and hold certain competitions to focus attention on the subject and to get ahead with it. I, really, believe he would shift "long hauls" from using foreign fuel, and get back to the use of home-produced fuel to the advantage of everybody in this country.
    Question put, "That '£175,660,000' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 104.

    Division No. 101.]

    AYES.

    [7.28 p.m.

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

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Apsley, Lord

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

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

    Assheton, R.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

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

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Petherick, M.

    Beit, Sir A. L.

    Harbord, A.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Hepworth, J.

    Radford, E. A.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Blindell, Sir J.

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

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bossom, A. C.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Remer, J. R.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rowlands, G.

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

    Hunter, T.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Bull, B. B.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Salt, E. W.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Kerr, Colonel C, I. (Montrose)

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Kimball, L.

    Scott, Lord William

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Leckie, J. A.

    Selley, H. R.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

    Levy, T.

    Simmonds, O. E.

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

    Lewis, O.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Critchley, A.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C

    Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Crossley, A. C.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Crowder, J. P. E.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Macdonatd, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    mcKie, J. H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

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

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Maoquisten, F. A.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Denville, Alfred

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

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

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Markham, S. F.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Dugdale, Major T, L.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Eckersley, P. T.

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

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Emery, J. F.

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

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

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

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

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

    Munro, P.

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

    Fleming, E. L.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Foot, D. M.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

    Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

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

    Owen, Major G.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Peake, O.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peat, C. U.

    Ward and Commander Southby.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Daggar, G.

    Hayday, A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Dalton, H.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Jagger, J.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Day, H.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)

    Barr, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Benson, G.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Bevan, A.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Broad, F. A.

    Frankel, D.

    Lathan, G.

    Bromfield, W.

    Gallacher, W.

    Lawson, J, J.

    Brooke, W.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Leach, W.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Burke, W. A.

    Gibbins, J.

    Logan, D. G.

    Cape, T.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Lunn, W.

    Charleton, K. C.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Chater, D.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Maclean, N.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Cooks, F. S.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    MacNeill, Weir, L.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Hardie, G D.

    Mathers, G.

    1236

    1237

    Milner, Major J.

    Ritson, J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Montague, F.

    Rowson, G.

    Walkden, A. G.

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

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Walker, J.

    Muff, G.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Nayler, T. E.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Short, A.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Paling, W.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Parker, J.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Potts, J.

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

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Thorne, W.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

    Ridley, G.

    Thurtle, E.

    It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set clown by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CALEDONIAN POWER BILL (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  7.37 p.m.
  Captain Ramsay: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
  It will be within the recollection of the House that a very similar Bill was moved and was supported by the Scottish Office but defeated by the House about a year ago. The defenders and the unfortunate people, who are poor people, in this part of the world were thus saved the large expense of having to fight the Bill. I suggest to the House that it is all very well for promoters of schemes, who stand to make large sums of money out of them, to come to the House of Commons with a Bill, to get it backed by one section, and to ask for it to be thrashed out in Committee. It is not fair on the people who have to oppose the Bill, and it is rather a reflection on a vote of the House of Commons that they will not take "No" for an answer. We oppose this Bill for the same reasons that we opposed the Bill brought in about a year ago. We oppose it on questions of principle. In principle this Bill is very little different, if at all, from the Bill that came last year. A slight modification has been made in the extraordinary rating demands that were then put forward, and even this
  1238
  modification was only made because the House turned down the Bill, in spite of the fact that it was produced by the same people who advocate this one to-day.
  The principles on which we oppose the Bill are these. In the first place, we do not consider that a reasonable case is made out why this country should depart from the usual principle of not allowing concerns which trade for private profit to get powers from the House of Commons to expropriate people from ground with which they do not wish to part. As a matter of cardinal principle these people, whether we may approve of them or not, are entitled to the defence of this House. I suggest that it is not for the House on a Bill such as this to depart from that principle of giving a private trading concern power to expropriate people except at a price which will give them a decent profit. As to the second principle, it is not clearly proved why these people should be given the rating concessions that are given in this Bill. For five years they propose to get 50 per cent. rebate, and for a further five years 33 per cent. rebate. Are other concerns to be given this concession? If coal-producing concerns ask for similar rebates on their concerns, is the House of Commons to give them a favourable answer? If not, why should this particular firm be singled out for such special and favourable treatment?
  There is a third principle. Members of all complexions, whether they come from the north or south of the Tweed, are agreed on the policy of endeavouring to take all the work we can to the distressed areas. This policy has been defended quite recently in this House in relation to the factory at Maidenhead, and I suggest that there is no good ground given in this Bill why the House should depart from it. There is a further principle, which, perhaps, may not be of such wide concern, but which will appeal to all

  1239
  hon. Members who represent coalmining constituencies. We have been endeavouring in several Parliaments to bring every industry we can within the purview of the coalfields, and, if necessary, even to take a slight risk in doing so, because we consider that, even if the scales are not evenly balanced between one form of power and another, it is overwhelmingly in favour of the coal trade. It is an industry on which our strength is founded; it is a great source of power, a great source of employment and of secondary employment in ancillary trades.
  These are the four principles—the principle of expropriation for private profit; the principle of special rating for private profit; the principle of sending to an area which is not distressed, and does not want large numbers of people foisted upon it, an industry which should go to a distressed area; and, lastly, the principle of giving to another form of power an industry which we consider should go to the coalfields. On these four principles we appeal to the House to reject the Bill. It is because they are of national importance that we would urge Members on both sides not to be led down the easy path of saying that they think they will send the Bill to a Select Committee. It is not suitable for a committee decision. These points are points of national principle, and, as such, should be decided on a Second Reading vote in the House. We beg hon. Members to make up their minds to go into the Lobby and reject the Bill. If the promoters, and if those who speak for them, say that this is a matter of national importance and that the Government wish to have this Bill. we say that they are going too far. If the Government wish to have the Bill, they have ways ready and available to their hands for securing it. All that their contention will prove, if they say something of this kind, is that the matters under discussion are of such importance that they certainly must be settled on a Second Reading vote.
  One other point may be quoted in support of the plea of national importance. Some speakers referred to it in the last Debate. It is the strategic advantage of putting the factory in this part of Great Britain. I would respectfully submit that such an argument will not bear consideration for one moment. I cannot imagine
  1240
  an easier target for a single raiding aeroplane than one building situated at the extreme end of long stretches of water which could be easily followed from the simplest map. Further, that building, with such easy landmarks, will be totally undefended, whereas if it were in an industrial area there would be some form of aerial defence which a raiding aeroplane would have to encounter. Again, is it reasonable to say that the strategic reasons for this Bill are so important that we must agree at once to the erection of the factory there, when the promoters, on their own showing, do not propose to produce calcium carbide for at least three years? If there is an emergency it may come long before then. [An HON. MEMBER: "Better late than never."] Sometimes if you are late you are late once and for all. If the power required were to be obtained from coal, I believe it is not unreasonable to say that in from eight months to a year we should see the production of calcium carbide.
  I would put in a plea for the coal mining industry, and I hope that I shall have support from Members representing the coalfields of this country. All members of the Coal Utilisation Council are agreed in opposing this Bill, and perhaps it would not be out of place for me to give one or two reasons why we decided to oppose it—at least why I myself decided to oppose it. I have seen many estimates of coal power production, have gone into this matter with considerable care for some months and have sought a good deal of advice from leading engineers. This much I would say that, on normal calculations, I believe the costs of coal power production come out very nearly the same as in the case of hydraulic production; but there are abnormally cheap ways of getting coal power produced. I have had put into my hands this evening a contract which was recently made by the Swansea Corporation with the Amalgamated Anthracite Company for a supply of anthracite duff for producing power. The contract enables them to get this duff for the next 30 years at 5s. a ton. I state confidently that with coal at that price this electrical power could be produced as cheap, if not cheaper, by means of coal. That is the first reason I give. If there is any uncertainty about the matter, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will give figures which may be

  1241
  contradictory of these, I would remind hon. Members that there is considerable variance of views on the point among experts on power production, and that no one makes such constant miscalculations as the promoters of hydraulic power schemes. My point is that as there is this uncertainty, as the supporters of one side will claim that the advantages are with them, and the supporters of the other side will lay claim to similar advantages, it is not fair to the House to use this uncertainty as a pretext for sending the Bill to Committee. The fact that there is uncertainty and that the case is not proven is no good argument for putting the defenders of this Bill to the expense of having to defend it in Committee.
  If the Government regard this scheme as one of national importance, it is for the Government to make up their minds whether this power can be produced as cheaply by coal, and, if so, where they would like the factory to be situated. We ought not to leave the whole expense to the few unfortunate people in Inverness to fight the question out in Committee upstairs if the supporters of the Bill claim Government support for their policy. I would go one step further. I would say that even if it were proved to the satisfaction of the Government or Government nominees at some later date that the costs of manufacturing carbide from coal-produced power were higher—I do not believe that to be the case, but suppose it were proved to be so—the difference could not be very great, and in my humble opinion that disadvantage would be far more than offset by the fact that we had sent the factory to an area which needed it, where there are men who are already housed and supplied with the conveniences of life. We should be giving the work to miners and railwaymen and many other people who are at present in a state of poverty; whereas if it is to be a hydraulic power scheme, once the initial navvying work has been done there will be no demand for coal or transport or anything else.
  I would make one other point as regards the suitability of the area. We have had figures circulated in the House giving the percentages of unemployment in the area where it is proposed to put this factory. To put those figures on a percentage basis is essentially misleading. The num-
  1242
  ber of unemployed in that area is very small indeed. I do not believe that those totally unemployed number more than 100 or 200, not more than a few hundreds at most, and yet those percentages have been quoted against areas where there are thousands and thousands of unemployed. It is not fair to circulate those figures without explaining what they represent. The facts of the case are that in the glens up there we have men who, for six months of the year, follow other occupations. We have no large reserves of labour; certainly not a reserve of labour which will go in for navvying. Crofters in those parts are not good navvies. I know that there is a Clause in the Bill providing that local people shall be employed, but I believe that local people will not do that kind of work. They do not want to work in factories. Lord Leverhulme made one attempt at industrialising the Highlands, and it was a signal failure, and where he did not succeed I do not think others will be more successful.
  At best we are going to import from somewhere—perhaps they may be found in Scotland—some 2,000 or 3,000 men. They will be brought to an area which cannot accommodate them, which has no conveniences in the way of housing or drainage, and a whole number of local problems will be created by their presence there. The men will be put down there for two or three years and then they will go away. That will be the position at its best. But, unfortunately, we have precedents to guide us in this matter, and if those precedents are followed in this case we shall have 2,000 or 3,000 Irish navvies brought from Dublin, and, again on precedent, a very fair percentage of them will remain behind on the rates after the work has been done. If right hon. Gentlemen do not agree with me, perhaps they will explain away the precedents which already exist.
  I have no doubt that the Scottish Office will inform the House that this Bill has Government support. Perhaps they will say that the Government wish to see this Bill passed. All that we, who are opposing this Bill, can say is that the Government has its own means of expressing its support. Perhaps the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence or the Minister for War will speak for the Bill if they regard it as important, but I very much doubt whether either of them will do so.

  1243
  Other Members supporting the Bill will say that they are Scotsmen speaking for Scotland. There are good Scotsmen on the other side, and they are not only speaking for Scotland, but are representing more accurately the local point of view. Inverness Burgh is dead against this Bill. Inverness County Council voted for the Bill, but of the eight members of the county council who represent this area, only one voted for the Bill. Six of them are against it. Four voted and two did not vote—one was an interested party and one abstained from voting. The only member for the area who voted for the Bill is a director of the British Aluminium Company.
  Marquess of Clydesdale: I have taken the trouble to get accurate figures. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is talking about the county and I can assure him that 26 members voted for the agreement between the county and the Oxygen Company and only six voted against it.
  Captain Ramsay: I heard that the Noble Lord was going to give figures and I checked my figures at 25 minutes past seven. The information I received was that of the eight members representing the area affected, that is to say both sides of Loch Ness, six are opposed to the Bill. Only four voted; one was absent, one was an interested party, one did not vote and one supported the Bill.
  Marquess of Clydesdale: I have got a statement which has been approved by the County Clerk and also, to my knowledge, by four members of the County Council. It was handed to me by a member of the County Council about half and hour ago showing that four of these members live outside the area and only two live inside.
  Captain Ramsay: I have got the actual names.
  Marquess of Clydesdale: I have got their names and addresses.
  Mr. Hardie: On a point of Order. May I ask whether there is any rule as to the continuance of this process of one contradiction against another? The same thing happened last year when the Bill was before the House. Unless people can
  1244
  come here and give definite statements, this discussion should cease.
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear anything out of order. Had I done so I should have called hon. Members to Order.
  Captain Ramsay: There is one more point I should like to put in connection with the question of local views. If the joint votes of the last two meetings of Inverness County and Inverness Burgh authorities were taken, if those committees had been held in one room and the votes pooled, there would have been a clear majority against this Bill. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against this Bill. In doing so they will not only be championing the views of the majority of the local people concerned, but deciding against principles upon which, so far, this House has refused to embark.
  8.0 p.m.
  Sir Murdoch Macdonald: I rise to support the Motion that the Bill should be read this day six months. Before I proceed further may I make a slight interjection into the discussion which has taken place between the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) and the Noble Lord the Member for Eastern Renfrew (Marquess of Clydesdale). I think that my hon. and gallant Friend was referring to the districts actually concerned. That is undoubtedly a very vast area, to which I shall refer later. The Noble Lord was referring to the figures for the whole county, and that is a very different matter from the actual area concerned. That is how confusion has arisen in regard to the point.
  Marquess of Clydesdale: I said that four members lived outside the area affected and only two lived inside it.
  Sir M. Macdonald: I do not know about that, but I think it is right that the figure of eight referred to the actual districts involved, whereas the figures of the Noble Lord were the figures for the whole county. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When the Bill first appeared before the House last year, I stated my serious objections to it. I did so not only in this House, but in public and in private, so that the promoters could be fully aware of the views that I held. Many people and many hon. Members said that the

  1245
  arguments I used, while being cogent arguments, were more suitable for the Committee stage. They suggested that I should allow the Bill to pass its Second Reading and to go to Committee. They made that suggestion in the lively hope that the Committee would correct the blemishes of the Bill, and that I would secure what I desired on behalf of the great majority of my constituents. I explained that that was not possible, and that even if the promoters agreed to give effect to the very first of my objections and the House passed the Bill on Second Reading, the Committee could not consider it upstairs because of the rules of the House and the Acts of Parliament governing such matters.
  I will now explain the vital objection which I have to the Bill. It is not only my objection but that of a vast number of people whose interests will be irredeemably affected if the alteration which I proposed last year, and which I am now about to repeat, is not carried into effect. My constituency is the only one which is directly affected by the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will not forget that the limitations shown on the Parliamentary plan which was lodged do not necessarily cover all the area inside my constituency. The area affected really covers the whole course of the waters from their origin, Loch Quoich, right down through the Garry, through Loch Ness, through the Ness, through Inverness to the sea, a long distance of 70 miles. Inverness is not inside the limits of the Bill or the limits which the promoters have marked on their Bill. They have asserted the right to appeal if necessary, and to object. If the Bill is allowed to pass, a principle will be asserted which will cause damage that no compensation can possibly repair.
  If the scheme put forward by the promoters is examined, it will be seen that the most valuable water-producing area, that is, where the rainfall is heaviest in all Scotland, is where they propose to tunnel through, outside the ordinary catchment basin of those waters, and to take the waters to the west coast, instead of allowing them to flow to the east coast as they normally would. If they carry that proposal through, they will deprive Inverness and its river of 15 per cent. of their total annual water supply. The town has the right to those waters; the beauty, amenity, prosperity, and indeed
  1246
  the health of the town depend upon them. To take away public property in which others have not only pleasure and pride but which they use for their own purposes, and to give a right to a company over it for their own private use, is an action which I am sure will be disapproved of by this House.
  It is not as though there were no alternative. The Bill proposes to take these waters to the west coast, but it is quite a simple matter to leave the waters to pursue their normal course to the east coast, and to extract power from them. If the company did that, no detriment of any unreasonable kind would follow. The waters would simply take their natural course, in the ordinary catchment area, to the sea, and the company could develop what power they required from them. In the circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that I and many other people object strongly to the proposal to divert out of the watershed a large and valuable part of the water supply which now flows down the Ness, and which is of such great value to the town of Inverness.
  In last year's Bill, the outstanding matter was the glaring attempt to avoid local taxation. Most hon. Members who took part in the Debate last year dealt with the taxation question, whether they were for the Bill or against it. The fact that there was on the part of the company such a clear desire to avoid local taxation, which other hydro-electric companies are now paying inside the same area, prevented hon. Members from considering the other serious objections to the Bill. One of those serious objections was that a large proportion of the water was being taken away from its natural channel and sent to the west coast. As a consequence of that action, Inverness is deprived of benefits which it would naturally receive. It has a right to receive those benefits and to ask this House to preserve them for it. If the House passes the Bill as it stands and allows these waters to be diverted to the west coast, it will be causing the town of Inverness an irredeemable injury. I hope that my fellow Members will be alive to what is likely to happen as the result of the passing of the Bill.
  That is a vital objection which cannot be put right in Committee. It is a matter of principle which must be put right

  1247
  here. If the Bill goes to Committee, the rules of the House will prevent the matter being considered. A new Bill would have to be lodged, and the question would have to be considered entirely afresh. There were a number of other points in the Bill last year, and there are in the present Bill, which deserve most serious consideration and which show that the promoters are acting in a most callous manner and in disregard of the rights of other people, in connection with these waters. Take the case of the effect in flood time. At the present moment, these four great lakes, Quoich, Garry, Loyne and Cluanie, have the ordinary narrow outlets, but when a great storm arises those outlets get rather pent up. I am informed that the lakes rise from 12 feet to 20 feet in height and thus form, in great storms, natural reservoirs. As a consequence of their existence, the actual course of the flood wave passing down is less than it otherwise would be.
  What will happen when the company take over these lakes, if they are allowed to do so? They say: "We are going to turn the lakes into storage reservoirs. We intend to impound the water in them to use in dry springs and in certain dry summers." If they do that, what will be the type of regulation? We are all experiencing now the kind of weather, in late February and early March, that may produce a great flood storm in that area. If one looks at a chart, one sees as a rule that a big storm can occur at that season of the year. This is what happens: Weather such as we have been experiencing causes a fall of three or four feet of snow on these high lands. Then there is a sudden change in the weather, a south-westerly gale blows up, bringing rain, which probably of itself would produce a great flood; but, coupled with that flood, the snow is melted, and the two come down together.
  Envisage the position when these four great lochs are used as storage reservoirs by the company. Their engineers cannot tell long beforehand whether such a storm is going to occur or not. Being ordinary people, they would fill these reservoirs brim-full in October, November and December, and, when they are brim-full and such a great storm as I have been trying to depict occurs, there is not now present the natural storage which Nature
  1248
  herself provides. As a consequence, the flood down the Ness will be far greater than it ever has been. Somebody may say, "But will not the engineers provide for that?" There is not one line in the book or on the plans to show that there is any such intention. Here they are subjecting the town of Inverness to the possibility of a greater flood than it ever had reason, under natural conditions, to expect as a result of the same rainfall and the same conditions as to snow. If the promoters come forward with a Bill of this sort without making provision for such conditions as I have described, is it not natural that men like myself, interested in Inverness and in the constituency, should strongly and violently object? I feel sure that even on that ground alone the House would hesitate very much before it would agree to a Bill of this sort. It would ask the promoters what provision they intended to make against such a possibility.
  Let me give an illustration of what might happen in other circumstances than those in the far north of Scotland. That part of the country is far away, and it is difficult, I should imagine, for most Members to picture it to themselves, but all of us can picture to ourselves the Thames. It rises, I believe, in Gloucestershire, passes through Oxford-shire, Bucks and Berks, and then on to London, joining up with minor small streams from several other counties. Supposing for a moment that these four counties of Gloucester, Oxford, Bucks and Berks should join together, and some company in, say, Southampton, clear out of the watershed, should say, "We propose to ask you to agree to part with 15 per cent. of the volume of the Thames, and not even to ask London to agree," is there any possible doubt as to what would happen if such a Bill came to this House? London would certainly say that it would not agree, and if, while the four counties of Gloucester, Oxford, Bucks and Berks also refused to agree, the company still persisted, and one or two counties outside, including Southampton, said, "We want this for a private company; we want to use this water and divert it clean out of the Thames Valley," would there be any possible chance of its being done? In the case of Inverness the people in the areas affected, and not only the majority, but nearly all, of the Members for the area concerned, objected. It is certainly true

  1249
  that other Members outside the area affected were in agreement, and moved at the county council meeting, as the Noble Lord has said; but in fact the actual areas concerned did not want this thing to be done, and the county of Inverness, which is so vitally concerned, certainly does not want any such thing to be done.
  Mr. G. Hardie: May I ask the hon. Member, who is skilled in these matters and comes from the district, what reply he has to make to the statement of the promoters that the flow of the Ness has increased by 165 per cent.?
  Sir M. Macdonald: All I can take is their Bill, and in the Bill there is a Clause which says they will guarantee to send down not less than the minimum which has hitherto flowed down.
  Mr. Hardie: What is that minimum?
  Sir M. Macdonald: They have never stated it.
  Mr. Hardie: On a point of Order. I have raised this question already, and I want to raise it again. Is there no rule of the House to prevent a repetition of what happened last year? When we have two parties contesting something in this House, is there no rule to say that they must come with facts which are shown by figures to be facts? Here we have different statements made by the county council, the local councils and the engineers; is there nothing to stop this?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I think the hon. Member is quite entitled to express his own views.
  Sir M. Macdonald: The Bill says:
  "The powers conferred upon the company by this Act shall not he exercised in such a manner as to cause the flow of water in the River Ness to be less than the minimum flow which would have existed if such powers had not been granted."
  From personal experience I can tell the House what the flow is; it is very little indeed. As a small boy I have gone across it almost dry for a day or two in summer, and that condition could be reproduced under this Clause for three months or more if the company desired it. All I can do is to take the actual words which the promoters have put into their Bill. It would have been much better if they had gone to all concerned and said exactly what they intended to do.
  Mr. Boothby: Is it not a fact that the promoters have continually requested the Town Council of Inverness to discuss these very questions with them, and the Town Council of Inverness has resolutely refused to discuss them?
  Sir M. Macdonald: No, Sir, that is not a correct representation of the facts. I knew that accurate data were in the possession of a Captain Maclean. I intended to write a report for my own satisfaction on this matter to see exactly what would occur other than what the promoters have put down here. I was refused those accurate data and only this morning have they been put before me. How could I possibly make any statement regarding this in the circumstances? The first I saw of anyone connected with this Bill was 10 days before the Bill was actually lodged, and then I made suggestions, some of which had been incorporated in the Bill. When the promoters came to see me subsequently, I pointed out that this Clause was of no value whatever. Suppose a large proportion of London's water was going to be diverted. What would London say? It would not dream for a moment of acquiescing. Why should this House inflict damage of this kind on my constituency when it can quite well be put right by altering the Bill and making the water flow to the East rather than to the West? I do not see that there is any answer to that. It is possible to develop power by turning the water to the East. Instead, they turn it to the West, away from Inverness, and cause the damage that I have been depicting. I feel sure that the House will refuse a Second Reading to such an outrageous Bill.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: I speak to-night under a great sense of responsibility. On occasions when I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his monetary policy ought to be, or the Secretary of State for Scotland what he ought to do about oats. I know that neither of them will pay undue attention to my remarks and, in any case, I know that the final responsibility for the policy pursued rests on their shoulders and not on mine. My position to-night is very different. The promoters of the Bill—I do not know why—have asked me to commend it to the House. I believe the minds of many Members on both sides are open and,

  1251
  further, I believe that, if the Bill were refused a Second Reading, it would be a tragedy for Scotland. I feel very strongly that most of the points that it is my duty to make to-night ought to be made not here but to the Select Committee. In addition, it is not very easy to argue to a court of appeal 40 or 50 per cent. of whose members are naturally at dinner and may not be back until the arguments are over. I am not complaining of the attendance—I think it is magnificent—but in the essence of things these are points which ought to be decided by a Select Committee, which is there all the time and can hear the arguments of both sides put by people far more skilled than I or, if I may respectfully say so, my hon. Friend opposite.
  I notice a considerable divergence in the argument of the two hon. Members who have proposed the rejection of the Bill. The first based himself on all sorts of principles, some of which I thought were good if they applied in this case, and others not so good. The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald), when his speech is really boiled down, objected primarily and mainly because the diversion is to the west instead of to the east, and I gathered that, had that change been made, he would on the whole have felt disposed to support the Bill. The final objective of the promoters is nothing less than to provide for the ultimate establishment of electric chemical industries as a whole in Scotland, worked by hydroelectric plant, and the alternative before us is nothing less than whether we are going to establish these industries in this country or leave them in the hands of foreign countries. The annual value of the products of these industries imported from abroad is practically £2,000,000.
  May I say a word about the Highlands themselves? The Highlands are a distressed area, as anyone who knows them will admit. If the incidence of unemployment is to be taken as a test for the location of industry as suggested in the last White Paper issued by the Government, the Highlands have as good a claim as, if not a better claim, than any other district. Unemployment is acute. The figures for 1936 show an average percentage of unemployment for Inverness and Ross and Cromarty of 30, and for Caithness and Sutherland of 38.78, and the
  1252
  respective figures for January are 38 and 44.5 per cent. You can compare those figures with the unemployment percentage in the Special Areas in. England and Wales of 31 for the same period.
  Mr. Petherick: Will the hon. Member give the total figures and not percentages?
  Mr. Boothby: Of course, there are fewer actually unemployed. I was deliberately giving the percentage, because that is what is dealt with in the White Paper. I am not trying to maintain that the Highlands are as densely populated as South Wales or Durham. Large sums have been spent, and still 'larger sums, I hope, are going to be spent, on the Special Areas where the volume of unemployment is now decreasing. Nothing comparable has been spent in the Highlands and nothing comparable is proposed to be spent, and in the Highlands the percentage of unemployment is steadily increasing. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill said that the crofters were unwilling to do navvy work. I am not so sure about that, but I know what crofter after crofter has been compelled to do ever since the War, and that is go away from the Highlands altogether. The average emigration from the Highlands between 1921 and 1931 was at the rate of 3,744 per annum.
  Mr. MacLaren: Were there any landowners amongst them?
  Mr. Boothby: I do not think so. I have talked about the fundamental objective. The immediate objective is the production of carbide. Acetylene gas combined with oxygen produces the acetylene flame, which can cut the thickest steel plates and has recently been employed with remarkable success all over the country in the process of welding. That is a process which is vital in the construction of aeroplanes. Carbide is the essential raw material of this as of other important industrial processes. At present almost all the carbide used in this country is imported from the Continent, about two-thirds of it from Norway. The demand has risen steadily during the last two or three years, and in 1936 reached a total of 55,600 tons. I would like to quote from a report as far back as 1919, issued by a committee which was set up by the Government of the day to inquire into, among other

  1253
  things, the production of calcium carbide and calcium cyanamide, which is produced from carbide. This committee, known as the Nitrogen Products Committee, recommended in paragraph 656 of their report:
  "that as a minimum provision for safeguarding the future, the calcium cyanamide process should be established in Great Britain without delay, either by private enterprise, supported if necessary by the Government, or as a public work. The Committee considered that the necessary electric energy should be obtained either from water power in Scotland or from a large steam-power station."
  They added that they had ascertained from the Water Power Resources Committee of the Board of Trade that there were several sites in Scotland where the necessary power could be developed at a reasonable cost.
  I come to the point which obviously interests hon. Members above the Gangway, and that is, why the Highlands as against South Wales? That is an issue of interest to all Members in this House. The first reason is that hydro-electric power, as I hope to be able to satisfy the House, is so much cheaper than steam power that it makes this an economic proposition instead of an uneconomic proposition. The reason why hydro-electric power in this particular case is cheaper is because 4,000 units of electric power are required for the manufacture of one ton of carbide. It will, therefore, be clear to the House that cheap power is absolutely essential for the successful manufacture of carbide in this country. I want to compare the cost of producing carbide by means of water power and steam power. It has been estimated by the promoters of the Bill that the cost at Corpach by water power will be .112 of a penny per unit as against .2 of a penny per unit for the first 32,000,000 units and .18 of a penny thereafter in South Wales. Taking into consideration the cost both of anthracite and limestone, including the cost of conveyance and delivery, the power cost of South Wales would exceed the power cost of Corpach by 22S. 6d. per ton. That means a difference of £112,500 per annum on an estimated output of 100,000 tons.
  Captain RamsayWill the hon. Gentleman say how he calculates this cost?
  Mr. Boothby: I was going to say that these estimates were made when the price
  1254
  of coal was lower than it is at the present time.
  Captain Ramsay: How does that compare with 5s. per ton?
  Mr. James Griffiths: It is very essential that the House should be in possession of all the facts, and, therefore, may I ask the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) upon what station is the cost based in South Wales? That is essential, because during the last three or four years a new station has been established in Swansea at which electric power is generated from anthracite and the company are able to get anthracite at 5s. per ton at the pit. I ask him whether he can satisfy the House whether the calculation which he has given for steam generated energy is from that station?
  Mr. Boothby: I say frankly to hon. Members that naturally I am guided by the promoters of the Bill on this particular matter. They tell me that it is the cheapest estimate they can get of the production of steam power in South Wales.
  An Hon. Member: Was not the figure 15s. a ton?
  Mr. Assheton Mr. Assheton rose—
  Mr. Boothby: I must be allowed to. make my case, otherwise I shall be here all night. Since these estimates, the price of coal has risen and is still rising. They, at any rate, reached the conclusion that carbide can be produced by water power in this country in competition with imported carbide, but that it cannot be produced from steam power without a substantial subsidy. The promoters intend to spend £3,000,000 of capital of their own at Corpach, as against the £3,000,000 which they estimate the factory would cost in South Wales. Is it likely that they would incur this additional capital cost unless Corpach was in their view and on a long view, an economic proposition and South Wales was not? A capital outlay of £3,000,000 is involved. The hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head, but I say that it is the fact.
  Mr. Assheton: The hon. Gentleman speaks about £3,000,000 of their own money. If he looks at the balance sheet, he will see that they have not £3,000,000 in cash. They must raise it from the public.
  Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that he is quibbling. If that is the sort of argument upon which the opposers of the Bill are content to rely, I hope it will be passed by even a larger majority. The fact remains that the foundation of all electrical chemical industries in every country in the world is, at the present time, hydro-electric power as against steam power. Lanark-shire was also investigated, and it was turned down because limestone of the kind required was not found there and also because it was considered that a port site was essential such as exists at Corpach, where the depth of water is amply sufficient. A year ago, as my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill pointed out, a similar Bill was introduced and failed to obtain a Second Reading. The two main objections to that Bill were, first of all, that the rating concessions asked for were too great, and, secondly, the compulsory powers to be granted for the acquisition of additional land for factories were too wide. In the present Bill the rating Clause has been redrafted, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows. A temporary concession has been given to the hydroelectric part of the scheme during the first five years period of development, but after that the existing valuation Acts have been adhered to.
  The Inverness County Council are completely satisfied with the rating provisions provided in this Bill. No doubt hon. Members on both sides will have read the letter which appeared in the "Times" of yesterday from Lochiel, pointing out that the Inverness-shire County Council estimates a net increase to their valuation roll of about £27,500 if this scheme goes through. The consolidated rate of Inverness-shire to-day is 10s. 6d. in the pound and, therefore, when this scheme is in full operation, it will bring in annually a sum of £14,500 in rates to the Inverness-shire County Council, which is equivalent to 1s. 4d. in the pound in a very poor county. The Clause with regard to compulsory powers for additional land has been deleted altogether and, therefore, it is not quite fair for my hon. Friend to say that it is the same Bill as that which was introduced last year.
  Now I cane to one or two points which really are Committee points, but with which I must deal because the hon. Gen-
  1256
  tleman the Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) has raised them. On the question of water, the diversion in the case of Loch Quoich, to the west gives a flow of water of 600 feet as against 400 feet, and that represents 50 per cent. more power than would be the case if they stuck to the Eastern side. The catchment area involved is only 7 per cent. of the total catchment area of the Ness. The hon. Member says that I am wrong, but it is true; it is 600 feet as against 400 feet.
  Sir M. Macdonald: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to give the figures? The height of Loch Quoich is 615 feet and the height of Loch Garry is 275 feet; that of Loch Oich is 169 feet, so there is 340 feet of a fall to Loch Gary, and a fall of 169 feet to Loch Oich, or a total altogether of 509 against 615.
  Mr. Macquisten: It is two falls instead of one.
  Sir M. Macdonald: Yes.
  Mr. Boothby: That makes a big difference when generating hydro-electric power. I am pointing out that some of the arguments we are faced with on Second Reading of the Bill ought to go to Committee, which is the proper place in which to deal with them. I shall not deal with that question any further except to say this that it is very noteworthy that as a result of the Grampian Power scheme the crest of the floods in the River Tay has been reduced and the dry weather flow has been increased. That is what it is estimated will happen in regard to the River Ness. They say that the dry weather flow will be increased. However, that is a point for consideration in Committee.
  I come now to the question of the crofts. Much has been said about the dispossession of the crofters. The number of crofts affected is 15 in Glen Moriston and one in Glen Garry. No crofter's dwelling will be taken, and full compensation will be paid for the 40 odd acres of crofters' land which will be submerged. From the way some people talk and write, one might imagine that the crofter's life was a kind of idyll. It is probably the hardest life in the world, and since the War it has been almost desperate. Why not give these men a chance to earn a decent living in a per-

  1257
  manent way? We have been told that the whole of the beautiful scenery of the North of Scotland is going to be ruined. The whole area of land proposed to be submerged or occupied by works is just over six square miles. Some hon. Members are concerned lest the great natural beauty of Glen Moriston should be spoiled. There will be a power house near the mouth of the river and five miles up the Glen there will be a dam which will form a small reservoir. There will be no transmission line down Glen Moriston.
  The promoters are required by the Bill to do a considerable amount of road construction, which will facilitate tourist traffic and improve access to the Western Isles. Finally, the promoters are required by the Bill to follow the advice of a Committee to be set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland to secure that, in the erection, maintenance and operation of works reasonable regard shall be given to the preservation of the beauty of the scenery. Are hydroelectric works, conceived on modern architectural lines, so very ugly? I think not. Modern architecture is not unsuited to wild scenery. They have not done anything to desecrate the beauties of Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Canada. Who are the objectors? The Town Council of Inverness in the first place. The Town Council of Inverness have persistently refused to negotiate with the promoters of the Bill. They have refused to discuss even the question of the flow—
  Sir M. Macdonald: I have read the correspondence, I know the facts and I know from my own personal experience what those facts are. I can assure my hon. Friend that he is entirely wrong in this matter.
  Mr. Boothby: I have read the correspondence, I know the facts and I can assure my hon. Friend that I am entirely right in this matter. We must leave it at that. The Town Council of Inverness would not discuss the question of flow with the engineer.
  Sir M. Macdonald Sir M. Macdonald rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) does not give way, the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) must not interrupt.
  Mr. Boothby: With regard to the remaining objectors, the House will be interested to know that I heard to-day that the Inverness County Council have reached complete agreement with the promoters of the Bill. Of the remaining objectors, amounting to 20, no fewer than 14 are landowners or tenants of shooting or fishing rights, the majority of whom either reside or have their registered offices in England. Their petitions show that the area of the scheme consists almost entirely of deer forests, and that only three shooting lodges, normally occupied for a very few weeks in the year, are to be submerged, with the cottages attending them, and that compensation is to be paid. It is very gratifying that these owners of sporting rights, these English owners of sporting rights in the north of Scotland, have suddenly evinced this intense and almost passionate interest in the problem of the distressed areas, particularly South Wales. Those of us who have been struggling in this House for months and years past to get the Government to take more drastic action in regard to the distressed areas, cannot fail to welcome these new recruits on this particular question; but I suggest that here their enthusiasm is a little bit misplaced, because, if they only knew it, they inhabit for a few weeks in the year one of our most distressed areas.
  Who else objects? There is the great-great-granddaughter of the last chief of the Macdonells, who apparently lives in Canada. She writes to the Duke of Portland to say that although her knowledge is not extensive, she still thinks of Glen Garry as home. She tells us in her letter that her feelings are personal and very deep. With all due deference to her feelings, I submit that they should not be allowed to stand in the way of the development of the Highlands of Scotland. She writes that many Canadians think happily of Glen Garry and Glen Moriston, where their ancestors were born. I can assure her that those glens will not be changed, at any rate they will not be changed very much, and that when these Canadians come back they will be able to recognise them even if this scheme goes through. I suggest that they might glance at their own country of Canada, where they have a very striking example in the Shawinigan scheme, which shows the amazing

  1259
  development that this sort of hydroelectric power scheme brings in its train. I have often felt that if we in Scotland were only a Dominion—which perhaps we shall be one day—or a Crown Colony, our resources would have been developed many years ago.
  To sum up, we have heard a great deal about the location of industries. We have heard of the dangers of concentrating our industries too much in the south. We have heard of the unhealthy growth of London, and we have heard about the necessity of doing something to stop the steady drift from the Highlands to the south. We have heard of the development of water power. I suggest that if this Bill goes to a Select Committee and is closely examined it will be found to be a practical scheme, and, if so, it ought to be adopted. It is a practical effort to solve some of these problems. It is an effort which demands no subsidy from the Government. Preference is to be given to local labour. If the scheme is successful it will be the prelude to developments of a similar character. Water power today is the only natural source of wealth in the Highlands of Scotland. Why should we be prevented by a few owners of deer forests from developing that source of wealth? I would ask hon. Members above the Gangway to consider that matter. The fishing industry used to be a great source of wealth for us, but I hope hon. Members will accept my words when I say that it will be many years before the fishing industry in Scotland enjoys prosperity such as it had before the War. I have watched with deepening dismay the decline of the fishing industry for the past 12 weary years.
  In conclusion I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland two questions which are very pertinent. First, does he, speaking on behalf of the Government, or does he not, regard it as necessary in the national interests that an industry should be established in Great Britain capable of manufacturing the country's supply of carbide, so that in the event of emergency we shall not be dependent on imports from over the seas? Does he regard it as necessary or desirable that such an industry should be established? Secondly, are the Government prepared to offer a substantial subsidy of not less than
  1260
  £100,000 a year for the establishment of such an industry? If, as I suspect, the answer to the first question is "Yes," and the answer to the second question is "No," then I submit that the case for the Bill is overwhelming. It is not a question of Corpach or South Wales. The decision is between Corpach and Norway.
  If this Bill is rejected it will mean the loss of a new industry in a part of Scotland which most desperately needs it. It will destroy the hopes of those of us who see the possibilities of future development which might, even at the eleventh hour, save the north of Scotland from being not only a depressed area but a derelict area. It will deprive the country of a safe source of supplies of carbide which are necessary on strategic and national grounds. It will deprive the South Wales coalfields of a certain market for anthracite without bringing any compensating advantage. Those who know the tragedy that underlies the position in the north of Scotland will not willingly contemplate such a disaster. I believe the majority of Scottish Members are in favour of the principle of the Bill, and we ask the House to let it go to a Committee. I beg hon. Members to give it a Second Reading.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Mainwarinģ: I realise that as a Welsh Member I am treading on the holy ground of Scotland in discussing this matter, but I do not propose to trespass too much on the time. One of the sad features of Celtic history is the difficulty of obtaining unity among the Celtic people, and the atmosphere is somewhat electric and controversial to-night. It is peculiar how adversity brings people to argue along strange lines. Those who oppose the Bill and those who support it must be feeling very uncomfortable indeed at the strange arguments which they are advancing. On other occasions I can visualise their offering strong opposition to some of the sentiments they have expressed this evening, and we shall not have to wait many days before we get an example of that. At the same time, I hope they will remain consistent to the somewhat strange arguments which have come from them in this Debate.
  I want to make clear the position of Welsh Members on this matter. To me it is rather tragic that sections of the com-

  1261
  munity should be pitted one against the other, that any one section should be open to the charge of being motivated and influenced by selfish reasons. It is a tragic thing that any group of workmen should be open to such a charge. The Special Areas of the country are mainly mining areas, and South Wales is particularly a mining area, but no two Welsh miners are closer to each other as miners than are a Welsh miner and a Scottish miner. The Welsh miner will plead for the Scottish miner in exactly the same way as he would plead for himself, and what we feel in this matter is that here is an opportunity of doing something for the Special Areas which have suffered such concentrated poverty and miseries for so many years. Recently the proposal as to the site of a new aerodrome aroused considerable indignation; and Welsh Members take precisely the same attitude in regard to this proposal. If it had been placed in a Special Area in Scotland you would not hear Welsh Members talking against it. At the same time, if we were compelled to seek justification for opposing the Measure, justification can easily be found. The Special Commissioner has drawn attention to the possibilities in South Wales, and has submitted evidence for the consideration of the Government, pointing out that in South Wales there are ample resources of coal and other raw materials for developing such a scheme as this.
  Mr. Boothby: The Special Commissioner suggested it only as a possibility, and went on to say that it was essential such a proposition should be economically justified.
  Mr. Mainwarinģ: I was going to suggest another matter for the consideration of the hon. Member. I do not suppose that anyone will accept a single figure of the promoters or the opponents of the Bill; indeed, they refuse to accept each others figures, and on that ground alone the rest of the House is justified in repudiating both. It is a matter of investigation as to which is the more economical, but may I add that the question as to which of these proposals is socially more economical is quite a different thing. It is not a question whether the undertaking is economical in itself, but whether it is socially economical. Reference has been made to one form of subsidy which will be given to the
  1262
  scheme in the Highlands, rate relief, but there is another subsidy which the country will have to bear. The Government and local authorities have for many years been subsidising unemployment in many forms, and that subsidy will continue unless work is brought to the Special Areas.
  We have to consider the full social effect which will be brought about by the erection of this scheme wherever it is constructed. As far as the Welsh Members are concerned we repudiate indignantly any suggestion that we are actuated by selfish motives in opposing the Bill. We oppose it on the point of the place where it is suggested to be constructed. We urge that such a scheme ought to be placed in an area where for many years men have been rotting physically and morally for lack of work. In this case you will have to create a new town. From the social point of view such a scheme is decidedly wasteful. Why not place this scheme in a part of Scotland where men are now waiting for work to be brought to them? I hope that the House will appreciate the attitude of Welsh Members. We are not actuated by selfish motives. We are anxious to urge upon the House that whatever schemes may be available the House should lose no opportunity of pressing on the Government, and on any body of men who are prepared to commence such undertakings, the desirability that they should be located in areas where unemployment is rife.
  Mr. Fleminģ: As one who represents an area which has nothing to do with the scheme I should like to ask the hon. Member one question. Suppose it was adapted to be taken to South Wales at greater expense and subsidised by the Government, would it give more employment than if situated in the Highlands of Scotland?
  Mr. Mainwarinģ: I do not suggest that it would, and I think the hon. Member is utterly without authority in suggesting that it would mean greater expense. Neither he nor I know. We must leave that to the experts outside the House.
  9.5 p.m.
  Marquess of Clydesdale: I rise to discuss for a few minutes the main issue of this Bill and to emphasise one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend the

  1263
  Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). This Bill is to establish a hydro-electric scheme in the Highlands of Scotland for the purpose of manufacturing calcium carbide. No calcium carbide is manufactured in this country at present, and we are entirely dependent for this essential product upon imports from abroad. Calcium carbide is required in the manufacture of countless products, not merely for war materials, but for the needs of peaceful industry, and it is very unsatisfactory that we should depend for our supplies on foreign sources. I think the House will agree that it is highly desirable that a calcium carbide industry should be set up in Great Britain as soon as possible, and I think that is the real issue before the House.
  The issue is not where the industry is to be set up, but whether we are to have an industry or not. I was very glad to hear from the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), the attitude of the Welsh Members, and I am glad that they are not entering into this controversy in the spirit that inevitably prevails at Twickenham, Cardiff and Murrayfield. This is no case for international rivalry, and if the Welsh Members wish to set up an industry in Wales, I shall be very glad to support them. The question is not whether the carbide industry goes to Scotland or to Wales, but whether it goes to Scotland or to Norway.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that wherever the industry is established in this country, it will rely on anthracite, which can only be secured in Wales?
  Mr. Macquisten: And it is transferred 13,000 miles from Wales to Tasmania.
  Marquess of Clydesdale: It would be a very simple matter to have the anthracite shipped to Corpach. There is no doubt that calcium carbide cannot be manufactured economically by coal. [Interruption] No one would be more glad than I should if it were possible to establish such a scheme in the mining fields of Lanarkshire. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen has give certain figures to the House. There are, however, two very significant points. First of all, some time ago the Coal Mining Association lodged a petition against this Bill, and that petition was based on showing the
  1264
  advantages of coal power as against water power. Yesterday that petition was withdrawn; the Coal Mining Association withdrew their opposition to this Bill. The second significant feature is that the British Oxygen Company has gone into this matter thoroughly, and we have their word for it that they would be unable to work this scheme by coal power unless they are given a substantial Government subsidy, which might have to be as much as £100,000 a year. The Highlands of Scotlands are really a distressed area.
  Mr. Buchanan: Hear, hear!
  Marquess of Clydesdale: I am very glad the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) supports me in that statement. The percentage of unemployment in the Highlands is greater than the percentage in the distressed areas. The population is not as big, but the important thing is that that population is steadily shrinking. During the last 10 years the population has decreased by 40,000, and I believe I am correct in saying that since 1860 it has been reduced by the extent 100,000.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: Do those population figures refer to the whole of the Highlands, or to the area with which this Bill is concerned?
  Marquess of Clydesdale: The 100,000 refers to the whole of the Highlands, but the percentage of unemployment refers to particular parts of the Highlands concerned where the percentage is higher than in the worst parts of the industrial areas. This is a scheme that will bring wealth to the Highlands. I would remind the House, in case some hon. Members have forgotten it, that the Highlanders are men of great qualities. They have served the country with courage, determination and energy in emergencies and in time of peace. Here is an opportunity of bringing employment and some degree of prosperity to them.
  I appeal to the House to take the Long view on this matter. I think the objections which we have heard to-night can very well be dealt with in Committee. They are minor objections compared with the main issues at stake. The calcium carbide industry would be a national asset, and it might become an urgent necessity in time of emergency. I repeat what I said last year, that approximately go per cent. of modern aircraft require oxyacety-

  1265
  lene welding, for which calcium carbide is required, and also calcium carbide is very greatly used by the Admiralty, Last year a Bill on somewhat similar lines, but less acceptable to the House, was rejected. No industry has been established, and one year has been wasted at a period when we cannot afford to lose time. The establishment of this scheme, would add to our national strength by adding to our resources, and this is a time at which we must do all we can to increase our national strength.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Davidson: I rise to ask the House to reject the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. I do so on much the same grounds as those on which I asked the House last year to reject a similar Bill. I have listened with great interest to the speeches which have been made up to the present. When we hear experts' figures being quoted on one side and the other—figures which can prove nothing to the average Member of this House without very carefunl investigation—we can judge of the success or failure of the intensive lobbying that has taken place with regard to this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "For and against."] When I said "intensive lobbying" I made no exceptions. I want to clear away the misrepresentations that have been made by interested parties and to ask hon. Members to examine this Bill for themselves and to say whether they think it merits their support and whether it is a Bill that ought to go to Committee for further consideration.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) refer to certain landowners as opposing this Measure. I want to give the House some information with regard to those who are objectors to this proposal and those who support it. I mention first a question which now appears to be worrying the minds of many hon. Members of this House for the first time, namely, the depopulation of the Highlands. I would point out that in the burgh of Inverness the population has increased, since the last Census, by 7.5 per cent., and is still increasing, and the rateable value of this local authority, appointed by the people of Inverness, which is the principal objector to the Bill, is £205,000. As against the burgh of Inverness we have the burgh of Fort William, which sup-
  1266
  ports the Bill, and, as against a population of 22,500 in Inverness opposing the Measure, we have in Fort William a population of 2,500 supporting it. We have a rateable value of £205,000, as I save said, in the case of Inverness, and a rateable value of £21,000 in the case of Fort William. It is not right, therefore, for hon. Members to assume that there is a great and widespread feeling in support of the Bill when we have it on authority that the objectors to this Measure constitute the majority of the ratepayers and the majority of the community in this area.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: May I point out that the ratepayers referred to by the hon. Member are ratepayers in the burgh of Inverness and not ratepayers of the county? The people of Inverness burgh contribute only to the education rate of the county of Inverness and it is rather misleading to put it as the hon. Member has done.
  Mr. Davidson: I am sure the last thing I wish to do is to mislead hon. Members. I specifically stated that in Fort William which is supporting the Bill the rateable value is £21,400 and that in Inverness which is opposing the Bill the rateable value is £205,000, and while my hon. Friend was about it, he ought to have made it clear, when referring to the education rate, that the people of Inverness, who form the wealthiest and the largest section of the community as far as rateable value is concerned, pay 44½ per cent. of the education rate. But I wish to deal with one suggestion which has been bandied about for purposes of cheap publicity and propaganda, that if you take one side on this Bill you are with the landowners. If you take the other side of the Bill you are also with landowners and many of us have felt ourselves between the devil and the deep sea in that respect but I ask hon. Members to set aside all superficial considerations as to who is supporting and who is opposing the Bill and to decide the question for themselves. It is for them to say whether this Bill does or does not contain legislation which will be harmful to the interests of the largest section of the community in this county.
  In my first speech in this House I said that the duty of a Government was to rule the country by the best possible

  1267
  methods and for the benefit of the greatest number of the people, and the same principle applies in this case to this county. We have to ask ourselves whether this legislation has been so improved since the previous Bill that it gives protection to the largest section of the community concerned. I am convinced that the Bill as presented is unworthy of a Second Reading because it is against the interests of the largest section of the community. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen referred to the landed gentry and to a letter on the subject from some landowner in another country. I want the House to consider the landowners who are supporting this undertaking.
  We have, first of all, a well-known Scottish figure, Sir Donald Cameron, K.T., of Lochiel, on whose land the factory and other works will be built and who is to obtain from this company ample compensation. I would also like to point out, with regard to those who are attaching undue importance to the county council vote, that this landowner, who is receiving compensation that the crofters have not been guaranteed, is the chairman of the county council and was in the chair at every meeting of the county council where the scheme was discussed and supported this proposition. We have also Mrs. Flora Macleod of Macleod and I am sure my Highland friends will remember the great scenes which occurred when we nearly lost the last of the famous Macleods. They are owners of extensive estates in the Island of Skye. They are landowners in the true sense of the word, may I remind my comrades on these benches. There are also Alastair Macdonald, Younger, of Sleat in the Island of Skye, Russell Ellice of Invergarry and Glenquoich—who I understand has come to an arrangement with the promoters—Colonel Sopper of Easter Abercholder and Alexander Munro of Leanach, vice-chairman of the county council. All these great landowners who own more land than the whole town council of Inverness owns, are behind the promoters of this beneficent undertaking—as some Members would lead us to believe it to be.
  I am not satisfied, not only as a Member of this party but as a Member of this House, who has to take his part in legislation affecting all parts of the nation,
  1268
  that the bad Clauses in this Bill, the existence of which have been admitted even by supporters of the Measure, can be remedied in Committee. May I remind the House that the promoters of the undertaking are not setting up an industry in the North of Scotland merely for the purpose of producing calcium carbide or providing electricity. They are setting up their industry there to provide further profits for the company. I want to examine the position of this company, because if big companies are to ask the House to give them special rating facilities, to give them a 50 per cent. reduction in rates which must eventually increase the burden on the small shopkeeper and householder in this area, we are entitled to investigate the strength of the companies.
  Mr. Westwood: Will the hon. Member explain to the House what is the special rating concession asked for by this company as against the conditions applicable to every other hydro-electric power company in Scotland?
  Mr. Davidson: The promoters of the Bill have made definite and successful efforts to secure the co-operation of the local authorities. I would like to point out that in the Galloway undertaking an agreement was reached that allowed the local authority to act as distributors, and that made up to them for any loss in rates that they suffered. May I be allowed to read the Clause in order to prevent interjections from hon. Members who may not have read it? It states:
  "(1) During the respective periods after-mentioned the rateable value ascertained in accordance with the Valuation Acts of the lands and heritages of the Company … to be entered in the valuation rolls for the Counties of Inverness and of Ross and Cromarty shall be reduced as follows:
  For the first five years commencing from the respective dates when the said lands and heritages (other than as aforesaid) come into existence from time to time for the purposes of assessment and are accordingly to be entered in the said valuation rolls the rate- able value of such lanes and heritages shall be reduced to an amount arrived at after deducting a sum equal to fifty per centum of such rateable value."
  They agree to pay the already existing rateable value, but the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) forgot to mention that the existing valuation is under the Derating Act, and that they only pay 3d. in the shilling for the next five years.
  Mr. Westwood: That is a mis-statement. It is not true.
  Mr. Davidson: I understand the hon. Gentleman desires to speak on this question, and I have no doubt that, from his position on the Front Bench, he will receive that opportunity. I want to draw the attention of the House to the directors of this company which is pleading for special terms. They are Dr. John Donald Pollock, Edinburgh; Steven James Lindsay Hardie, Johnstone; Charles Alexander Dunbar, Roehampton; Percy Balfern Liversidge, Kingston Hill; Ernest William Sprott, London; Charles Sharp, Dorset; Robert Watson McCrone, Charlestown. Dr. Pollock is a director of seven different companies, Mr. Hardie is a director of 13, and Mr. McCrone is a director of four. I could read right through this list of the promoters of the Bill, showing their great interest in many industries, and these are the people who are asking the people of Inverness to carry a further burden in order that the company should receive a 50 per cent. reduction in rates. Created in 1886 as a small company, to-day the issued capital is over £3,000,000. This company is asking for rating reductions more than the House has ever agreed to give to any ordinary shopkeeper or householder, yet it has paid £1,900,000 in profits during the past 10 years.
  Since when did it become our objective, as members of a Socialist party, to support the inauguration of an industry on such terms as this, which will inflict harm on the town of Inverness? It has been stated that the amenities of the Highlands would not be greatly disturbed. I want to draw attention to Clauses 57, 58 and 49 in the Bill. One would imagine from the speeches of the supporters that one or two little alterations were to be made in some of the words, that a small factory will be set up in one area. But Clause 49 provides for no fewer than 31 different works, covering a great range of the parishes in that area. I would further point out that it is also stated that if the work is not completed within the specified time:
  "nothing herein contained shall restrict the company from maintaining, using, extending, enlarging, altering, replacing, relaying, increasing, adding to or removing any of the said works and generating stations at any time and from time to time as occasion may require."
  1270
  We have no definite idea of the extent to which these works would interfere with the amenities of the Highlands.
  I want to deal with the economic side of the industry. I want to point out that the Fort William people, who represent a tiny minority of this county—my hon. Friend interjects in an undertone "but important" and I have always agreed that every minority is an important minority, but nevertheless I am justified in pointing that they are a minority, and they might well support this Bill, because after the Lochaber scheme was carried through the Fort William people had a burden of unemployment placed upon them because the erection of the works created an unemployment problem that they never had before the Lochaber scheme went through. That is one of the things that will happen to Inverness, and one of the things this local council is determined to prevent. They are not prepared, as the Lochaber people were unwisely prepared in the past, to accept an unemployment problem that should rightly belong to the company which brought the people there for that particular type of work.
  I would also point out that allegations have been made with regard to the tourist traffic in this particular district, but it is not true to say that the tourist traffic in Inverness is an insignificant traffic. I have the official figures here. In 1928 the number of vehicles which passed over the three main roads in Lochaber, Glen' Garry and Fort Augustus, the areas principally affected by this Measure—in, 1920 we have the figure of 1,838, but irk 1935 this traffic had so increased that we have the figure increased by over 4,000 vehicles. In 1935 the figure is 5,866. I would also say, with regard to the county council, that while I have pointed out the interested persons who certainly supported this Measure on the county council, out of a town council membership of 59, only 32 members voted-26 for the Bill and six against. I would also like to inform hon. Members who may not be aware of the fact that the 21 members of the county council representing the main objectors, the Inverness authority, were prohibited from voting on this particular question. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] By law. But undoubtedly it is a funny law and a strange law that prohibits the section of the community who represent the biggest number and

  1271
  the biggest amount of rateable value from voting on questions that undoubtedly affect the Inverness Council in their local government work.
  I would also like to deal with the question of the electricity undertakings of the Inverness Council, and to point out that the question is whether you are going to allow a private company such extensive powers that it can monopolise and undertake the work that ought to be performed, and has always been performed, in accordance with the practice and wishes of this House, by local authorities all over the country. The Inverness Town Council have increased and added to their electrical undertaking, and in providing electricity have spent sums which up to date amount to £176,000. Their experts declare and we accept at least the word of men who have been in this particular type of work all their life—that should the impounding of water take place as specified in the Measure, the turbines serving the Inverness electricity scheme will not be able to work and the works will have to close down for certain periods of the year You are thus creating a position whereby a local authority will have to hand over to a private company the complete monopoly so far as the supply and the fixation of electricity prices in this particular area are concerned.
  I want to answer one question that has been raised with regard to the condition of tourist traffic under this Bill. Last year, 1936, 22,000 cyclists, 22,000 young people, were housed in the hostels of Inverness. Surely if we are going to ask for special facilities to be given, we ought first of all to examine the effects those special facilities are going to have on an important tourist traffic and on the local government of this particular area.
  In conclusion I object to the Second reading of this Bill because of the very words of the promoters themselves. They ask for a 50 per cent. reduction in rates. They ask to come under the Derating Act for the next five years. They ask that for to years they shall have special facilities which ordinary shopkeepers or occupants of dwelling houses are not allowed. The meanest part of their Clause on rating is where they ask that the ordinary rate-payers should be exempt `from the special facilities that are to be
  1272
  given to this powerful and wealthy company. The company have stated that unless they obtain these special facilities the scheme is not workable. The scheme is not an economic scheme. I want to know when it became the principle and the policy of the Members on any side -of the House to inaugurate schemes and give private companies facilities simply because they could not provide the economic administration required to make them a success. Since when did it become the policy of the Labour party to agree that an industry should be set up and subsidised from the rates of a county—an industry that states that unless it receives this subsidy it cannot work to success and it will not be a success! I ask hon. Members who have any sense of justice, who believe that local authorities ought to be allowed to look after rating, public health and their own fixation of electricity prices—I ask those Members who believe in that, and believe in justice to the great mass of the community, to reject the Second reading of this Bill.
  9.41 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: The speech to which we have listened is not one that I propose to follow, but I would say that I think it unfortunate that inaccuracies of statements should be made on a great many details with which it is not the business of this House to deal at this moment. I look at this problem from the point of view of one who has been for a considerable number of years closely associated with the administration of Scotland: I look at it from the point of view of Defence in the first instance. I am not quite sure what the representative of His Majesty's Government may be able to say to us to-night on that problem, but from what information I have been able to gather I am certain that calcium carbide is becoming increasingly a matter of importance, and the fact remains that for the present we are dependent upon the production of this from outside these Islands. I think that is unfortunate. As far as I am able to ascertain, it is not produced in this country—whether or not it is in Norway or Canada—except by water and electrical power, and I would add, listening to those who speak of the possibility of producing it by coal, that the only way in which you are going to get an accurate estimate of the cost of production is to have the matter discussed

  1273
  in detail before a committee such as the Bill proposes to set up.
  The matter has been referred to before, and it is perhaps significant that the coal interests of this country who were opposing this Measure, but have had a year to consider this problem, have recently withdrawn their opposition. I do not imagine that that has been done for any other reason than that they have not a scheme of their own to deal with this problem. I want only to add this on the question of Defence, that if the House turns down this Bill again it will, in my judgment, be essential for His Majesty's Government to deal with the matter in other ways to produce calcium carbide. I would ask the House to remember that the cost of rearmament is not inconsiderable, and if we can have this produced by a private company asking for no subsidy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—yes, if we can get it under these conditions, there is something to be said for going on with this scheme.
  Let me say another word about the condition of the Highlands. I have listened to these Debates, and I recognise that the volume of unemployment that is given is challenged. Those who know the Highlands are very well aware of the fact that there is unemployment, and, what is perhaps more important than anything else, that the young men and women of the Highland areas who want to make their way in the world have, in the main, to go elswhere to do it. There is the problem of the rating value of these Highland districts. If we look at the county of Inverness and realise that it has to carry increasing rating burdens for the development of health services, education and the like, one of the most important things is to see that there shall be something upon which a rate can be imposed. The sporting values have fallen materially in these last years, and had it not been for the development of power schemes like Kinlochleven and Fort William, the condition of that county in local administration would have been infinitely worse.
  It is a matter of no small importance, therefore, for us in Scotland, without doing any injury to any other distressed areas—the only method of producing this material being by water as opposed to coal—that we should do our best to see that an opportunity is given for consider-
  1274
  ing the details in Committee upstairs, with witnesses and with the opportunity to challenge the figures of either side. This House would do a considerable ill to the protection of this country and to the improvement of industry if it rejected the Bill.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. T. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) declared in the earlier part of his remarks that if this Bill were rejected the Government, in his opinion, would then be compelled to step in and do the job themselves. That is the strongest argument I have yet heard in the House against this Bill. I speak as one who intends to vote for sending the Bill to an examination before a Select Committee. The simple fact here is that a great wealthy corporation, whose Li shares are standing at about £6, seeks to get a monopoly of the water power in a most beautiful part of the central Highlands of Scotland. The alternative seems to me to be that if they do not get there, the industry which they would assist in providing in this country must remain in Norway. I am told that it is economically impossible in South Wales or in Lanarkshire. I do not know anything about the technical side of it, but that is what we are assured. If I am faced with the fact that an industry is either to come to the central Highlands of Scotland or to remain in Norway, I am at least in favour of an examination of the facts before a Select Committee hearing witnesses and carefully examining the evidence before I see this thing turned down and central Scotland go further in the direction of becoming a desert.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Davidson) very properly, from his point of view, drew attention to some of the arguments that were used by the promoters of the Bill. One could, indeed, make a most interesting selection of the ineptitudes in the arguments for and against. It is not only the promoters of this Bill who have said and done foolish things. I see in to-day's "Daily Telegraph," for example, a letter by Lord Brocket, better known to some of us as an ex-Member of this House, Sir A. Nall-Cain, a leading figure in the brewing world. He goes to the Highlands and becomes a landed proprietor. He writes to the "Daily Telegraph" as a

  1275
  strong and convinced opponent of this Measure, and he solemnly puts down in print an argument why this House should reject the Measure. I commend it to my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill when he is making his selection of arguments for and against the Bill. It is that if a strike of the workers at this carbide factory in the Highlands took place when it was put up, there would be no alternative labour available in such an out-of-the-way place. Imagine the folly—it is surely the apotheosis of ineptitude—of using an argument of that kind.
  There are many of us—I for one—who cannot meet the technical arguments of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald). I have great sympathy with the case put forward by the Inverness Town Council for municipal government, and I am still more impressed by the strength of the argument against the destruction of the amenities of the beautiful Highlands of Scotland, but I do not shut my eyes to the fact that those who have remained in power in central Scotland have themselves destroyed the amenities, so far as thousands of my fellow countrymen are concerned, for they have been driven off the land. I went last night through the census figures and took out the figures for the parishes that are covered by this Measure. What do we find? The population of Urquhart and Glenmorriston has halved since 1831. Glenelg is 41 per cent. down. The place is becoming a desert. Apart from the Inverness Burgh Council and the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland, if the shooting tenants and the others who have controlled Scotland come forward and say that not only are they against the Bill but that the House of Commons should not have even a careful examination given to it, then that argument induces me as an individual, and speaking for no one else but myself, to go into the Lobby to-night and vote for the Second Reading, though reserving to myself the right to oppose it on Report stage and Third Reading unless effective and adequate guarantees are given that the amenities of our country are not going to be wantonly destroyed.
  9.56 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I think it will be desirable that I
  1276
  should say a few words, and they can be only few, on the subject before the House. This is the third day in one week on which the House has discussed unemployment, the location of industry and problems arising out of those things. That shows how keen our interest must be in all these matters. The difference is that whereas on other days the House has been discussing methods and principles, it is today discussing a project. When we come down to concrete projects we have a full House, keen speeches and a very sharp division of opinion, and it is not my desire to stand between the House and hon. Members who have a great deal to say on this matter before the Division comes. We are discussing this matter under conditions of the utmost liberty. There are no Whips on, and no fettering financial resolutions such as the House has complained of earlier this week. The House itself has to decide this question. [Interruption.] No,. there are no Whips on. The hon. Member who interrupts will see when the Whips come through the doors that the Government Whips are not on.
  This Bill undertakes two things, the establishment of an industry and the location of an industry. As to the establishment of the industry, there is not, I believe, a division of opinion. It is desirable that this industry should be established in this country. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) whether I would go so far as to say that it was essential. I could not go as far as to say it is essential in case of war, because although the product is brought here from overseas yet we trust this country will continue to have the command of the seas and to have access to supplies from foreign countries. We use some 50,000 to 60,000 tons of carbide per year, and we should require a fresh import of 1,200 tons a week if hostilities were going on. Without that fresh import of 1,200 tons a week many of our efforts would be greatly crippled.
  If we look at what is being done in other countries we see that this requirement of 50,000 to 60,000 tons a year is small compared with the enormous manufactures of this almost essential product which are being carried on abroad. In Germany the manufacture of carbide is not 50,000, or 100,000 tons, but 400,000

  1277
  tons a year. In Italy the manufacture of carbide is 350,000 tons a year, carried out in 20 factories, nearly all hydro-electric, deriving their power from places in the Alps and elsewhere. It is interesting to see that the biggest factory in the world, with an output of 70,000 tons and an output capacity of 200,000 tons, has been situated at Venice. The amenities of Venice are well known to hon. Members, either by experience or through song and story, and I do not think it can be said that the amenities of North Italy and Venice are entirely without interest to those very capable people who run the tourist traffic in that country.
  It is on the location of this industry that the division arises. Should it or should it not be in the West Highlands? The Bill proposes that it should be; the decision must rest with the House. The House to-night has the responsibility of deciding whether this Bill is to go upstairs to Committee procedure, under which witnesses can be called and the fiercely-challenged facts which have been stated here brought down to hard realities. The House has the responsibility of saying whether that examination should or should not take place. But, I may be asked—I think I should be rightly asked—and I should have to reply at once, for I do not wish to spring anything upon my colleagues in the House, "Given the great desirability of establishing this industry in this country, what steps will the Government take if this Bill is defeated?" That is a fair question and demands a fair answer.
  If the House in its wisdom decides not to proceed with this Bill the problem is by no means solved; the problem remains. There is this enormously important industry which we all agree that it is desirable, at least, to establish in this country. The question of the location of the industry still remains. The Government cannot divest itself of the responsibility of determining the question whether, and if so where, this industry should be carried on in this country, nor does the Government wish to do so. If, therefore, this Bill fails to obtain a Second Reading to-night the Government itself will for with take up the question how best this country should be provided with a supply of carbide and where this supply of carbide should be produced. It might well be that in such circumstances a
  1278
  Highland site might be chosen. It may be said that that ends the discussion.
  Mr. Boothby: So it does.
  Mr. Elliot: I do not think so; that is not my view. The inquiry asked for tonight is an inquiry by the House by the procedure of a Select Committee, because the Private Bill procedure is practically the procedure of a Select Committee. That is examination by the House by its own self. Should the House declare that it does not wish this procedure, the responsibility returns to the Executive, and it is a strange thing that those who have so vehemently championed the cause of the House and the necessity of the House deciding these matters should, almost in the same breath, be pressing the desirability of having this inquiry undertaken by the Executive and not by the House of Commons. The new procedure would be the procedure of the Executive. I must make that quite clear.
  Mr. Davidson: Have I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that should the Second Reading of this Bill be rejected the Executive will take up the question?
  Mr. Elliot: I have done my best to say so and I will say it again. I said the Government could not divest itself of responsibility, and it would take up the question of how best the country could be provided with a supply of carbide and where best that supply of carbide could be produced.
  Mr. Boothby: This is very important. Will the Government, in that event, take into consideration adopting a subsidy? That is a vital question.
  Mr. Johnston: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, will he say, and make it clear, that if the Bill is rejected it is the intention of the Government to have a State factory?
  Mr. Elliot: I was just coming to that point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Western Stirling (Mr. Johnston) stated that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) had stated that it was the Government's duty, if the Bill were defeated, to run a State factory to make carbide. That was not at all my conclusion from what my right hon. Friend said. I should think it most improbable, although I am

  1279
  not ruling out anything, one of the most improbable things that could possibly happen, that the Government should take upon themselves to set up a factory to make carbide.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said that if the Bill is rejected the Government will give very serious consideration to the necessity, in the national interest, of providing for the manufacture of carbide in this country. If the Government give that consideration, may I take it that they will give serious consideration also to the recommendation of the Commissioner whom they appointed on this matter?
  Mr. Elliot: The Government will naturally give consideration to all the relevant factors. Let me make the position clear. I do not think anybody in the House suggests that there is not distress and unemployment in the Highlands. As I said, a site may very well be chosen in the Highlands. Then, of course, the Government would have full responsibility for any legislation arising out of that decision. It might very well be that the Government whips would be put on for legislation arising out of the Government decision as the result of the Government inquiry.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I just wish to clarify a point. Under the Bill, it will take three or four years to get power. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman's announcement means that the Government think that it is so essential to get carbide made in this country that they will get a factory set up if the Bill is rejected, so as to provide carbide in the quickest possible time.
  Mr. Elliot: I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of the merits or demerits of the Bill.
  Mr. Boothby: Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand?
  Mr. Elliot: I was asked by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) a question. He first made an assumption and then asked a question arising out of it. He asked whether it was true that, since carbide could be produced only in three or four years under the Bill, the Government would undertake to put up a factory or to see that a factory
  1280
  was put up to produce carbide in a far shorter time.
  Mr. C. Williams: The quickest possible.
  Mr. Elliot: In the quickest possible time. I am certainly not to be led away into the assumptions of the hon. Member for Torquay that, under the Bill, no factory would be able to produce carbide in a shorter time than three or four years. I am sure that he will not expect me to agree with his assumption. We all know where he stands on the Bill; he will vote against it whatever happens. I am not complaining. That is his point of view, and nobody ever said that he was not tenacious of his point of view. He is one of the most skilled debaters in the House of Commons, but—
  "In vain in the sight of the bird, is the net of the fowler spread."
  Mr. Hardie: In relation to what the Government may do is it to come within their consideration that leaving aside the question of the factory they would make the water-power plant and make the electricity and then give that for the manufacture of the carbide? Is that the idea?
  Mr. Elliot: I think I have said that examination is highly desirable. Speaking for myself, I would prefer that the Bill should get its Second Reading and I want an examination of it to be held by the House of Commons itself; but that is my personal conviction. I am not putting that forward as the Government's decision. I am putting forward the Government's decision that the solution of to-night's problem lies with the House of Commons. If the House of Commons declines to solve the problem, responsibility then falls back upon the Executive, and I have said that the Executive will forthwith—[Interruption]. This is quite simple. I have said that the Executive will then take up the question of how best this country should be provided with a supply of carbide and where best this supply of carbide should be produced. I think that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) as to where I and the Government stand in the matter. If not, I shall do my best to elucidate it further.
  Mr. Benson: There is just one other point. The right hon. Gentleman says that the position before the House is that the Government will examine this matter

  1281
  as to where carbide shall best be produced, or that the House itself should do so. If the Bill is sent to a Select Committee, will that Committee have power to examine where carbide shall best be produced.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Elliot: I can only rely upon the statement which was made to the House by the Lord Advocate and from the Chair upon a previous occasion when it was pointed out by the Lord Advocate:
  "The first stage will be the proof of the Preamble, when, so far as I know, all questions of public policy will be capable of determination, and capable of determination, if I may so put it, far more intelligently, after the facts have been obtained, than is possible for anyone here in this House. After that has been done there will fall to be embarked upon a separate investigation of the details of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1936; col. 552, Vol. 310.]
  As I say, I do not wish—
  Mr. Ede: Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that South Wales or South-West Durham have a locus before the Private Bill Committee on a Bill of this kind, or that they would be ruled out as having no locus?
  Mr. Elliot: A Committee of the House of Commons can examine a question of public policy. I am not going further than that. I am saying what everybody knows to be the case, that examination by a Committee of the House of Commons is truly a procedure of the House itself. If the House does not wish to accept that responsibility, the Executive will then not shirk from shouldering the responsibility which falls back upon them by reason of the action of the House of Commons.
  I have been detained longer than I expected to be, but I have been detained by the action of the House of Commons itself. I think my statement is perfectly clear. Speaking for myself, I intend to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill because I do not think there ought to be any delay in getting ahead with this urgent problem. If the House of Commons decides against me I will certainly frankly accept the decision of the House. For that reason I do not go into the arguments—of which I have a trunk full here—for and against the merits of the Bill. I should want to controvert many of the statements which have been made here to-night but as responsibility may come
  1282
  back upon me and other Members of the Government after the Division to-night, I will remain without using the arguments before the House, and will stand upon the perfectly clear statement which I have just made.
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. Assheton: As an English Member I feel a certain amount of temerity in addressing the House on this subject, but I feel that the matter is not only one of local importance, but one of considerable national consequence. I have listened with great care to the arguments put forward by those who have spoken on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I listened with great care to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), and, as far as I can ascertain, three principal arguments are put forward by the promoters. The first is that calcium carbide can only be made profitably under this scheme or not at all in this country. Many experts are, however, prepared to say that electricity can be generated as cheaply from coal as it could be under this scheme, and in support of that argument Sir Malcolm Stewart, in his report on the distressed areas, said:
  "Another proposal which would use available raw materials, namely, limestone and coal, would be the installation of a factory in South Wales for the production of calcium carbide. Further investigation of this problem may be required, but preliminary investigations made for me by a competent firm of engineers indicate that the production of calcium carbide, using electricity generated from steam power, is a commercial possibility."
  Mr. Boothby: Possibility.
  Mr. Assheton: May I add another authority? In April, 1929, when the Grampian Power Scheme was being considered in Committee upstairs, Mr. Collins, who was giving evidence on behalf of the promoters of that scheme in defence of a proposal that special rating concessions should be given—he was speaking on behalf of the company who were promoting the Bill—said this:
  "By the ordinary system of rating, such a handicap would be placed on water power in comparison with steam stations that, unless the difference was adjusted in that way, they were virtually making it impossible for water to be used if electricity was to be supplied at an economic price."
  There is, therefore, a good prima facie case for saying that electricity can be generated as cheaply from coal as it can

  1283
  be from water power. We in this country have not the high mountains that they have in Norway or in Canada, which make it possible to generate electricity so cheaply, and therefore I do not think we need accept the argument that calcium carbide cannot be profitably produced here at all. There are four ingredients in the manufacture of carbide—limestone, coal, electricity and labour. None of these is to be found in the Highlands of Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but all of them are to be found in South Wales. You have in South Wales the anthracite which is required; you have in South Wales and in North Wales the limestone which is required; you have power which you can obtain from stations which have already been made, and, if you give extra work to those electricity stations, you will reduce the cost of it to other people. Finally, you have a great deal of labour.
  On the question of employment, I was very much impressed by what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour), and naturally this is a matter which must weigh very heavily with the House, but I would ask the House to consider these facts: To whom is the employment going to be given when this scheme is put into operation? In the first place, employment is going to be given to the people who make the works; there will be a good many thousand navvies employed for a year or two. Where will they come from? Almost certainly they will come from Ireland, as they have come on previous occasions, and, when they come from Ireland, a good many of them will stay and add to the unemployment problem of Scotland, as happened in the case of the Lochaber scheme. Therefore, I believe that the unemployment problem will be aggravated rather than improved by this scheme. On the question of defence, the Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that the Government do not consider it necessary that we should pass this Bill in the interests of defence. He says that the Government themselves will take up the question of whether or not calcium carbide should be produced in this country, and in considering this matter I would particularly remind the House that under this scheme no calcium carbide can be produced for three years. Even the promoters admit
  1284
  that that is so. What is the good of calcium carbide for an emergency if we are not to have any for three years? If it is to be produced somewhere from coal, we can have it within six months. Indeed, I am told on good authority that it can be produced in a shorter time.
  I do not think we ought to overlook the wishes of the local inhabitants. There has been some dispute as to the position of the Inverness County Council, but there is no dispute that the representatives of the people who live in that part of the county which is going to be affected are all opposed to the scheme. The representatives of the county council who live in this area are against it. True, there is a majority on the county council for it, but those, for instance, who come from Skye are only interested to see that the rateable value of the county is increased. They do not care about the interests of the people who are directly affected. I do not wish to overstress the question of the destruction of amenities, but I cannot help feeling that those who have seen the beauties of the Highlands will attach some little weight to that point. I live in a part of the world which has been very largely ruined by industrialisation, though some parts of Lancashire are still beautiful. I urge those Scottish Members who are thinking of voting for the Bill to remember that their grandchildren may regret the day that this beautiful country was destroyed and their birthright was sold. Let us reject the Bill and let us see that calcium carbide is manufactured in some other suitable place, in some place where the raw materials are present and where there is a large supply of labour. Only yesterday I asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed there were in Inverness-shire and how many in the Special Area of South Wales. In Inverness there are, in these winter months, only 3,641 and in South Wales and Monmouth, a much smaller area, 120,687.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: We have here a Bill proposing to set up a factory for the manufacture of calcium carbide. It will employ a certain number of men. It does not matter what part of the country it is in, it will give a certain amount of employment. If it is in Scotland, it will employ a more or less fixed number of people in Scotland and, if it is in Wales,

  1285
  it will give the same employment in Wales. That question ought to be considered settled. Then there is the question of the available supply of unemployed people to operate this factory. One hon. Member said the setting up of an industrial scheme around Fort William had created anunemployment problem there. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that there is an available number of unemployed in the district round Fort William who will admittedly find employment on this scheme. The Highlands and Islands and the crofting counties are depopulated every year to the number of about 4,000 people. Is there not a sufficient supply of labour in the present condition of things? They are waiting for jobs in the same way as they are in the Special Areas. In the Highlands they have waited so long that they cannot wait any longer, and thousands have left the country altogether.
  We have been told to-night by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) that in contrast to the general depopulation, the population of Inverness Burgh has risen in the last few years. In that case Inverness can well afford to be smug about the population of the country, but all the rest of the Highlands are more important than Inverness itself. I think that the question ought not to be treated as a matter between Fort William and Inverness, but as a matter of interest to the people of the Highlands as a whole. We have an agreement before us between the promoters of the company and the County Council of Inverness, representing a majority of the people of Invernessshire, and including the people of Skye who are as important as the people of Inverness, and are represented by just as responsible members of the County Council—and as responsible as the hon. Member who scoffs at them—as any other part of the county of Inverness. We have an agreement before us in favour of setting up an industry in Invernessshire. As far as area and the number of people are concerned, we have overwhelming support within Invernessshire, and in the Highlands as a whole, for the setting up of the industry.
  The question of tourist traffic is of importance certainly, but if you ask the people of Kinlochleven, Lochaber, Gallo-
  1286
  way and the rest whether they would rather depend upon the future prospects of the tourist industry or obtain a steady wage and regular employment the answer every time will be for industrialism if it means a steady wage and regular employment. They have suffered from a lower standard of living for generations than people in any other part of Great Britain. In the Western Isles and part of the mainland wages of 2½d. to 6d. an hour have been paid for road making, and such wages would not be paid to people in any other part of the country. They are only accepted by these people because they are desperate and have nothing else to which to turn. Someone said that they do not make navvies, but they have to make navvies whether they want it or not because of the conditions which exist in the Highlands, which are the most depressed of all depressed areas, with the lowest standard of living in Great Britain. I fully agree this should be a Government undertaking—a State scheme. But there is none. Let anyone go to the Western Highlands and he will see whole communities dependent upon the old age pension and public assistance and relief. I am not speaking for the British Oxygen Company or for anyone else. I have no interest in the Bill as an interested party. I am speaking for the people of the Highlands of Scotland, and not because of any interest in the British Oxygen Company, and I have told them so. My name is on the back of the Bill because I want to give the House an opportunity of examining, in the light of the interest which has been created by this Bill and this question of the manufacture of carbide in this country, the whole question of hydro-electrical development of the North with expert and full evidence, and because I have no promise of this investigation by the Government and the House otherwise.
  There is no Government power supply in the North of Scotland and no Government policy, and I do not see signs of any immediate constructive policy in the Highlands of Scotland. There has been no alternative suggestion, no constructive suggestion for the benefit of the north of Scotland as an alternative to or improvement on this scheme. I support the Bill because it will set up an industry in the Highlands. The people of the north of Scotland are very desperate for work,

  1287
  and because many of them have been unable to find work they have emigrated. They are asked to emigrate now because they are unemployed. On behalf of the people in the Highlands I trust that we shall have an opportunity of examining the Bill in Committee, with the fullest evidence. Let the House not reject this opportunity of having this important scheme fully considered.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Macquisten: I heartily agree with what the last speaker said. The Highlands are depopulated because of the want of employment. Because they had not employment the people went away. We have had a raw deal from the English Parliament for over 100 years. Here is an opportunity of bringing an industry to the Highlands. The industry will either go to the Highlands or it will remain in Norway. It will not go to South Wales. There is no chance of its going to South Wales. I am interested in the Bill not only because it affects the Highlands but because I know a little about the subject. I am chairman of a company which makes carbide on the other side of the world, and we are doing it with water power. There would be no carbide production there except for water power. No one outside an engineering mental hospital would dream of making carbide with electricity generated from coal. It cannot be done.
  Once you have started your scheme and borrowed your money at 3 per cent., that is the end of the power cost. It lasts for all time. But if you go into the coal market you are subject to all the fluctuations of the coal market, and you never know where you are. I understand that in Germany they make a lot of carbide with steam, but that is under a dictatorship. Under a dictatorship they do things that we should never dream of doing here. It is completely uneconomic. Carbide is made throughout the world by water power—in Canada, America, the Victoria Falls, Tasmania, Norway, and elsewhere. I have seen a lot of the propaganda against the Bill, in which it is said that to bring your anthracite from Wales to Corpach is costly. Nothing of the sort. I take my anthracite from South Wales 13,000 miles across the ocean, and it pays me to do it. We used to make the product from local coal, but
  1288
  it was not good enough. I found that the only way was to get Welsh anthracite, and anthracite from one particular part of South Wales. I suppose that I was legally bound to use the local stuff, but I got over that. When we used the local stuff we had not one-third of the market, but since we used Welsh anthracite we have had the whole market. If you want to produce carbide economically you must go to where there is plenty of water power. Suppose £3,000,000 are spent on this power scheme. At 3 per cent. or 2½ per cent. that would not mean very much. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the sinking fund?"] You do not need a sinking fund. It is immortal. It is like the number of the elect; it cannot be altered. It lies between Norway and Scotland. That is the choice you have.
  Do give us something in the Highlands to employ our people. Something has been said about wages. There are hardly any wages in the Highlands, and men who are employed as ghillies are employed for only a few months in each year. And nobody wants to be a crofter; it is far too hard a job. It is only old people who are crofters, and they are living on the old age pension. All the young men and women are going out of the country, but if this undertaking is started it will no doubt mean a rise in wages throughout that part of the Highlands. That is not always welcome to some people. I want to see the standard of living materially raised in the Highlands. I did not promise my support for the Bill until I had heard the arguments, but I must say that the arguments which have been put forward to-night have decided me that the Bill must go to a Committee of the House of Commons in order that the true facts may be ascertained. Those who oppose the Bill do not want it to go to a Committee of the House of Commons because the Committee might find out the facts.
  I beseech hon. Members for the sake of the Highlands to give this industry a chance. Let us get some employment for our people. A power station is not an unsightly thing. Take the case of Tasmania. The power station there does not disfigure the landscape, and there is no smoke or smell because the anthracite is not burnt but is blended with the lime. It will not disfigure the landscape in the Highlands. If I thought that the undertaking would destroy the

  1289
  beauties of the Highlands from the tourist point of view I should not support it, but you cannot expect the people of Inverness to live for ever on the Loch Ness monster. You must find work for the people, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  10.38 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey Ellis: The Secretary of State for Scotland said something which really simplifies the whole question very much. He said that this was an essential industry but was an industry which cannot go on in this country, whether it is made from coal or by water-power in Scotland, without what is in effect a very considerable subsidy from the Government. Therefore the Government are very much concerned as to the type of manufacture and the place where the manufacture shall take place. At the present time this carbide is made in Norway at a cost of 25s. a ton. It is impossible for anything like that figure to be approached here, and, therefore, whoever makes it, other than the Government, must be in close correspondence with the Government in order that some control may be maintained and so that the Government may be quite sure what the development is to be in the future.
  Mr. Elliot: I hope there will be no misunderstanding. There is no promise whatever of any duty or of any subsidy on the part of the Government for the manufacture of carbide in this country.
  Sir G. Ellis: I do not think I said that. I am saying that the financial implication, that it is impossible to produce carbide in this country at anything like the price at which it is produced in Norway, without either a subsidy or a duty, is that we come logically to the implication contained in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It is that it becomes the duty of the Government not to consider this question from the point of view of Scotland alone, but from the point of view of where it is best to place this industry in relation to what it will cost the Government and in relation to the needs of labour throughout the whole country. If we deal with the Bill as is suggested, and allow it to go to a Select Committee, we shall then meet with the difficulty that in the Select Committee it will be possible only to discuss substantially what is in the Bill,
  1290
  and therefore the alternative which ought to be discussed will never be discussed. Consequently, I accept the alternative which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that it is the duty of the Government to face the situation and to examine the whole question. I am obliged to him for the clear way in which he has put the matter, and I suggest to the House that if we want a thorough and complete examination, apart from considerations of interest on both sides, it is the duty of the House to reject this Bill.
  10.42 p.m.
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: There has already been a great deal of delay in dealing with this question, but the facts are well known. They are that a company has considered all the points raised by the hon. Member for Eccleshall (Sir G. Ellis) and has decided that the only place where this carbide can be produced economically is in the Highlands of Scotland. There is really no necessity for a Select Committee to go into that.
  Sir G. Ellis: I do not accept that statement.
  Sir A. Sinclair: Nobody has been into the matter as closely as the people who are concerned with this business.
  Sir G. Ellis: I do not accept the statement.
  Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Gentleman does not accept the decision, but those who are mainly concerned, who have studied this question for months and even for years, and who are prepared to risk their capital in the business have decided that the Highlands of Scotland, and the Highlands of Scotland only, is the place where they can make a success of the business. They are the people who are going to do it; the hon. Baronet is not going to start a company. The people who are prepared to risk their capital have decided that the Highlands of Scotland is the one place where they have a chance of making a success of this business.
  Mr. Davidson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but does he not agree that the company has stated that unless it can receive the special rating facilities in the Bill, it cannot produce the carbide on an economic basis?
  Sir A. Sinclair: That is true, and I am very glad the hon. Member interrupted me to make that clear, for I do not wish the House to be under any misunderstanding. But the rating concession which the company has obtained from the Inverness County Council is only for the period of development, and the Inverness County Council has willingly given that concession. They have approved the scheme in principle by an enormous majority; they have approved the details of the scheme, including the rating arrangement to which the hon. Member refers, with only six dissentients. I have heard many different opinions expressed during the time I have listened to the Debate. I know the views of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald), to whose opinion, if I may say so with great respect, I attach the greatest weight. I have discussed this matter privately with him. I know exactly the line he takes, and I know how much weight the House will naturally attach to his opinion, but the objections which he has put forward to the Bill are just such objections as ought to be discussed in a Committee of the House. I hope the House will allow this Bill to go to that Committee. I shall vote for the Bill in the confidence that the Committee will give the closest attention to the view which the hon. Member has urged on behalf of the burgh of Inverness.
  We heard a very witty and eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Assheton) I know he did not mean unkindly anything he said, but to me, as a Highlander, it was a painful speech, and I do not think the hon. Member realised the impression which his words would make on a Highlander. I do not say that he gibed at the Highlands but he did mention the fact that we have only 3,000 unemployed in Inverness. Why is that? Because the people of the Highland counties are being bled away. The Highlands are almost bled white. There are no people there. That is the tragedy of the Highlands. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the tragedy of South Wales?"] I know the tragedy of South Wales. I have been there, and in my humble way I have done what I could to help South Wales, and I see that something which I said is being used in public to help undertakings there. But I would ask hon. Members to consider sympathetically the
  1292
  case for the Highlands. The tragedy of South Wales has been sudden. Within a few years, a prosperous community has been reduced to unemployment and futility. When you go there you see empty factories and disused mines. The thing hits you in the eye. It has been dramatic in its suddenness. In the Highlands it has been going on year after year for 20 or 30 years and more, and to-day you see there the empty houses and the deserted glens.
  That is why we have only 3,000 unemployed in Inverness. But look at the percentage of unemployment in the fishing towns and you find 66 per cent. in Stornoway, 49 per cent. in Wick, 50 per cent. I think, in Buckie, 49 per cent. in Fraserburgh and Peterhead. It is terrific—two men in three unemployed in Stornoway and one man in two unemployed in Wick. We want an industry in the Highlands which will keep men on the land. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe said: "Do not industrialise the Highlands." Why, it is the one hope for the Highlands. There is a village called Brora in my constituency which has a coal mine and that mine does not make the village hideous. It is a lovely little village and people go there because of its beauty. You can play golf and bathe there and the mine does not frighten people away from it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is only a wee mine."] It is enough for a wool factory and a tile factory and an electricity works which are all round it. There is a prosperous little industrial community in that village. Does it hurt the crofters and the farmers to have it there? Not at all. They have a market at their doors.
  How are you going to create a prosperous agriculture in the Western Highlands of Scotland? It is sub-marginal land, it is badly drained, it is bad soil, and if you raised prices sufficiently to make farming a prosperous undertaking on that land, you would put up the cost of living 50 or 100 per cent. in the towns of England. But bring industries there, bring the crofters a market to their doors, let us have industries in the rural parts of Scotland as they have in Germany and you can do much. Nobody thinks Germany hideous because there are little industries in the rural districts. It is a splendid form of economy to have them; it is healthy for the industrial workers and it provides a market for the rural

  1293
  workers. I appeal to the House. I feel deeply about this question. All my colleagues from the Highlands, with the exception of the hon. Member for Inverness, who has very important points to make on behalf of that burgh, have spoken in favour of this scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] All who have spoken have spoken in favour of it, and we know what the feeling is in the Highlands. I have seen letters in the newspapers from a number of eminent gentlemen on this subject. These eminent men have said that they are against this scheme. But the men who have worked with these people, men like the Cameron of Lochiel, the convenor of the county council. [Interruption.] He is a man who works hard for the people. I do not agree with his politics.
  Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman in discussing the question of the Cameron of Lochiel tell the House the amount of remuneration which is given to the Cameron of Lochiel?
  Sir A. Sinclair: I do not know of course what remuneration he receives, but he is a man who works hard for the people. There is Sir Alexander MacEwen, chairman of the education committee. There is Mrs. Flora Macleod. Everyone knows the hard work which she has done. The county council, with six dissentients, the people who work among those in the Highlands, are for this scheme. I appeal to the House to listen to the voice of the Highlands, to give them this chance of starting an industry there which may mean much' to the Highlands and to the standard of living of the people there.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Barr: In the short time at my disposal, I desire to refer to some of the objections which have been raised to the Bill. It was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the Motion, as well as by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), that it was not for a private company to own what ought to be a communal possession, and to exploit it for private gain. With that every one of us agrees; and if the Minister had said that the Government were going to make it a Government enterprise, for me that would finish it. What he did say was that it might be that after all we should have a private company. If we are never to give any such public enterprise to a private company, then we shall
  1294
  not pass any private Bills at all, and those of us who are clamouring for industries to come into our constituencies, are bound to object to them all if they are private. The hon. Member for Maryhill, in his summary of those who were for, and those against this scheme omitted to tell us that the local Labour party are entirely and enthusastically in favour of this Bill. It has been said, Why not have this in a distressed area? I happen to represent one of the most distressed areas in the country, and if I thought that by rejecting this Bill, I would bring this enterprise to my own area, I would not hesitate but cast my vote for my own area; but I find that if I vote the Bill to-night, I do an injury to the Highlands and do no good to myself. It has been said that Irish labour will be brought in. We have the utmost assurances that it will be local labour that will be brought in. A census was taken lately of the nationality of those employed at the British Aluminium Works, and it showed that 91 per cent. were natives of Scotland, 4 per cent. of England, and 5 per cent. of Ireland. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about the influx of Irish into our country. It is not generally known that there are to-day more Irish, according to the last census, who came in from the north of Ireland than from the Irish Free State; and in the second place there are more English born people in Scotland than Irish born. I give these figures in reply to what has been said.
  I come to the more serious point that was raised by the Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) about watersheds. He said there could be no precedent for it, but I gave him the precedent. Away back in 1854, when Glasgow undertook the Loch Katrine scheme, water was diverted and its flow was diverted from the east to the west just as in this case. This met with great opposition. The opposition against the Bill was so great that the Lords of the Admiralty came into it and declared that the Forth would no longer have the waters from the river Teith, and the Forth would no longer be a navigable river. At that time it was thrown out, but within a year a committee of this House by a small payment made their peace with the Admiralty—by the payment of £1,000 or thereabouts. What has happened? There has always been plenty of water in the Trossachs ever since then. They raised Loch Katrine by

  1295
  12 feet, and you will agree that the Forth is still quite a navigable river. I want to say this in the one or two minutes that remain, that in regard to amenities the same objection was taken against the Loch Katrine scheme. That scheme was brought in, and does anyone say that the evidence called by the objectors has been substantiated, that they have injured the Trossachs in any degree? Instead of that it is an additional pleasure, when you are taking tourists and friends to the Trossachs, to point to the evidences of the Glasgow water works, and tell them how every prediction that was made against that scheme has been falsified in history.
  My time has gone, but I would say this, that last year 22 Scottish Members voted for this scheme and 16 against. Reference has been made to the expense; that is not the blame either of the supporters or of the objectors, but it is a powerful argument for self-government for Scotland. It is a powerful argument that the voice of those Scottish representatives should this very night be accepted, and accentuated.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 188.

  Division No. 102.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Ridley, G.

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

  Harbord, A.

  Rowson, G.

  Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

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

  Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

  Hepworth, J.

  Scott, Lord William

  Barr, J.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

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

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Hunter, T.

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Silkin, L.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Simmonds, O. E.

  Broad, F. A.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

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

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Bromfield, W.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Buchanan, G.

  Lathan, G.

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

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

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

  Leslie, J. R.

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

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

  Liddall, W. S.

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

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

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Thurtle, E.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

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

  Tinker, J. J.

  Dc Chair, S. S.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Touche, G. C.

  Dobbie, W.

  McGovern, J.

  Train, Sir J.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Turton, R. H.

  Emery, J. F.

  Maclean, N.

  Viant, S. P.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  MacNeill, Weir, L.

  Walker, J.

  Everard, W. L.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Markham, S. F.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Foot, D. M.

  Mathers, G.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Frankel, D.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Watt, G. S. H.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Milner, Major J.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Gibbins, J.

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

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Muff, G.

  Westwood, J.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Nail, Sir J.

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

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

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.

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

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Parker, J.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Groves, T. E.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Mr. Boothby and Marquess of

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Remer, J. R.

  Clydesdale.

  NOES.

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

  Apsley, Lord

  Banfield, J. W.

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

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Batey, J.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Assheton, R.

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

  Ammon, C. G.

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

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Balniel, Lord

  Benson, G.

  Bevan, A.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Peake, O.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Peat, C. U.

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Brooke, W.

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Petherick, M.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdaro)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Hayday, A.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Pilkington, R.

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

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Potts, J.

  Bull, B. B.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Price, M. P.

  Burke, W. A.

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

  Pritt, D. N.

  Cape, T.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hopkin, D.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Channon, H.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

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

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Cocks, F. S.

  John, W.

  Ritson, J.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

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

  Jones. L. (Swansea W.)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Cove, W. G.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Rowlands, G.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Critchley, A.

  Kimball, L.

  Salt, E. W.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Daggar, G.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Sexton. T. M.

  Dalton, H.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Shinwell, E.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Leach, W.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lee, F.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Lewis, O.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Donner, P. W.

  Loftus, P. C.

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

  Duggan, H. J.

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Lunn, W.

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

  Dunglass, Lord

  Lyons, A. M.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Ede, J. C.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McKie, J. H.

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Ellis, Sir G.

  MacLaren, A.

  White, H. Graham

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Whiteley, W.

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

  Maitland, A.

  Williams, C. (Torquny)

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

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

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

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

  Furness, S. N.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Gallacher, VV.

  Messer, F.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Garro Jones, G. M.

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

  Wise, A. R.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Munro, P.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Owen, Major G.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Captain Ramsay and Sir Murdoch

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Macdonald.

  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  Words added.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

SUPPLY.
REPORT [2nd March].
Postponed Proceeding resumed Consideration of Resolution:
"That a sum, not exceeding £175,660,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1938."
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

STEEL INDUSTRY (SCOTLAND).
Motion made, and Question proposed, on "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Hardie: I wish to raise the question of the supply of steel to the re-rolling mills in my constituency. The steel shortage

1299
means that a large number of men are rendered unemployed. Those who have these re-rolling mills have been warning those concerned for six months past that this situation might arise. I know that the representative of the Government will try to-night to fob me off by saying that it is none of the Government's business to deal with the supply of steel, but I hope that that argument will not be used. The Prime Minister took the feet away from it by the statement which he made some time ago, pointing out that since the Government had done so well by the steel trade he expected the steel trade to do something for the country. The steel makers proudly boasted some years ago of a certain change in manufacture, and said "anybody can have these blooms." As a result, the trade went to Belgium, which country was for many years supplying the blooms. The steel trade then got into a bad condition. Before the tariff was given, the steel makers got all the ships they could and they bought all the blooms they could in Belgium and brought them in in one week-end; and they said to the Chancellor: "Look how many of these things come in in one week."
I am surprised that the Government were so stupid as to put a tariff on the things that this country could not make. That is the history of what created the present condition of affairs. When the steel people got their monopoly, it was on the condition that they would keep up adequate supplies of that kind of steel, especially the re-rolled, but that promise has not been kept. The steel makers have full power, the monopoly, to say even what shall be imported. Monopoly is the basic idea of the Government. If there had been any foresight on the part of these big captains of industry, as they are proud to call themselves, in the steel trade why should there be only 15 out of the 52 blast furnaces out of commission in Scotland? You can blow in a blast furnace like that when you have had three or four months' warning.
The restriction on production is also a question which the Government should deal with, since they have been so kind to the steel people. It is noted in the trade papers that the steel makers are indicating to the rollers that there is going to be an increase in the price of steel on
1300
31st May, and not only a shortage. That is the only way in which monopoly can operate. One would have thought that if the statements made from the other side as to the interest taken in the development of the industry, one would have thought that the opportunity would have been taken by the Government, when it presented itself, to make the steel makers keep their promise and do their job. They are not doing their job. The whole of the steel trade is behaving like a big, spoilt boy who does not know how to behave himself. Nobody can trust the steel trade in the hands of an industry like that.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade smiles. He knows. I remember when he was on these benches as a Liberal, and when he and his Chief were supposed to be the two greatest exponents of Free Trade in the world. Now we see them, the dog still chained to his master, but with a different collar on. It is a sad spectacle. I hope the hon. Gentleman is going to give us some details in regard to the question I have raised. Many protests are made about the great honesty, clarity and brain power of Ministers, especially in regard to industrial matters, but here is a shortage of British steel. Why did the Government stand by and see British ships sold across the water? There again there was no industrial foresight. The whole thing is simply due to the lack of someone in charge who knows what is going on, and who can control the trade and say that such-and-such material is required and must be produced.
11.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): Before the hon. Member resumes his seat, perhaps he would be good enough to tell me really to what it is that he is asking me to reply. A certain amount of scorn has been poured on the leaders of the iron and steel industry and on Members of the Government, who apparently were not clever enough because they did not foresee that there would be a world demand for steel in the year 1937, but I have not the slightest idea, if the hon. Member will excuse me, of any question that he is putting to me.
Mr. Hardie: I was trying to save time; I thought the hon. Gentleman would remember the questions that have been put

1301
in the House. The question is, what is the Government prepared to do to get the raw material for the mills that are closed in Springburn, my constituency? I want him to tell us how that is going to be done, and how these men are going to be put back into their jobs.
Dr. Burgin: I now understand that the specific question is whether there is a shortage of material for the re-rolling mills in Springburn. I suppose that means Messrs. Frederick Braby and Company, or something of that kind. Does the hon. Member claim to speak for them?
Mr. Hardie: The men are unemployed, and the reason given by the firm for their being unemployed is that there is a shortage of raw material.
Dr. Burgin: I am asking the hon. Member whether he wishes the House to understand that either the firm or the firm's workpeople desire him to raise this question and impute fault either to the Federation or to the Government?
Mr. Hardie: I have answered that question.
Dr. Burgin: I understand that the hon. Member says that he has that authority.
Mr. Hardie: I have the authority of the people who are unemployed. Those are the people whom I represent now. The firm are not interested in that sense. These people are unemployd through lack of materials, and surely the hon. Gentleman will not deny the fact that the managers of the works tell the men that the reason they are unemployed is a shortage of material?
Dr. Burgin: I do not want to deny that there is a world shortage of steel, but I wish categorically to assert that it is not either the fault of the Government or the fault of the British Iron and Steel Federation that steel is not reaching Springburn at the present moment in the quantities that the hon. Member would desire. I repudiate entirely the suggestion of either lack of foresight or lack of knowledge. Let us look at the position of the iron and steel industry in Scotland and in particular in Spring-burn. That I think is a sheet works. The real point is this. Why is it that works which could employ people is starved of raw material, and why are there furnaces in other parts of Scotland idle which might on a certain hypothesis
1302
have been producing raw material. Those are substantially the points that are put. I will deal first with production. I know of no Scottish steel works capable of producing, but not working, other than perhaps the new furnace of Messrs. Colvilles, who are building two furnaces, one recently completed and the other not yet ready. They have been unable to start the first furnace owing to a shortage of pig iron, scrap and coke, and I should not have thought it was necessary for any argument to be used to tell hon. Members that there is a world shortage of pig iron, of scrap and of suitable coke.
Many of the troubles with regard to pig iron are very much accentuated by the Spanish position. There is an acute shortage of foreign ore. The blast furnace industry has not been kept up to date in Scotland, owing very largely to the decline in Scottish industrial activity and partly because of the exhaustion of the supplies of splint coal, on which that blast furnace industry was formerly based and which the furnaces were specially adapted to use. The hon. Member said there were 15 furnaces in operation. There are 67 blast furnaces in Scotland, but a large number of them are obsolete, and would be entirely uneconomic to re-start.
Mr. Hardie: Whose fault is it that the plant has not been kept up to date?
Dr. Burgin: There was a Departmental Committee on that, which reported in 1936, and its report contained a very interesting series of paragraphs on the question:
"Owing to technical developments in the iron and steel industry in recent years, Scotland is at a disadvantage compared with England. The only way in which Scotland can compete is by a complete modernisation of coke ovens and iron works by the installation of the most efficient by-product recovery ovens and the selling of the large supplies of coke-oven gas thus made available. As modernisation depends ver ylargely, if not entirely, on a market being found for coke-oven gas, gas undertakings adjacent to the coke ovens should seriously consider the taking of supplies and consumers of fuel for industrial purposes should investigate their processes and heat requirements in order to see whether advantages will accrue to them by using gas."
It is not only the captains of industry. There is a good deal of responsibility on the Glasgow Corporation. I was only at pains to describe what has happened. Here are blast furnaces which have fallen into desuetude through a change of prac-

1303
tice. One obstacle to altering the practice has been the refusal on the part of large possible consumers to take the coke oven gas. It seems regrettable that you should have two things existing at the same time—works desirous of acquiring raw material and at the same time idle plant that could produce that raw material. In so far as the hon. Member makes out a case for modernisation, he speaks with credit and calls the attention of the industry to something that may well receive their consideration, but it is quite another matter to come along and say that either the Government or the British Iron and Steel Confederation, or some monopolistic powers are standing in the way of supplies going to Messrs. Frederick Braby.
That case has not been made out. The hon. Member has not produced any evidence and has not even suggested that there is any evidence as to the source from which this raw material could be procured. If he knows of any source which is not at present being tapped, either by the Government or by the and Steel Federation, from which raw material can be secured for the rolling mills, I hope he will communicate it to me. It is my duty to investigate it. Although he says that the Government have reduced the duty recently and although the Iron and Steel Federation can go to the cartel countries and say "You must accelerate your deliveries," all the cartel countries are grossly in arrear with the delivery of steel which they have contracted to deliver. There is no line of steel in respect of which the cartel countries are not grossly in arrears. How can the hon. Member say that the reason for the shortage of steel for the Spring-burn Rolling Mills is monopoly or the action of the Government, or the action of the Iron and Steel Federation.
Mr. Hardie: That is what I suggest.
Dr. Burgin: What has happened is this. The iron and steel industry that was the dismay and despair of everyone in this
1304
country from the year 1920 onwards is now in a state of relative prosperity and working very nearly to maximum capacity and producing record outputs of different kinds of steel. All that has been brought about by the gradual resuscitation of the industry. No one could perceive for a moment that there was going to be a sudden demand in all parts of the world for every raw material which goes to make up steel, and for every kind of steel, from raw steel to the semi-manufactured product. Nobody could foresee that there would be a sudden unprecedented demand in every steel-producing and steel-consuming country. That is what happened.
The advantage of having a resuscitated industry, the advantage of having the British Iron and Steel Federation and the advantage of having the cartel arrangement is that all the steel that can be procured is distributed among the users equitably and at reasonable prices. The hon. Member asks, Is there going to be not only a shortage but a rise in prices? Of course the two things go together. You cannot conceivably have a world shortage without a tendency for prices to harden. The Iron and Steel Federation prevents there being a scramble in which only the big interests procure what is going and outbid the small ones. It provides a power in which there is some sort of rationing and some regard for consumers' interests, and in which the Iron and Steel Federation, watched over most jealously by Government Departments, is called upon to fulfil its undertaking. I deny entirely the suggestion that the Iron and Steel Federation has broken a pledge to re-roll. It has done nothing of the kind. It has been unable to supply all the raw material it would wish, because the material is not available.
Mr. Hardie: It is Corby all over again.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  HANKOW (BRITISH FIRMS).
  HANKOW (BRITISH FIRMS).
AGRICULTURE.
  MILK MARKETING BOARD.
  MILK MARKETING BOARD.
  TARIFFS (OSLO CONVENTION).
  TARIFFS (OSLO CONVENTION).
  FOOD IMPORTS (STATISTICS).
  FOOD IMPORTS (STATISTICS).
  MEAT AND SUGAR (CONSUMPTION).
  MEAT AND SUGAR (CONSUMPTION).
  ITALY (ARMED FORCES).
  ITALY (ARMED FORCES).
POST OFFICE.
  PENSIONS PAYMENTS, LEICESTER.
  PENSIONS PAYMENTS, LEICESTER.
  PARCELS FOR SPAIN.
  PARCELS FOR SPAIN.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  POLICE (ROAD PATROLS).
  POLICE (ROAD PATROLS).
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT, LONDON.
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT, LONDON.
  INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
PALESTINE.
  POPULATION STATISTICS.
  POPULATION STATISTICS.
  ORANGE EXPORTS.
  ORANGE EXPORTS.
DEFENCE.
  NEW FACTORIES (SPECIAL AREAS).
  NEW FACTORIES (SPECIAL AREAS).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (CASUALTIES).
  RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (CASUALTIES).
  CAR PARKING, LONDON.
  CAR PARKING, LONDON.
  TRAMCAR SHELTER, THAMES EMBANKMENT.
  TRAMCAR SHELTER, THAMES EMBANKMENT.
  MOTOR CAR LICENCE REVENUE.
  MOTOR CAR LICENCE REVENUE.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  BLIND PERSON'S PENSION (GEORGE DEW).
  BLIND PERSON'S PENSION (GEORGE DEW).
  THE CORONATION.
  THE CORONATION.
  ALIENS (INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT).
  ALIENS (INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  OFFICERS (DRESS REGULATIONS).
  OFFICERS (DRESS REGULATIONS).
  MARRIED OFFICERS (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  MARRIED OFFICERS (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  CATAPULT SHIPS.
  CATAPULT SHIPS.
  SCOTLAND (BURGLARIES, EDINBURGH).
  SCOTLAND (BURGLARIES, EDINBURGH).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  STEAM COAL SHORTAGE, MERSEY.
  STEAM COAL SHORTAGE, MERSEY.
  OIL EXTRACTION.
  OIL EXTRACTION.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD WINDLESHAM.
Sir George Richard James Hennessy, Baronet, O.B.E., having been created Baron Windlesham of Windlesham in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD MANCROFT.
Sir Arthur Michael Samuel, Baronet, having been created Baron Mancroft of Mancroft in the City of Norwich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Joicey—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WESSEX ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EVESHAM AND PERSHORE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (PORT OF MANCHESTER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NEWCASTLE - UPON - TYNE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BEDFORD) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLWYNBAY) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EALING EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST HERT FORDSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOMERSET AND WILTS) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WALTHAM JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WISBECH JOINT ISOLATION HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (DRAINAGE OF TRADE PREMISES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill which is very similar to the one introduced last year by my noble friend Lord Gainford. That Bill was warmly supported by the Government and passed through all its stages in this House, but failed to be considered in another place for reasons which had nothing whatever to do with its merits. In these circumstances I do not think I need do more than merely remind your Lordships of the general objects of that Bill and indicate the comparatively minor differences which exist between it and the Bill which I am now introducing. The main purpose of this Bill is to secure that the rivers and streams of the country should be rendered cleaner and freer from pollution than they are at present. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree that this is a very desirable object. The way in which we propose to bring it about is by extending facilities to traders and owners of factories to enable them to discharge their trade effluents into sewers rather than into rivers. Once these facilities are granted, in the first place we are convinced that the traders themselves will make use of them without compulsion, and further, that the authorities who are charged with the duty of seeing to the cleanliness of the rivers will be able to exercise their powers in the knowledge that there are reasonably cheap methods of disposal open to these traders.
So far, one of the main troubles has been that, although the authorities have had these powers for a number of years, they have been unwilling to exercise them in many cases because of the prohibitive expense which by doing so they imposed upon these traders. Moreover, it is not only uneconomic but also unreasonable to expect each factory to put down separate works for purification of effluents. That was the problem, stated in simple language, but to solve it a great deal of investigation and consultation was necessary, and I can assure your Lordships that these proposals are submitted only as a result of a great deal of consideration. I do not think I need go into the history of all those negotiations, because it was stated very fully by my noble friend when he introduced his Bill last year. What we propose to do is to require the local authorities either to come to agreement with the traders in regard to particular applications, or to make by-laws setting forth the terms on which the

593
effluents may be discharged into sewers. These by-laws must be approved by the Ministry of Health and must be of such a nature as to safeguard the interests of the traders and also to protect the local authorities against liability for undue expense. Further, it is provided that the traders should have a right of appeal to the Minister and that the Minister should have power to make exceptions to these by-laws on appropriate occasions.
The principal difference between this Bill and the one submitted by my noble friend Lord Gainford is in the direction of greater simplicity. Perhaps I might summarise the changes in this way. First, the passing of the Public Health Act last year of itself necessitated some alterations, and the Bill is now drafted as an amendment and an extension of that Act. The old Bill regulated drains of trade premises as well as what might be passed through them. The new Bill deals only with the regulation of what might be passed through drains, leaving the drains themselves to be regulated by the Public Health Act, 1936. Secondly, the waiting period before acceptable trade effluents may be discharged after notice is shortened from six months to two months. Thirdly, under my noble friend's Bill the local authority had either to accept the trade effluents in accordance with the trader's notice or to apply to the Minister for an Order. That Order might determine that they should accept trade effluent as in the notice, or that they need not accept any trade effluent at all, or need accept trade effluent of a certain character, volume or rate. Under the new Bill the local authority may give consent unconditionally or subject to conditions, with the simple machinery of an appeal to the Minister against a refusal to give consent, or against any conditions imposed.
Fourthly, the by-law-making powers have been extended to enable the local authority to determine the maximum quantity of trade effluent which may be discharged from any trade premises on any one day without their consent, and the maximum rate of discharge without their consent. It is thought that local authorities may thus cover in one stroke a large proportion of the trade effluents in their districts. Fifthly, the penalty for an offence has been increased from £20 to and that for every day on which the offence is continued from £5 to £20.
594
In the Committee proceedings it was, I think, agreed that London should be left out of the operation of my noble friend's Bill, and it is proposed to leave London out of this Bill. I understand that the London County Council are watching the operation of this Bill with great interest, and it may be that later they will see fit to introduce legislation on similar lines themselves. I do not know whether my noble friend will admit that this is a better Bill than that which he introduced. It has certainly one merit, and that is that it is two pages shorter. I hope that it will receive your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, may I thank the Government for having reintroduced this measure? It unfortunately did not pass through another place on account of the late period at which it reached that Chamber. We all recognise how difficult it is for a Private Bill sometimes to pass through another place, even though it is quite uncontroversial. All I have to do now is sincerely to thank the Government on behalf of the real promoters of this measure, the Central Council for Rivers Protection. That Council not only represents the Fishmongers Company, who have been very largely instrumental in initiating the negotiations which have taken place with nearly every kind of authority in the country, but it also includes the British Waterworks Association, the Water Companies Association, the Royal Sanitary Institute, the National Association of Fishery Boards, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Federation of Anglers, the Pure Rivers Society, the Salmon and Trout Association, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, and other bodies.
The Council have asked me on their behalf to say that they entirely approve of this Bill in principle. They may have some minor Amendments to suggest for the consideration of the Government on the Committee stage, but they are likely to be very few. I think we all recognise that the condition of many of our rivers is almost a disgrace. The foul character not only of the sewage but of industrial effluents going into the rivers is such as to destroy not only fish life and fish food but the amenities of many of our most

595
beautiful rivers. This is an agreed Bill in principle and it is uncontroversial. I can only trust that it may have a rapid passage through your Lordships' House and be quickly placed on the Statute Book by general assent in another place. I believe that, when it is passed, it will not only tend to remove the existing pollution of rivers but—what is very important—it will stop further pollution which otherwise would occur in our rivers, streams, and estuaries.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I have for the second time the unusual pleasure of congratulating the Government on a useful Bill. We shall give it every kind of facility and help, and hope that it will pass rapidly through all its stages in another place. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, on the result of his efforts and energy last year which we now see before us.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SPANISH FRONTIERS OBSERVATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, this Bill is necessary to implement the Agreement that was reached by the Non-Intervention Committee on March 8. I should like in the first place to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that this Bill has been brought forward in great haste and that the Government are asking your Lordships to pass it through all its stages with as little delay as possible. But I should like to assure your Lordships that speed has been vital in this particular case, as I hope to be able to explain to the satisfaction of the House during the course of the remarks that I am going to make. It was on February 16 that an Agreement was reached to ban volunteers from going to Spain to take part in the conflict there, and from the midnight of February 20 that ban was actually enforced. But it was made clear even before that that this agreement was conditional upon its being
596
followed at a very short interval by the operation of a supervision scheme to see whether the agreement itself was being honoured or not. I think it is quite obvious that any considerable delay between the time the actual Agreement was enforced and the time when the supervision scheme comes into operation may be fraught with very serious dangers indeed. It is perfectly obvious that if there were to be an untoward incident during that period it might undo a great deal of the work which it has been possible to do during the last few weeks and, as I say, it might have the very gravest consequences.
It was one thing to come to an agreement on the banning of volunteers, and another thing to reach complete agreement about a supervision scheme. There were many thorny questions, very largely of a technical nature, which had to be dealt with, and very full and careful examination was necessary; and although the Committee and the technical advisers of the Committee have worked at extremely high pressure, it was not until Monday afternoon that it was possible to adopt a Resolution in the main Committee, where were present representatives of the twenty-seven European countries concerned. There was further this difficulty, that our Bill, which it was necessary to pass into law before we could give effect to the obligations we had undertaken as the result of this Agreement, could not be finally drafted until the Resolution was passed by the main Committee, because it was on that Resolution that the actual provisions of the Bill had to be based. Your Lordships will therefore see that we were in considerable difficulty. On the one hand, we could not finally draft our Bill because we were awaiting the final decision of the Committee, and, on the other hand, it was of supreme importance to pass this Bill into law at the earliest possible moment so that we, at any rate, should be in a position to implement our undertakings under the Agreement with the least possible delay.
Your Lordships will remember that we hoped to bring this Scheme into operation on March 6. Unfortunately, that was impossible, but at the same time, now that we have reached agreement, it is hoped to be able to operate the Scheme in a very short time. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would be

597
extremely unfortunate if any delay in operating this Scheme were due to the fact that His Majesty's Government had not been able to take the necessary legislative measures in time. That is why this Bill can justifiably be looked upon as an emergency measure brought before your Lordships' House at short notice. The text of the Agreement has been published in a White Paper, Command Paper 5399, which was available to your Lordships to-day. I ought to draw your Lordships' attention to one fact, although it has no actual bearing upon this Bill. There is a mistake in the first paragraph of the Annexe to the Resolution on page 4. In that paragraph are enumerated the countries which are to appoint representatives to serve on the International Board for Non-Intervention in Spain. It was omitted to state there that, in addition to those five countries there enumerated, the Committee at its last meeting added three countries which were not actually specified at the time also to serve on this Committee. That provision should be added to that paragraph, and the necessary correction will be made in due course.
LORD STRABOLGI: What are the three countries?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: They have not yet been selected. The section in this document which requires legislation is that which deals with the system of observation in regard to merchant ships. It was originally intended to exercise observation in Spanish ports whilst the ships were being unloaded. That was the first scheme we had in mind—a scheme to be operated inside the Spanish frontiers by means of placing agents at ports and other points of entry into the country by land as well. That scheme required the consent of both parties in Spain, but that was not forthcoming and we had to draw up another scheme. This Scheme is based on the principle that the consent of the two parties in Spain is not necessary in order to put it into operation. So far as this part of the Scheme is concerned—that which deals with merchant ships—the basic principle is that the minimum of interference with legitimate trade will take place. There are certain obligations imposed as the result of this Bill. These are obviously essential for the success of the Scheme, and I do not think, on reflection, in view of the
598
difficulty with which we were faced, that they are unduly arduous.
There is one point I ought to mention at this stage, and that is that the Scheme to which this Bill is to give effect has no direct relationship to the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act of last year. The object of this Bill is to ascertain whether the Non-Intervention Agreement is being observed, but no doubt, if observing officers secure information indicating that infringements of the 1936 Act are taking place, the Board of Trade will be informed and will consider whether proceedings are called for. But, as I say, this Bill has really no direct relationship to the one of last year.
I shall now, if I may, describe, not at any great length, the provisions of the Bill in relation to the Scheme which is set out in this White Paper. It would be quite unnecessary to take your Lordships through every subsection of the Bill, but there are certain portions which undoubtedly require some explanation. The underlying principle which is given effect to by Clause 1, subsections (1) to (4), is the imposition of an obligation on all ships proceeding to Spain to call at a non-Spanish port to embark observing officers. The duty of these observing officers would be to watch the unloading of the cargo and the landing of passengers to see whether or not the Agreement is being kept and, if they become aware of any breaches of the Agreement, to report accordingly to the authority. The ships covered by the Bill are all British ships except those registered in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State, or in any territory administered by the Governments of these Dominions. None of these Dominions are parties to the Non-Intervention Agreement except the Irish Free State, who will no doubt take the necessary measures in due course to deal with the situation so far as they are concerned.
At this point I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 14 of this Scheme. This shows that the question of how the Canary Islands are to come into the present Scheme of observation has not yet been decided. The reason for this is that to apply this Scheme to the Canary Islands in its present form, as it is to be applied to other parts of Spanish territory, presents

599
special difficulties. To begin with, there is an enormous number of liners and ships on cruises calling at the Canary Islands, and to place observers on all these would necessitate a very great increase in the staff of the Board, and would consequently seriously increase the expenditure of that body. As your Lordships no doubt appreciate, the question of expenditure is one that is of considerable importance to most countries that are parties to the Agreement. Furthermore, it is unlikely in the extreme, in our view, that the Canary Islands which, after all, are hundreds of miles from the scene of the conflict in Spain, will be made use of to import into Spain war material or volunteers in contravention of the Agreement. In any case any attempt to do so would certainly become known immediately. We therefore thought it would be best to take a little more time to consider the special position of the Canary Islands and, when a satisfactory scheme could be devised, to bring it into operation at the earliest practicable moment. That is why, as a result of the definition of Spanish territory in Clause 4, the Bill does not require ships proceeding to the Canary Islands to take observing officers on board, but the Canary Islands can be brought into the Scheme at a future date through the issue of an Order by the Board of Trade when international agreement on the subject has been reached.
Proviso (c) of Clause 1 (1) requires some explanation. It provides particularly for the situation that may arise, or probably will arise immediately the Scheme is brought into operation. A large number of observing officers will be required when the Scheme is in full operation. The Scheme will be brought into operation by stages and before the full number of observing officers can be available. In these circumstances it may well happen that on occasion there are not sufficient officers at particular ports to deal with all the ships coming along. Proviso (c) of subsection (1) of Clause enables the administrator of the authority at any of the specified ports to exempt the ships from the obligation to embark observing officers if they are not available. In practice, in my view, these occasions will be very rare indeed and only at the commencement of the operation of this Scheme.
600
Then subsection (5) gives effect to paragraph 19 of this Scheme under which shipowners engaged in regular trade to Spanish ports may arrange for observing officers to be stationed continuously on board their vessels. That is, I think, a reasonable thing to make provision for and will obviously be of convenience to the shipowners concerned. Subsection (6) gives effect to paragraph 10 of the Scheme regarding the powers of observing officers and the facilities to be accorded to them on board ship. It requires that observing officers on a ship are to be provided with proper subsistence and accommodation and facilities for sending wireless messages, and particularly to have the necessary powers to get the information requisite to enable them to carry out their duties. In addition to obtaining information the observing officers may require packages to be opened under the conditions stated. Subsection (7) gives effect to the second part of paragraph 33 of the Scheme. This provides that ships which have taken observers on board or have been exempted, are to fly a special flag in order to facilitate the duties of the naval vessels carrying out the task of naval observation.
Subsection (8) is inserted in order to avoid loading up the Bill with detailed provisions required to carry out certain parts of the Scheme. It empowers the Board of Trade to make regulations covering these details. I would like to draw your Lordships attention to paragraph (b) which is important. Under this the Board will be able to make regulations as to the payment to be made to shipowners by the authority in respect of matters already referred to in the Bill and also as to the repayment of pilotage dues incurred by ships which enter a British port merely to embark or disembark observing officers, as well as harbour dues and other similar charges so incurred, that is, if exemption from such charges is not granted under Clause 3. Perhaps I ought to elaborate that a little further. The position as regards harbour dues and other similar charges is, your Lordships will see from paragraph 21 of the White Paper, that no decision has yet been reached whether a ship calling at a port for embarking or disembarking observing officers should be exempt. One or two countries are finding some difficulty in agreeing to this exemption, but what I want to make clear is

601
this: If exemption is not secured the authority will refund to the shipowners the expenditure involved. As to pilotage dues, in the interests of safety, it is not proposed to grant any exemption. Here again the pilotage dues concerned will be repaid to the shipowners concerned by the authority.
I now pass to Clause 2. Clause 2 contains the necessary provisions in connection with the arrangement set out in Part IV of the Scheme for the establishment of a system naval observation on the Spanish coasts. Subsection (1) gives effect to paragraph 37 (a) and (b) of the Scheme as regards the powers which officers of the warships of the four participating countries—at present the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy—may exercise over British ships when they are within ten miles of the Spanish coast. In view of the possibility of alterations in these matters, that is, for instance, variation of the zones which are allotted to individual Fleets, it is quite likely as a result of experience or as a result of events in Spain that the present zones may have to be modified. Therefore subsection (3) enables the necessary details of such modifications to be set forth in Orders which are to be issued by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Subsection (4) is necessary for legal purposes and the last three lines are intended to protect British naval officers from proceedings arising out of the exercise by them of the powers conferred by the Bill in respect of foreign ships.
Clause 3 is one that certainly does require a certain amount of explanation. This clause is intended to serve two distinct objects. In the first place the Scheme itself contemplates the possibility of arrangements being made, with the consent of all the countries concerned, for dealing with certain outstanding questions. For example, as I have already said, no decision has yet been reached on the question of whether ships calling at a port merely for the purpose of embarking or disembarking observing officers should be exempt from the dues and other charges usually paid. This matter is to be discussed further by the Governments of the countries in which the observation ports are situated and this clause of the Bill will enable any arrangement reached as a result of that discussion to be applied to the British
602
ports affected through the issue of an Order in Council. The British ports primarily affected are those of Dover and Gibraltar, but if other ports are substituted for these to meet the convenience of shipowners, they will also be affected. It will be seen from paragraphs 31, 36, 37 (c) of the White Paper that an arrangement for the institution of what are known as "focal areas" may be brought into operation with the consent of the Non-Intervention Committee. This arrangement would mean that "focal areas" might be prescribed through which all ships proceeding to Spanish ports within those zones would be required to pass in order to facilitate the work of naval observation. This clause would enable this system to be applied to British ships by Order in Council if it is put forward and receives the consent of the Non-Intervention Committee.
The second object which the clause is intended to serve is that of enabling effect to be given to any further agreement which may be reached by the Non-Intervention Committee amending or supplementing the present Observation Agreement. Your Lordships will see from paragraph 5 of the substantive Resolution adopted by the Committee on March 8—that is at the beginning of the White Paper—that the Observation Agreement which was accepted then is to be carried out "unless otherwise amended or determined." This means that, on further consideration and particularly as the result of experience of the working of the agreed Scheme, changes in the Scheme may be found desirable, and a further agreement sanctioning these changes may be made. I certainly think it is wise to make provision for that eventuality. It is more than likely that modifications and alterations will be required in a complex scheme of this kind, and all the more so because we have had really no precedent whatsoever to work upon in framing our Agreement. It is impossible to state now whether the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill would be sufficient to enable any amended agreement to be applied to British ships or not. If they were insufficient, a further Bill would be necessary unless the provisions which are now inserted in Clause 3 were there.
I readily admit that the clause is an unusual one and requires special justification, but I think that this justification is

603
to be found in the very special circumstances of the present situation and the importance of this country being in a position if the necessity arose to give prompt effect to any amendments of the present Scheme which may commend themselves to the members of the Non-Intervention Committee. That is too obvious for me to stress. The ultimate authority of Parliament in respect of any changes in the law introduced by an Order in Council giving effect to any further international agreement amending or supplementing the Observation Agreement is safeguarded by subsection (3), but I ought to make this point clear. Subsection (3) would not apply to Orders which are made merely for the purpose of giving effect to any arrangements made in pursuance of the provisions of the Observation Agreement as already accepted. It would not apply, for example, to any Orders that may be issued, as I have already explained, for exempting ships from harbour dues. I think that this is reasonable, but I want to emphasise once again that Parliament will be enabled to express its view on all new features which may be introduced into the Scheme later on.
There remains Clause 4, which is really largely a formal one, and I do not think I need do more than make some reference to subsection (5) which does require some little explanation. Subsection (5) deals with the following matters. It is a fundamental principle that the Bill will not be brought into force until the date when other maritime countries which are represented on the Committee will bring similar measures into operation. In consequence of that the date of operation of the Bill cannot be specified in advance, but it is to be left to be fixed by an Order issued by the Board of Trade. The provision that different days may be appointed in relation to different ships will be useful if it should be necessary to bring the Scheme into force at short notice, which we shall almost certainly have to do, when special arrangements may be requisite as regards ships which have commenced their voyage before the date of the operation of the Bill and have practically reached Spain on that date. I think I have explained the most important features of this Bill. I shall be only too glad to give any further explanation that I can in answer to any questions
604
that may be submitted to me during the course of the debate, but I hope that, in view of the considerations to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention, you will be prepared to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, by the courtesy of my noble friend, I am saying a few words now. I have been asked by the noble Lords who usually sit upon these Benches to say that they fully recognise the need of this Bill, and that they will give it their hearty support. They think that it is a great achievement to have got through so important a Scheme in a comparatively short time, and they particularly wish to express their appreciation of the tact and diplomatic management that the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, and who has been Chairman of the Committee, must have shown during the long and I difficult negotiations. To bring nearly thirty countries into line on such a complex subject as this is something which deserves recognition. We have read in the newspapers of midnight oil, or rather electricity, being consumed, but I think the noble Earl has probably used a good deal of diplomatic oil as well. I heartily support the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I would like on behalf of my noble friends to re-echo what has fallen from the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, in personal appreciation of what must have been a very difficult and arduous task for the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth. I heard a definition of what was not a diplomat the other day. A man who said "Yes" meant "Perhaps"; when he said "Perhaps" he meant "No," and if he said "No" he was not a diplomat. And there was a corollary which I expect one of the noble Lords on that Committee would be able to supply, but I shall not trouble your Lordships by referring to it. The noble Earl had no need, I am sure, to apologise to Opposition Peers in your Lordships' House for the short notice given of the introduction of this Bill and the laying of the White Paper, and I, therefore, need not apologise either for not giving him full notice of all the questions that I am going to raise I did my best this

605
morning to send in such notice as I could.
This is a very important measure indeed, and contains very important precedents. It may have effects of the greatest moment. I make no apology therefore for trying to clarify one or two matters connected with it and making certain observations upon it. The first question I shall ask the noble Earl arises out of the speech that he made. I must say that I think he explained this measure very well, if he will allow me to say so. The measure itself is very ingenious and farseeing. I remember some of the difficulties of arranging for control of shipping during the Great War, and when you have to arrange these matters in conjunction with a number of other Powers you arouse a mass of difficulties and complexities. In all the circumstances I think the Bill itself is excellent, but I want to ask about certain matters arising out of the noble Earl's speech.
First of all, the Dominions are not in this. Are they to be invited to adhere? Secondly—and I think this is very important—having got so far, are we going to invite the Government of the United States of America to help us in this matter? I see that in that horrible episode at sea when a passenger ship, the "Mar Cantabrica," was bombed, there were two American passengers on board. I shall return to that in a moment. The United States is intimately concerned here—intimately concerned with the safety of seamen on their lawful occasions upon the high seas. I think that in the long run is of just as much importance as the principle of non-intervention. It involves the preservation and re-establishment, if possible, of the ancient laws of nations safeguarding the highways of the sea. I should think the United States Government might well be invited by a joint note from the Powers represented on the Committee to assist. If they will not assist, then we cannot help it.
I have not had time to read the whole of the White Paper, I freely confess, and I only read the Bill itself on my way to your Lordships' House this afternoon. What I should like to ask is when it is expected that this Scheme will come into force. If I understood the noble Earl aright similar measures must be
606
passed by all the signatory Powers before this Bill comes into force.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: All the maritime Powers. They will have to take similar measures to ourselves. Everybody is agreed already.
LORD STRABOLGI: There are twenty-seven countries. If we take the maritime Powers that leaves out Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Luxembourg. All the others are maritime Powers. I am not cavilling and I am not complaining about the noble Earl's explanation, but I think we might have some more information about it. If we have to wait for twenty or more Powers to pass Bills through their Parliaments, where Parliaments exist, or to issue Ordinances, we may have to wait a long time and I can see endless opportunities for delay on the part of evilly disposed persons. I want to say on behalf of my Party—we have discussed this matter very fully in our councils from time to time—that we are still prepared to support a real non-intervention that works and is worked, and is honestly carried out. But we have had a very disillusioning lesson in the events of the last few months in Spain. I have before me a very remarkable article that appeared in The Times yesterday, which no doubt the noble Earl has read, on the subject of non-intervention in Spain. I regard The Times newspaper as being usually the mouthpiece of the Foreign Office. Certainly it is not over-favourable to the Government cause in Spain, and certainly it is not unsympathetic to the rebels in Spain, whom it has now taken to calling "Nationalists."
I would like to read a few sentences from that very remarkable article by a special correspondent in The Times. It says:
"Nearly all the air material of both sides entered Spain after the civil war began; three-quarters of it was sent in breach of the Non-Intervention Agreement, and most of that three-quarters with the connivance of foreign Governments."
The next sentences I would like to quote read as follows:
"When at the end of January a diversion was required to relieve the deadlock round Madrid, the Malaga solution was chosen by the Italian advisers of Franco. It is improbable that Malaga would have been taken without the Italian contribution in infantry and the Italian and German bombardment by land and sea aeroplanes."

607
Later in the article there appears this paragraph:
"There can be no doubt that foreign military aid first came from Italy and Germany. The Savoia aeroplanes which crashed in French territory in July were given their flying orders on July 17, before the revolt began, and the German bombers began to arrive at the beginning of August."
The same article refers to the help sent—without the connivance, apparently, of the French Government—from French territory and the help from Russian sources. I do not want to avoid anything that might weaken my argument. These things are known. It is undoubtedly the fact that all this has been going on in spite of the Non-Intervention Committee.
That brings me to the questions of which I have given notice to the noble Earl. They are questions to which my noble friends in this House and my friends in another place attach great importance. Take the case of German or Italian merchant ships going to Spain. Will they have German national observers on board in the case of German ships and Italian national observers in the case of Italian ships? We do not want to make any accusations against any particular nation, and therefore we would like to see as a principle that observers should be of different nationality to the vessels in all cases. I would like to say at once as regards our own naval officers that, from what I know of both the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve, I am sure that whatever their political predilections may be if they are put to do a job they will do it honestly and conscientiously. But in view of what has happened in Spain I would not like to trust many other nationalities in this matter. Therefore we think that, if this Scheme is not to be a ridiculous and dangerous farce, the observers should be of different nationalities to the ships. It is, of course, known that German and Italian warships have been engaging in warlike operations. They have been giving information about Spanish Government merchant ships being in a certain position or on a certain course. They have given that information to the Rebel Government, and they have done a great many other things. These same warships under this Scheme are going to blockade or supervise the zone which is held by the Spanish Government. How are we to know that they
608
are not going to continue these warlike of operations?
I would like to know if we are going to have real neutrality in connection with this horrible struggle that is going on in Spain. Take, for example, the case of merchant ships—Norwegian or Dutch if you like—carrying foodstuffs to Barcelona or one of the other ports in the territory held by the Spanish Government. Are they going to be held up, or does this Scheme apply only to munitions and weapons of war as generally understood? In answer to questions about the earlier Bill the noble Earl told your Lordships that foodstuffs, raw materials, coal, etc., are not contraband. Therefore I think it is very important that we should have some further information on this question. I am asked by members of my Party to put forward this proposal. It is not in the Scheme, but we think that it ought to follow as the next step. I know the noble Earl well enough to understand that he does not think the Scheme is complete and his labours at an end. I am sorry for him, but I know he understands that there is a great deal more to do. I think the next step should be to invite agreement that in all the blockading warships there should be neutral observers. We have nothing to hide and I am sure that we should be very glad to accommodate neutral officers, and it seems to me that it is essential, if non-intervention is to be made a reality, that there should be English or French observers, or Dutch or Norwegian observers, if you like, in these German and Italian ships-of-war.
What I am now going to say is, I submit of some importance. There have been piratical operations going on for some time. I say "piratical" advisedly. They are piratical; they are illegal, unrecognised and contrary to the law of nations. There have been piratical operations going on, carried out by the gunboats and other warships manned by the rebels. Is this still to go on? Are our ships going to be molested, after this Scheme comes into operation, by these gunboats? I have in my hand a newspaper cutting of last Monday with a report from the correspondent in Gibraltar of the Daily Herald—the same report appeared in other newspapers—of a British steamer which was chased by a Spanish rebel trawler in the Straits of Gibraltar. She

609
was chased, but managed apparently to reach the Bay of Gibraltar and get inside it into British territorial waters in time.
Chased by a rebel gunboat—a British ship! We were told that our ships were going to be protected, when the last Bill on this matter came before your Lordships' House completely forbidding British merchant ships and their masters from carrying war material to Spain. We were told then that we were going to protect our ships. But this is a case happening last Sunday, of this British merchant ship on its lawful occasions, the "Springwear," told to stop and go into Ceuta to be searched. The captain ignored the ultimatum, put on steam and just managed to get in ahead of the rebel gunboat, into Gibraltar. He was carrying—note this, my Lords—a cargo of wheat from Rotterdam to Alicante. Now comes the sinister part of this whole matter. Within the Bay of Gibraltar at that time, within sight of these operations, were sixty-five of His Majesty's ships, flying among them eleven Admirals' flags. You had the concentration of the Home Fleet and the Mediterranean Fleet in Gibraltar Bay, and in broad daylight this rebel gunboat chases a British ship, fires upon it, under their very noses. What is done about it? Eleven Admirals, sixty-five of His Majesty's ships, the "embattled might of Britain's naval power," and an armed trawler insults and molests a British merchant ship and, if her gunnery had been better, might have killed the master, a British seaman.
The report goes on to say that these rebels are stopping ships of every nationality on the high seas. The Norwegian steamers "Erica" and "Breidbalk" arrived there from Ceuta arid their captains lodged a protest to their consuls at Gibraltar. They said that their vessels had been detained at Ceuta for a number of days and stripped of their cargoes of fruit. The cargoes, it was stated, were reshipped to Italy and Germany in Italian and German ships. Both vessels were bound for Norway, and the "Erica" was left with nothing on board but 15 tons of coal. My Lords, that is piracy. Those ships were not condemned in a prize court; they were not molested by a recognised belligerent. That is piracy. In the next column of the same paper, incidentally—I must
610
refer to this—it mentions "25,000 more Italians for Spain; troops concentrating at Naples"; and says that they are being sent to Cadiz under the escort of an Italian man-of-war.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: What date is this?
LORD STRABOLGI: This is last Monday's paper, but I will give the noble Earl something much more recent than that! This is the Evening Standard, another paper which is usually sympathetic to the noble Earl and his Party.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Oh, is it!
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, the Evening Standard, the London Evening Standard, which usually supports the Government, especially whenever the Government do anything wrong; it attacks the Government on the rare occasions when the Government do something right. But at any rate I will leave that out. I do not understand the relationships between the noble Viscount who owns that paper, and who is a member of your Lordships' House, and who is a member, certainly, of the Conservative Party, and the Party opposite. But the paper is sympathetic to the rebels in Spain and it is unsympathetic to the Government in Spain, and therefore its testimony is of some value. This is in the Lunch Edition to-day: "French ship bombed; attacked from the air in the Mediterranean." And this is the sinister part of it: this ship was on her normal course between Phillippeville and Marseilles. She was a vessel proceeding between one French port and another French port. She was bombed from the air when east of Majorca and some material damage was done. Then the report goes on to describe the attack on Madrid that is going on at the present time, and it says that 16,000 men of the Italian Regular Army are leading the advance. Well, I think we have a right to ask whether, now that we have this Scheme in operation by the Bill before your Lordships' House, this sort of one-sided non-intervention will cease.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: That is all in the past.
LORD STRABOLGI: Well, I mean what is going to happen from now onwards, and particularly in regard to this molesting of and interfering with British ships on their lawful occasions by these rebel gunboats. Now take the case to

611
which I referred just now, that of the "Mar Cantabrico," the Spanish ship which loaded munitions in New York and was fired on and sunk or damaged, I do not know which yet, by a cruiser under the control of the rebels. She was set on fire and some of her passengers were killed, I understand. Her passengers included, according to the announcement made in the News Bulletin of the British Broadcasting Corporation last night—I took it down—Americans and Italians. They included American citizens. She might just as well have had English passengers on board.
When an Englishman and his family go on board a merchant vessel of any nationality to go to any part of the world, they are entitled to the recognised laws for their protection. For a rebel cruiser to attack this ship and fire upon her in this way without ascertaining who she had on board was illegal. It is piracy. You cannot do these things. We protested against the German submarine campaign in the late War, but at any rate the Germans were belligerents and they did attempt to establish a blockade. They attempted to keep within the law. There is no blockade here, there is no recognition of belligerency; the whole matter is absolutely illegal. Is this going on? I see that a Dutch steamer has been taken into Ceuta and her cargo stolen—I am speaking legally: stolen—and the Dutch Government are sending a gunboat to protect Dutch shipping. But we have sixty-five men-of-war flying the White Ensign in Gibraltar Bay, under eleven Admirals, and we cannot protect a merchant ship from attack by an armed trawler because she is under the control of General Franco! Is this sort of thing going to stop—cases like that of the "Springwear"—and has the noble Lord any undertaking or belief that it will stop?
Next I refer to the case of mine-laying—the laying of submarine mines. We have already had one ship badly damaged, the "Llandovery Castle," by mine-laying in the open sea. That is absolutely illegal, the sowing of mine-fields; it is against the law of nations. I do not know whether we are protesting. We are having to divert our ships out of their proper courses because of the laying of mine-fields by these pirates. I am speaking in the legal sense; they are pirates within International
612
Law. On these matters I was able to give notice to the noble Earl, and I should be glad if he would give us some comfort. But now I have to raise one or two other Questions, and I apologise to the noble Earl because I had not time to give him notice of them.
They are, I think, of importance. Japan is not in this Scheme. Like the Americans, the Japanese are not in this Scheme, but the Americans have a Neutrality Act, which has passed through Congress, fort bidding American nationals to export war material to any part of Spain. The Japanese, as far as I know, have no such Act or Order in Council. What happens with regard to Japanese ships? I should have thought the next step, if I might venture the observation, would be to invite the Japanese to adhere to the Scheme. Secondly, there is nothing to prevent General Franco and his junta from buying German ships or Italian ships and sailing them under the rebel flag. Will any sort of control be exercised there?
I listened very carefully to the noble Earl's explanation of what these observers can do about opening cases and packages on board and verifying the crews on board. All that seems all right. But what will they do if they find that this vessel which they have boarded, say in the Downs or at Cherbourg, on the way to Cadiz, a port in rebel-controlled territory, is loaded with artillery and weapons? They will, I presume, report it to the Committee in London; they will report it to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Yes.
LORD STRABOLGI: They will? Then hat do the Committee do? To whom do they report it?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: To the International Board.
LORD STRABOLGI: I see. Then you have a British officer on board a Belgian vessel, for example, sailing to Cadiz, and he finds in the course of his duties that it is full of ammunition. He reports it to the noble Earl and the noble Earl reports it through his machinery, whatever it may be, to a Board or the Committee. Then hat happens? In the meantime the vessel has been unloaded. She has gone on to Cadiz and she is cleared.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I thought you understood that.
LORD STRABOLGI: But then, how do you prevent it?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: You do not.
LORD STRABOLGI: You do not prevent it? Then it is rather like the way you have exercised non-intervention so far, to the tune of 100,000 Germans and Italians or thereabouts in Spain who certainly are not there without the permission of their respective Governments. I noted what the noble Earl said about alterations to the Scheme and alterations to the Bill, and I see there is a clause—which I welcome—in the Bill for putting such required alterations into effect. I hope that some tightening up will be brought about in that sort of case. As I said, I make no apology for raising these points. This is an entirely new principle. This is a precedent we are establishing. It is very important, and I think these matters should be examined arid cleared up.
Now when the Board, or the noble Earl and his machinery, get the reports of these breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement, is the matter published? Is it made known that there have been breaches of the Agreement? Or does the noble Earl, the next time he meets this Committee, just regret—as I am sure he would do—any breaches, and that is to be the end of it? So far his Committee have been sitting in secret, and I do not want to probe into their secrets. But if the whole Scheme is to be kept secret now, and breaches are not to be made known to the world. I think there are loopholes for evasion. There is one other matter of which I have not been able to give notice. There is no control of the air. I humbly suggest that that is one of the matters which ought now to be taken in hand. I Know the difficulties, but aeroplanes are now becoming much larger. They can carry a lot of cargo, and I think the air should in some way be controlled. Those are specific questions that I venture to put to the noble Earl, and I think they are worth answering.
Generally, I should like to make these brief observations. My Party are prepared to support this policy of nonintervention, and any means that will help to make it effective. Therefore we are prepared to give facilities for this Bill to go through in one day, and we do not
614
want it to be delayed, either here or in another place. But we are legalising something illegal, and we do not like it—we admit that. The legal position is well established. The legal position, which we have discussed in your Lordships' House before, is that the recognised Government of Spain has the right to buy arms, and the rebels have not. Nevertheless, in view of all the circumstances, we have to support anything that will make the policy of non-intervention effective, and I go a little further. However unpromising this particular field, this is an experiment in international co-operation which may be very useful in the future. I am one of those who believe that our major world problems can only be solved by international co-operation.
Now what are we going to do next? I do not mean on the details of air control and the other suggestions that are made, but what is the Government's major policy now? Having established this blockade of the Spanish coast, are we just going to sit back and let the combatants fight it out? Are we going to play the part of nautical Pharisees, and do nothing more? For the Spanish Government, to my mind, is like the man who fell among thieves, who despitefully used him. The Pharisees in this case, instead of passing by on the other side, are preventing the good Samaritans from helping. And in this case the Pharisees are calling in the original thieves to assist in this operation of preventing the good Samaritans from going to the help of the man who was robbed and injured. Well, I suppose all this can be justified by His Majesty's Government on the ground of expediency. I was very much impressed, I must say, by a sentence which fell from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House last week, in answering my noble friend Lord Arnold, when he said that he did not believe in the inevitability of war. I was delighted to hear it. He quoted as an example the undoubted fact that any of the major Powers that wanted it could have had a war about Spain at any time. That made a great impression on me, because I felt in my bones it was true. And therefore you can justify a great deal on the ground of expediency. But I do not think you can now sit back with justification and do nothing else.
I should like to think that this is a new breathing space, and that this Scheme

615
which we are discussing this afternoon will give time. Time for what? Not to let these two parties in Spain fight it out, with terrible slaughter and destruction in a beautiful country—the slaughter of a people with fine qualities, a splendid people, one of the mother races of the world, one of the great pioneering, navigating peoples of the world. Whoever knows them must respect them. It is abominable to allow this destruction and slaughter and cruelty to go on, and I hope, now that we can get this breathing space, there will be an effort at joint mediation. I think it will be a crime on the part of all concerned—I am not making any special charges against His Majesty's present advisers—if they allow this devastating conflict to go on. I do not expect an answer on this matter from the noble Earl. It is a question of high policy. But I do ask your Lordships to support me at any rate in these last words. I say that if there is the least chance of joint mediation to stop this horrible campaign in Spain it will be very wrong to miss it. I hope His Majesty's Government will be vigilant in looking for some opportunity of bringing in possibly the New World—North and South America, especially South America, with its intimate ties with Spain—to see if we can do something by joint mediation. Then, if the other Parties to this Agreement, the other nautical Powers, the Italians and the Germans, are willing, I believe mediation might succeed. If His Majesty's Government can do anything in that matter I am sure they will have the blessing of every right-minded man in the whole world.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this is one of the most complicated Bills that have been introduced into this House for a very long time. In ordinary circumstances it would go to a Select Committee, which would require six or eight weeks to consider its far-reaching implications, and then it would have to have very full consideration here in this House. It is a Bill full of omissions. We have no guarantee whatever that the other twenty or thirty Powers who are to be associated with it are going to accept the basis laid down in this Bill. Even contraband is not defined. The noble Lord who has just spoken seemed to think it would be easy to bring this
616
Bill into effect. I am much more concerned as to how we are going to extricate ourselves from it later on.
But, even so, it is not going to be easy to bring it into effect. As to these observers on a ship like the one mentioned by the noble Lord, the "Marcantabrico"—the master of that ship or of any ship being taken to a Spanish port would have no scruples whatever in carrying the observer into a Spanish port, and, as not one in fifty of our observers tan talk Portuguese or Catalonian, they would be at the mercy of the governing authority in that port. The ship would be calmly unloaded unless His Majesty' ships are going to have the power of search at sea and interception. That, I gather, is not contemplated. It seems to me we are in a very embarrassing position. I am only going to say a word or two, but I would point out what my noble friend Lord Plymouth said about the variation of zones. Power is taken to vary zones. I do not know how far it is authorised, but the newspapers have published maps of Spain showing the zones allotted to different Powers. My noble friend says there will be power to vary these zones. Supposing a Power entrusted with a zone gets tired and says, "We are going to withdraw," I hope we shall be very cautious in extending our zone. We do not want to be left, the sole country, with one zone surrounding the whole Iberian Peninsula.
Lord Strabolgi was friendly towards the temperament of the Good Samaritan which he thought was being shown by Lord Plymouth and his colleagues. We lave tried to be the Good Samaritan in the last few years. We have done our Lest to preserve neutrality. We did it in the Far East. We incurred the hostility of Japan, but we acquired very little gratitude from China. In Abyssinia we took our share in the blockade of that country. We were almost the last in the blockade. We got the hostility of Italy, but the Abyssinians call us traitors. In Palestine we try, by neutrality, to hold the balance between Jew and Moslem, and from the publications which these two communities send to me we seem to be equally disliked and distrusted by both. Now comes Spain. We take a zone. I think it is a very dangerous thing to do. I am desperately frightened that one of His Majesty's great ships may be mined. I think that is a real danger. There is a

617
clause at the end of the Bill which says that the moment His Majesty is so advised by his Ministers an Order in Council can end this blockade. I only express a very fervent hope to my noble friend Lord Plymouth that the moment other countries—following the analogy of Ethiopia, if you like—withdraw from this international covenant, we shall not be slow, we shall not be hesitating, in putting that Order in Council into force.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the reception that has beer given to this Bill generally and for the recognition on the part of your Lordships that this is an emergency measure brought up in this way to meet a particular situation, and that that is its main justification. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me a number of questions and dealt with a number of aspects of this situation which were not perhaps strictly relevant to the actual Bill we are now discussing but which nevertheless, as the noble Lord was kind enough to give me notice he was going to raise these questions, I shall attempt to answer to the best of my ability. He first of all asked if there was any intention on the part of the Government to invite the Dominions and the United States of America to co-operate with the non-intervention Powers in order to make this supervision scheme effective. Closely connected with that subject was the matter of Japanese ships to which he alluded. I am afraid I cannot give him a categorical answer on that subject but, quite clearly, that is an aspect of the difficult position with which we are faced which has not escaped our attention, and undoubtedly we shall have to consider whether any action in that direction ought to be or can be properly taken.
Then he asked when this Scheme was going to commence operation. He pointed out that if all the Powers had to take measures to give effect to the Agreement it might take a long time and there would be considerable delay. I assure him that I fully realise the difficulty there is in getting complete agreement and simultaneous action on the part of as many Powers as we have on the Non-Intervention Committee; but I feel in practice that if all the important Powers have taken the necessary legislative or administrative measures to give effect to this Agreement, there will be no further delay in the commencement of the operation
618
of the Scheme apart from the physical difficulties of building up your organisation and getting your personnel on the spot. I can assure the noble Lord that all the parties to this Agreement are anxious to see this Scheme operated at the earliest possible moment, and to my mind that is the best guarantee that it will be put into operation at the earliest feasible date.
He raised the question of what the position would be with regard to the nationality of observers on ships that came under this Scheme. Perhaps I can explain and clear away his doubts on this subject. The allocation of observers will be decided by the administrator or the deputy-administrator in charge of the various observation ports. These will be responsible persons who will be nominated by the unanimous vote of the Non-Intervention Committee. That is one of the conditions. I think it is perfectly safe to assume that they will take all the necessary measures, all the necessary steps, to ensure that the Scheme is administered, so far as they are individually concerned at any rate, as efficiently and impartially as possible. Therefore the noble Lord can take it for granted that the nationality of the observers will, as a general rule, not be the same as that of the ship. In fact, it must also be remembered that there must be two observers on most ships, and sometimes more, if it were found necessary, in the case of a large ship. Therefore it would be perfectly easy to ensure that at least one of these observers is not a national of the same country to which the ship belonged. In addition to that, there is this further guarantee and protection, that the Committee will have the ultimate control over all questions of this kind which have anything of a political aspect in connection with them. I really feel that on that score we need have no qualms.
Then he asked me what would be the position so far as the food ships are concerned, and whether it would be possible for them to pass into the various ports on the Spanish seaboard. I think that on this point it would be best for me to make clear to him of what the powers and duties of the patrolling ships consist. The duties and privileges of the naval vessels engaged in observation off the Spanish coast are set out in some detail in the Agreement. These vessels

619
will have the power to board ships that are bound for Spain in order to verify their identity and so on, but they will have no right of search and still less any power to prevent any ship from completing its voyage. I can assure him that any case where a naval vessel exceeded its duties in that respect would very quickly come to the notice of the International Committee and appropriate measures would then be taken. He asked me another question in that connection. He asked me whether neutral observers were going to be placed on these vessels. We have not considered that question. It is not one that has been discussed at any length at any rate on the Committee, and therefore I am not in a position to say anything further than that it is open to any member of the Committee to raise any point such as that at any time with a view to trying to strengthen the Scheme itself in the light of experience that has been reached, or, indeed, for any other reason that is thought satisfactory.
Then the noble Lord raised directly the case of the "Springwear." May I put the position so far as it is known to us at the present moment? It is not really correct to say that the "Spring-wear" was chased into Gibraltar by an armed trawler, nor indeed was she fired on by the trawler. She was quite peaceably sent into Gibraltar with a complaint that the Nationalist authorities had definite information that she was carrying contraband of some kind, war material I think, an allegation of which, if you have regard to the Merchant Shipping Act of last year, we clearly had to take cognisance. We do know now, as a matter of fact, that she was not inside territorial waters when she was stopped, and we shall therefore protest against this interference with a British ship on the high seas, which has been our attitude in regard to this matter all along. I do not think this interference could, at any rate, be interpreted as being piracy, as the noble Lord has suggested, as there was no attempt made of any kind to capture the ship. That is the position with regard to the "Springwear" herself. I might add to what I have already said that, after we had adopted this policy of forbidding merchant ships to carry arms from any source to Spain, the Nationalist authorities issued instructions to their
620
naval vessels to the effect that British merchant ships are never to be detained n the high seas, and that in any case of suspicion the Spanish warship is to communicate with Gibraltar, in order that steps may be taken under our own law, if is found that it is necessary.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is the noble Earl referring to the Spanish Government vessels? Does he mean the Spanish Government vessels?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: No, it refers to General Franco's vessels. I was not aware of the fact that I had, as a matter of fact, used the word "Nationalist." Then the noble Lord raised the question of the laying of mines. The view of His Majesty's Government on this point is that the laying of mines not justified except where prior and adequate notice has been given by the Spanish authorities concerned. Warnings have been received from time to time from the insurgent authorities to the effect that certain specified ports on the Mediterranean coast had been declared to be 'closed" by mining. His Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed, in consequence, to protest to General Franco against his failure to notify His Majesty's Government of the intention to lay mines in waters which are remote from, and can in no circumstances be regarded as approaches to, the ports in regard to which warnings had been previously issued, and notably in the case of the 'Llandovery Castle."
Then the noble Lord asked me: If you have an observer on board a ship and that observer catches the boat on which he has been stationed outright in an attempt to import arms or war materials into Spain, what then will happen? The first thing that would happen is that this would be reported to the Board. The Eoard would, no doubt, report it to the Committee, and as a result of that notification the representatives of the Governments represented on that Committee would naturally communicate this to their own Governments, and those Governments would have to decide for themselves what action could be appropriately taken. But this I must point out to the noble Lord and emphasise, because it is a basic fact that must be realised before you can understand the object of our Scheme: we have, and the servants of the

621
International Board will have, no executive powers whatsoever. This Scheme is not based upon executive power, or upon any attempt to give these officers authority to take action to stop things going to Spain, to order boats back and all the rest of it. It is based purely and simply on the principle of observation, and that is why I said, when the noble Lord asked me, that we could not in a case of that kind stop material from actually going in. But we believe that as a result of this observation, which we hope will be a strict and complete one, the necessary confidence will be restored and the necessary assurances will be forthcoming to the Powers concerned that this Agreement will be adhered to all round.
The difficulty all the way up until now has been that, although the individual Powers were agreed and indeed anxious to take measures to stop this inflow of volunteers and war material into Spain, they were not prepared to take them unless there was in operation a scheme which assured them that effective measures could be taken to observe as to whether the Scheme was being honoured by all parties concerned. Therefore it is quite obvious that these officers can have no executive powers in the circumstances, and at the same time, in consequence, it must be made perfectly clear that each Power which is a party to this Agreement is at liberty, at any time when in its view it does not think the Scheme is working satisfactorily and that breaches of it are occurring, to withdraw from the Agreement and take what action it thinks right
622
in the circumstances. I think those are the main questions that the noble Lord asked me.
The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, expressed in a few words his fears as to the efficacy of the Scheme and the consequences that it might have. I share to a certain extent his fears. As I pointed out during the course of my speech, there is no precedent for a scheme of this kind. We have devised a Scheme that we think is best in the circumstances. I believe that with good will on all sides it will operate effectively, but there are quite obviously many loopholes and many dangers that we may have to face. Of that I am perfectly aware. I can only plead, as I said at the commencement of my speech, that this is an emergency measure which is brought in to deal with very special circumstances indeed, and it is on that ground that I ask your Lordships not to examine into it or criticise it with the same detail as you would examine into and criticise other measures. I can only repeat as my last remark that I hope and believe, with the good will and co-operation which there are on all sides in regard to this matter, that this Scheme will work, and will effectively isolate the war in Spain and prevent it from spreading outside that country.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES 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 last discharged, and Bill committed.
ILFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 8th and 23rd of February last discharged, and Bill committed.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

DURHAM GAS ORDER, 1937.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the City of Durham Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SHEFFIELD GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Special Order should be approved with modifications: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The said modifications to be printed. Special Order referred back to the Special Orders Committee.