Sitting of 5 May 1937

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

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
Mr. Banfield: I desire to present a Petition on behalf of the National Old Age Pensions Association and certain electors in the Borough of Oldham. The Petition says:
"To the Hon. The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
That the humble petition of the Parliamentary electors of Oldham and district and the National Old Age Pensions Association, recognising the gravity of the unemployed problem, and being assured that under present conditions this problem is certain to become a permanent feature in our national life, and believing that the speediest way of eradicating this evil, which dooms the youth of this country to idleness and futility, destroying sell-respect and vitality is (1) to increase the present contributory pension from 10s. to 20S. per week at 65 years of age"—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member need not read the whole of the Petition.
Mr. Banfield: The Petition is signed by 34,959 persons.

UNEMPLOYMENT (WORK SCHEMES).
Mr. G. Strauss: I beg to present a Petition, signed by approximately 200,000 people, protesting against the operation of the means test and urging that work schemes be launched. The Petitioners allege that the means test is doing very considerable harm to a large section of the population, mentally and physically, which harm is growing worse as the cost of living rises, and particularly as the cost of foodstuffs rises. They ask that work schemes should be started so that these unemployed people may usefully exercise their powers in increasing the wealth of the country and in producing goods which are urgently needed by the population. For these reasons they ask this Honourable House to take steps for the provision of public work schemes, at trade union rates of pay, and for the abolition of the means test.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bucks Water Bill,
Burgess Hill Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Dunstable Gas and Water Bill,
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Folkestone Pier and Lift Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Staffordshire County Council Bill, As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Fowey," presented by Captain Austin Hudson, read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]
  WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Walsall Corporation Act, 1925, relating to Walsall Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin Hudson, read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]
  JOHNSTONE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Johnstone Burgh," presented by Mr. Elliot, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the declared intention of the Spanish insurgent authorities to raze Bilbao to the ground and destroy its inhabitants, and in consequence of such declaration following the destruction of Guernica by bombing and machine-gunning from the air, he will ask for an immediate meeting of the League Council with a view to action by the League in order to avert this threat being carried out?
  The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): So far as the reference of any aspect of the Spanish conflict to the Council of the League is concerned, this is clearly in the first instance a matter for the Spanish Government. The Non-Intervention Committee, on the initiative of His Majesty's Government, are, however, at present considering the possibility of an approach to the contending parties in the Spanish civil war with a view to preventing the recurrence of the bombardment of the civilian population.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of a report that it is intended to make air attacks on Bilbao and Madrid on an overwhelming and unprecedented scale, and in view of the fact that the House is adjourning to-morrow for nearly three weeks, will he given an assurance that in the event of the Non-Intervention Committee failing to arrive at an agreement to take effective action in this matter, he will undertake to raise the matter at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of the League?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member will be aware, from the answer that I have already given, of the importance that we attach to this matter. That is why we have raised it in this way before the Non-Intervention Committee, which is to meet again on Friday. I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking about what I might or might not do at the Council of the League. This is a matter which clearly, in the first place, would be a matter for the Spanish Government which is a permanent member of the Council.
  Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that in the event of the Non-Intervention Committee failing to take action there is a possibility of the situation developing into a worse situation, which would be a matter for the League under Article II of the Covenant?
  Mr. Eden: I am conscious, and the Government are conscious, of the gravity of events, and that is why we have taken the initiative ourselves.
  Captain Gazalet: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the account in the "Times" to-day and the official account printed yesterday of the bombing of Guernica, and do not those accounts show that the original account was entirely inaccurate?
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have laid concrete proposals before the Non-Intervention Committee for the evacuation of foreigners fighting in the civil war in Spain?
  Mr. MacNeill Weirasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state what progress has been made by the Non-Intervention Committee as to the withdrawal of foreign nationals serving in Spain?.
  Mr. Eden: The first step in dealing with this very complex and difficult subject is clearly to reach agreement on the broad lines of the questions under examination. With this aim in view, as I informed the House on Monday last, the Technical Sub-Committee specially appointed to deal with this subject met on that day. The British representatives on this subcommittee are taking their full part in the discussions, and I understand that good progress has been made.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As it is now three weeks since the decision was made to draw up a scheme of this kind, can the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to expedite practical proposals?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member cannot be more anxious than I am to expedite this matter, but the problem is one, as he will admit, of extreme difficulty, and I think the Technical Committee are doing all they can in the circumstances.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that foreign aeroplanes are still arriving in large numbers, with foreign pilots, on whatever side it may be, will the right hon. Gentleman take very urgent action, seeing the grave danger of the situation?
  Mr. MacNeill Weirasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Non-Intervention Committee have received any information as to the number of foreign nationals serving in the forces of the Spanish Government and the Spanish insurgents, respectively?
  Mr. Eden: Not so far as I am aware.
  Mr. Weir: May I ask whether there are any observers at the headquarters of both armies, having regard to the fact that the non-intervention and supervision scheme is to see whether foreign nationals are there?
  Mr. Eden: I understand it is the duty of observers to go on ships at certain specified ports.
  Mr. Weir: Is it not necessary to know whether foreign nationals are there or not?
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the landing of 1,500 Germans at San Sebastian on 27th April?
  Mr. Eden: My attention has been called to a Press report to this effect. I have no information tending to confirm the report, but I am making inquiries.
  Mr. Mander: Do I understand that the German contribution in Northern Spain has been limited to the massacre at Guernica?
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of participating in the investigation being undertaken by the French Government representatives as to the responsibility for the destruction of Guernica, either jointly or independently or through the appropriate organ of the League of Nations?
  Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the House on Monday last on the subject of the steps which His Majesty's Government were taking to establish the facts regarding the destruction of Guernica. As I have already stated, the
  1134
  Non-Intervention Committee are, on the initiative of His Majesty's Government, considering the possibility of an approach to the contending parties in regard to the bombardment of civilian populations. His Majesty's Government are, of course, in close touch on the whole subject with the French Government, who are in accord with the procedure to which I have just referred.
  Mr. Mander: Has not the Spanish Foreign Minister invited an investigation on the spot?
  Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
  Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: If the right hon. Gentleman is pressing for an inquiry on this subject, will there be a similar inquiry on Eibar and other places which were deliberately burnt down by retiring Government troops?
  Captain Harold Balfour: Why is it necessary for the hon. Member to ask for an inquiry when in his previous question he makes an allegation?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the obstruction by German and Italian delegates at the Non-Intervention Committee when this question was considered, can we ask the Foreign Secretary to give us an assurance that during the Recess His Majesty's Government will take some means of finding out what really happened and who were responsible?
  Mr. Eden: I should not like the House to accept the opening part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I think in a matter of this kind we must accept the communique issued by the Committee itself. The Committee is to meet again on Friday, and the House can be sure that we shall do everything we can to further progress. Our objective is not concerned with one side or the other; we wish to stop all destruction of this kind.
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason why the British Government, on the Non-Intervention Sub-Committee, have refused to support the request of the Governments of Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Sweden, with the support of France, Belgium, Russia and Czechoslovakia, that the main Non-Intervention Committee should be summoned to decide what

  1135
  action should be taken regarding ships already seized by the Spanish rebels, and in future cases of interference with vessels in Spanish waters despite the presence on board of observers of the International Non-Intervention Board; and whether the matter is to be considered?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member appears to be misinformed. He will see from the communique issued after the meeting of the Chairman's Sub-Committee on 3rd May that a preliminary discussion took place at that meeting, and that it was decided to call a full meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee to consider this subject further this morning.
  Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the event of any scheme being agreed upon for the protection of ships the British Government are willing to co-operate?
  Mr. Eden: I should like to know the nature of the scheme.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand from the reply that the British Government do support the proposal of these northern countries?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member must understand from the reply that the matter is being considered this morning. I do not myself know the outcome of the discussion.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: What is the attitude of His Majesty's Government? Are they supporting the proposal of the northern countries that neutral shipping should be preserved from illegal attacks?
  Mr. Eden: That, obviously depends in a large measure on the nature of the proposal.
  Mr. Mander: Will His Majesty's Government consider sympathetic co-operation?
  Mr. Gallacherasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the sinking of the Spanish insurgent battleship by Spanish Government aeroplanes, he is prepared to reconsider the proposed increase of expenditure on the battleship programme?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether
  1136
  he has any information as to the circumstances attending the sinking of the rebel Spanish warship "Espana"?
  Mr. Ammonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state definitely whether the Spanish insurgent vessel "Espana" was sunk by aircraft or mined?
  Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information regarding the sinking of the Spanish battleship "Espana"; and what conclusions can be drawn regarding the vulnerability of battleships to aerial attack?
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Samuel Hoare): The House will be aware that reports have been published in the Press attributing the sinking of the "Espana" to bombs dropped from aeroplanes. I understand that it was also claimed locally that this vessel had been sunk by shellfire from coast batteries. While it is impossible in the nature of things finally to establish the cause, all the information in the possession of the Admiralty leads to the conclusion that the "Espana" was sunk by a mine and not by bombs or shellfire.
  The British steamship "Knitsley" reports that the Spanish destroyer"Velasco,"which was attempting to intercept the"Knitsley," was apparently called to the assistance of the "Espana" shortly after 8.15 a.m. The destroyer was seen to go alongside the "Espana," or to close her, on the side remote from the "Knitsley." No aircraft were observed until 9.20 a.m., that is, after the battleship had been stationary, with the destroyer in close attendance, for approximately an hour. Three aircraft then appeared at a considerable height above the clouds, and the "Espana" opened fire with anti-aircraft guns, but made no attempt to get under way, as would have been expected if an undamaged ship had been attacked by aircraft. Observers on board the "Knitsley," which was at no great distance, have stated definitely that they saw no bombs falling on or in the vicinity of the "Espana"; and although two loud explosions were heard, these were assumed to be shore batteries firing.
  Some time afterwards the "Espana" took a list to port and subsequently

  1137
  turned bottom upwards, sinking stern first at approximately 10.10 a.m., and the "Velasco" was seen to come clear with her decks crowded with men. The Admiralty understand the view of the Spanish Insurgent naval authorities themselves to be that the ship was sunk whilst turning under helm by a floating mine, that is, a mine which had broken away from its moorings. I may explain to the House that, owing to the effect of the bow wave in deflecting the mine, a ship is unlikely to be damaged by a floating mine unless she is turning under helm, when the stern in swinging out may come into contact with the mine. This view is consistent with the account received from steamship "Knitsley" to the effect that the ship sank stern first.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that he informed the House that the ship was stationary and that then, in order to try to justify the suggestion of a mine, he said it was not stationary but was swinging round? Further, is he aware that 50 aeroplanes could attack a battleship and that with the precision with which they can fire torpedoes now, it is almost certain one or other would make a lucky hit, and that even if the 50 aeroplanes were destroyed, the destruction of the battleship would be sure?

  DISTRESSED FOREIGNERS (REPATRIATION).
  Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the countries that have introduced legislation or have regulations that give them power to repatriate at public expense distressed aliens within a specified period of their entry; and any particulars of the number of British subjects who have been so repatriated to Great Britain during the last 12 months.
  Mr. Eden: Repatriation of a distressed foreigner is usually regarded as the function of the State of which he is a national, and I presume that what the hon. Member has in mind is legislation in regard to deportation. His Majesty's Government have not a complete record of foreign legislation on this matter. With regard to the second part of the question, I regret that the information is not available.

  EGYPT (BRITISH POLICE).
  Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to the position and prospects of the British officers and constables of the Egyptian police whose services have been, or shortly will be, terminated in consequence of the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has agreed to put 20 of the constables through a short course of training in order to see for what posts they would be suitable. Six of the Maltese constables have been offered employment at His Majesty's dockyard at Malta and two have been offered posts in the Malta police. One constable has obtained employment and another is under consideration for employment with the Automobile Association as patrols, and it is hoped that similar employment may be found not only with this Association, but with the Royal Automobile Club for other constables. According to the latest information in my possession, out of a total of II British officers and 77 constables leaving this year, three British officers and 29 constables have secured fresh employment, while one officer and 34 constables have prospects or are considering offers of employment.
  Sir J. Mellor: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he appreciates that the remainder will find themselves in a very difficult position at the end of this month in not knowing whether to come home in search of employment or to remain in Egypt, and will he continue to impress on the Secretary of State for the Colonies the fact that these men have a knowledge of Arabic and great experience of civil disturbances and, therefore, are ideally suitable for service in Palestine?
  Mr. Eden: I am conscious of the importance of finding employment for these men and we have worked very hard at it. It is not unsatisfactory that we have succeeded in placing 60 out of 70.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Foreign Secretary be good enough to impress on the Minister of Agriculture the necessity to take the same steps in regard to people who are put out of work by the Livestock Industry Bill?

  ABYSSINIA.

    BRITISH MISSIONARIES.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the expulsion of British missionaries from Abyssinia?
    Mr. Eden: Negotiations are still proceeding on this subject with the Italian Government. I hope that I may be in a position to make a full statement immediately after the Recess.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, as the representative of Great Britain, give an assurance that he will agree to no proposal at Geneva to deprive Ethiopia of her seat on the Assembly of the League of Nations?
    Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, understand that it is not possible for me to make a pronouncement on an issue which has not been raised and which, if it were to be raised, would be a matter to be considered by the League as a whole.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to pursue peace instead of perpetuating an antiquated blood feud?
    Mr. V. Adams: Should not we at least resist condoning this aggression?

    REFUGEES.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House an assurance that Abyssinian refugees who have been driven from their homes by the invading Italian army will not be refused admission to British Somaliland and other British Colonies?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No Abyssinian refugees who are fleeing from the Italian forces will be refused admission into Kenya or British Somaliland.
    Sir H. Croft: Arising out of the reply, in view of the great dread of the native inhabitants of Kenya owing to their history, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that no undue efforts are made to bring Abyssinians into those parts of the country where they remember
    1140
    the terrible slave trade over a longer number of years?
    Mr. Wise: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the tremendous shortage of water and grazing in the Kenya and Somaliland areas before any relaxation of Government control is contemplated?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly. As a matter of fact the problem does not arise in Kenya owing to local conditions. Practically no refugees have attempted to cross the desert area. But a considerable number has penetrated into Somaliland, and is being cared for in camps. I would make it clear that they are admitted only providing they surrender all their arms, if they have any, and give undertakings to cease taking part in any hostilities.

    CHINA.
    Mr. Morganasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in any negotiations for a better understanding among Powers interested in the Far East with regard to trade in China, it has been decided whether the question of the revival of spheres of influence can or ought to be raised?
    Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government have no intention of suggesting the revival of this question.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    NEW CRUISERS.
    Sir Charles Cayzerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty have recently reconsidered their decision to lay down the seven small 5,300-ton cruisers of the "Dido" class, in view of the fact that when completed these cruisers would be considerably smaller and slower than the equivalent types now building or projected for foreign navies; and whether, in view of the comparatively small additional cost entailed by such a modification, it is proposed to redesign them as 8,000-ton ships?
    Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. As was explained by my Noble Friend on 14th April in reply to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner), the cruisers of the "Dido" class are expected to prove a

    1141
    valuable and effective addition to the Fleet. The Admiralty are satisfied that these vessels are fully capable of performing the duties for which they are designed.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: If the suggestion were adopted would it not cost another £63,500,000?
    Sir S. Hoare: It would cost a large sum.

    OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueterasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement on marriage allowance for naval officers?
    Sir S. Hoare: As I explained in the course of the Debate on the Report stage of the Navy Estimates, this question raises complicated issues, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to what I then said.

    STRENGTH.
    Mr. Dayasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether and in what manner it is proposed further to increase the strength of His Majesty's Navy?
    Sir S. Hoare: I would refer the hon. Member to the statements of Government defence policy contained in Command Papers 5107 and 5374 of 1936 and 1937 respectively, and to the remarks which I made on this subject in introducing the Navy Estimates this year, and to which I have nothing to add.

    ENGINEER OFFICERS (UNIVERSITY GRADUATES).
    Lieut.-Commander Tufnellasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any announcement to make regarding the entry of University graduates into the Royal Navy as engineer officers?
    Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir. The Admiralty have just adopted a scheme which will allow qualified candidates of Universities of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter the Royal Navy as engineer officers. Under this scheme—particulars of which are being announced in the Press—commissions as sub-lieutenant (E) will be offered to graduates between the ages of 21 and 25 who have spent at least three years as internal students and have an engineering degree (mechanical or electrical) which is accepted by the
    1142
    Institute of Mechanical Engineers as exempting from parts (A) and (B) of the examination for associate membership and had sufficient practical experience.

  GOLD COAST.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received information concerning the nature of a further amendment to the Native Administration Amendment Ordinance No. 35, of 1936?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Gold Coast Ordinance No. 25, of 1936, which amended the Native Administration Ordinance, 1927. I am not aware of any proposal further to amend the Ordinance.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received further particulars concerning investigation of the letters alleged to have been written by Sir Ofori Atta to certain high officials of the Gold Coast Government with the intention to frustrate the ends of justice; and by whom the investigation was carried out?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have no further information beyond that contained in the report on this subject which was placed in the Library of the House on 17th February. That report shows that the investigations were conducted by the local police.

  ASHANTI (WEST AFRICAN YOUTH LEAGUE).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give any information regarding the property of the four members of the Ashanti branch of the West African Youth League, whose conviction for offences of conspiracy against the Asantehene was quashed by the West African court of appeal, and who have been prevented from returning to their homes in Ashanti under the provisions laid down in Ordinance Ashanti No. 44, of 1936?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Representations were made to me in November last regarding the position of these persons and their dependants, who, it was alleged, were undergoing hardship despite the possession of properties said to be valued at

  1143
  £12,000. I have made inquiries of the Governor and am informed that so far from their properties being worth such a sum as £12,000, only one man owns property of any value and that that property is very heavily mortgaged. I am advised that their position is not such as would appear to call for Governmental assistance.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these men are in a position of destitution in the district where they are living, and cannot something be done to provide them with at least the necessities of life?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If the hon. Member will let me have any information at his disposal, I will submit it to the Government of Ashanti.

  KENYA.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. Bonfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the several alterations to the draft Bill on Income Tax in Kenya recommended by the Select Committee; and whether, in view of the substantial nature of the changes recommended and the heavy administrative labour involved, he will make representations to the Government of Kenya on the matter?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The first draft Bill was published in October and a revised Bill was drafted in January. The revised draft was introduced into Council in March and referred to a Select Committee of Council which, I am given to understand, made some alterations and presented a unanimous report to Council. The Bill was passed on 19th April. I have not yet received copies of the report of the Select Committee or of the Ordinance as now enacted.

    EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far consideration has been given to the proposals for the reorganisation of the Executive Council of the Governor of Kenya?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have asked the Governor to consider how the Executive Council might best be reconstituted. I
    1144
    have not received any suggestions, and the matter is obviously one which will require most careful consideration.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I take it there is no intention to change the proportion of representation?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Member will recall that the Pim Report suggested that the present council was much too large and had on it far too many departmental officials whose time was taken up by it. One of the principal objects is to get a much smaller council and to reconstitute it.
    Mr. Creech Jones: My point concerns the proportion of representation.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This is purely an advisory council, and there can be no voting on it. My object is to get a small council, and I do not think it matters what are the proportions of representation among the people who serve upon it.

  ZANZIBAR (LAND OWNERSHIP).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any legislation is contemplated in Zanzibar for the purpose of restricting land ownership and trade activities of Indians in that Colony; and whether any representations from Indians have been received on the matter?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If the purpose of the hon. Member's question is to inquire whether legislation is in contemplation in Zanzibar discriminating against Indians as such, the answer is in the negative. What is in contemplation is legislation to protect the native, Arab or African, landowners and cultivators of Zanzibar against eviction from their land by any persons who are not natives, and to remodel the marketing of cloves, the only important export product of Zanzibar, on what can most conveniently be described as cooperative lines, so as to ensure that the producers, whatever their race may be, get the full value of their crops. No racial discrimination of any kind is contemplated. Various representations on the subject of this legislation have been received and are now being considered by the Zanzibar Government.
  Mr. Paling: Is that the information from the Acting Resident which the right hon. Gentleman promised to get last week?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir.

  INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.
  Mr. Morganasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the export quotas of sugar for each of the British sugar-producing Colonies which have been proposed as the basis of an agreement at the International Sugar Conference; and how these quotas compare with the present exports of sugar from those Colonies?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the International Sugar Conference is not yet ended I cannot make any statement as to the exact obligations which may be accepted on behalf of the British Colonies.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements were made to represent the sugar producers of Uganda at the International Sugar Conference; whether his attention has been called to the anxiety of these producers lest Uganda sugar production should be curtailed in any way; and whether he is now in a position to state to what extent it will be curtailed and to what extent this will necessitate the destruction of existing crops or the abandonment of acreage now devoted to sugar production in that colony?
  Mr. McEnteeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what arrangements were made by him to consult the sugar producers of Uganda in connection with the International Sugar Conference; and whether he can give an assurance that no decision will be reached affecting such producers until they have been fully consulted;
  (2) whether he is aware that the estimated sugar production of Uganda, on the basis of cane already planted, will reach about 42,000 tons per annum within two years; what export quota is to be imposed upon Uganda as a result of the Sugar Conference; and whether he is satisfied that any decision resulting from the conference will in no way prevent the necessary expansion of the
  1146
  Uganda sugar industry and the maintenance of low production costs and low prices for the large native population?
  Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present sugar production of Uganda and what is the estimated output for the next two years; and whether consideration will be given to the peculiar position of Uganda sugar producers in connection with the present proposals for limitation of production at the International Sugar Conference?
  Mr. Ormsby - Gore: As already announced, I set up art Advisory Panel of representatives of Colonial producers in connection with the International Sugar Conference, and Major Dale, who is in charge of the East African Dependencies Trade and Information Office, was appointed on that panel to represent the East African Territories in agreement with the East African Governments. I have been informed by him and by the Government of Uganda about the anxiety of Uganda producers as to their position under an international sugar agreement. It is proposed under such an agreement to accept obligations only on behalf of the Colonial Empire as a whole, and the precise treatment of Uganda in the event of an agreement would have to be settled in consultation with the other Colonial territories concerned. I am not, therefore, able to make any definite announcement at this moment, but I can assure the hon. Members that every consideration will be given to any special circumstances applying to Uganda as to any other territory in the Colonial Empire. As to figures of production, the exact figures of output for the last year are not available, but it was approximately 20,000 tons; and estimates of future production, which are, however, entirely provisional, are 36,000 tons for the crop year 1937–38 and 42,000 tons for 1938–39.

  SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVE LABOUR).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the small experimental recruitment among Nyasaland natives, which he has authorised for work on the Rand in South Africa, provides for proper transport, rest, and health conditions to and from the natives' homes and places of employment; whether facilities will be provided for

  1147
  family settlement in South Africa; and what are the terms of the licence and to whom is it issued?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Family settlement is not contemplated. A licence for the experimental recruitment was issued to the London and Blantyre Supply Company under section 25 of the Nyasaland Employment of Natives Ordinance. I hope to publish shortly a report on the experiment by a senior Nyasaland official who has recently visited the Rand.
  Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the conditions of employment, the danger to health involved and the absence of family life, will the Minister give this matter his closest supervision?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Member knows that all recruitment for work in the gold mines on the Rand is non-family and purely temporary. Of course, we know that the health conditions are important, and in so far as I have information to date, the health conditions of those now in employment in the Rand mines are satisfactory.
  Mr. Paling: Has the Union Government made any application to be allowed to recruit labour in these areas; and is it not a fact that when labour has been recruited from these tropical areas previously the death rate has been very high; and, further, if the natives are not allowed to take their families with them, are they going to live under the compound system which is so notorious?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the hon. Member knows, great changes have been made in the compounds on the Rand in recent years. Certainly if they go to work in the Johannesburg area they will have to live in compounds. It is true that the Government of the Union of South Africa have hitherto not desired to recruit labour north of a certain latitude, but they now require to do so. This is an experiment which we have to watch in order to ascertain whether it does in any way harm the natives or not.

  FEDERATED MALAY STATES (RAILWAY CLERICAL SERVICE).
  Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware
  1148
  that the Federated Malay States Government have laid down that when clerks who have lost their employment through retrenchment are taken back into the service they shall receive the same salary as before, and that the period during which they have been without employment shall be regarded as no pay leave and taken into consideration for the purpose of pension; and whether he will intervene to prevent this provision being ignored in the railway department, where clerks are obliged to re-enter employment at a salary of 26 dollars a month in the lower division of the railway clerical service under the railway clerical scheme, which came into force after they had lost their former employment and of the conditions of which they are compelled to sign an agreement not to complain during their renewed service?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have at present no information enabling me to check the statements made in the hon. Member's question, but I will ask the High Commissioner for a report on the terms applicable to the re-employment of this class of personnel in the Federated Malay States railways, and will communicate with the hon. Member when I have received it.

  AVIATION.

    MAYBURY COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the Government's attitude to the Maybury Report?
    Wing-Commander Wrightasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will give an assurance that the recommendation of the Maybury Committee with regard to internal air services will not be put into operation until this House has had an opportunity of approving this report?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): I will answer these questions together as they both arise out of what appears to be some misunderstanding of the position on my hon. Friends' part. I would draw attention to the memorandum accompanying Air Estimates in which my Noble Friend announced that the Government have already approved those recommendations in the Maybury Report which call for action on the part of the Air

    1149
    Ministry. The Air Navigation Act passed last Session provides that a licensing system may be established by Order in Council approved by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The necessary Order will be submitted to Parliament in due course.
    Mr. Perkins: Do I understand that in due course the House will have an opportunity of discussing all these recommendations?
    Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, Sir, a full opportunity.
    Mr. Montague: Have the Government come to a decision between the alternative suggestions in the report?
    Sir P. Sassoon: No such decisions can be taken until the licensing authority has been set up.

    RAILWAY PASSENGER BOOKINGS.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what progress, if any, has been made in the negotiations with the railway companies with regard to their booking agents encouraging British passengers to fly on German and Belgian air-lines in preference to British air-lines?
    Sir P. Sassoon: I am informed that favourable progress has been made in the negotiations which have been taking place in regard to the use by British Airways, Limited, of the booking facilities of travel agencies, and I understand that agreement has been reached with the railway companies by which British Airways will be given the use of the booking agencies for their Continental services.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does that mean that British passengers will be recommended to fly British?
    Sir P. Sassoon: They will have every opportunity to fly British if they want to do so.
    Mr. Perkins: Would it be in order to thank the Minister for his considerable service to civil aviation?
    Mr. Montague: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the precise business reasons why the railway companies are taking this attitude? What advantage do they get?
    Sir P. Sassoon: I presume they are doing what they think best.

    TERMINAL AIRPORTS (ACCESS).
    Sir M. Sueterasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the desirability of setting up a committee to study and report on the question of developing high-speed communications between the centre of London and its terminal airports, the terms of reference to include other large cities and their terminal airports?
    Sir P. Sassoon: This matter was recently examined by the Committee on Civil Aviation. In London the problem is already being studied as part of the survey of highway development initiated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. While, therefore, sharing my hon. and gallant Friend's view as to the importance of speedy access to terminal airports, I do not think that it would be useful to set up another committee.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    NIGHT FLYING (MIDLAND AREA).
    Mr. Everardasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the night flying now taking place in the Midland area in connection with the training of the searchlight battalions, he will arrange for the installation of wireless at Leicester municipal aerodrome from which this flying is taking place?
    Sir P. Sassoon: Owing to the shortage of wave-bands the selection of airports for equipment with radio facilities calls for careful discrimination, and I regret that it is not at present practicable to consider the provision of such facilities at the Leicester aerodrome. Wireless facilities afforded by numerous other stations are, however, available to aircraft flying in the area to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Everard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on three or four nights a week all over the Midland area, aeroplanes are flying for these searchlight tests; and does he not think that for the safety of those aircraft proper wireless facilities ought to be provided at the aerodrome of departure?
    Sir P. Sassoon: My hon. Friend knows the difficulty in connection with these matters. We cannot have these radio

    1151
    installations too close together. Aeroplanes using this aerodrome have at least seven other aerodromes on which they can call for wireless information.

    ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL POSTS.
    Major Stourtonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many officers not on the active list are doing duty at Royal Air Force stations as accountant, equipment, and engineer officers; and if there is any reason why serving officers should not fill these positions?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The numbers are 60, 144 and 41 respectively. It is the normal policy to offer employment to retired officers in a limited number of administrative and technical posts; the rapid expansion of the Air Force has made it desirable as a temporary measure largely to increase the number of retired officers so employed.
    Major Stourton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are plenty of officers on the active list who are willing and anxious to do this work?
    Sir P. Sassoon: There are not many of these posts, and they are filled by people who have been on the active list. It is only a temporary measure.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of accidents that have occurred to Royal Air Force machines for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date involving casualties to the personnel, fatal or otherwise?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The number asked for, in the 12 months ended 30th April, 1937, was 165, but in a large proportion of these accidents only minor injuries resulted.
    Mr. Day: Do these pilots receive weather reports before they start on their journeys?
    Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Everard: Is it not a fact that there are far more accidents in some countries of Europe where they are not published at all?

  CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  Sir Paul Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Govern-
  1152
  ment's intention to raise the salaries of Ministers, he will consider taking the necessary action to diminish the discrepancy between the salaries of the Chairman of Ways and Means and of the Deputy-Chairman?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): The question of the existing relation between the salaries attached to the two posts referred to by my hon. Friend does not seem to me to arise in connection with the Ministers' Salaries Bill. The question is one for consideration in the first instance by the Commissioners for regulating the Offices of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Thorne: With regard to the other part of the question, which the Prime Minister has not answered, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the Cabinet have not made up their minds on Members' salaries, to make up his mind on it and give us an answer before he resigns? May I have a reply to that question?
  The Prime Minister: I should have notice of it.

  LAW OFFICERS (REMUNERATION).
  Mr. V. Adamsasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the Government to implement their undertaking with regard to the revision of the remuneration enjoyed by the Law Officers for England?
  The Prime Minister: The terms of my hon. Friend's question may give rise to some misunderstanding which I must correct. The Minister of Health, in the course of the Debate last Wednesday, said that the Government would take into consideration the views expressed on this subject during the discussion, and that, of course, will be done.

  DEFENCE.

    FLEET AIR ARM.
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has concluded his inquiry into the making of the dual-control system of the Fleet Air Arm; and whether he can make a statement?
    Colonel Goodmanasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence

    1153
    whether he is now in a position to make any statement respecting the future control of the Fleet Air Arm?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am not able to make any statement at present.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: In view of the urgent necessity of an early decision regarding the future of the Fleet Air Arm, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he is likely to be able to finish his inquiry and make a statement?
    Sir T. Inskip: I would rather not hazard any statement at the moment.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman be as quick as he can in arriving at a decision?

    BUILDING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. A. Reedasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, to allay anxiety in the building trade throughout the country, he will give an assurance that it is not intended, in connection with the completion of the Government's programme, to issue any orders or instructions for the slowing up of private building construction?
    Sir T. Inskip: I can at present make no statement on this matter, having regard to the discussions with the building industry to which I referred in my answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) on 28th April.

    FOOD STORAGE.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the plans for the storage of food in preparation for any national emergency?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): As the hon. Member is aware, the question of food storage is under active investigation by the Board of Trade. I regret that I am not able to make any statement on the subject at the present time.

    THE CORONATION.
    Mr. R. Aclandasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it will be permissible for aeroplanes to fly over London during the Coronation ceremony and procession?
    Sir P. Sassoon: Regulations have already been issued prohibiting the flight of civil aircraft on Coronation Day over the area enclosed within a circle of five miles radius having its centre at Buckingham Palace. One Royal Air Force aircraft has been authorised to fly within the above area during the morning, but it will be withdrawn before the procession starts.
    Mr. Duncanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how long Kensington. Gardens will be closed to the public; and whether it is possible to keep open parts of the gardens for the children to play in?
    Commander Southby (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My Noble Friend will use every endeavour to reopen Kensington Gardens a week after the Coronation, and he has arranged that the Flower Walk, the children's playground in the Broad Walk and the Refreshment Pavilion shall be kept open throughout the whole of the period.
    Mr. Duncanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether Members of the House of Commons will be allowed to use the covered way now being erected from the Palace of Westminster to the Abbey on Coronation Day if they are attending the ceremony in the Abbey; and, if so, during what hours will it be possible to use it?
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I have been asked to reply. In order to speed up the emptying of the Abbey after the Service, a bridge has been constructed during the past few days which will enable Members of the House of Commons to leave the Abbey almost simultaneously with the Peers. To use the covered way after the Service would delay for over an hour Members' exit from the Abbey; but they will, of course, be able to use the covered way for the purpose of reaching the Abbey from the House of Commons if they so desire. Members are required to be in their seats by 8.30 a.m.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the concern that exists over the

    1155
    employment of members of his Department on Coronation day to act as stewards, attendants, etc., while there are a number of capable unemployed men and women who have applied for the positions and been refused; and will he state why this course has been followed?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. No applications have been received by my Department from unemployed persons for employment in any capacity on Coronation Day. It is essential that the persons employed as stewards and messengers in the Board of Education and on the stand attached to the Department should be familiar with the building.
    Mr. Morganasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation has recently refused to include in its news bulletins any notice by the Coronation Accommodation Committee, which operates with the assistance of the Department of Overseas Trade; and whether, in view of the importance of co-operation between the Corporation and such bodies on the eve of the Coronation, he will cause notices by this committee to be included in broadcast news?
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I am informed by the British Broadcasting Corporation that the work of the committee in question has been mentioned on a number of occasions in its Empire News Bulletins, and that the large number of official and other notices for which broadcasting time has lately been requested has prevented a similar inclusion in the home bulletins of reference to the committee's work. I will, however, inform the Corporation of my hon. Friend's views.
    Sir John Haslamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make any statement as to the closing of shops on Coronation day?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has no powers in this matter, but I am glad to take this opportunity of saying on his behalf that he hopes very much that Coronation Day will be observed as a holiday in the distributive trades, as by the rest of the
    1156
    community, to the fullest extent that is possible consistently with the essential needs of the public, and in particular that, so far as shop assistants are concerned, the day will in every case be regarded as an additional holiday and will not be allowed to prejudice any other holiday which they would normally receive in that week.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR DRIVERS' SIGNALS.
    Mr. Cassellsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of a recent legal ruling to the effect that stop-lights on motor cars could not be recognised as legal warning unless accompanied by the appropriate hand signal; and if he is prepared to cause the Highway Code to be amended in accordance therewith.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. HoreBelisha): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Monday last to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Touche). He will, I think, appreciate that no amendment to the Code is necessary.
    Mr. Cassellsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to advise that in future motor-cars be equipped with a green light at the front of the car, brake operated, in order that pedestrians be made aware as to whether an approaching motor is drawing up in order to give him the right of the road?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. This might be confusing.
    Mr. Cassells: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion that I make is a prudent one?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. I would have answered differently if I did.

    FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.
    Mr. Cassellsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now prepared to authorise the building of the new Forth Bridge, in view of the fact that the initial cost, amounting to £3,000,000, would be spread over a period of approximately six years, that actual building operations would only commence approximately two years from authorisation, and that approximately 4,000 workers of the steel trade in Scotland are unemployed at present?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3rd 111 ay to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers).
    Mr. Cassells: Being fully aware of the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman refers me, I take it that the initial expenditure of £3,000,000 will be expended over a period of six years?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I should require notice of the precise spread-over of the spending of this money.
    Mr. Cassells: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement in the question and ask him whether he agrees with it or not?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The statement is made by the hon. Gentleman himself in the question. He does not ask me to verify it, but I will willingly verify it if he so desires. I was answering on the operative point.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for War will be grateful to him if he builds this bridge?
    Mr. Mathers: Does not the Minister realise that he is laying down impossible conditions for the local authorities by telling them to get on if they wish, but that he will take no responsibility? Has he no ambition to be the author of this scheme?

    TOLL-FREE BRIDGE, SELBY.
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Transport whether he can now say when his legal advisers will be able to submit an opinion with regard to the necessity or otherwise of legislation before work can be commenced on a toll-free bridge at Selby?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have now received this opinion. It will not, I am advised, be necessary to promote legislation, and I shall devote my urgent attention to the matter.
    Colonel Ropner: May we expect a decision in the next month or two?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, I hope very much before then.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Have there not been negotiations over the Selby Bridge for 10 years?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, but I was not in charge then.
    Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an answer before he leaves?

    ARTERIAL ROADS (LONDON).
    Colonel Goodmanasked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to make any statement as to his plans for the improvement and reconstruction of arterial roads around London in the immediate future?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a list of these improvements which are too numerous to be given orally.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SOYA BEAN PRODUCTION.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider preparing a scheme to encourage the production of the soya bean as feeding stuff for cattle in this country?
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir, experiments in soya bean production in this country have not yielded results sufficiently encouraging to justify the action suggested.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not the Minister think that the real solution to the agricultural problem to-day is a national food production Act like the War-time measure in order to increase home production?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: I was under the impression that this question related to the soya bean.

    LIVESTOCK.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to protect the interests of livestock breeders, in view of the proposal to open experimental slaughter-houses and to close existing slaughter-houses?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: The purpose of Part V of the Livestock Industry Bill, under which it is proposed to offer facilities for three experiments in centralised slaughtering on the meat works principle, is to obtain information with regard to this method of dealing with livestock and the products of the slaughtering of livestock, under the conditions obtaining in this country. It does not appear to me

    1159
    that the interests of livestock producers will be detrimentally affected by these proposals, which are, indeed, designed to promote those interests.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (ORGANISATION).
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the increased demands made upon the Ministry of Agriculture, he is satisfied that the present organisation is adequate for the work of his Department; and whether it is proposed to modify or increase the organisation at the Ministry?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: The very considerable additions to the work of the Ministry in recent years have, in fact, necessitated a number of changes in the organisation, and the position is kept constantly under review in order that the organisation may continue to be commensurate with the demands made upon the Department.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister take steps to see that some of these splendid servants of the public who are with the Ministry are not in any way throttled and stifled in putting forward good schemes?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: I would remind the hon. Member that he himself is causing additional strain on my right hon. Friend's Department.
    Mr. Mander: May I ask whether it would be in order to congratulate the Government on the return of the hon. Gentleman to the fold?

  TEACHERS (POLITICAL PROPAGANDA).
  Mr. Charles Brownasked the President of the Board of Education whether there are any regulations in any county or county borough of England and Wales governing the distribution of political literature to headmasters, headmistresses, or teachers at the schools?
  Mr. Stanley: I have no knowledge of regulations such as the hon. Member refers to having been made by any county or county borough in England and Wales.
  Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that political literature has recently been distributed, including a
  1160
  manifesto and an enrolment card, in the schools of Nottinghamshire by an organisation calling itself the National Labour party, and, in view of that fact, will he view with complacency other political parties doing the same sort of thing?
  Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member has any information, perhaps he will bring it to my notice. He will realise that teachers, as well as being teachers, are human beings, and are entitled as such to hold political views.
  Mr. Brown: I am asking whether it is permissible to do this in the schools, and whether if one party does it can we all do it?
  Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member had better give me any information he has.

  TIN INDUSTRY, SOUTH WALES.
  Mr. J. Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the increased demand for tin plates and sheets, the restrictions upon production that have been operating in the industry in South Wales have now been removed; and whether, in view of the increased demand, he will negotiate with the owners of the tin and sheet mills situate at Garnant, Glanamman, Brynamman, and Llangennech with a view to the resumption of work at these mills which have been idle for a considerable time?
  Dr. Burgin: The owners of these works will no doubt consider the possibility of reopening them if the present demand continues and raw material is available.
  Mr. Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman received representations from the men's union that they are of the opinion that the time is now appropriate for a sharing or spread-over of the work, so as to enable those works to resume operations?
  Dr. Burgin: Two of the works belong to a company which has other works under construction and, further, as the House will understand, none of these works make steel.
  Mr. Griffiths: Cannot the Government make representations that it is not in the national interest or the public interest that a company should construct new works when it has existing works which it keeps closed? May I have a reply?

  POST OFFICE (CENTRAL HENDON).
  Sir ReginaldBlair asked the Postmaster-General whether the premises for the proposed Crown office, promised six months ago, at Central Hendon, have now been acquired; and, if so, when will they be used?
  Sir W. Womersley: I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  MILK MARKETING SCHEME (SCOTLAND).
  Sir R. W. Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement regarding the amendment of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme promoted by the board consequent upon the judgment of the House of Lords in the Ferrier case?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): Yes, Sir. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to submit amendments for the approval of the House immediately after the Recess. In view of the general interest in the issues involved he proposes at the same time to lay before the House a memorandum explanatory of the position and of the effect of the amendments.
  Duchess of Atholl: Can my hon. Friend say whether his right hon. Friend has received the comments of the East of Scotland Milk Producers Federation on the milk reorganisation report, and will he consider any such comments which he may receive before he makes any decision on that report?
  Mr. Wedderburn: I cannot anticipate the Memorandum, but certainly nothing relevant will be overlooked.
  Mr. Alexander: Will the hon. Member see that we have the Memorandum and the draft amendments in time to consider them before discussion?
  Mr. Wedderburn: The question of discussion is a different one. The answer states that the Memorandum will be before the House immediately after the Recess. This is a very small point.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of He filth whether, in the light of Memorandum A.S. 35 (1936), he will intervene
  1162
  to prevent the Prudential approved societies refusing to allow Mr. F. M. Evenett, of 88, Squirrels' Heath Lane, Hornchurch, Essex, who has become a voluntary contributor under the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, by reason of his salary in non-manual employment having been increased to over £250 a year on 1st January, 1937, to continue to pay contributions at the full rate of is. 8d. a week and to remain entitled to medical benefit until such time as he shall have actually received £250 in the past year?
  Commander Southby: I have been asked to reply. The date as from which a voluntary contributor should be treated as having a total income exceeding £250 a year and, therefore, ceasing to be entitled to medical benefit, is a question for his approved society to determine. Any person who is dissatisfied with the decision of his society in the matter has a right of appeal in accordance with the rules of the society.

  INDIA (BANGALORE ASSIGNED TRACT).
  Duchess of Athollasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been arrived at in regard to the retrocession of the civil station of Bangalore to Mysore; and whether he will give an assurance that this retrocession will not be decided upon until this House has been given an opportunity of discussing the necessary safeguards for the welfare of the inhabitants, including terms to owners of property in the civil station?
  The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) on 3rd May. I will, of course, be ready to give the House any desired information regarding the details of any measure of retrocession that may be decided upon.
  Duchess of Atholl: Are we to understand from that answer that the House will not be given any opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on this proposed retrocession, to which great objection is taken by British, Anglo-Indians and Moslems in Bangalore?
  Mr. Butler: I explained the position to the Noble Lady in a previous answer to which I would refer her.

  ROYAL PARKS (RAILINGS)
  Sir William Davisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will assure the House that the low iron railings along the paths in Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park which have recently been removed will not be reinstated after the Coronation, having regard to their unsightly character and the many serious accidents of which they have been the cause in past years?
  Commander Southby(for the First Commissioner of Works): My Noble Friend does not propose to carry out a general reinstatement of the railings referred to. He is, indeed, anxious to avoid such reinstatement, unless experience shows in any particular area that railings are necessary for the protection of the grass-edges, or for other essential purposes.
  Sir W. Davison: Will my hon. and gallant Friend convey to the proper quarter the information that in the Green Park, where the railings were removed some time ago owing to a serious accident having occurred there to a pedestrian, their removal has had no ill effects and that the landscape has been greatly improved without these iron obstructions?
  Commander Southby: I will convey that information to my hon. Friend.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in a matter affecting the answering by Ministers of Questions for Written Answers? I have put down a number of questions to Ministers for written answers to be given on certain dates, and those dates have passed without any answers being forthcoming. My motive in putting down the questions for written answers was partly out of consideration for the time of the House. Repeatedly the appointed days pass without answers being vouchsafed by the Departments. To-day I observe that a question for oral answer put to a Department which I need not specify has been answered, and that the answer contains matter which would have made a suitable reply to a written question which I addressed to them and which should have been answered about a week
  1164
  ago. I should be very much obliged if you could indicate whether there is any method by which Ministers could rectify their practice in this matter.
  Mr. Speaker: I thought that a reply to those questions was sent almost immediately.
  Hon. Members: Oh, no.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I have invariably made it a practice, even when the answers requested are written answers, to give ample time for the answers to be prepared. In this case I gave five days' notice and yet no answer has come, and this has frequently happened in the last few months.
  Mr. Speaker: I have no power over Ministers in this matter, but perhaps the attention which the hon. Member's question has drawn to the matter will produce good results.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what is to be the business taken by the House in the week beginning Monday, 24th May?
The Prime Minister: On Monday, 24th May, Committee stage of the Civil List Resolutions and of the Statutory Salaries Bill.
Tuesday, 25th May—Supply, Committee (6th Allotted day), Board of Trade Vote, Report stage of the Civil List Resolutions.
Wednesday, 26th May—Supply, Committee (7th Allotted day), Colonial Office Vote.
The business for Thursday, 27th May, and Friday, 28th May, will be announced when the House resumes.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. Attlee: With regard to Wednesday's business, while we have asked for the Colonial Office Vote, in view of the two serious industrial disputes and also the disturbed position in Spain, it may be necessary to change that to either the Vote of the Foreign Office, or of the Department of Mines, or of the Ministry of Transport.
The Prime Minister: There is plenty of time to do that.

BILL PRESENTED.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to make further and better provision with respect to the payment of superannuation allowances and gratuities by local authorities and certain statutory undertakers in Scotland, and with respect to the persons entitled to participate in the benefits of a local authority's superannuation fund or scheme, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Elliot; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved,
"That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the clock; and that at Seven of the clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TROLLEY VEHICLE UNDERTAKINGS.
Return ordered,
"of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised and the length open for traffic, and the number of cars owned at the 31st day of December. 1936, in respect of companies, and the end of the financial year 1936–37 in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts and appropriations, the transactions in reserve funds, and traffic and operating statistics for the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively (in continuation of Return to an Order of the House., dated the 5th day of May, 1936); also similar particulars relating to Trolley Vehicle Undertakings."—[Captain Austin Hudson.]

MEDICINE STAMP DUTIES.
Ordered, That the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Select Committee on Medicine Stamp Duties in the last Session of Parliament be laid before this House.— [Sir John Ganzoni.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1937.
  CLASS VI.
  MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £132,205, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."—[Note.—£66,000 has been voted on account.]
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. Attlee: We have asked for the Vote of the Mines Department to be taken to-day in order that we might raise the critical position which has arisen out of the dispute at the Harworth Colliery. It is unusual not to call upon the Minister to defend his Estimates, but on this occasion we are not interested in his Estimates. This is not a matter of detailed departmental administration but one of the gravest questions, and really vital to the whole country. We are face to face with a very serious position. The miners have voted to hand in notices at the end of this week for a general stoppage of work. If the matter is not settled, there will be a general stoppage of work throughout the whole of the mine-fields before this House reassembles in the normal course of the Whitsun Recess. I take it that if such a thing were to happen, this House would have to meet earlier. As things are at present, those notices expire before the House returns. This is a matter which is not to be dealt with by a departmental Minister, however able, but one which concerns the whole Government and the head of the Government and, of course, the whole country. We have had experience of miners' stoppages before, and everybody knows the effect it must have upon the economic life of this country. Everybody knows the tenacity, courage and endurance of the miners, and the solidarity that they and their families show when some big issue is raised.
  1178
  The dispute that threatens to cause a stoppage does not concern one firm or one group of men only, but calls urgently for the full attention of the Government. In my view, it calls for the exercise of statesmanship in a very high degree. The strike ballot showed an overwhelming majority in favour of handing in notices: 440,000 for, and 61,000 against. Almost half a million of men were prepared to face the sacrifices and the hardships that such a strike entails. What is the reason for that? They are not asking for money; they are not raising a question of hours; they are standing out for a principle. The issue concerns only a few workers in one village. The great majority of the men who are prepared to come out are not affected in their own lives. People make a great mistake if they think that men will not stand and fight for a principle. I have more than once heard the suggestion in this House that people will make great sacrifices only if their own immediate interests are affected, but I think that is false. You can compare the War. The men who went out were ready to sacrifice everything, as they believed in the need to defend the rights of the people of Belgium. Let us remember that these are the same men in many cases, and the same kind of men; they are men who stand to their principles and are prepared to put up a fight for liberty against tyranny. In our view, the issue is essentially one of liberty against tyranny.
  Consider the facts. I do not want to go into them in great detail or to call up unhappy events of the past. We all remember the 1926 stoppage and the aftermath of bitterness caused by it. You may say that it is remarkable how, over the greater part of the mining area, despite the bitter memories of that stoppage, there has been a great degree of common, joint working. The one area where there has been particular bitterness ever since 1926 is the Nottingham coalfield. In that coalfield the Nottingham Miners' Industrial Association was set up in opposition to the Nottingham Miners' Union, and was a separate union fostered by the masters and not by the men. It has been given special privileges, and every effort has been made by employers to force it upon the men. I believe that to be a very stupid and short-sighted policy. A company union—this is pretty nearly a company union—never brings peace unless it brings the peace of slavery.

  1179
  In Nottingham, the rival unions have existed side by side, but the men have stood by their own unions and endured persecution. Their prominent men have been victimised and every kind of inducement has been held out to get the men to adopt what is known as Spencerism. In the Nottingham area new seams are being developed. As a result, high profits are made and comparatively high wages are paid. It is a striking comment, despite those conditions and the pressure brought to bear in this issue, that when the strike ballot was held, 21,000 men in Nottinghamshire alone voted for the strike. The strike in Harworth began in November last. It is not necessary to go into detail. The essential point is that it was a strike for the recognition of the right of the men to be represented by their own representatives and their own union. It was a strike for the right of collective bargaining.
  Let us look and see what are the conditions in this village of Harworth. The company, Messrs. Barber and Walker, owns collieries in Harworth and across the border in Yorkshire. In Yorkshire they own the Bentley Colliery. There they deal with the Yorkshire Miners' Association, and there is no trouble. The men are free, they choose their own representatives, and they live, for the most part, in houses owned by the kcal authority. In Harworth, the company deals with its own union, known as the Spencer Union. A dozen efforts have been made to start a branch of the Nottingham Miners' Association in Harworth. Every time the effort has been broken by the victimisation of the men. In Harworth you must belong to the Spencer Union, and in other parts of the county, even where men do belong to their own union, they have to pay to the other union because of the arrangement made by which contributions are deducted from wages towards the Spencer Union. In Harworth the houses are owned by the colliery company, and the company can and does evict those who dare to be independent. The company has, too, a great advantage. Its chairman is a big man in Nottinghamshire. He is chairman of the County Council, and chairman of the Standing Joint Committee which controls the police of the county. In fact the men who work in
  1180
  Harworth are in the control of the company when they are at work and when they are at leisure. The conditions in Harworth are not British conditions; they are much more like conditions that obtain in a mining town in Western Virginia.
  The Prime Minister has spoken often and well in defence of liberty and democracy. I believe that he believes in liberty and democracy. I do not think that when he was in industry he would have taken the line taken by the Nottingham coalowners, and particularly the line taken by Messrs. Barber and Walker. He would not have done it for two reasons. I think that, first of all, he would have respected the right of the workers to choose their own representatives; and, secondly, he would have realised that anything else was bad business. Enlightened employers all over the country realise that to get satisfactory working in industry to-day the employes must be allowed to speak through the mouth of their own representatives. Properly accredited representatives of unions, chosen by the men, are a necessary part of modern industry. Without them you have constant friction. Collective bargaining has come to stay. It is too late altogether for one set of employers in a great national industry to think that they can return to methods that were carried on in this country a long time ago, or perhaps were imported from Continental examples.
  There are few Members in any part of the House who would not agree that the country has suffered great losses during the last 18 years through troubles in the mining industry. Few would deny that there has been a great lack of statesmen among the masters in the mining industry. There have not been men of big enough stature to look at the question on broad lines. This attempt at company union in Nottinghamshire is one of the fruits of the failure of the employers in the mining industry as a whole to deal with their men. They have stood on the right to make county agreements, to deal with men in detail, and have refused to negotiate nationally, and this particular effort in Nottinghamshire is a fruit of that refusal to meet the men in what is a great national industry. As a matter of fact Spencerism has been tried elsewhere and has failed. It was tried in Yorkshire; it failed. The employers found it

  1181
  not worth while; they found it was far better to deal with the Yorkshire Miners' Association. Recently the same issue was raised in one colliery in South Wales, and after great struggles was decided by a free vote of the men.
  The issue here is really a question whether the worker is a citizen in industry and has any rights in industry, or whether he must just accept what is given to him. We have moved away from the time when the worker had no rights. The wise employer recognises the rights of his employes and he knows there is bound to be trouble unless the men can put their case. No wise employer would allow the conditions that exist at Harworth, where there is constant friction, constant unhappiness throughout. You will never get men of British stock to submit to the conditions that subsist at Harworth. Our people will not agree to live under the compound system, in which men are controlled in their private as well as their public life. It is not the first time that there has been danger of a great dispute, or actually a great dispute, on this very question of the liberty of a man to do what he likes and to exercise his own rights. There have recently been disturbances. I do not want to go into the whole question of the disturbances, or of the right and wrong on either side. In such circumstances you are bound to have disturbances. I cannot deal with this particular case, because there are law cases pending and I must not deal with matters that are sub judice; but the reports we have had from Harworth are gravely disturbing. There have been importations of police and very unwise police action. There have been very extraordinary events. Police courts have been sitting suddenly in the middle of the night. These matters will be dealt with more fully in debate and I want to keep always to the main matter of principle.
  I want everyone to realise that the fact that there have been these disturbances shows the feeling that has been aroused, and is bound to be aroused, where the employer uses his position in order to try o force something on to his men—where he not only uses his power as a master, but his power as a landlord, while there is the feeling that he is in a particularly favourable position with regard to his public position in the county. Attempts have been made to reach a settlement,
  1182
  but have failed. The issue that presents itself to the miners is one of liberty. Miners have long memories. They do not forget the time when they were practically serfs, and they know that it was through their unity that they won their way out of serfdom. Therefore you have remarkable unity through the minefields. The question I want to raise is the fundamental one of democracy. Under a democracy the elector has the right to choose his own representatives. In the totalitarian state he has the right of voting for someone who is selected for him by the autocrat. We laugh at the antics of Continental dictators, when they have a sham election with only one lot of candidates. We know that it is a travesty of political democracy. But this is just what Messrs. Barber and Walker are doing in Harworth. The men must not form their own union. They may be represented by the union that the company chooses and supports. That is a travesty of trade unionism; it is a travesty of industrial democracy.
  I suggest that this is an issue which concerns the whole country. We have long passed from the days when an industrial dispute could be a matter of indifference, when the Government could look on and leave the two sides to fight it out. We are almost in the same kind of position as we see in foreign politics, when a dispute anywhere is apt to involve the whole world. A dispute anywhere in industry is apt to involve all industry. When it is a dispute which involves the whole of the mining industry, it affects not only all industry but every phase of our national life. The Government ought not to countenance the kind of obsolete despotism that is going on in Harworth. We are not asking for the suppression of the Spencer Union. We are just asking for the right of the men to say who shall represent them in dealing with the masters. In other parts of Nottinghamshire you have both unions together in one pit. I do not say that there is not friction, but the thing works. But in Harworth you have people who feel that they are entirely controlled by their masters.
  This struggle will not stop at Harworth; it will run right throughout the whole coalfield. I hope, therefore, that in the House to-day we shall stand fast by democracy. That is the issue, the right of

  1183
  men to choose their own representatives. The issue is not a narrow one; it is a wide one. As the Prime Minister has so often said, in this country we have our liberties, of which we are proud. There are in other parts of the world people who now attack liberty and profess to despise it. We shall show them that liberty and democracy are better than autocracy and tyranny by the fact of our success in working our own institutions. The action taken in Harworth by this colliery is a denial of the principles on which this country is governed, and it does harm to this country that such a thing should happen. I hope that the Government will bring every possible influence to bear in order to settle this dispute, to prevent this outbreak and to vindicate the right of the men.
  We are going away to-morrow for a holiday. We have this thing hanging over us. It is quite impossible that the House can allow such a tremendous event as a miners' stoppage to take place without the House meeting. I am sure it is in the mind of the Prime Minister that if the stoppage should come the House will be summoned earlier than the appointed time. I have expressly tried not to deal in any detail with events that have caused very deep feeling. I am sure that on every side of the House there is a desire that this dispute should be settled. I believe that in the House and everywhere there is a desire that men in industry should work as free men and not as serfs.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I do not mind confessing that, when I was first asked to find time for this discussion, I was apprehensive. I have seen so many occasions, not only in industrial affairs, where a Debate during a period of negotiation can do, and sometimes has done, irreparable harm; but I welcome the temper in which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. He naturally spoke, on occasion, strongly, because he feels strongly, and because he undoubtedly represents in what he said the views of all those who sit behind him. I felt that I would like to make a contribution to this Debate on two grounds. First of all, I must confess that, when the Leader of the Opposition, in a supplementary question he put to me
  1184
  yesterday, spoke of my interest in democracy, I felt that that was a challenge which the old war-horse could not resist. Again, I felt that, although I was quite conscious that I could not, for reasons which I will give, contribute much argument or much elucidation of what is going on—that is not my primary task—yet I know that my time is short here now, and I felt that I would like once more to say in this House something about things that I have tried to stand for for a great many years. I would like to finish my career here in discussing, I hope in the same temper and with the same point of view, what many older Members must be tired to death of hearing from me.
  I do not propose to say much about this particular dispute, and I say that for this reason. I quite appreciate the desire of the Leader of the Opposition that I and some of my colleagues should be in this House and take part in the Debate if necessary; but one of the peculiar features of our free institutions is that we have not the power to coerce people. There have been occasions in my political life when I would have given a great deal to have that power, but I am not sure that other people would have exercised it as wisely as I am sure I should have done, and I have always opposed it. I do not regret not having had it. We may have our opinions, but I am quite certain that, if I were to try to express strongly a particular point of view dealing with a particular incident at this moment, whatever value I might possess—and I hope it is some value in mediation and suasion—I am afraid that that power might be lost. Do not let anyone in this House think for a moment that the Government are indifferent to what is going on; we know too much about it. I have been in daily touch for a long time with my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Mines, and I would remind the House that the mining industry is the only one that has its own Minister, who was created in accordance with the desire of the industry. There is nothing peculiar in leaving negotiations to him, and he will rise, I hope not too late, in the course of the Debate, and give the House all the information that he has, and I think that that information will be satisfactory as far as it goes. I would say at the beginning that I am not without hope that reason will prevail.

  1185
  I wanted to say a few words to-day on the subject of democracy—it was not introduced by me, but was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago—and its relation to our industrial conditions here. I think a right understanding of it is of very vital importance. But I have nothing new to tell the House, and what I say I have said on innumerable platforms. It has not always been reported, but has very often been said at overflow meetings. I have never found an audience of working men indifferent to these matters. I have never had such audiences as those which have listened to such description as I was able to give them of my conception of the democratic State. We all ought to bear in mind, and this has a relevance to industrial disputes, that that democracy in which we all in varying degrees believe is quite the most difficult form of government that has probably ever been devised, and I doubt whether it has ever been achieved in its fulness in any country in the world yet. An autocracy is a very easy form of government, because we all have to do what we are told, and that means that we are saved the trouble of thinking. Under a democracy, every individual in some degree or another has to do his own thinking, and on whether he thinks rightly or wrongly the whole success or failure of that democracy will rest.
  When you come to the industrial side of it, this is how it strikes me. I agree very largely with what the Leader of the Opposition said, and absolutely with what he said about collective bargaining. What is the alternative to collective bargaining? There is none except anarchy, and there are rare elements in the country that would like to see anarchy in the trade unions in—my view the most dangerous thing for the country that could happen. Another alternative is force, but we may rule our force in this country, and I would lay it down that, so long as the industrial system remains as it is, collective bargaining is the right thing. I have no doubt about that. And yet we all know in our heart of hearts that it may be a clumsy method of settling disputes, and that the last word has not been spoken. Some day, when we are all fit for a democracy, we shall not need these aids, but certainly for my part, and as long as I can see ahead, unless there is that change in human nature which
  1186
  we are always hoping for, collective bargaining will be a necessity.
  But there is another aspect, which was touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition and on which I would like to say a word. The world moves very fast, and the problems that we are faced with are immensely intensified and in many ways much less simple than those which our fathers had to face. I will not weary the House again with a description which I think I gave when I was speaking on the Macquisten Bill many years ago, but I pointed out exactly what the Leader of the Opposition pointed out to-day; but I will widen the scope of what he said. You will find in our modern civilisation that, just as war has changed from being a struggle between professional armies, with the civilian comparatively uninterested in it, so the weapons of industrial warfare have changed from weapons that affect comparatively small, localised bodies of men, into weapons that affect directly men who have no concern whatever with the issues, except perhaps a natural sympathy with their own class.
  Does not that show, just as the dangers of the modern world internationally show, that the one thing we must pray for in this country, not only in our statesmen but in our leaders of trade unions and in the masters, is wisdom? Wisdom, fortunately, is a thing that is found in all ranks of life; and, equally, the absence of wisdom is found in all ranks of life. I am not going to hurt anyone's feelings, and I think they will never guess what I mean, but I have known disputes where there has been a lack of wisdom on both sides. I will say no more about that. But, after all, does not that show what tests people have to pass to make a success of democracy—what a chance it is for a particular employer or for the particular man who may be chosen as the secretary of a big union? What a chance it is if, in addition to the gifts that make a successful business man and enable him to give valuable service to his union in the discussions which are inevitable and in the fights which are inevitable, he has also the wisdom and humanity that may lead him to a successful peace, a peace with honour, at a time when smaller men might despair. I think that no one in this House could gainsay that for a moment.
  I would also say one word, because I want to follow the right hon. Gentleman

  1187
  as closely as I can, about one of the protagonists in this dispute, the miners. He spoke, naturally, in very warm terms of men who are both his political friends and men whom he admires, and I think that probably all my friends would agree. Sympathy with the miners now in whatever they may struggle for is not uncommon. But sympathy may not mean much, and sympathy is sometimes tendered in a way that makes people wish to reject it. But I think that in recent years, in spite of all the troubles we have had, there has been a much better understanding among all classes in this country of each other's lives and methods of thought. That was shown very clearly in this House in the Debate which took place not long ago on the Gresford disaster. I think that that Debate showed throughout the House a real understanding of certain aspects of the miner's life, and a sympathy, not of sloppy expression, but arising from that very understanding itself, which is the only sympathy that is worth having. I think that everybody recognises that. I have always felt that, with regard to the miner's life, we have to remember two things. In an industrial trouble, wherever it may come, never let us think of either of the combatants in abstract terms. All these men and women, on whichever side they are, are human beings just as you and I are, and subject to the same trials, the same difficulties, the same weaknesses and the same temptations.
  I think, if you can look on the combatant armies in that way, it puts you in a much better frame of mind to understand and try in all your doings to administer right justice, in your belief. I was just going to say that while we all recognise, as I do, the dangers of that life—for it is a dangerous life—we also realise that in so many parts of the country, not so much now perhaps as formerly, with modern transport and facilities for moving about, the miners' life is a segregated life among his own people in many parts of the country, seeing really very few others—not like a man in a city who is rubbing shoulders with men of a hundred kinds of occupation in the course of a morning. The result of that—it would have that effect on me, if I were a miner—is twofold. First of all, it naturally makes him see his own
  1188
  problems as problems of far greater importance than anything else in the country, and, secondly, it binds him closely with the fellows that he knows so well. The consequence of that is that loyalty of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, which is perhaps more marked in that great industry than in any other. I never like using the word "blind loyalty" because that has not a wholly pleasant connotation, but it is a loyalty which asks no questions when once the die is cast. There is something one can admire in that, but at the same time does not that throw a far greater responsibility on the men who have to act and speak for them than if they did not have that confidence?
  I get all kinds of letters, some people telling me I am every kind of fool, others telling me I am rather a great man. They leave me unconcerned. The one letter that really makes me feel rather a fool is when they write and say they trust me so much that they would follow me anywhere. I should not like to be followed in that way by anyone. It is a thought that humbles a man. It is a tremendous responsibility when vast bodies of men are looking to you and are prepared to do anything that you may think right for them. In this particular case there is only a word that I have to say about it, because the right hon. Gentleman said all that there was to say, excepting of course what my hon. Friend will say later. It is a peculiar case, and it is a case which, in an event where you cannot apply coercion, wants very delicate and sympathetic handling. If it is going to be settled, there has to be some face-saving, and wherever there is face-saving we all know that it may not always be a very pleasant process. I should like to appeal to the House in the course of this Debate, while putting forward their views, to refrain from saying things which might make it more difficult than it is. I have, as I say, hope, and I should not say that if I did not feel it. I have known cases where I have not had hope. I have hope because there is nothing here that ought to prevent a settlement with the feeling throughout the country that there is nothing that ought to be allowed to terminate in a stoppage in the facts that are before us. I say that most emphatically.

  1189
  I am going to add one other remark. I have in my life here made one or two appeals. I made an appeal to my own friends once on the Macquisten Bill. I cannot say that I was sanguine when I made it, but it succeeded. I am going to make my last appeal in this House, and it is to that little handful of men who can decide whether it is to be peace or strife. There are very few of them, and they will be meeting my hon. Friend very shortly again. Fresh invitations have gone out.
  Before I make my appeal I have one more observation, again on a point dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that to-day feeling in totalitarian countries is, or they would like it to be, one of contempt for democracy. Whether it is the feeling of the fox which has lost its brush for his brother who has not I do not know, but it exists. Coupled with that is the idea that a democracy qua democracy must be a kind of decadent country in which there is no order, where industrial trouble is the order of the day, and where the people can never keep to a fixed purpose. There is a great deal that is ridiculous in that, but it is a dangerous belief for any country to have of another. There is in the world another feeling. I think you will find this in America, in France, and throughout all our Dominions. It is a sympathy with, and an admiration for, this country in the way she came through the great storm, the blizzard, some years ago, and the way in which she is progressing, as they believe, with so little industrial strife. They feel that that is a great thing which marks off our country from other countries to-day. Except for those who love industrial strife for its own sake, and they are but a few, it indeed is the greatest testimony to my mind that democracy is really functioning when her children can see her through these difficulties, some of which are very real, and settle them—a far harder thing than to fight.
  Having said that I would add this. The whole world has its eye to day on London. The whole world is represented in London, and they are all coming here to be with us in what, to the vast majority of our people, will be a period of rejoicing for many days, culminating in that age-long service in the Abbey a week to-day. In the Abbey on this day
  1190
  week our young King and his Queen, who were called suddenly and unexpectedly to the most tremendous position on earth, will kneel and dedicate themselves to the service of their people, a service which can only be ended by death. I appeal to that handful of men with whom rests peace or war to give the best present to the country that could be given at that moment, to do the one thing which would rejoice the hearts of all the people who love this country, that is, to rend and dissipate this dark cloud which has gathered over us, and show the people of the world that this democracy can still at least practise the arts of peace in a world of strife.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Evans: I am sure the whole House feels that the Prime Minister has given very eloquent expression to what really is in the minds and hearts of the people generally. I am sure there is no Member of the House who does not reecho his hope that some means may be found, and that those means ought not to be too difficult, of averting a stoppage which would be a matter of the most tremendous concern to the whole country. An actual stoppage in an industry that is so intimately concerned with the life of the people would be a tragedy which we are all anxious to avert. I am sure everyone realises that the public has a very great interest in this matter. I am sure that neither the coalowners nor the men are unmindful of the public interest. After all, it is upon the public that the parties to this dispute ultimately depend for such reward as they receive for their respective contributions to the working of the industry. In regard to this particular dispute, it may be that it is the opinion of the public, if things come to the worst, which will be a great and possibly a deciding influence in the final issue.
  I have risen for the purpose of trying to elucidate what it is exactly that is responsible for this would-be national stoppage. I should like to be satisfied that it is concerned with a great general question of principle. The Leader of the Opposition used phrases of this sort: He said this was an issue fundamental to democracy. He said it was a fight for liberty and democracy. What I should like to know is what is it exactly that is holding up a settlement between the parties to the dispute. I understand that one side is

  1191
  anxious to establish, or re-establish, the proposition that any man engaged in industry is entitled to be a member of any union he likes without any chance of victimisation by his employers. Put in that way, that is a proposition to which not only I cordially assent but from which I should imagine no one really would seek to differ. It has this corollary, of course, that every man is also entitled to become a member of any union he likes without a threat of organised unpleasantness among his fellow employés. Those are two propositions to which I believe any man of common sense should agree. Therefore, it is not those principles that we are discussing but the application of the principles to this particular case.
  What I am anxious to find out is this: We are told that the application of those two principles has created this particular position which now faces the country, a threatened stoppage which will cause the utmost inconvenience to the public and great hardship to the families of those who are engaged in the industry. I am sorry that I did not find in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition that definite and detailed statement concerning the dispute which would enable men like myself to decide what it is that has created this position. I understand —I may be wrong—that the members of both the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association and the Nottinghamshire Industrial Union were willing to agree to the principle of the amalgamation of the two units; in fact that they agreed to this many months ago, and that a draft agreement was drawn up and submitted to the respective organisations. [Interruption.] I want to get at the facts. I am simply a member of the public who wants to know the position. I understand that neither of these organisations objected to the principle of amalgamation and that a draft agreement was drawn up and submitted to the organisations and was turned down by one of them. I am not concerned at the moment to inquire which organisation turned it down. But why was it turned down? Was it turned down on a question of principle, or merely on a matter of detail and management? If it was the latter, surely it is a matter that can still be negotiated with a view to avoiding a national stoppage, but if it is on a question of principle I, like many others, would like to
  1192
  know the principle involved which is now endangering the country to this extent.
  Mr. A. Bevan: The hon. and learned Member, surely, is not ignorant of the fact that the two parties did not enter into negotiations as equal partners, because the first principle stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not conceded—the right of men to join the union at all.
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman says that, I would ask him, Is that right?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman says that it is right, but other people do not say that it is right. When parties are involved in a dispute of this sort, at least let us try to get hold of the facts. One of the things that have always struck me about the coal industry is that in any dispute it is of the utmost difficulty to obtain the facts. You always have them put by one side or another in a form in which it is difficult for the public to realise what has happened.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: There is only one side in a position to disseminate the information.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes that statement, but I have no doubt that other people will say that they themselves are the only people able to disseminate the facts. I understand that the dispute took place some months ago and that it has been followed by further negotiations. I gather that both parties—the union and the association—have no objection in principle to amalgamation. If that is so, what is holding up the amalgamation to which both parties agreed? I ask that question as a member of the public, and I have no. doubt that I shall receive replies from representatives of one side or another. The Secretary for Mines is to speak later, and it may be that he will give information which will enable us to arrive at a fair decision upon the matter. We as members of the public are very definitely concerned in the threatened stoppage, and we should be put in possession of the facts which will enable us to consider the matter the best way we can. There are hon. Members in this House who can speak with great knowledge on the side of the owners. Our concern is to do justice as between the

  1193
  parties. In the final result we may have to decide, and in order to be able to do so we are entitled to the facts so that we may be in a position to arrive at, and I hope, to give, a wise judgment.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Bellenger: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) has asked for certain information, and as Member for the constituency in which this dispute has arisen I shall endeavour to give it, not only to him, but to the general public, who, I am afraid, are not well informed as to the origin of this dispute and the reasons why the dispute has so far not been brought to an end. It would be very difficult for me to follow on the lines which have been so ably taken by the Prime Minister, in what, I suppose is his swan song in this House. I welcome many of the statements that he made in his speech, but it is necessary that not only this House but the general public should know something a little more concrete as to the origin of this dispute. The hon. and learned Gentleman has put the question as to why the proposed amalgamation of these two unions was turned down. That is a fair question, and it is one upon which he is entitled to an answer. I would remind him, however, that the Nottinghamshire coalowners have insisted upon a fusion taking place before they will consider re-engaging men in their pits. I believe—and I speak not as a miner, but merely as the Parliamentary representative for the Division of Bassetlaw—that the Miners' Federation, or at any rate, the Notts Miners' Association have considered the question of the amalgamation of their own union and the industrial union because, and only because, there was no other way out. There was no freedom of choice left to them. Why? Because the Nottinghamshire coalowners, and particularly, the owner of this colliery, have refused to acknowledge the right of the elected representatives of the men engaged in the Harworth pit to represent their grievances in discussions with the owners. It is upon that principle—a principle which has long been conceded in this country, not only to men, but to owners as well—that the negotiations and the dispute have been so protracted.
  The Prime Minister said that sometimes debate on subjects of this nature during negotiations could do irreparable harm,
  1194
  and I am convinced, after listening to the speech of the Prime Minister and that of the Leader of the Opposition to-day, that good will come out of this Debate, and I sincerely hope that the threatened stoppage will be avoided. I believe—and I have been closely connected with these matters since the stoppage occurred in September last—that the issues in dispute ought to be, and can be, settled, but they must be settled in a manner honourable to the men as well as to the owners. The Prime Minister said that we have not the power to coerce people. That is a very excellent platitude, but we know, any of us who know the conditions in Harworth, that men are being coerced to-day. Can this House or the general public wonder why sometimes disturbances break out such as occurred a week or two ago? We know that extreme provocation has been given to those who set out to break the law. We do not condone their offence. Miners, like any other people, are not angels, but they feel in Harworth—and I speak with first hand experience—that they are not being treated fairly by those guardians of law and order whose only duty it should be to preserve law and order. They know, and they regard with some suspicion, the owner of this colliery, to whom the whole village itself belongs. Not only the houses in the village, but the church and the parish hall and the Salvation Army buildings, I am given to understand, are on ground belonging to this colliery, as well as the miners' welfare centre.
  When we come to consider that, we must try to visualise the facts, not from the position in London, where we have plenty of opportunities to meet where we like, in Hyde Park and elsewhere, to express our grievances. We have to consider that it is a compact colliery village, where even the miners' welfare organisation does not belong to the men, but, is controlled by the owners. During the period of this dispute it has not been possible for the workmen who are out on strike to go to that Welfare, arid to have meetings, and consequently they have had to hold their meetings in the only two other places open to them, for which they have had to pay—the market hall, which belongs to a private owner, and the cinema. There is nowhere else where they can meet. They cannot meet in the parish hall, or even in the schools. These

  1195
  are the facts of which the House should take notice, when we say that the men are not free agents.
  Let me remind the House of the origins of this dispute, and I should like to call the attention particularly of the Secretary for Mines to this matter. The stoppage first occurred in September last, and, strangely enough, it was not concerned with the principle with which the dispute is now concerned and with which the Miners' Federation of Great Britain is primarily concerned. It occurred over two men being dismissed because they refused to take their food in the time laid down for them by the company. It was an unusual hour, and because they thought it was not a suitable hour for them to take their food these two men were dismissed, and as a result of that some of their comrades came out. When the officials of the Notts Miners' Association attempted to interview the manager and the agent of this colliery on behalf of the victimised men, they were met with a flat refusal. It might interest the House to know that I, as a Member for the Division, in an attempt to try to bring the two sides together, went to see the agent and the manager of the colliery. I was told bluntly that there was no possibility of any settlement taking place if we insisted upon the officials of the Notts Miners' Association representing these men. I even wrote to the owner of the colliery, and I think that as I am the Member for the Division, it would have been only courteous for him to have seen me, but he refused point blank, not too courteously, even to see the Member for the Division and the Mayor of a large town near the colliery. I am told—I do not know whether it is authentic—that he looks upon me as a Red.
  That is the whole trouble in this dispute. The owner of this colliery thinks that the trouble has been fomented by those whom he calls Reds. It is nothing of the kind. I am not going to say that there has been no political interference. Disturbances of this nature naturally attract all sorts of agitators, but I can say from a knowledge of the facts that there has been hardly any interference by extreme political parties in this dispute. What does it all amount to? What are we asking for? The men are only asking for the right of free associations. When a ballot was instituted by this colliery to
  1196
  decide whether the men of this colliery wished the Notts Miners' Association officials to speak for them or to represent them, or whether they wanted the Spencer union to speak for them, what was the result? Nearly 1,200 voted for the Notts Miners' Association, and, I think, 145 voted for the Spencer union representatives to speak for them. That was conclusive evidence of the men's own unfettered and free wish that they should have their own representatives.
  The Home Secretaryduring his long and varied experience has been engaged —often successfully—in defending people in courts of law. Can he tell me of any occasion on which he has known a defendant or a litigant coerced into accepting an advocate which the court provided for him? Surely it is inherent in the laws of this country that the meanest criminal is entitled to choose his own advocate. That is what these men are asking for in Nottinghamshire. You may say that many of the men belong to the Spencer union. If they were allowed to choose freely, I am certain that they would choose the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association. They choose the Spencer union at this moment because it is one of the conditions of their work that they should do so. The owners of the colliery at Harworth laid it down as one of the terms of re-engaging these men that they should belong to the Spencer union. As a result the men were able to get unemployment benefit merely because the owners had laid down that unwise condition. Later the owners saw their mistake and withdrew the condition. Surely that must be evidence to this House of some of the injustices about which we are complaining in this Debate. Added to all the complications of this district there has been, in my opinion and in the opinion of many trained observers, an aggravation by the police methods which have been used.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I ought to draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that whatever action may have been taken by the police it cannot be discussed on this Vote.
  Mr. Bellenger: I was well aware of that, Captain Bourne, and I do not want to try to get round the Rules of the House. I merely mention the matter to show how this dispute has been aggravated by what we consider unfair police methods. There have also been

  1197
  methods adopted by the owners in serving notices on the men on strike to leave their houses. Cases have been taken to the courts and possession orders have been given against the men. For the time being they are suspended. These are facts of which the House ought to be aware. May I give a little personal illustration? When I first went to Bassetlaw as a Parliamentary candidate five years ago, I was told that it would be inadvisable to go to the colliery village of Harworth to present my case. Nevertheless I went. All hon. Members expect to get some heckling at their meetings, but there must be very few candidates who on going to a public meeting expect to be received in cold silence. That was how I was received when I first went to Harworth. In spite of that, Harworth eventually helped to give me a majority at the General Election. I merely mention my reception at Hayworth to show the fear of victimisation which the men there have.
  Time and again men have told us they are members of the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association and that they dare not come to speak to me, a Socialist candidate, because it would be reported to the colliery office the next morning. We know that that is a true representation of the facts—that they have been afraid to speak to their own candidate lest they might lose their job. Yet I do not think hon. Members would call me an extremist either in politics or in matters of this kind.
  I have attempted to give the House not an extravagant view but the facts. There are Members in the House who know something of the conditions in the Nottinghamshire and other coalfields and who know that the facts of which I am speaking are true. I would welcome their intervention in Debate, because I believe that those of them who are coalowners would themselves welcome an end to this dispute. All I am endeavouring to get is some honourable settlement by which the men can go back to work. Unfortunately not all of this splendid body of men—admitted by the owners to be good workmen—will go back to work, even when the dispute is ended. The owners have intimated that they are going to work this colliery with a one-shift system and that only 300 out of 1,000 now on strike will be re-engaged. Many of these men will have to suffer
  1198
  hardship in trying to get recognition of an elementary principle of justice. Our national newspaper, the "Times," which is not always above criticising the miners, has also had something to say against the owners in Nottinghamshire, or, at any rate, the owners of this particular colliery. In its issue of 4th May, 1937, the "Times" says:
  "The negotiations for peace are being conducted in the manner of hostilities "—
  That is all too true—.
  "If man spoke to man with some friendliness rather than official to official with strained dignity, the line of division would be found as narrow as in fact it is."
  Let the House consider that many of these men now on strike for a principle are men who served their country well in time of war. They are excellent workmen and law-abiding citizens. It is only sometimes when they are provoked, as even Members of this House might be similarly provoked if they had to undergo the same torture as these men are undergoing in Harworth, that they might perhaps not be able always to keep calm and collected heads. After this dispute is settled, as I believe and hope it will be quickly, I think the men will be much more wounded in their spirits by the actions which have been taken in certain quarters in this dispute, than they have been by the truncheons of police officials.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. Peake: I hope to follow the example set by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister and to avoid saying anything of a contentious nature, because I am very conscious of the danger that we might say something in this House which would make a settlement of this most unfortunate dispute more difficult. We have a precedent in the House for having made a successful contribution to the settlement of a previous dispute in the mining industry. That was in the Debate on nth December, 1935. I feel sure the Debate that day did make a genuine contribution towards the settlement of the wages problem.
  It is not necessary to emphasise the disaster which a stoppage in the coal industry would mean at the present time, first and foremost to the mining community itself. The hardships of an industrial stoppage always fall most heavily on those least able to bear them. We do not want a

  1199
  repetition of 1926, because a strike or stoppage of that kind leaves a legacy of bitterness and distrust. It is felt for many years, and it has been my endeavour since I came into this House to try to do something to allay the feelings of suspicion and distrust which existed between the two sides of the industry, and between the two sides in this House following the national stoppage in 1926.
  It would be a particularly unfortunate time for a stoppage to happen now, for we are in the mining industry on the eve of better times. Prospects have never been better for the industry since the War than they are now. There has been no time in my memory when the relations between employers and employed have been better than, on the whole, they are to-day. There is a willingness on the part of the owners to share the fruits of better times with the men. That is most strikingly shown by the fact that last year was the first time since 1923 that the average earnings per shift rose above l0s. for the country as a whole. In 1923, when the earnings per shift were just over 10s., the profits of the industry were in the neighbourhood of 2s. a ton. Last year when wages again rose to more than 10s. a shift the profits of the industry were just under 1s. per ton. The willingness of capitalists engaged in the coal industry to share better times with the men is evidenced by the cancellation of deficiencies on the wages agreements, and by the arrangements which have been made in different districts for the men to get a quicker share of the proceeds of better trade. Things like holidays with pay and pensions for aged miners are to-day within the realm of practical politics. We have come to a time when all those things which many of us on the owners' side would have liked to see are possible.
  There is one further aspect of the situation which makes a stoppage in the coal industry very much to be deplored, and that is that in the last 18 months we have put a great strain on the good-will of the customers. Central selling has been introduced, inconvenience has been caused to coal consumers, increased prices have been asked for, and in one way and another the good-will of the customer has been somewhat strained. That good-will will have gone for good if there is a stoppage this summer. I need not stress the disaster that such a stoppage would
  1200
  be from the national point of view, the interference that it would mean with our rearmament programme and the distress that it would cause to millions of innocent people. What is the threatened stoppage about? There is, as the Leader of the Opposition said, no great claim for improved conditions or better wages for the men. Out of the 756,000 men employed in the industry only at the most a few hundreds stand to gain anything by this dispute. All the others stand to lose and to lose heavily.
  This dispute has its origin in a long and bitter struggle of inter-union rivalry in the county of Nottingham. Harworth has become the cockpit of that dispute. It does, however, involve points of substantial importance, points of principle dealing with the question of trade unions, and I should like, therefore, to offer a few observations upon the principles which, I think, apply to trade unions generally and their application in the coal industry. In the first place, employers in the coal industry, as I think in every other industry, approve of the existence of trade unions. Collective bargaining is an essential to modern industry, and the owners should provide every facility for men to belong to a union. If you ask me to define what I mean by every facility I cannot exactly do so, but in the coal industry it usually means the provision of a cabin or a room where the secretary of the local branch can carry on his business, and it probably also includes the provision of an occasional cigar in the manager's office. But although employers believe in unions, it is neither the right nor the duty of the employer to compel any man to belong to a trade union. If that fact had been observed at Harworth and in Nottinghamshire generally, I do not think we should have heard so much about this trouble. The unions must do their own recruiting, and if they render good service they will have no difficulty in getting members. I think it is fair to observe that where employers have insisted upon their men belonging to the union that action has been generally taken at the instance of the union itself.
  Mr. James Griffiths: We deny that.
  Mr. Peake: I do not want to say anything controversial, but we do know cases where trade unions have threatened strikes, and even, on occasion, have

  1201
  caused strikes in order to compel employers to employ only trade union labour. The great difficulty which the employer is up against is when there exists two rival unions. Then the employer has an exceedingly difficult problem to decide.
  Now I come to the application of these principles to the coal industry. In the coal industry, we have, for better or for worse, district organisations. We have district organisations on the part of the employers and we have district organisations on the part of the men. The trade unions themselves which recruit members are, in fact, district organisations. You may have a position at an individual colliery where the men favour one particular union, but taken over the area of the district as a Whole, some other union has a majority of the miners in that district. In a case like that it seems to me that the employers are bound to favour at their pits the union with which they have an agreement in the district. That was the position at Bedwas Colliery, mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Members opposite claimed, and claimed with perfect justice, that the Bedwas Colliery should recognise the South Wales Miners' Association. At Hayworth, whatever the position may have been as regards members supporting either one union or the other, it seems to me to be the duty of the owners there to recognise whatever union is recognised by the district as a whole, and it is the duty of the employers in the district to try to ascertain which union in the district has the greater number of miners supporting it. The position in Nottinghamshire has, in my view, been unsatisfactory for a great number of years. So far as one can make out, approximately one-third of the men belong to the Spencer Union, possibly another one-third belong to the Notts Miners' Association and another one-third belong to no union at all. In a case like that the owners are faced with a very great practical difficulty.
  Mr. Gluckstein: Can the hon. Member tell us where he gets the figures which he has just quoted?
  Mr. Peake: I get my figures from the best sources which are available to me, which is inquiry from people of the different parties who are connected with the Nottinghamshire coalfield. No
  1202
  figures are published and we have to get the evidence which we can collect from those who ought to know.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: The hon. and gallant Member has access to the figures of the ballot which took place quite recently, in which 21,000 within the Notts coalfield voted in favour of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain.
  Mr. Peake: I dare say there has been a change in the situation very recently, but, as I have said, the situation has been profoundly unsatisfactory in Nottinghamshire for a number of years, and the Minister pursued a very wise course when he endeavoured to get the two unions there to amalgamate. That agreement was, obviously, not satisfactory to any party. No agreement which is a compromise is ever satisfactory to all the parties, but to my mind it was a great achievement on the part of the Minister to get the parties to agree, and it was a tragedy that that agreement was not implemented. One cannot exonerate the owners of Harworth Colliery from a measure of blame for the failure of that agreement to be ratified. Harworth Colliery has had great difficulties, as I know, and I hate to say a word of criticism of a family which is well respected in the county, and with which I have been personally acquainted for a good many years; but, at the same time, in spite of the great difficulties which the owners of that pit have had to meet, I think they might have handled this situation with more tact and consideration.
  They have had unusual difficulties at Hayworth. First of all, it is a difficult pit. In the second place, geologically, it is situated in the South Yorkshire coalfield. It is South Yorkshire coal, but it happens to be situated in Nottinghamshire, and that means that the owners have had the double disadvantage of selling their coal at South Yorkshire prices, which are not as high as Nottingham prices, and they have had to pay Nottinghamshire wages which are a little higher than Yorkshire wages. In the second place, it has been a difficult community. Any new mining community which has been in existence for only 15 years is a place where there is no tradition of old and experienced men to guide the younger people. In the third place, the owners of Harworth have been disappointed because they have provided

  1203
  at that colliery every amenity that it is possible to provide for miners. I know the village well, and it compares very favourably with Hampstead Garden Suburb so far as beauty and lay-out are concerned, and it has been disappointing for the owners to find, after spending all this money and taking all this trouble, that the place has become the cockpit of a struggle in which they themselves have not a very great deal of concern. At the same time they have shown signs of having lost patience with the men, and there are indications of resentment on their part which I think would have been much better if they could have been concealed. It is a fatal mistake ever to lose patience with your men. You need to be like Job when rival unions are fighting over your prostrate body.
  What we want to know is this: Is there a genuine desire on the part of the three parties to this dispute to arrive at a genuine settlement? If there is a genuine desire, then I think this House has a right to demand that all parties to the dispute shall put their pride in their pocket and make another and a real and genuine effort to come to a very early settlement. Nobody can attain everything which they ask for, but any compromise will be better than a repetition of the events of 1926.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): After the very notable speeches that we have heard this evening I think the time has come when it will be for the convenience of the Committee as a whole if I make some general statements on the facts with which I am acquainted regarding this dispute, which is causing not only the Government but every Member of this House considerable anxiety at the present time. I have for many weeks past been trying to do what I can to help all concerned to reach an agreement honourable to all parties, and though such an agreement has not been reached I shall continue to hold myself available at any time that my services may be of use to anybody.
  The history of this matter is somewhat complicated and naturally full of detail. I am sure the Committee does not want a description of everything that has occurred or of everything that has been said or done, but perhaps hon. Members
  1204
  would like to have some connected narrative of the more important facts. I have already given a summary of the case to the House in the statement I made three weeks ago, but for the purposes of clarity perhaps it will be convenient if I recapitulate a part of what I then said. Since the national stoppage of 1926 the only union recognised by the Nottinghamshire coalowners for the purpose of wage and all other negotiations on behalf of their workmen, is the Nottinghamshire Miners' Industrial Union, locally known as the Spencer Union. Alongside this union there has continued to exist the old Nottinghamshire Miners' Association, which is affiliated to the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain. The existence of these two rival unions has for some time past led to great local difficulties, and the dispute at Harworth Colliery appeared to offer an opportunity for attempting a solution of that problem.
  May I recall to the Committee what has happened at Harworth recently? That colliery belongs to Messrs. Barber, Walker and Company, and up to last September employed some 2,000 men. A series of incidents occurred at that time, until on 17th November, about 1,000 men struck work without notice in connection with a dispute about a subcheckweighman. These men were urged to return to work by the President of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain, and they agreed to do so. But the management at that time made membership of the Spencer Union—that is the Nottinghamshire Miners' Industrial Union—a condition of re-employment. This condition was, however, removed early in January, and does not obtain to-day. The management, however, adhered to their refusal to negotiate with the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association or with the larger body, the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain, with regard to the strikers' grievances, and these men still remain out.
  The next event of major importance which occurred was a delegate conference of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain in January, when a resolution was passed empowering the executive to take a ballot of all the coalfields on the question of
  "enforcing the principle of the freedom of organisation and trade union recognition for those so organised."

  1205
  In point of fact, no ballot was taken as a result of that resolution. By that time it had become even more apparent than before that the root cause of the local trouble was the existence of the two separate unions, and I thought it right to explore the possibilities of arriving at an accommodation between them. I wrote to the Nottinghamshire coalowners informally at the beginning of February and intimated that I was proposing to invite representatives of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain and Mr. Spencer to meet me for an informal discussion. This invitation was duly extended to the two parties, and as a result a joint meeting was held on 25th February, at which, at the request of the delegates present, I took the chair. Those who were present were Mr. Joseph Jones, the President of the Mineworkers' Federation, Mr. Lawther the Vice-President, and Mr. Ebby Edwards the Secretary; and Mr. Spencer, the President, and Mr. Cooper the Secretary of the Nottinghamshire Miners' Industrial Union. The first issue raised was the question of Harworth, but later on the discussion turned on the question of amalgamating the two unions, and Mr. Spencer put forward certain guarantees which he would require. The meeting then adjourned for a week, and then met again and, after further discussion, which was certainly friendly and helpful on both sides, a statement was drawn up and signed, which is headed:
  "Draft heads of an Agreement for the amalgamation of the Notts and District Miners' Indusrial Union and the Notts Miners' Association, to be entered into after approval by the respective organisations."
  I do not think I need trouble the Committee with the details of the Agreement, as they have already appeared in the Press. At that time nothing had been settled as to the local dispute at Harworth, but on 12th March, two weeks afterwards, the executive of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain deferred considering the proposals for amalgamation until further efforts had been made to settle the dispute at Harworth, which had now resolved itself largely for practical purposes into a question of the re—employment of the men not in work. May I say that the number of men at work at the colliery has gradually increased in recent months, and I understand that the company has at the moment some 1,100 men at work but
  1206
  they tell me that owing to the changed system of working they will not be able to employ more than about 350 out of the 900 who are out of work, and that these will be needed at the rate of about 30 to 35 a week. A special delegate conference of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain was held on 1st and 2nd April, and a resolution was passed which stated among other things, that the draft terms of fusion, that is to say the draft heads, were unreasonable and unacceptable, deploring the absence of satisfactory assurances regarding the re-employment of the men at Harworth—that is one of the most important points at issue—and resolving that a ballot of the coalfields should be taken. A ballot was taken in due course and the figures were 444,546 for and 61,435 against. The question which was put was:
  "Are you in favour of tendering notice with the object of obtaining recognition of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, and to secure adequate assurances to prevent any victimisation of the workmen at Harworth?"
  After the delegate conference at which it was decided to take the ballot, I was led to believe by various persons with whom I was in touch, persons who are in touch with the Mineworkers' Federation in different parts of the country, that if the Harworth colliery dispute could be settled, if I could get assurances that there would be no victimisation in the selection of the 350 men required, modification of the terms of amalgamation of the two unions was not likely to prove an insuperable difficulty. As a matter of fact, that point of view received definite confirmation by what appeared to be well-informed statements in the public Press. Getting that impression I naturally went back to see what could be achieved on the Harworth question, and I devoted all my attention in the period immediately following to getting a solution of this local problem, leaving the larger issue for the moment. The conciliation officer of my Department, whose work is quite invaluable to all parties, was in constant personal touch with those most interested, and he succeeded in securing from the management of Harworth colliery terms for the re-engagement of the men which, although they may not be all that had been asked for, were such that responsible officials of the Mineworkers' Federation felt able to recommend them to their

  1207
  Executive Committee and Delegate Conference, with a reasonable prospect of acceptance. I must point out that, as far as the owners of the pit are concerned, the arrangement was to come into being only in the event of the amalgamation of the two unions becoming a fait accompli, while, on the other hand I believe it would be true to say that the terms would obviously be acceptable to the other side only if satisfactory terms for amalgamation of the two unions could be secured. As the local dispute at Harworth did not enter materially into the further discussions which took place it may be as well for me now to quote what was eventually settled:
  "On condition that all forms of persecution and intimidation cease forthwith, Messrs. Barber Walker and Company have agreed to the following terms of re-employment, viz.:—

  1. All workmen now unemployed and who were employed at Harworth Colliery immediately before the stoppage in September, 1936, to be eligible for re-employment and there shall be no victimisation.

  2. Selection from these men to be made from those eligible for re-employment by drawing the names of the required number of each grade to make a total in all of 350, this being the number expected by Messrs. Barber Walker and Company to be required to complete the complement of the colliery.

  3. Mr. W. L. Cook, of the Mines Department to arrange and be entirely responsible for the draw."

  Mr. A. Jenkins: Does that mean that the men who have been recruited for work in the colliery during the period of the dispute will continue to hold their jobs in the colliery and that men on strike will be excluded?
  Captain Crookshank: I do not want to be drawn into a discussion as to the interpretation of words. That was the assurance which was given, and, as far as I know, it was considered satisfactory.
  Having achieved that, our attention was then turned to the terms of amalgamation, but here much more difficulty occurred than was anticipated and little progress was made. Consequently, in a final endeavour to secure an acceptable formula which could be placed before the National Delegate Conference of the Mineworkers' Federation which met last Friday, I invited all three parties—the Nottinghamshire coalowners, the representatives of the Nottinghamshire Miners' Industrial
  1208
  Union and the representatives of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain—to come to see me at the Mines Department on Thursday of last week, in order that I might have discussions separately with them to see how far we could get any success. I am sure hon. Members do not want to hear the story of the detailed conversations which extended for many hours until late at night on Thursday and in the late afternoon of Friday.
  It is sufficient to say that the first request of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain to the Nottinghamshire owners was for the recognition of the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association. This the owners declined to concede, as they stated that they had recognised and that they still recognised, as they had done for some Do years past, the Nottinghamshire Miners' Industrial Union for the purpose of wage and all other negotiations on behalf of their workmen, and that it was impossible to recognise two unions for that purpose. They had, however, recognised in principle the possibility of an amalgamation of the two unions, but the terms of such an amalgamation were not for them to decide, but for the two unions concerned. On their part, the negotiating committee of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain stated that the heads of agreement of 4th March, which, as I have already indicated, were subject to approval by the respective organisations, had not in fact proved acceptable to their constituents, and they indicated the direction in which they considered changes should be made. On the other hand, Mr. Spencer informed me that his organisation was prepared to accept the terms outlined on 4th March. Those were the points of view expressed by the persons concerned.
  It was obvious from the beginning of the discussions that the parties were some considerable distance apart, and I therefore, in the first place, canvassed the possibility of direct discussions between the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain on the one hand and the Nottinghamshire Industrial Union on the other hand on the modifications which the first body desired in the terms of amalgamation. As a result of a great deal of discussion, I was able to put before the negotiating cornmittee of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain the following proposal, which was also issued to the Press:

  1209
  "In deference to a request from the Secretary for Mines, Mr. Spencer will agree to meet representatives of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain with reference to the signed Heads of Terms for Amalgamation, to hear any comments they care to make thereon, on the definite understanding that it is without prejudice to his right to adhere to the original signed terms.
  Before agreeing to the meeting he requires an assurance that such representatives will be empowered to reach a final and binding settlement."
  As the negotiating committee of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain did not appear to think that this formula would prove acceptable to the National Delegate Conference, I proceeded to discuss other possibilities. The second suggestion which emerged was of a different character. As the Committee will realise, the first suggestion was for the resumption of talks between the national body of the Mineworkers' Federation and Mr. Spencer. The second suggestion was based on the idea that, as any settlement which might be reached would inevitably involve many local considerations, the first negotiations should be undertaken locally. The formula finally agreed upon by Mr. Spencer, and communicated on his behalf to the negotiating committee of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain was in these terms:
  "In deference to a request from the Secretary for Mines, representatives of the Nottinghamshire Industrial Union will meet an equal number of representatives of the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association without prejudice and with reference to the heads of agreement for amalgamation drawn up and signed at the meeting in the Mines Department on 4th March, and to consider any points which either side may wish to raise thereon.
  In view of the above meeting the Mineworkers' Federation Delegate Conference, having approved the principle of the amalgamation of the Union and the Association, will stand adjourned.
  In the event of agreement being reached between the Nottinghamshire Industrial Union and. the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association within a reasonable period and the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain undertakes:

  (a) to approve the agreement so reached;

  (b) to accept the method of reinstatement of further workmen at Harworth as arranged between Messrs. Barber Walker and Co. and Mr. W. L. Cook."

  The gist of that proposal was that the talks should be transferred to the two local bodies which in the end, if there was an amalgamation, would be the people to be amalgamated, and that if agreement was so reached, approval
  1210
  would be given to it as a matter of course by the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain. The object, I imagine, was to reach some finality. As the Committee will be aware, the National Delegate Conference was not prepared to accept that second suggestion, and their decision was conveyed to me in a letter which I received on Saturday morning, as follows:
  "I have to inform you that the Conference of the Federation held in London yesterday decided to reject the terms finally presented to the Mineworkers' Federation Sub-committee at the meeting on 30th April, and have decided that notices should be handed in throughout the Coalfields to expire on May 22nd. 1937."
  That is the present situation. However, I think that review of the situation, as I see it, indicates that the gap between the two parties is not necessarily unbridgable, and it ought not to pass the wit of man to find a peaceful solution which could be acceptable to all concerned. Having taken part for so long in these negotiations, I have purposely and naturally refrained, I hope, from making any comment on anything which has occurred. If, inadvertently, I have made any such comment, I would like to withdraw it, because if I make comments about anything my position as mediator becomes impossible and useless to either party. I have tried to give a review of the happenings with which I have been concerned directly. As I have said, it ought not to pass the wit of man to secure a solution, particularly after the very notable appeal which has been made by my right hon. Friend. It seems to me that this is the time for us to stress the, greatest possible agreement rather than to magnify the differences, and certainly if there is anything further that I personally can do, the Committee may rest assured that I will do it. I am still in touch with the parties to the dispute, and I have invited the full Executive of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain to meet me to-morrow. There I will leave the matter.
  5.54 P.m.
  Mr. T. Williams: The first thing I would like to say, in the very few comments which I intend to make on this subject is that the Executive of the Mineworkers' Federation has nothing but praise for the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the patience and tolerance displayed by him during the whole of the

  1211
  negotiations. The second thing I wish to say is that, after the speech by my right hon. Friend covering all the major points involved in the dispute and after the very profound appeal made by the Prime Minister to the handful of persons who have it in their hands to remove or to resolve the dispute and to bring peace, I am of opinion that it would be folly to continue this Debate. I had prepared a speech containing all the mathematical precision of the Board of Trade, combined with the pugnacity of the Ministry of Labour, and all the other elements requisite to deal with a dispute of this character; but after the appeal by the Prime Minister, which I regard as being the maximum that any Government could do without deliberately coercing one side or the other, or both, I do not see that there is anything more that we could expect from the Government if the Debate went on for hours, days, or even weeks.
  I was tempted during the speech of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to make replies to one or two of the observations which he made, but I do not wish to prolong the Debate. I would only say to the hon. Member that I think that perhaps the figures to which he referred with regard to the membership of the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association and the Nottinghamshire Industrial Union were as nearly correct as was possible; but he must also remember that for 10 years the men have been paying into the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association, although they knew that their officials never had access to a single colliery office. For io years they have paid without representation, and that is the maximum loyalty one might expect from anybody employed in this country. Therefore, should there be one-third of the Nottinghamshire miners outside any organisation, it is for one of two reasons; either it is because they would not go into the Spencer union or they did not feel it necessary to join the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association because that carried with it no representation.
  The hon. Member made only one other observation on which I will comment, because I think it is the general feeling of all hon. Members who want a settlement of the dispute that the less we Fay about Harworth the better. The hon. Member said that the Harworth owners
  1212
  are very disappointed with the tone and temper of the men. The hon. Member must know that in any mining area such as Harworth, which is isolated from a town, the nearest town being some 10 miles away, during the first 10, 15 or 20 years of the lifetime of a new colliery men drift in from all parts of the British Isles. If conditions are not nearly as good as they had imagined they might be, they become birds of passage. Men do not settle down to work, to homes, to cultivating their gardens and developing a social life, for they are there to-day and gone to-morrow. It is only when the management and the men find a reasonable common level for the purpose of collective bargaining in the fullest sense that the men commence to settle down, and there is a settled mining village where relations improve from day to day and from year to year, and one gets what I think I may safely say exists in many parts of Yorkshire at the moment.
  Therefore, if the disappointment of the Harworth coalowners has been severe, it is probably due to the fact that they have never recognised the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association as the negotiating body for their employes. No miner working in the Harworth colliery has had representation at the colliery office from the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association. Whether it was a momentary domestic dispute, a trifling dispute or a fundamental one, there was no representation; there was no sense of security and no contentment in the village. Hence there was a bird-of-passage population and the absence of those settled conditions that one likes to see. There the situation is at the moment. However, I am convinced that if the response to the Prime Minister's appeal is what I hope it will be, and what it really ought to be, Harworth will quickly settle down as happily and contentedly as Bentley, where the same company own mines and employ a large body of people, and where for 40 years they have never had a strike. They have their day-to-day difficulties, and no doubt the men are not always right and the employers are not always right. But so long as they have the appropriate machinery, the difficulties come and go. I hope if this Debate is not going to be continued and the responsibility is landed where it ought to be, that the response to the Prime

  1213
  Minister's noteworthy appeal will be real and will avoid a national stoppage.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Sir G. Penny.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]
Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Six o'Clock.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (REFUGEES).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (REFUGEES).
  CHINA {TRADE RELATIONS).
  CHINA {TRADE RELATIONS).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION, HALTWHISTLE.
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION, HALTWHISTLE.
  FOLSTA-NESS ROAD, ISLE OF LEWIS.
  FOLSTA-NESS ROAD, ISLE OF LEWIS.
  CAR-PARKING, LONDON.
  CAR-PARKING, LONDON.
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (ACCIDENTS).
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (ACCIDENTS).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, SOUTH WALES.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, SOUTH WALES.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (RULES).
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (RULES).
  LAW REVISION COMMITTEE.
  LAW REVISION COMMITTEE.
  LAND VALUATION, WALES.
  LAND VALUATION, WALES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (GRANITE).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (GRANITE).
  WAR MATERIAL EXPORT LICENCES.
  WAR MATERIAL EXPORT LICENCES.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  STOCK EXCHANGES (RECOGNITION).
  STOCK EXCHANGES (RECOGNITION).
POST OFFICE.
  PARCEL POST RATES (ARMY AND AIR FORCE).
  PARCEL POST RATES (ARMY AND AIR FORCE).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.
  KENYA (OIL).
  KENYA (OIL).
  STREET TRADERS, LONDON.
  STREET TRADERS, LONDON.
  EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.
  EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Deramore—Sat first in Parlament after the death of his brother.

HASTINGS PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HASTINGS CORPORATION GENERAL POWERS BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Read 2a.
TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
ASHDOWN FOREST BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HASTINGS EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SAINT PAUL'S AND SAINT JAMES' CHURCHES (SHEFFIELD) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
DISEASES OF FISH BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
DUNSTABLE GAS AND WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SELBY) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Urban District of Selby; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRIDLINGTON) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Bridlington; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (GUILDFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Guildford; and to move that it he read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORECAMBE AND HEYSHAM) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Morecambe and Heysham; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Rhymney Valley Sewerage District and Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage District; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH EAST ESSEX JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of
132
Health relating to the South East Essex Joint Hospital District; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (TYNEMOUTH) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Tynemouth; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
DURHAM GAS ORDER, 1937.
LEEDS GAS ORDER, 1937.
NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE) GAS ORDER, 1937.
APPLEBY GAS ORDER, 1937.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH NOTTINGHAMSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NUTRITION.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR rose to draw attention to the Report of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition to the Ministry of Health; and in view of the recommendations of this Committee to ask (a) whether the Ministry of Labour inquiry for the purpose of the cost of living index will include an inquiry into dietary surveys and, if so, how many families will

133
be concerned in this inquiry, and what steps are being taken to ascertain the family incomes so as to correlate this inquiry with that proposed to be undertaken by the Registrar-General and an independent statistician; (b) whether steps have been taken by the Registrar-General to carry out this proposed inquiry into the constitution of families by age, sex, occupation and locality, and into the distribution of family incomes; (c) what local authorities in urban and rural areas respectively are conducting dietary surveys in England and Wales and in Scotland respectively, and about how many families will be covered in each country; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am not going to spend any time in trying to explain the case of malnutrition. There have been so many reports, national and international, recently and the subject has been so much debated in Parliament and in the Press that I do not think it is necessary for me to set out to attempt to make a case. The causes of malnutrition are mainly two—ignorance arid poverty. Ignorance has a bearing upon it, but after one makes all allowances for the ignorance of the housewife and the cook it really is a very small contributory factor. The main cause of the evils of malnutrition is undoubtedly poverty. By malnutrition I do not mean hunger, I do not mean starvation; I mean a degree of ill-health or of subnormality due to malnourishment and in cases actual bad physical development due to malnutrition in early youth. So that the problem really is one of purchasing power.
Your Lordships are aware that an Advisory Committee on Nutrition was set up some time ago by the Minister of Health under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Luke. The Committee have just issued a Report, and I would like straight away to draw attention to certain paragraphs in that Report headed "Variation in food consumption at different income levels" in order to substantiate what I have just said, that the problem of malnutrition is very largely a problem associated with lack of purchasing power. The Committee appointed a Statistical Sub-Committee that examined all the available data more particularly the data which had been collected by the Market Supply Committee. A Report from this Committee was published in the
134
Journal of Proceedings of the Agricultural Economics Society in April, 1936, and the Advisory Committee state of this Statistical Sub-Committee that:
"After examining the data and the methods employed, the Sub-Committee did not discover any reason to suggest that the results arrived at by the Market Supply Committee are seriously misleading.…"
That is to say, they accepted them as being substantially correct.
Now, what are those findings of the Market Supply Committee? They are indeed very startling. Four and a half million people spend only 4s. a week on food. According to the Market Supply Committee, roughly half the people of this country are adequately and satisfactorily nourished. That means that the other half are inadequately and unsatisfactorily nourished. Lord Luke's Committee go on to say:
"… the conclusions as to the broad trend of consumption of the different articles of food over the income groups appear to us likely to be in accordance with the facts."
That is to say that where you have got a small income you have a small expenditure on the essential foods, the health-giving foods. So that the Committee accepted straight away the broad conclusion that this problem is really a problem of purchasing power, or of lack of purchasing power.
It is a serious problem, because a large number of people who show the effects of malnutrition cannot be put right. It is a problem which arises very largely because of malnourishment in youth. There is periodically a discussion in the Press about excessive maternal mortality. A certain number of the cases of maternal mortality are due to malformed pelvis. That is due to the malnutrition of the woman when she was a child. I merely give that as an illustration of the connection between malnutrition and ill-health. The difficulty is that we have to get into our minds an entirely new standard. I have no doubt that at the beginning of last century medical officers who walked about our large industrial cities were perfectly satisfied with the housing conditions which they found there. To-day those same medical officers, walking down those same streets, looking at those same houses, would unanimously agree that those houses must be pulled down as slums. We have to bear that in mind when we see quoted, as we

135
so often do, reports from medical officers of health to the effect that there is no problem of malnutrition. Those who make such reports are out-of-date; they are not acquainted with the new knowledge, with the new findings of science. After making all allowances for exaggeration and over-statement, one can say without fear of contradiction that there is a real problem of malnutrition affecting millions of people of this country.
Now, what is the size and nature of the problem? I sent to the noble Lord who is going to speak on behalf of the Government certain questions that I was going to put to him in order that he should be able to fortify himself and to give the House the benefit of the information I asked for. I also put them down on the Paper in order that your Lordships might know what some of the points were. The questions which I have drafted are entirely based on recommendations of the Advisory Committee and, in addition to that, there are two other points of which I have given my noble friend private notice. I would very much like to know how soon the result of these inquiries is likely to be published—the approximate date. In particular, I would like to refer to page 26 of the Advisory Committee's Report where reference is made to methods of clinical assessment. Do the Ministry contemplate undertaking an investigation of the clinical aspects in direct correlation with the dietary surveys which it is proposed to make?
Lord Luke's Committee emphasise the necessity of having more information upon detail. If we are going to deal with a problem such as this it is essential that we should have as much information as possible about all the details. Other countries, Scandinavia, the United States of America, when they make surveys—and they have been making surveys—make them on a large scale. In America I think they do it on the scale of 300,000 family budget inquiries. I am not suggesting that in a country with 44,000,000 people as compared with over 120,000,000 in America we should do it on that scale, but a great opportunity will be missed if the Government do not insist that these surveys should be adequate in their size and magnitude, and that a sufficient amount of information is collected. I am
136
perfectly certain that the Government have no intention of waiting until they receive these surveys. After all, it does not matter whether the statements which I have quoted are exaggerated by 5 or 10 per cent or are under-statements by 5 or 10 per cent. The facts justify immediate action. As the Advisory Committee said, much of the health and of the physique of the nation is below what it should be because of malnutrition. So I hope that the Government will feel that they already have enough information to justify early action, however necessary it may be to get additional information on details.
The League of Nations Committee, over which I have the honour to preside, very soon after they started their work urged all Governments to set up ad hoc Nutrition Committees. They did that because the problem of nutrition is one which affects a large number of Departments. The commercial policy of a country, the health policy of a country, the state of industry of a country, the agricultural policy of a country—all of these have a bearing upon the price of food, and so upon nutrition. The population of a country cannot be properly nourished if that country has a wrong agricultural policy or a wrong trade and commercial policy. When this subject was first raised at Geneva one of the speakers referred to the marriage of agriculture and health. What is the main function of agriculture? Is it to give employment, is it to provide one of our assets in defence, or is it to feed the people? I suggest that the main function of agriculture in this country is not to give employment, is not to help in defence in time of war. Obviously it will give employment, obviously it will help in case of war. But the main function of agriculture, certainly in this country, should be to see that the right sorts of food are provided at the right costs for our people.
This has been a very difficult time for agriculture. There has been the world slump, the fall in prices; and, further, agricultural policy is very much disturbed and upset by a revolution which is going on. Your Lordships will remember how industry was upset by the industrial revolution of the last century. Now you have the chemist, the biologist, the engineer, all of them with their new inventions, their new processes, their

137
new techniques, making life extraordinarily difficult for the agriculturist who wants to go on with the same methods and at the same pace as his fathers and his grandfathers did before him. Agriculturists have therefore been having an extraordinarily difficult time. All these things have upset them. The other day I was at Geneva and my Committee were discussing a draft of a final Report which had been prepared for them. I was very much amused when one of the members of the Committee who represents agricultural interests got up and said: "Mr. Chairman, I want to object very strongly to a phrase which you used. You referred to the profits of agriculture.' Mr. Chairman, I want you to realise that agriculturists never make profits!" That is one of the difficulties one has in dealing with agriculture, that agriculturists will never admit that times are good or that some of them are making profits. One is apt to listen far too much to the farmers who are losing money, when moulding policy or expressing opinions. I have always gone out of my way, when I have heard of a farmer who had altered his methods or who was making money, to try to get in touch with him and see him. It is extraordinary, when you do that, what great changes in food production you find here in this country.
We should aim at basing our agricultural policy upon the methods of the farmers who are making money rather than pay quite as much attention as we are apt to pay to the shouts and protests of the farmers who are not making money or who are losing money, or who do not want to change their methods in order to move with the times. Because of the slump in world prices and the revolution to which I have referred, consumers were threatened with cheap food; and farmers were threatened with the benefits of science and progress. That may be a slight exaggeration, but fundamentally it is true that too much of our agricultural policy has been directed to giving a standstill to agriculture—to making it easy for the farmers not to make use of science and progress. Then agriculture has had a further difficulty to contend with. During the last few years since the War there has been a great deal of talk about planning—the planning of industry. Noble Lords, particularly those belonging to the Socialist Party or the
138
Communist Party were all for schemes of organisation. If you said you had a scheme of reorganisation they thought it must be wonderful, and too often noble Lords sitting on the other side, members of my Party, have also fallen for this planning of agriculture and for schemes, putting aside their practical experience which should have warned them of the difficulties. Obviously there has got to be some planning, only the amount of control which Parliament has attempted to impose upon farmers has been extraordinarily difficult for farmers. I do not believe it has been to the advantage of agriculture.
Let me just give two illustrations of the effect of some of these schemes upon two commodities. Take the Bacon Scheme, or bacon quota. I saw the other day a protest from a very important section of the pig producers. They complain because the Bacon Scheme, with the quota, had cost the consumer £5,000,000, and of those £5,000,000 taken from the consumer, £1,000,000 had gone to the Dominion farmers, £3,000,000 to foreign farmers, and the British farmer had only got the benefit of £1,000,000. That would be humorous if it were not so tragic—that the consumer should pay £5,000,000 and the British farmer should benefit only to the extent of £1,000,000 out of it. That is what I mean by saying that the farmers have to struggle against these ill-digested and ill-composed schemes which are imposed upon them.
Take another commodity, milk. The Advisory Committee's Report contains 35 paragraphs referring to milk, which indicates the importance to nutrition of milk as an article of consumption and diet. It is the foundation of good nutrition, as the Committee point out. Is this country a suitable and good country for milk production? Surely it is. We have got some of the best grass-land in the world, and an excellent climate so far as rainfall is concerned, and yet after four years of the Milk Marketing Scheme we find a very low consumption of milk, and retail prices higher in this country than almost any other country—the second highest in the world. The price is twice and three times the price of that in many countries in Europe, and the dairy farmers are all discontented. That is the situation after four years of the Milk Scheme—the farmers discontented, retail prices much higher here than on the Con-

139
tinent, and a very low consumption of milk.
There surely must be something fundamentally wrong with a scheme that has such results. The first thing that is wrong with the Milk Scheme in my opinion is the structure of the governing body. If we were dealing with armaments, would anybody suggest we should go to the armament firms and say: "We will pass an Act of Parliament giving you statutory power to form a monopoly ring. You can elect your own governing body, and if any armament manufacturer dares to cut prices you can put him in prison, and we will have no Ministry of Munitions to supervise"? That is what is being done with the Milk Scheme. The Milk Board is elected by the farmers and is subject to re-election by the farmers. Any member of the Milk Board who wants to be re-elected is obviously going to try to keep the price up. He would not be reelected if he attempted to increase efficiency in the dairy industry by lowering prices. That is the first thing that is wrong with the Milk Scheme.
The second thing which is wrong is that the Milk Board has used its powers in order to try to develop new industries in this country. These existed to a limited extent before, but they are being expanded. I mean the new industries of butter making, cheese making, and processed milk. And how have they done it? They have built up these new industries by imposing a tax on milk drinkers. The drinkers of milk to-day are paying roughly a tax of 3d. a gallon on this account. This tax on milk drinkers last year totalled something like £6,000,000. The Treasury also are making a contribution of about £1,250,000 or £1,500,000 towards the development and expansion of these butter factories and other factories which compete very largely with our Diminion producers and exporters to this country. These activities of the "Milk Board" have been condemned both by the Milk Commission which has recently been sitting and also by the Milk Council; but the result of all this is that the price of milk in England to-day is much too high.
The Minister of Health the other day, as soon as the Report of the Advisory Committee was published, circularised all local authorities drawing their attention to
140
the recommendations of the Report of this Committee and urging them to make more provision for supplying milk to mothers and children. Why should the Minister of Health ask the ratepayers to spend money in buying milk which has been artificially put up in price by another colleague in the Cabinet? The Minister of Health must get his colleagues in the Cabinet to give the country reasonably cheap milk—milk produced by an efficient dairy industry—and then he can ask the local authorities, with the expectation that they will accede to his request, to spend the ratepayers' money in providing milk for mothers and children and others who need it. The Minister of Health the other day, speaking in another place, referred to the fact that special provision had been made in the Rhondda for giving the inhabitants there—the unemployed in this distressed area—cheap milk, milk at 2d. a pint. Everybody ought to be able to get milk at 2d. a pint without subsidy. It is quite possible to do it. Our aim should be to reduce the price of milk by 8d. a gallon, which would bring it down to 2d. a pint instead of 3d., which is the present cost. Even after we have done that, we should still have to have subsidised milk for large sections of the community, but that should be the standard price of milk for the country as a whole.
I am going to show how it could be done. I am going to use only round figures. You can reduce the cost of milk by one-third. First of all you can save 3d. a gallon by stopping the subsidy—what I call the tax that is imposed on milk drinkers for the benefit of these butter factories, cheese factories, and the factories for dry and condensed milk. You can save 3d. a gallon in that way. Then you ought to be able to save 3d. or 4d. on distribution. The Food Council issued a Report recently. I am going to make two quotations from their Report, and the first one is as follows:
"… the retail margins or prices prescribed have not been fixed at sufficiently low levels and must impose on certain sections of the public charges for milk out of proportion to the services rendered in its distribution …
And the second quotation is as follows:
"The tendency of producers is to seek the co-operation of the intermediaries (i.e. distributors) by securing to them minimum margins, which are frequently, exceeded and which are not based upon ascertained costs for the specific services to be rendered."

141
So that the distribution of milk could be enormously cheapened.
An experiment has been made in Ulster on what I call the "cash-and-carry" basis. We ought to try that here. Instead of delivering milk, which is obviously expensive, I believe provision is made there that after a certain hour of the day, if consumers go to the milk shops and fetch milk for themselves, they can get it at 4d. a gallon less; at any rate there is a substantial reduction in price. I was talking the other day to a big dairyman, who told me that when he sold milk for cash and without credit in London he was able to sell it, I think, at one penny a quart less than afterwards when he sold for credit. The number of removals and bad debts add enormously to the cost of the distribution of milk. It is no exaggeration to say that we ought to be able to reduce the cost of milk distribution, to large sections of the community, by 3d. or 4d. a gallon. What about production? The Milk Commission stated on page 196:
"The needs of the liquid milk market and its reserve could have been supplied at an appreciably lower price which would still have been remunerative to the producers."
If the present price to producers produces a large surplus beyond the requirements of the liquid milk market, it is quite obvious that a reduction of 1d. or 2d.—such a reduction as would equate supply with demand—would involve a saving in the cost of production. The Milk Commission, from whose Report I have made this quotation, was an impartial body which sat for nearly two years, and after going into the matter very fully it said that it was possible to reduce the cost paid to efficient producers substantially and yet give them adequate profits.
There is a great deal which the Government could do. We are always hearing what the Government are going to do in the matter of a long-term policy. The Government could do a great deal to reduce the price of milk with a wise long-term policy. Our dairy herds are riddled with disease—mastitis, abortion, tuberculosis. If the Government were to spend money on research and eradicate these diseases they would reduce the cost of milk production enormously. That would be an enormous help to the farmers of this country. If you take the herd life of cows here, it is lamentably short in comparison with the herd life of cows, say, in Denmark, and
142
I think it is also shorter than the herd life of dairy cattle in Ireland. The Government, by giving premiums to satisfactory bulls, by helping farmers either with capital or credit to put their buildings in order, and in the matter of land drainage, could help enormously to reduce the cost of production. I expect most of your Lordships have heard of the new method of treating grass which is associated with the name of Professor Stapleton. A tremendous lot could be done to improve our pastures. I have done it myself. I have been fortunate enough to try it, and I know how much you can improve the productivity of your pasture, both in summer and also in winter, if you use the modern knowledge which is available.
I think I have shown that it would be quite easy without imposing any hardships upon the dairying industry to reduce the cost of milk by 8d. a gallon—that is to say, by one penny a pint. There are some who tell us occasionally that the price of milk does not affect its consumption. I do not say that an immediate drop of a penny would be followed by an immediate rise in consumption, but I am equally convinced that over a period of time a reduction in the price of milk would be followed by a very considerable increase in its consumption; in fact, the Advisory Committee admit that. They say that the variation in consumption between the highest and the lowest income groups is greatest in the case of milk, fruit and vegetables. People who have more money to spend, spend more on milk. It is a question of purchasing power.
A great deal can be done by education. I think one of the difficulties is that many of the children get a taste for tea before they ever go to school, and when they go to school I am sure one reason why more children do not avail themselves of the cheap milk provided there is the fact that they have had a cup of strong tea in the morning. They have become accustomed ever since they were babies not only to drink tea, but to drink strong tea, and their palate gets vitiated. I am certain that a great deal could be done in the way of education and in persuading parents not to cultivate tea drinking among very young children.
This question of purchasing power and cost of milk is not merely one which affects the lowest wage earners. The

143
black-coated workers, the middle classes, and the hospitals also are suffering to-day because of the unreasonably high, the excessively high price of milk. The price is vital.
I never like to criticise without putting forward alternative suggestions. I have tried to indicate to your Lordships why I think the present structure is wrong, why a central authority elected only by farmers and responsible only to farmers cannot possibly have any sound national policy. You have only to turn to Ulster to see how it can be done. Ulster has a milk scheme which has been eminently satisfactory because the controlling influence on the Ulster Milk Board lies with the members nominated by the Government. They are the members of the Board who determine policy. The producers are represented too, but the controlling influence on the Ulster Milk Board is in the members nominated by the Government and representing the interests of the community as a whole. In Ulster they have another advantage. The milk is compulsorily graded according to its hygienic quality, and farmers are paid according to the grade they produce. It works automatically and, as a result, in Ulster the price of milk is very much lower than it is here.
As to distribution there is not time to go into that, but I would certainly support and advocate a bold policy. I see no reason why the nation should not have control over the wholesale distribution of milk. I believe a great deal could be done in that way, and I would not myself be afraid of doing something with the retail distribution too. As regards the volume of production, I think the aim of the central authority should be to supply that quantity of liquid milk that is required for the needs of consumers in winter. As your Lordships know, the volume of milk produced is less in winter than in summer. With a small reserve for contingencies in winter there would be a surplus in summer. I think the central authority should be empowered to own factories and use them for dealing with the surplus summer milk which factories do not buy. If that were done, then in winter the central authority could close these factories. This last winter, when there was a shortage of milk for liquid consumption, milk was
144
actually going under contract to factories. Surely there must be something wrong there.
As I indicated just now, the Government could do a great deal to reduce the cost of milk if they had a long-range policy to help the cattle industry. But, I repeat, in addition to that even after we have reduced the cost of milk production by efficient dairying, we still shall have to subsidise milk for certain of the poorer sections of the community. A most interesting book has just recently been published by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree. I hope that everyone of your Lordships who is interested in social welfare, or in nutrition or housing, or the standard living of workers, will study that book carefully. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree points out that an industrial worker living in a city must have an income of 53s. a week if he is to provide himself and his wife and three children with adequate nutrition. In rural districts the amount required is 48s. and for every child over three 5s. is required if that child is to have adequate nutrition. I have every reason to believe that those figures represent accurately the situation over large parts of this country, and if they do then it means that tens of thousands of children to-day are being malnourished, and malnourishment in childhood means that there will be weakness of physique when they grow up.
Mr. Seebohm Rowntree suggests that some system of family allowances should, if possible, be devised so that where the number of children exceeded three a sum of 5s. per child should be given. I am not convinced that the best way of helping is by helping with cash. I am not sure it would not be better to help in kind. I would like to subsidise consumption. I believe that if we were to do that the public money which would be spent would be spent to the greater interests of the consuming public. I think that there would be less waste. Those sections of the community that need adequate food could be dealt with better, because they go through public institutions. I would develop enormously the feeding of school children. I went the other day to see a canteen in a very up-to-date central school in a very Conservative county. I found there that over 400 children every day take a hot mid-day meal. Their parents pay for it. These children were benefiting enormously by it.
When I was at Geneva the other day we heard what they do in Scandinavian Countries. There they have what is called the Oslo breakfast. The Oslo breakfast is a scheme whereby every child who arrives half an hour before school opens in the morning gets a free breakfast of a glass of milk and bread and butter or margarine, with fruit, and also a cereal if possible. I do not necessarily advocate free meals to all children, or say that all children should have to pay for them. I think we must contemplate subsidising food. That is what I mean by subsidising consumption. I would not limit this help to children of school age. I would also extend it to the pre-school child. A large number of children that go to school have physical defects which did not mar them when they were born. I think we ought to develop nursery schools and do what we can to feed the children in those nursery schools.
I was glad to notice that in his circular to local authorities the Minister of Health urged local authorities to help mothers at maternity centres. If we were to spend the sum of money which Mr. Seebohm Rowntree suggests—£5,000,000 or £6,000,000—in subsidising food supplied at maternity centres and nursery schools and elementary schools, we should have a different population at no distant date. We should have a strong and happy race and we should have a far more prosperous agriculture, an agriculture on a much sounder basis. The health foods are the perishable foods—vegetables, fruits, milk, agricultural products in regard to which we have the benefit of a natural protection. Those are the commodities which are what I call the health foods. If we were to subsidise the consumption of those protective foods so that mothers, pre-school children and school children had enough of them, we should in the next generation have a very much stronger and healthier race and a much more prosperous agriculture.
I apologise for having talked at such length, but I am perfectly certain that the subject is worthy of serious consideration. When our forefathers adopted modern sanitation at the end of last century I am certain they had no idea of the enormous benefit which would follow. If you compare the expectation of life to-day with that of a hundred years ago you will appreciate the results. Even if it is only compared with 1910 I believe we have
146
added eight years to the average expectation of life. That is mainly due to modern sanitation and modern hygiene. I believe that, relatively speaking, if we adopt a wise nutrition policy we shall equally benefit the people of this country. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I personally am very grateful to the noble Viscount, and I am sure your Lordships are also grateful to him, for having put this Question upon the Order Paper. It had been my own intention to raise the matter, but the noble Viscount luckily got on the Order Paper a day before myself. I feel, however, that the question that he has raised, though it is not comforting to our feelings, is nevertheless one of fundamental and even urgent importance. There is something incongruous at a time when we are undertaking great national rejoicings that we should have to confess to ourselves that upon such evidence as is available—evidence which I do not think can be successfully assailed—a large proportion of our population is actually underfed.
When we speak of malnutrition we do not intend to suggest acute starvation, or even that there is always a lack of bulk in food taken, but that there is a deficiency in kind and in quality of food that is necessary to give a balanced diet and vigorous health. By starvation I suppose we mean an inadequate total intake which gradually or quickly reduces the bodily weight and ends in death. By Ina/nutrition we mean, I think, the absence of sustaining and protective qualities in food the absence of which leads to physical defects, to a lowered standard of health and a lowered resistance to disease. The noble Viscount has proved, at least to my satisfaction, that such a condition does exist, and I believe it is more extensive than is generally thought. We should like more information as to whether it is widespread throughout the country or whether it is confined to certain areas. In any case there is sufficient malnutrition to create alarm in the minds of thoughtful persons as to the future of our race.
I am aware that the defenders of the capitalist system under which we half starve cannot bear that the grim antisocial god they worship can be associated with underfeeding of children in this country Therefore they feel it neces-

147
sary, first of all, to deny that underfeeding exists; and secondly, they say that our social services are the best in the world They are always patting themselves on the back for the things that our social services have done for our benefit, and then when the two first propositions cannot be satisfactorily sus-stained they fall back upon the statement that this semi-starvation is due to kitchen illiteracy, and that it is the fault of the people themselves because they do not spend their money on the right things. If that charge is correct, if the people are ignorant, some responsibility for that ignorance falls upon the educational system of our country. We cannot help feeling that if children had been taught a little less about the Kings of Israel and a little more about the duties and the balance of life that ignorance would not have existed.
But in another sense the Government are partly responsible for this malnutrition, for they ought to have undertaken a definite campaign for the teaching of food values and not to have left half-educated people at the mercy of profit-making advertisers who induce poor people to spend their money in almost entirely unprofitable ways. The people are urged to drink more beer and all the rest of it, and they spend their hard pennies on this unprofitable hog-wash instead of spending it upon nutritious food. I do not know whether the poor are more guilty in this matter than anybody else. I wonder if the rich always spend their money profitably. I should very much like to overhaul the budgets of a few rich families and see what they would reveal. I rather fancy I might find such unprofitable expenditure as subscriptions to the Carlton Club and the Anti-Socialist Union and other organisations of that character. But I ask that we should not put too much tension on the accusation that the people do not know what to buy. The fundamental basic fact of malnutrition is poverty.
The working housewife may have no knowledge or very little knowledge of comparative food values, but she knows by rule of thumb what to buy if she has money at her disposal. Dr. M'Gonigle, a great food expert, said in The Times of March 26 of last year:
"Beware of the dicta of persons who for long denied the existence of any considerable
148
amount of malnutrition and who now attribute its incidence to the housewife's ignorance of food values and of cooking."
I think that malnutrition is due, not to ignorance, but to the poverty of the people. The income of poor families is not sufficient to enable them to buy food of the right kind. Mr. Rowntree, to whose book the noble Viscount has referred, in making this budget of what he calls a "Spartan" standard, does not allow for any fresh milk at all; yet he tells us that the urban worker who has a wife and three children requires 53s. and the agricultural labourer not less than 41s. to provide food upon even a low standard. When you reflect that the unemployed receive in urban districts 35s. and in rural districts 32s., you will see that in an unemployed household there must be some very considerable shortage.
As we have a round figure of more than 1,000,000 unemployed people in this country, this malnutrition is proved to exist over a wide area. This standard of Mr. Rowntree's assumes, moreover, that bread is baked at home, which comes to something cheaper than when it has to be bought in a shop. Remember that his analysis is for a compact city like the City of York, where rents are lower than they are in great centres of population such as London, Manchester and Glasgow. When we think of the results of malnutrition we realise that its influence on the nation must be profound. The cost to the individual shows itself in a lowered vitality, in susceptibility to disease, in constant or recurrent sickness. The cost to the nation is immeasurable, but we may be sure that it is immense. Some alarm is being expressed at the present time lest half-fed parents will not rear sons who are able to defend the capitalist system and its profits. This alarm seems to be justified by the returns of the defects in the recruiting offices, showing that a large proportion of the rejects come from the distressed areas.
The Government have rightly to accept the criticism which the noble Viscount attaches to them for their attitude to this question. They might by foresight have done a great deal. It took two generations of agitation in this country to get even the principle of the feeding of necessitous children acknowledged. This cannot go on generation after generation

149
without showing itself in a deterioration of our national stock. There are false ways of meeting this crisis, and His Majesty's Government at the present time, and people about the country, seem to be pursuing a false way in that they are putting the question of gymnastic exercises and of keeping fit before the question of feeding. It is a very good thing to see the grace of young life in gymnasia and elsewhere, but we ought to remember that inflated muscles do not compensate for weakened hearts, and that a jerry-built manhood of that character is not what our nation requires. Feed the people first, then encourage them to do the exercises that will develop the forces of their bodies.
I will not go lengthily this afternoon into the question of what has caused this condition. We do know, however, that with the cost of living rising both in materials and in food it is steadily becoming more difficult for people to live up to the standards that will keep them fit. Wages do not rise to these increased prices, and the Government, especially since 1931, appear to have done their very best to create scarcity of food by quotas, tariffs, restrictions and all the other devices that are due to the Protectionist mind. Thus we have had restriction in potatoes, bacon and the rest. The Import Duties have decreased the purchasing power of the people, and the incidence of these burdens has to be borne by the impoverished classes.
Then there is the question of housing. We are all enormously concerned that people should live in proper surroundings, that they should have fresh air and be free from overcrowding. But it sometimes happens that by moving people from a slum into a municipal area or one in which other houses are built you give them more air at the expense of less food. That has been proved statistically and I need not urge it this afternoon. The proposals that the noble Viscount has made should be borne in mind by His Majesty's Government and very seriously considered. I believe that the right way to begin is first of all by feeding the children and the mothers. There is no need to haggle about whether milk should be 3d. or 6d. a pint or what the profits should be. It is the business of the community to feed its children. What the children require is milk, and, if it cannot be paid for, the Government should provide that
150
milk free for children and also for expectant and nursing mothers. If you do not spend the money on the child when it is in the nursery and in the school, you will have to spend it in other ways in an extended form when the child reaches adult life—if, happily, it does so.
There is nothing more that I need say except again to express my personal thanks to the noble Viscount for introducing this question and for the thoughtful and helpful speech that he made. This Report of the Advisory Committee is disquieting in the extreme. It is a criticism of our social life, and it is a challenge to us all, to whatever side of this House or whatever side of politics we may belong. It reinforces, as I believe, in the grimmest possible way the attacks upon the disorganisation of our social life which we on these Benches have so often made in your Lordships' House.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I will venture to trespass upon the time of the House only for a very few minutes, and for the reason that certain criticisms have been levelled at the work of the Milk Board. The rules of debate in this House are very wide, and the Motion on the Order Paper hardly indicated that so large a part of the debate would be taken up in criticising the work of the Milk Board. I only regret that a subject so large as the questions of milk marketing, and the manufacture and distribution of milk products, had not been made a separate subject of discussion, so that full justice could have been done to it.
I venture to suggest that the Milk Marketing Board, and the various Committees set up in connection with milk marketing in this country, have prevented a certain collapse of the milk industry in this country. It has saved from disaster, undoubtedly, 135,000 milk producers in our country, and it is, I believe, undoubtedly a fact that had not the Milk Marketing Board been set up, or similar machinery established, the milk industry would have gone the same way as the live-stock industry, which would not only have resulted in the ruin of a great many producers but also done away with, to a large extent, the fertility of our soil. One of the objects of agricultural policy at the present time is to take every possible step to see that the fertility of the soil is not only maintained but, if possible, increased, in view of an emergency which might arise.

151
With regard to the question of prices, it is suggested that the price of certain products is too high. I will illustrate the case of butter. At a shilling per pound it can be purchased more cheaply than the oil which is required for oiling motor cars and the wheels of machinery, and I think I am right in saying that in almost every case where the milk products of other countries are cheaper the producers of those countries have received some subsidy or other assistance from their respective Governments.
As to the suggestion that farmers have been given undue and unfair privileges by being allowed to set up these various boards, I would point out that farmers are in a very difficult position. Scattered as they are up and down the fields and valleys of our beautiful country, they find it exceedingly difficult to organise in an effective manner, and the legislation recently passed was really enabling legislation, which made it possible for farmers to come together on certain important points, and to organise their industry, in the same way as industrialists have long been able to organise their industry because they are more centrally situated and more closely united. Yet although the farmer has been given this power he is under the closest control by the Ministry of Agriculture and by the Committees of Investigation and the Consumers' Councils, and therefore I do not think your Lordships should begrudge the limited amount of power which is given to the farmer to organise his industry on up-to-date and much needed lines.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I would like to support the appeal for action in regard to malnutrition, because I am connected with one of the philanthropic societies which are compelled to do their best to relieve malnutrition in various areas. I refer particularly to the well-known Save the Children Fund, which in various ways is in contact with this problem. The experience of such bodies, I think, more than confirms the plea that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has made. Although I have no claim to speak as an expert, I have been asked to give illustrations of the kind of intensity which this problem sometimes reaches; and the fact that philanthropic societies up and down the country are actively dealing with malnutrition is,
152
after all, a very striking proof that there is a problem for authority to tackle.
In particular the society for which I speak, among many other activities, aids through school teachers in very many areas where the education authority is not on the side of activity in regard to feeding. These are particularly in the distressed areas, but elsewhere also. The society is also in touch with needy cases by a peculiar system which it maintains of inviting personal interest of charitable individuals who come in contact with the needy children. Under the title of "adoptions" these contacts are up and down England dealing with cases which illustrate the noble Viscount's point. A great many cases are reported also for which no adopter can be found. Thirdly, the society maintains various nursery schools, where they are frequently in touch, with the approval of the Board of Education, with some of the most distressing cases.
I would like to quote, if your Lordships will allow me, from a report of this society in regard to the question of milk in a distressed area. The report says that the Report of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition
"represents a counsel of perfection for numbers of families in the Special Areas and other penurious localities in which it carries on social welfare work. In one place in South Wales we have the experience of the head mistress of a school … that practically the only milk many of the children in her school get is that which is supplied through the Fund. She even goes so far as to say that, in specific cases, this regular grant of one pint of milk a day has saved the lives of children who had reached a very low state of under-nourishment because of persistent privation of essential foods, owing to the poverty of their parents. When, after a recent malnutrition survey of the school, the chief medical officer asked the assistant medical officer (who had made the survey) her general opinion, the latter stated that the standard of nutrition was much improved on the whole, adding 'for that we have to thank the mistress and the Save the Children Fund.'"
What, then, are the conditions in the undoubtedly more numerous places where it is not possible to establish voluntary aid of this kind? In another county, where the Save the Children Fund carries on work both for children under five (not school children) and for expectant mothers, the county medical officer of health says in a recent annual report:

153
"The supply of fresh milk from the Save the Children Fund was a great boon, and there is no doubt that the children to whom this was issued would have suffered considerably had it not been available."
Then in regard to fruit and vegetables, the Committee draw attention to the place of fruit and vegetables in a balanced diet, and advocate an increased consumption of these commodities, but they are expensive luxuries to large numbers of our people. When the Fund carried out an inquiry into the effects of unemployment on children and young persons a few years since, it examined a number of family budgets among the unemployed of many industrial centres, and almost without exception, among families consisting of man, wife and several children, living on from 25s. to 35s. a week, the expenditure on vegetables was very small, rarely more than is a week, and on fruit generally nil. This is undoubtedly to be attributed not so much to ignorance of the value of fruit and vegetables on the part of these housewives, many of whom produced budgets showing remarkable discretion in the use of the small amount of money they had to handle, but to the greater hunger-repressing value (very different from nutritional value) of such commodities as bread and dried cereals. Among children whom the Fund helps we know of many families whose staple diet is bread, margarine and tea, the tea served not with fresh milk but with sweetened, machine-skimmed milk, the cheapest and least nutritious procurable.
A particular case shows that adequate nutrition may sometimes succeed in curing a severe case of impaired physique, even when hospital treatment has failed. Your Lordships will excuse my going into details of a particular case, but after all it brings home a situation which exists all over the country. 'This is the case of a North Country child aged two years and two months, who was admitted to one of the nursery schools established by the Fund with the co-operation of the Commissioner for the Special Areas. The medical report on her was that she had been discharged from a hospital where she had been treated for so-called "wasting disease," as the hospitals could do nothing more for her. When admitted to our nursery school she could not walk, her bones were malformed and, as so often happens in cases of severe under-
154
nourishment in infancy, she seemed to be mentally deficient. She was given the usual course of nursery school routine; not only the "nutritional foodstuffs" on which the Report lays emphasis, but also fresh air and—what is a special advantage available at this nursery school—artificial sunlight treatment, which scientists agree may be an important element in overcoming deficiency diseases. She soon showed signs of recovery and now, at the age of four and a-half, she has healthy bones, and by all tests appears to be a healthy, normal child.
I would like in connection with the mention of this work to pay a very warm tribute to the work of the National Union of Teachers, who co-operate with this Fund, and doubtless with others of a similar kind. They run a joint fund with the Save the Children Fund. Many of the teachers subscribe, and they act as almoners and are very devoted and sagacious. The inadequate policy which we are criticising to-day places a very heavy burden on the teachers, and I should like to ask your Lordships to consider whether it is a right thing that so much work—and some expense—in regard to nutrition should fall on the teachers and also on private benevolent organisations. Your Lordships will not fail to notice the significance of the fact that these cases are saved from disaster only by private charity. Private effort is driven by the urgency of the case, and I submit that it is not fair that people of small means who maintain charitable bodies should be under the necessity of undertaking what is really a public responsibility and a public interest in national physique.
Then ought we not to make this reflection—that these efforts which are evidently of the greatest value and of the greatest urgency, only cover a very small fraction of the area of the whole country, and elsewhere very grave injury must be occurring to countless children to whom it is in the public interest to supply the means of growing up healthy and strong? The position proves that the need is not merely local but national. Action is still a little hampered by the old theory that all ought to be left to parental responsibility. Forty years ago, when I was on the Whitechapel Board of Guardians, that was held to rule everything but the Government by degrees have superseded that theory, have taken

155
over functions which were years ago regarded as precluded. I think nobody denies that it has been an immense public advantage that the Government have not been governed solely by the theory of parental responsibility, but have ensured a better start in life for countless children who otherwise would have suffered. I submit that all the evidence shows that that policy ought to be carried further. There is a deficiency in our system with which, as the noble Viscount says, the Government ought to deal.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I hardly like to remain silent on this question, but I find it extraordinarily difficult to endorse in toto the views which have been so far expressed in relation to what appears to me to be an extremely complicated problem, and one involving considerations of the welfare of the agricultural community, national physical wellbeing, and indeed (bearing in mind what a large proportion of milk products come from overseas), the important problem of national security in the event of a serious emergency. I say I feel in a somewhat difficult position, because in the first place, as President of the National Council of Social Service, and as having from time to time to visit the Special Areas and distressed areas in the country, I cannot blind myself to the obvious fact that, although undoubtedly conditions have improved during the last eighteen months, malnutrition does undoubtedly exist in many of these areas, not so much or so obviously among the children, but amongst the mothers, who are quite plainly sacrificing a great deal in the best interests of their families. In that connection it cannot be denied that milk is undoubtedly far the most important food product so far as children are concerned and, as many would assert, so far as the population of all ages is concerned.
In the second place, I will not disguise the fact that I am myself a dairy farmer, and have no small sympathy with the anxieties and trials which the dairy farm industry is facing at the present time. But in the third place I have spent a considerable period of years in that particular country within the Empire from which the greater part of the dairy products that come into this country are derived—namely, New Zealand. In passing I would suggest that no butter, at any rate, is of
156
greater nutritive, and I will almost say medicinal, value than that which comes from that sun-kissed country where it is known and admitted by the experts that vitamins are developed in dairy products which are of such a character as to enable those who consume these products not merely to assimilate those minerals or other food constituents which are so essential to human health, but also to resist contagious disease in its infinite variety.
I can only sympathise, not only with the noble Viscount who is going to reply to this debate, but also with the Government who have to solve, sooner or later, the problem which is exercising the minds of dairy farmers throughout the whole Empire and social reformers, and particularly those who are interested in the condition of the distressed areas and other areas where unemployment is rife. Speaking for myself, I feel we are passing through a transition stage in the matter of Government control and organisation in this connection. My attitude would be, either we want to have far less control—preferably, perhaps, with the abandonment of control altogether, and a free play for the forces of supply and demand—or we want a much more extensive and carefully planned control than has so far been developed on the part of the Government. I am so glad, if I may say so, to see reinforcement of the Liberal Benches, because I should have thought that the thesis which has been developed so ably by the noble Viscount ought very specially to appeal to that Party which, above all others in the past, has been the great champion of the free play of economic forces. I cannot help thinking that it is extremely dangerous, at any rate at long last, to interfere drastically with the laws of supply and demand as applied to the essential elements of our food supply, but in the meantime, as the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, has pointed out, in view of the serious fate, amounting to potential bankruptcy, which was facing the dairy industry some two years ago, some measure of control was as an interim measure clearly justifiable but, as I hope, not necessarily permanent.
One point I should like strongly to emphasise is that milk is undoubtedly too dear, but, strangly enough—and I do not think the noble Viscount denies it—as was pointed out by Lord Eltisley, butter is relatively cheap, and so is cheese. What I consider an unfortunate

157
factor in the present system of milk control is that the so-called surplus milk is being diverted into uneconomic butter and cheese factories which have been set up with the approval, if not under the direction, of the Ministry of Agriculture. These uneconomic butter and cheese factories are intended to deal with so-called surplus milk—surplus in spite of the fact that milk is too dear to be bought by some of the poorest classes in the community—and incidentally they are destroying to a large extent the farm-made cheeses of this country and to some extent the farm-made butter in this country which, in each case, is infinitely preferable to the factory product, at any rate as regards cheese, and, as far as this country is concerned, as regards butter also.
I dread the time which seems to be approaching when the famous farm-made cheeses of Cheshire, the Cheddar Valley, Somerset, Gloucestershire, Leicestershire, and other counties where famous cheese is made, will become a thing of the past, and all the more so because it is an almost inevitable concomitant of the successful conduct of swine husbandry. The two are so interlocked together that it is difficult to picture real success in pigkeeping without dairy farming, or dairy farming, at any rate on the part al the small farmer, without pigkeeping and the utilisation of the by-products of milk conversion. The noble Viscount who initiated this debate said we have some of the best pastures in the world. I want to say, with all respect, we have some of the worst, but they are pastures which might be made reasonably good by cultivation—and pastures require cultivation almost as much as arable lands—by good management, and by proper feeding.
But your Lordships may very properly ask, and I think we ought all to ask ourselves, what are the two main reasons, because there are two main reasons, why milk is so dear and why farmers find it impossible to produce it less expensively, with a margin of profit for themselves. Surely the answer is, first of all, the very high cost of imported feeding stuffs which, to my mind, is a very strong indication that we ought to raise within our own national borders far more of these concentrates which we require for the feeding of our stock than we do to-
158
day; and in this connection let me say incidentally that I entirely endorse what the noble Viscount has adumbrated in the matter of improving grass production and grass drying We are beginning to learn that dried grass of good quality has more than twice the value of hay, and it a proper plant can be found on an economic basis to utilise to a large extent the wasted grass in this country—never more wasted than it was last year—it would provide a concentrated food for the maintenance of our farm stock without depending to such an extent as we do upon imported concentrated foodstuffs.
The other factor which renders milk expensive to the consumer is, of course, the margin of profit, or the reward permitted to a large host of middle men and distributors whose circumstances, as the noble Lord has pointed out, vary very considerably in different areas. I would venture to say in that connection that the chief objection to Government control surely is that, to avoid political disfavour, a premium is almost inevitably placed, not upon efficiency and quality, but upon mediocrity if not upon actual inefficiency, and this applies alike to the producer and to the converter and distributor. I am certain in my own mind that if a plan could be devised which would give a reasonable profit to the small milk retailer and the small distributor then the large retailer and the large distributor is going to get a margin of reward which is out of all proportion to the benefit that the producer and the consumer ought to derive.
As regards young children, I would venture to suggest that we, in this country, might learn a great deal more than we have yet learned about the care of infants and young children, and particularly the supply and treatment of milk, from New Zealand, where the Plunket or Truby King system has been in use for a great many years, and where the vital statistics show the enormous advantage to the infantile population as the result of this system, carried through not only for the benefit of nursing mothers but for the benefit of both mothers and children in what are known as the Karitane Homes which are to be found all over that Dominion.
I view with some anxiety a suggestion being made in many parts of this country, to-day, that the problem under discussion

159
can only be effectively solved by shutting out the dairy products that are coming at the present time from New Zealand and other parts of the British Empire. I want most earnestly to ask the Government to be very careful before they yield too much to pressure of this kind exercised by the over-anxious farmer. Let us be fair both to the British farmer and to his fellow-farmer in the overseas Dominions. And in this connection I do most earnestly wish that you could get leading representatives of British dairy farmers and New Zealand and other overseas Dominion dairy farmers to meet representatives of our Ministry of Agriculture, of our Ministry of Health, and of our Board of Trade, because I believe that sitting round a table you might much more effectually find a solution of this difficult problem than you can by working in watertight compartments such as we are all working in at the present time.
You do not want, surely, to render New Zealand bankrupt? You have to remember that the dairy industry is to-day the largest industry in that Dominion, and that no less than 93 per cent. of the whole of the primary products exported from New Zealand come to this country, and, as I have good reason to know, can find no other alternative outlet at the present time, or at any rate until secondary industries are set up and a larger consuming population is to be found within her own borders. After all, New Zealand owes this country a very considerable amount of money, and if she is going to be true to her obligations and to meet the service of her United Kingdom loans you must permit her to carry on her export trade to a reasonable extent in her dairy products so as to meet the service of those loans.
I know that the noble Viscount—and in this I frankly differ from him, although I do not think he has elaborated the subject to-day—assumes the continuity of interchange between the products of British factories and overseas farms. I believe that that assumption will have to be abandoned for all time in the early future. We are talking to-day about the necessity of reviving emigration. At the same time we are putting more and more restrictions upon imported foodstuffs. I want to suggest that we cannot have it both ways. I am perfectly certain that,
160
in the best interests of the security of this country and of the overseas Empire, it is desirable to encourage a system under which there will be a greater interchange between primary and factory products within our own borders and also within the borders of our overseas Dominions.
I am going, finally, to say this. Butter to-day is not to any large extent a manufactured commodity in this country. Excellent butter, and, as I have suggested, "sun-kissed" butter, is coming from other countries, and is, I believe, contributing materially to the health of the nation. Why not leave butter to New Zealand? It forms no vital or essential part of our dairy farming in this country. Where butter making is carried on in this country it is generally uneconomic, the butter being made in a small churn such as our grandmothers used some sixty or eighty years ago, with an output of, say, anything from ten to twenty pounds—often, incidentally of an extremely unhygienic character—in competition with churns turning out under most sanitary conditions from three-quarters of a ton to a ton and a half. I must apologise to your Lordships for taking part in this debate, especially as I find myself, as I pointed out, in an extremely difficult position, and with no real solution to suggest, but I do venture to submit these considerations to your Lordships as worthy of notice in discussing and in endeavouring to settle an extremely complicated problem.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down tempts me to make a few remarks on this subject which has interested me, I need hardly say, for a great many years. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, gave two reasons for the difficulties that now beset the dairy industry. I believe there is another one, and I believe it is due to a certain confusion of thought. I think that we are apt to confuse the nutritive value of milk with the other side of the milk question. Both sides of the question are very important, but I cannot feel certain that the restrictions that we now put upon the quality of milk are really as necessary as the doctors tell us that they are; and the dairy farmers are in consequence straining to reach a standard that, after all, the doctor may one day tell us is unnecessary.

161
We all know of the questions raised in regard to boiling milk, in regard to the pasteurisation of milk, and in regard to plain milk; but I have never yet seen anything really convincing to show the relative nutritive value of plain milk, pasteurised milk and boiled milk. Some people tell us that boiled milk is just as nutritive as ordinary milk, yet you find that children do not like it: and it is no use saying they ought to drink boiled milk and that it is good for them, if they are unwilling to drink it. Then we are told that we should not go so far as boiling but should satisfy ourselves with pasteurisation. But no one has told us in a really authoritative way what is meant by pasteurisation. We may learn the temperature to which milk should be raised but not for how long it should stand at that temperature. It is found also that in many cases those who do drink raw milk, and do it without contracting disease, seem in fact to flourish more on the plain raw milk than upon milk that has been treated in any way.
At the present time dairy farmers have to conform to extremely exacting regulations, and yet I confess that I cannot persuade myself that all our system of bottling and so on is really satisfactory in delivering pure milk to the child. There are so many opportunities of lapses. It may be that some of the dirtiness of milk that we all deplore takes place after the milk has reached the house and not in the course of its handling on the dairy farm. I believe that we should discover that great impetus was given to dairy farming if the standards demanded were readily intelligible and easily carried out: if we became intelligent pupils and not the slaves of laboratory experiments male on the side of medicine: and if we were able to take a broader and more common-sense view of the whole situation. The noble Viscount who has just sat down explained to us the great waste that goes on, because after the milk has left the cow—being then presumably, in most cases, good milk—the arrangements for supply are not adequate and satisfactory.
But do we want these perfect milks to be assured before we are in a position to allow milk to do its work for nutrition? The very names by which milk is known are changing. It was a
162
most confusing thing for the public to discover some time ago that Grade A milk was so far down the list that it was comparatively inferior milk. Now we have other names attached, but even those names are not self-explanatory. A clearer list of names that exactly suit the situation—and suit the situation from a nourishment point of view rather than a prophylatic point of view—would be of very great value, and would be a further incentive beyond the points which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, mentioned, to our dairy farmers, because they would then understand better what we really want and how they can best produce it for us.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I will only detain you for a very few minutes. I think there has been a consensus of opinion in this debate on one particular point, and that is that the price of milk to-day is too high in this country. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, it is higher here than in any other country in Europe. It costs twice the amount that it costs in Belgium and Holland, nearly twice as much as in France, and is much higher than in Germany. I submit that that price is felt not only by the working classes, but by the middle classes, by those who live on fixed incomes, by institutions such as hospitals, and others. I think the high price is especially felt in country districts. One would have thought that people living in the country, at all events, would be able to get cheap milk, but that is not the case at all. More and more the milk supply in this country comes from large herds. Milk is sent to London, and other great towns and cities, and the agricultural worker with his lower wage is quite unable to pay the high price for milk for his family. That is a most unfortunate state of things. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, showed—and I think he proved his case—how the price of milk could be lowered. The price of milk is high because the milk drinker is taxed in order to subsidise milk products. It might be possible to reduce the price in this respect and to save money in distribution. Even if the price of milk were reduced, it would still have to be subsidised for certain sections of the population, for maternity centres, for nursery schools and for elementary schools, but if the price were reduced the burden of the

163
taxpayer would not be nearly so excessive.
Mention has been made of the circular recently issued by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry circularised maternity and child welfare authorities asking them to review arrangements for the supply of milk to mothers and to young children. The Minister suggested that "scales should be so framed as not to render it difficult for mothers to take advantage of the authorities' arrangements." A society I represent here this afternoon complains that this instruction is too indefinite, that in some areas mothers and children under school age cannot obtain free milk unless family income falls within a very low limit. In some cases the income, after deduction of rent, for a family of five must be as low as 25s. or even 22s. 6d. before free milk is granted. I suggest that the Minister might be able to issue more definite instructions on that point, or that he might ask his Advisory Committee to draw up for the guidance of local authorities a scale based on the present knowledge of food requirements. It seems to me that the Minister's circular, valuable as it may be in some respects, goes only a small way towards securing increased consumption of milk by mothers and young children.
There is only one other matter to which I would refer, and it is one on which I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I also have heard it rumoured that pressure is to be brought, or is being brought, on the Government to impose tariffs on imported butter, cheese and other milk products. I hope, if that is the case, that the Government will not give way to that pressure, because it is quite certain to put up the price of the article against the consumer. I hope it may be possible for the noble Viscount who replies on behalf of the Government to reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and myself on that point.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this matter has been recently debated in another place, but none of us complain of its being raised again in your Lordships' House. Debate on this matter is very valuable. A mass of gratuitious advice is offered to the public as to what people should eat and drink, and when that has been going on in the form of
164
advertising for a number of years, one can hardly blame people for a certain apathy on this subject. We should certainly feel grateful to my noble friend Viscount Astor for bringing forward this matter, because he is peculiarly well qualified to take a leading part in a campaign of this sort, associated as he has been with many committees of national and international distinction, over some of which he has presided. Nor can we complain that my noble friend has, by the terms of his Motion or by his speech, unduly narrowed the scope of this discussion. He spoke at some length on agricultural policy. Agricultural policy, tariff policy, unemployment policy, physical fitness and all kinds of other major issues can quite properly be related to this matter of nutrition. If I confine myself to certain aspects of this problem, it is not because I do not realise the relevance of these major issues, but because I could hardly expect that any conclusions which I offered to your Lordships on these large issues would be accepted with any degree of finality.
It seems to me that the investigations into nutritional problems fall into three quite simple categories. There are investigations into what we ought to eat, into what we do eat, and into methods of improvement. I take the question of what we ought to eat first, because it seems to me to be the category in which there is more information than in the other categories. There is indeed a vast mass of literature on this subject. Fortunately some fairly simple deductions can be made from that information. The Report shows that one of the most important of these deductions is that certain foods, especially milk, dairy products, green vegetables and fruit, are essential to health. They have what is called a protective value because they stop certain definite deficiency diseases and also build up the resistance of the body to other forms of disease. It seems difficult to exaggerate the importance attached by these experts, with a unanimity rare among experts, to the value of these protective foods, especially in infancy, and I have only to say that we entirely accept the conclusions of the Report on that subject.
I should now like to turn to the question of what we actually consume. On this question there is, again, a great deal of information, though perhaps of a more

165
limited kind. My noble friend has asked me for some specific information on certain points concerning what we are going to do, and I hope in a minute to be able to give him that information. First, however, I should like to refer to the knowledge that we have already. As the noble Viscount told us, the Report refers to the Board of Trade statistics and the Ministry of Agriculture statistics of the amount of food imported into and grown in this country. These deal with totals only, and somewhat crude totals at that, because they make no allowance for wastage. Nevertheless, deductions can be made from them, some more reassuring than others. It is satisfactory to know, for instance, that the average consumption per head of most foodstuffs has increased since just before the War, and that with one exception there has been a general improvement in the quality of the national diet. It is also satisfactory to know from the Report that the supply of energy-giving foods available for the nation is more than was considered adequate by the Committee of the League of Nations.
I think my noble friend rather omitted references to any question of improvement. I quite realise that improvement may be slow and ought to be quicker, but I think that, if we are going to approach this subject in a scientific spirit, it is necessary to give weight to these figures of improvement. Of course we accept the conclusions of the Committee that, although there is no evidence of widespread malnutrition in the sense of starvation, there are a certain number of people who are suffering from under-nourishment, particularly in regard to first-class proteins and fats. We know, too, that the Committee emphasise that the consumption of certain protective foods, particularly of fresh milk, is much below the recommended standard. Besides these official figures, there are before us researches of certain private investigators who have attempted to divide up these totals and to show how the food is distributed according to the various occupations, wages, incomes, and so forth. There was, for instance, the celebrated inquiry of Sir John Orr, and we may recognise that his report, taken, as it was intended by the author to be taken, with all the qualifications that he made, is a document of considerable value. Nevertheless, some of the deductions made from
166
that document for the purposes of political propaganda—such, for instance, as that it showed that half the country was suffering from starvation—we do not regard as scientific deductions.
Other reports are also available, some of which have been quoted this afternoon. But we do fully accept the recommendation of the Committee that much more information is desirable, and we are prepared to collect it. Incidentally, I did once or twice seem to notice a tendency for certain noble Lords to make assertions based on statistics with great conviction, and almost immediately afterwards to point out the necessity for further information. I should like to point out that, although we are prepared to do our best to collect this information, such inquiries are not always quite so easy as is sometimes imagined. Dietary surveys are not like geological or ordnance surveys; they are really inquiries into the habits of the great British public, and we have to take into account the idiosyncrasies of the public. For instance, it is obviously important to relate the family budget to the family income. Although we find that people are very willing to co-operate with us in explaining what their outgoings and their budget consist of, they seem to be very unwilling to disclose what their incomes are, or at least to disclose them accurately. We have, therefore, to estimate these incomes and relate them to the budget in rather a roundabout way.
What we have in mind is really a three-fold inquiry. There is, first, the Ministry of Labour inquiry in connection with the cost-of-living index figure. For this it is hoped to procure the weekly budgets of 10,000 families taken over four separate weeks in various parts of England, Wales and Scotland. These families will all come from the classes covered by the national insurance scheme. Naturally, the inquiry will comprise information besides that relating to food, but the special information relating to food will be summarised separately. Then there is a further consideration in that family budgets are made up as a rule in rather a rough-and-ready way. For certain purposes calculations of that sort may be quite sufficient, but when we are trying to find out about the number of calories, vitamins, carbohydrates and so forth that are consumed, we cannot afford to be

167
rough-and-ready. Accordingly, we propose to check these results by another inquiry, called a "quantitative dietary survey," which will be of a much more detailed character. It is in fact already in progress and will eventually embrace 500 families, of which 200 will come from Scotland. This may appear to be a small number, but I would like to emphasise what a dietary survey of this kind involves. It means that a qualified investigator, somebody with a degree, has got to spend much time in the homes of these families, weighing up all the food which comes into the house, and what is left over, estimating its composition down to the constituents even of the cakes and puddings and so forth, and noting any wastage. It may be a small matter, but I wonder with what degree of enthusiasm your Lordships, or rather your Lordships' wives, would view the prospects of a quantitative survey of this kind in your homes. I think we should be grateful to these families for co-operating with our inspectors to the extent that they have.
My noble friend asked for particulars about this inquiry. In the first place, I cannot give him the dates by which the whole inquiry will be completed, but I would refer him to the results of the surveys which have already taken place at Newcastle-on-Tyne, affecting 69 families, published some months ago. Then there is another inquiry affecting 205 families in the West Riding, the results of which will be probably published by the end of this year. These are not included in the 500 families which I have mentioned. An inquiry has already been begun in the Isle of Ely, Surrey, Glossop, Aberdeen and certain industrial towns near Glasgow. It will be extended to Somerset, Glamorgan, Carmarthen, Cardigan, Aberdeen County, Banff, Kincardine, Dumfries and the Border counties. The next step after this will be to take out from the last census figures a definite proportion, say of one in five hundred, or one in a thousand, of all the family census schedules, and this we expect will show roughly, after certain allowances have been made for altered conditions, the distribution of the population according to occupation. These statistics will then be compared with information in the possession of the Ministry of Labour with regard to wage rates current in such
168
occupations. The art of the statistician is highly technical, and it is impossible to give more than the very broadest outline of how they will proceed, but it is hoped that they will on this basis be able to correlate to some degree all these inquiries, and to present a working analysis of how the incomes of various classes of the community are divided with special reference to food.
I will now return to the third and most controversial question of how we can improve. I quite admit that three-quarters of the problem turns, and must turn, on the capacity of the people to buy the right foods, and that, therefore, food must he cheap. It is surely equally important that the people should have the wages to pay for the food, and again it is obvious that unstable conditions, gluts followed by shortages and violent fluctuations in price, are definitely bad for steady progress. I know there is a class of criticism which proceeds on the assumption that when things go right it is always due to natural causes, and that when they go wrong it is invariably the fault of the Government. We shall have to bear this sort of criticism with what equanimity we may, fortified, perhaps, with the knowledge that during our period of office the number of those in employment has increased by about 2,000,000, and that in one year over 2,350,000 have benefited from an increase of wages amounting to nearly £190,000 a week, and that the price of essential foodstuffs, in spite of some rather wild statements to the contrary, has during the last five years remained fairly steady.
I would like to quote a few figures on that particular point which I think are important. Lord Astor quoted certain foodstuffs—what he called, I think, health foods. He has very strong views on the subject of the price of milk, but at any rate the price has not varied very much since 1931. In 1931 the price per quart was 6d., and in 1937 it is 6½d. Cheese, per lb., in 1931 was 10¾d., and in 1937 it is 9¾d. Beef (ribs) in 1931 was Is. 3¾d., and in 1937 is Is.1½d. The respective prices of cheaper quality were 8½d. and 7d. Eggs in 1931 were 1¾d. each, and in 1937 1¼d. I agree that all things do not show a decrease—bread has risen from 7d. to 9¼d.—but I maintain that the general result of an examination of these prices, of what my noble friends calls health foods, shows that there has not

169
been the great increase of prices sometimes hinted at, and that in fact prices have been fairly steady.
My intention is for the moment to concentrate on the more direct contribution made by the Government to this nutrition problem, and here again I would start on what has already been done, in no spirit of complacency, but because we believe—and I think any of your Lordships who have had administrative experience will probably agree—that progress is best maintained and improved on the basis of an extension of existing services wherever possible. Also I rather think that if somebody had listened to this debate without knowing the conditions of the country he would assume that there exist no food services at all in this country. Following the almost unanimous advice of our experts and of the noble Viscount, we have been, as he knows better than I know, particularly active in connection with a supply of milk on special terms to special classes of the community, principally school children, expectant mothers and infants, and unemployed in the distressed areas. There are also schemes for the provision of free and cheap food to similar classes.
Taking first the school children, the scheme for providing them with cheap milk was started in 1934, and has now been made available to 92 per cent. of all the school children in the country, and 2,500,000 school children are making use of the scheme. Free food may also be supplied to any child showing signs of requiring it, though certain safeguards obviously have to be observed in this connection. Over 400,000 children received free milk last year, and 23,000,000 free meals were consumed by 143,000 children. About £700,000 was paid to the local authorities by the Government in specific grants towards these schemes. As to the mothers and infants, at all maternity and child welfare centres and at all antenatal clinics free food and milk may be supplied under medical advice to necessitous cases, special attention being paid to malnutrition, rickets and so forth. There has been a large extension of these centres in the last few years, and the attendances have greatly increased. Two hundred and ninety seven thousand mothers now attend the clinics. Last year the equivalent of about 7,000,000 gallons of milk was distributed free or at
170
less than cost price according to the means of the applicants. In regard to the Special Areas, schemes for cheap milk have been adopted in Rhondda, Jarrow and Walker-on-Tyne. These schemes resemble the maternity and child welfare schemes in other areas, but have this difference, that the cost of them is borne in part by the Commissioner for Special Areas instead of by the local authorities.
As to the future, I can undertake that we shall press forward with all these schemes to the best of our ability. We have recently issued a circular inviting all the local authorities to review their arrangements under the Maternity and Child Welfare Acts and to improve and increase the diet, and especially the milk diet, of expectant mothers and children. We have laid emphasis on the necessity for securing the purity of the milk. We note that nearly all local authorities have made arrangements under these Acts, and indeed I may remark in passing, in spite of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, that our maternity and child welfare centres have been praised by foreign commentators as some of the best in the world. Although the noble Lord is a very exalted member of a local authority and I am a very humble one, it does sometimes seem to me that there are large numbers of very deserving people, not confined to representatives, but including also officials, who do a great deal of very good work in connection with these services; they do not get a great number of pats on the back, and I think if they are given pats on the back by foreign commentators they might perhaps be given the credit here.
In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Denman, said, we are asking that certain limitations observed by some of the authorities should be removed from these maternity centres. I was not aware of some of the doubts which he expressed, and I am sure my right honourable friend will consider his objections very carefully. We feel that there might be an improvement in the number of mothers attending the ante-natal clinics, although there are, we estimate, about 5o per cent. of them attending now. I might refer to the publicity campaign which the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, in co-operation with the Central Council for Health Education, are initiating in the autumn to make better known the existence of these ser-

171
vices. I would also call attention to the fact that we have put another £5,000,000 into the general pool available under the block grant scheme, and by the re-weighting of the formula we feel that the necessitous local authorities will be placed in a better position to bear their part of the financial burden.
I know that it is usual, whenever a debate of this character is raised, for a conventional hope to be expressed that at the end of it the Government's spokesman should get up and announce some new and remarkable extension of Government policy, but perhaps my noble friend will forgive me if, so soon after the debate in another place, and before the publication of the Government conclusions on the Milk Re-organisation Report, upon which much depends, I do not respond to this larger invitation. But that does not imply that we propose to stand still, nor does it rule out the possibility of such announcements being made in the future. But I hope I have said enough to convince the noble Viscount that we are alive both to the necessity of further information and further action, and that, although scientific research is valueless if unduly hurried, we propose to press on with what information we have.
I should like, in conclusion, to say one word of what I might call subdued optimism. In the seventies of last century there was a death-rate of 21.4 per thousand. In 1936 the death-rate was 12.1 per thousand. In the nineties the death-rate of children under one year was over 150 per thousand. By 1936 this figure had been reduced to 59 per thousand. The death-rate from tuberculosis is less than half what it was twenty-five years ago, and from rickets less than half what it was five years ago. Of the 1,700,000 children inspected by school medical officers during 1936, the nutrition of 14.6 was said to be excellent, 74 per cent. were normal, 10.5 per cent. slightly subnormal, and 7 per cent. bad. These figures, I think, do show that we are making real progress and, what is more important, are a general encouragement to further effort. My right honourable friend the Minister has shown by his speeches all over the country the profound interest he takes in this problem of nutrition, and indeed, setting aside all questions of human sympathy, a vast amount of administrative effort which is
172
now being spent on the cure and care of disease would obviously be immensely reduced if illness could be prevented, as the experts claim it can be, by better nutrition. We have to assist us bodies of unimpeachable reputation, such as the Medical Research Council and the Advisory Committee on Nutrition, presided over by Lord Luke; the qualifications of our experts are recognised all over the world, and we have the services of many distinguishd men; and, as they have already been praised by foreign countries, perhaps I might without impropriety include among them some of my own colleagues. All these factors seem to indicate that if prosperity can be maintained progress in nutrition will also be maintained with increasing impetus.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I think we have had a very interesting debate and I would like, with your Lordships' permission, to deal briefly with one or two points which have been made. My noble friend Lord Eltisley complained that I had raised certain matters of agricultural policy. I should have thought it required no very great imagination on his part to realise that any discussion on the consumption of food which turns on price must inevitably affect the question of the production of food. On the mixed Committee of the League of Nations over which I preside, the largest proportion of it, members represent agricultural interests. This is a Committee dealing with nutrition. The noble Viscount who has spoken for the Government assumed that naturally I should deal with the question of agriculture, and more particularly with milk which, as the Advisory Committee point out, is fundamental to the whole question of nutrition. The noble Lord replied to various charges which, in fact, I had not made. I was not condemning the personnel of the Milk Marketing Board, I was condemning the structure. It is perfectly ridiculous to give any industry the right to form a ring and charge minimum prices and expect the greatest measure of efficiency in that industry. I did not suggest that there should be no central authority—in fact I indicated very clearly how I thought there could be a central authority which could prevent the bottom falling out of the milk industry, but which would consider the problem in the national interests, instead of merely

173
sectional interests, on the lines that have been adopted with such success in Ulster.
The noble Lord thought I complained about the high price of milk products. I did not. I complained about the high price of milk. It is very interesting that the Report of the Markets Supply Committee, which met with the support and approval of the Advisory Committee, indicates that the consumption of milk went down by 5 to 10 per cent. whereas the consumption of butter increased by 56 per cent. and the consumption of cheese by 43 per cent. These two commodities—butter and cheese—are foods of high biological value. Their consumption increased so remarkably because prices were cheap, and I would deprecate any attempt to make the price of butter or cheese expensive by attempting to develop and expand home industries in these products by tariffs. If that is done the consumption of butter and cheese will go down, and that will not be in the interests of nutrition nor will it be in the interests of those who do it, because the greatest mistake that is made by some who speak on behalf of farming interests is to forget that 80 per cent. of the people of this country are townsmen. They are perfectly prepared to do what is right by the other 20 per cent. who are connected with agriculture, but agriculture must see that the industry is efficient, and must see that we produce here in this country those commodities for which our climate, our soil, and our traditions are particularly suited.
I do not know that I shall follow the right reverend Prelate in the discussion he initiated on the relative merits of pasteurisation, or whether more damage is done by giving people raw milk, leading to undulant fever or tuberculosis, or giving them unlimited quantities of raw milk without previous protection; but it may interest him to know that there is an experiment being conducted at the present time. I happen to be Chairman of the supervising Committee which is dealing with 8,000 children at an expenditure of £12,000 in order to see what the effect is on large numbers of children of giving them raw milk, pasteurised milk, and no milk. The results of this investigation will not be published for some time, but, when they are published, if they can settle this very vexed question I am sure every one, whether connected with agriculture or the medical profession, will be glad.
174
May I just deal very briefly with some of the remarks which the noble Viscount made speaking on behalf of the Government? I fully realise there has been an enormous improvement in physique and in consumption and all that. I did not emphasise that because I did not want to speak too long. But the noble Viscount is perfectly right. There has been a very great improvement; but even after all that I come back to the findings of the Rowntree book. Even after that there are millions of people who have not got the purchasing power to buy adequate nutrition. You cannot get away from that fact. That is why it is necessary for us to have efficiency in food production and, after that, subsidised food for certain sections of the community. I will say a word about the price of milk. The noble Viscount seemed to indicate that the price of milk was not unduly high, or that it had not risen unduly. Let me quote from the index numbers of prices of agricultural products. Taking 1914 as 100, I find that in the year 1931–1932, for milk, the index figure was 139, whereas it is now 170. For butter it was 106, now it is 86—a drop in butter prices, and an increase in the consumption of butter. For cheese, in 1931, the index was 124, it is now 92. May I refer the noble Viscount to a passage in the Report of the Food Council on page 14? It is as follows:
"The retail price of milk as recorded by the Ministry of Labour stands higher in relation to pre-War than that of any other food except fish. The index was higher last year than in any year since 1922, having risen since 1933 by nearly 10 per cent."
VISCOUNT GAGE: May I say I was only quoting from 1931 to April, 1937? I have no figures by me going further back than 1931.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I should have made no comment if the noble Viscount had not implied that the price of milk was not unduly high. I had to point out that the price of milk was not only unduly high, but had risen over a period of years. I thank the noble Viscount for his information about the surveys, but I would urge the Government to see whether they cannot increase the scope of them. A year ago, when we had a debate on nutrition, Lord Luke, who is Chairman of the Advisory Committee, when referring to Sir John Orr's report, said that because it dealt with only 1,200 families it provided insufficient data

175
to justify far-reaching conclusions. I suggest that having an inquiry into 500 family budgets, of which 200 are in Scotland, will not enable us to get that detailed information which is required if we are to deal with this problem adequately. If we take what is done in the way of surveys in other countries—in America and in Scandinavia, for example—we find it done on a very much bigger scale. This is a unique opportunity. It would be a tragedy if this unique opportunity, when there is already an inquiry going on—the Ministry of Labour inquiry into the cost of living—were not used by the Government to couple with it an investigation on a sufficiently large scale to give us full information. Having said that, I wish to congratulate the noble Viscount and the Government on what they have done. At the same time I would urge them not to sit back satisfied with what they have done, but to realise that there is still a great deal that requires to be done. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SPECIAL AREAS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills made.

HOUSE OF LAITY (CO-OPTED MEMBERS) MEASURE, 1937.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the House of Laity (Co-opted Members) Measure, 1937, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble Earl said: The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has asked me to apologise for his absence. He has been called away to another engagement and has asked me to take his place in moving the Motion which stands in his name. This is a very simple Measure providing
176
that the House of Laity in the Church Assembly, which numbers at present 343, should be allowed to be increased by ten co-opted members. It provides also that nobody shall be co-opted except by the unanimous vote of the Standing Committee of the Church Assembly. It further provides that any person who is so co-opted shall be a member of the House Assembly only for the term of that particular House.
There are really two main reasons why it was deemed wise to pass this Measure in the Church Assembly. It was moved by Lord Selborne, Chairman of the House of Laity, who felt very strongly that it would be wise to make better provision for the representation of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons in the Church Assembly so as to preserve better liaison between that body and Parliament. It was also felt that there are certain official persons, the First Church Estates Commissioner, the Treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty, and the Chairman of the Pensions Board whose presence in the Church Assembly is really necessary if many Measures are to be adequately discussed there. As it is not always easy or possible for those persons to secure election at the time when their presence is required, this Measure was moved and passed through all its stages in the Church Assembly. There was a certain amount of opposition to it in the House of Laity at the stage of final approval, arising from the fear that it might diminish the representative character of that House, but inasmuch as only ten members can be co-opted and the House numbers already 343 lay members, that opposition was not considered to be very material. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the House of Laity (Co-opted Members) Measure, 1937, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Earl Grey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MATERNITY SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR.

  PETITION FOR BILL.
  Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
  DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL. [H.L.]
  NORTH COTSWOLD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  BARKING CORPORATION BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

  D. Northumberland,

  L. Saltoun,

  L. Carnock (Chairman),

  L. Derwent,

  L. Ruthven of Gowrie:

  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 8th of June next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

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