Sitting of 16 February 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till this evening, at Half-past Seven of the Clock.
Bournemouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Nuneaton Extension) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  GERMANY (PROPAGANDA).
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the development of Nazi propaganda in all British Colonies, and Palestine in particular, he will make representations to the German Government on the subject?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the need for close supervision of all forms of foreign propaganda. From such information as I have I do not consider, however, that the particular class of propaganda to which the hon. Member refers is at present of such a nature as to call for action such as he proposes.
  Mr. Mander: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there has been considerable development in this direction recently; and would he not ask the Vansittart Committee to give careful consideration to the quesion?
  Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member has some information to give which is not in my possession, I shall be very glad to receive it.
  Mr. Mander: As regards the latter part of my supplementary question, will the Vansittart Committee give consideration to this question?
  Mr. Eden: Their task has already been defined by the Prime Minister.

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received from Mr. Peter Drysdale, the British non-intervention officer who was on board the steamship "Alcira," when it was sunk by aircraft bombing on 4th February, concerning the make or nationality of the aircraft which made the attack?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I understand that Mr. Peter Drysdale was not on deck when the aircraft appeared, and was not, therefore, able to give any clear description of them. The information available regarding the nature of the aircraft was given in my statement to the House on 14th February.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there any reasonable doubt that these were Italian aircraft?
  Mr. Eden: I prefer to stand by my definition, which was that they formed part of the insurgent forces.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Spanish Government's decisions to make no reprisals against General Franco's bombing attacks on the civilian population, he will propose to the Non-intervention Committee that the Spanish Government shall be allowed to purchase from other countries the antiaircraft guns, fighting aircraft, balloon barrages, and other means necessary for the defence of their open cities and towns?
  Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on Monday last to a similar question by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I have nothing to add at present.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the pledge of the Spanish Government not to bomb any civil population, is it not plain that non-intervention will work very unfairly?
  Mr. Eden: I have taken note of that pledge, and it is a matter of importance in assessing a difficult situation.
  Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how that compares with his answer to previous questions?
  Mr. Eden: I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to look at my answer.
  Mr. Cocks: Following the principle of Nyon, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Italian Government to send antiaircraft guns to Barcelona?
  Duchess of Athollasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a document which came into the hands of His Majesty's Government prior to 17th July, 1936, and which purported to give instructions for a general Communist rising and revolution in Spain, was regarded by them as authentic; and was it communicated to the Spanish Government of that date?
  Mr. Eden: A report of the nature referred to reached the Foreign Office after and not before 17th July, 1936. I am not prepared to express an opinion of its authenticity. No communication was made to the Spanish Government.
  Duchess of Atholl: Is it not the case that the document in question stated that a month or two prior to the rising the Communists in Spain had an organised militia of 250,000 men; and if so, does not that throw some doubt on the authenticity of the document, because when it came to military action the Government was dependent on absolutely untrained people for its defence?
  Mr. Eden: Clearly, I cannot enter into details of a report from which I am not quoting. I think I indicated to the House that it reached us after 17th July, and that no communication was made to the Spanish Government. The House will draw their own conclusions from that.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the discovery of this Communist plot occurred exactly on the date when, owing to the Austrian agreement, Italy was free to invade Spain?
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that certain ships belonging to persons who do not live under or recognise the authority of the Government at
  1858
  Barcelona are being detained in British ports; and in the circumstances, whether he is prepared to accord to the Government at Salamanca such measure of recognition as will enable the Spaniards in question to resume the possession of their property now under arrest by the British Government?
  Mr. Eden: The ships to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers are detained as a result of legal proceedings instituted by the persons referred to in the question as owners. These proceedings were taken because the officers or crews had delivered up possession of the vessels to the consuls of the Spanish Government. It is, therefore, inaccurate to suggest that it is this detention of the ships which prevents the owners from resuming possession. No additional measure of recognition of General Franco would assist the claimants to regain these ships, of which the Spanish Government have obtained actual possession. The question of ownership is in any case not one for His Majesty's Government to decide. I would point out that, by the agreement for an exchange of agents between His Majesty's Government and the Salamanca authorities General Franco's agents in this country are already free to exercise normal consular functions in connection with commerce and navigation, and the facilities given to these agents with regard to Spanish shipping are the same as those accorded to the Spanish consuls.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many prisoners of British nationality are at present in the hands of the National forces in Spain; and how many are still serving in the forces of the Barcelona Government?
  Mr. Montague: On a point of Order. Is it in order for questions to be put in this House in prejudicial or propagandist terms?
  Mr. Speaker: It may not be desirable, but it is often done.
  Mr. Eden: Following inquiries addressed by His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye to the authorities at Salamanca, the latter released about three months ago the last of the British prisoners-of-war held by them. I am not aware that any British subjects have been captured since then. I regret that it

  1859
  would not be possible to obtain the information requested by my hon. and gallant Friend in the second part of the question.
  Sir A. Knox: Has my right hon. Friend any information about the Major Attlee Battalion? Is it still defending democracy?
  Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking General Franco to hand over these British prisoners to this country so that they may be dealt with here according to law for infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act?
  Mr. Eden: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has not quite heard my answer, which was that General Franco has already released all the British prisoners that he held.
  Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs "Whether he is aware that the correspondent of the "Illustrated London News" in Spain recently went up in an insurgent aeroplane during one of the insurgent bombing raids and was for a time permitted to work the controls, thus actually helping to direct a bomber towards its objective; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?
  Mr. Eden: No report of any such incident has been made to me.
  Mr. Adams: Was not this admission made in a caption underneath the illustration in the "Illustrated London News"?
  Mr. Eden: I am afraid that that is outside the ordinary range of my literature, but if my hon. Friend will show it to me, I will gladly consider it
  Mr. Adams: Could not one of my right hon. Friend's officials in the Foreign Office have looked up these matters, as they have had two days' notice?
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the constitution of the commissions of inquiry to be sent to both sides in Spain to organise the withdrawal of foreigners and the mandates to be given to them?
  Mr. Eden: I am not able to give any information on this subject in advance of a statement by the Non-intervention Committee.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Japanese Government to the note of protest presented by His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo on behalf of His Majesty's Government, asking for an assurance that the Japanese forces had received strict orders to respect British territory and territorial waters at Hong Kong?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The Japanese Government, in their reply, expressed their regret that British territorial waters were entered without the consent of a British authority, and stated that those responsible have been dealt with appropriately in accordance with the law. The Imperial naval authorities have also sent strict instructions to the naval detachments in China to take adequate precautions against the recurrence of such incidents.
  Mr. Henderson: Will that reply cover the military side of the Japanese operations?
  Mr. Eden: This is in connection with the particular naval incident which I think the hon. Member has in mind.
  Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Japanese Navy is under the control of the civil Government?
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the reply given to the series of demands presented on 4th January to the chairman of the Shanghai Municipal Council by the Japanese Consular, naval, and military authorities?
  Mr. Eden: The Council have the matter under consideration, but no reply has yet been given.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has consulted any other Government or the Council of the League of Nations regarding the prohibition of imports from and exports to Japan pending a cessation of Japan's aggression against China?
  Mr. Eden: This question has been fully explored, and the results are embodied

  1861
  in the Assembly Resolution of 6th October which was re-affirmed by the Council resolution of 2nd February.
  Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very widespread and growing opinion in this country that such action as that mentioned in the question ought to be taken in regard to aggression by Japan against China?
  Mr. Eden: That is a matter of opinion, but I should imagine that there was general understanding that international action depended on international co-operation.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Has it not become increasingly clear that in fact economic action would be effective to restrain Japanese aggression?

  SWITZERLAND (LEAGUE OF NATIONS).
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the speech made by the Swiss Minister, M. Motta, before the Swiss Federal Parliament in December concerning the relations of Switzerland with the League of Nations; and whether, in view of the reluctance of Switzerland to carry out her full obligations under the Covenant, he will consider the advisability of proposing that the headquarters of the League should be moved to some other country?
  Mr. Eden: The answer to both parts of the question is, No, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: Has any consideration been given to the question of granting extra-territorial rights to League territory as a possible solution of this difficulty?
  Mr. Eden: That is another question.

  PASSPORTS.
  Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of persons employed in the passport department of the Foreign Office; and whether, for the purpose of obviating the annoyance to the public of carrying passports, he will say what, if any, recent steps have been taken to dispense with the carrying of same, and what negotiations are at present proceeding for the further abolition of visas?
  Mr. Eden: The number of persons employed in the passport offices varies in accordance with the volume of work at different seasons of the year. The peak period is always in July. The total number of persons employed in the passport office in London and the branch office in Liverpool was 315 on 31st July, 1937. On 12th February, 1938, the number employed was 183. The possession of a passport is necessary to enable a British subject who wishes to travel abroad to comply with the immigration regulations of other countries. It also serves to enable British immigration authorities to distinguish British subjects returning to the United Kingdom. As long as it is necessary to control immigration I do not consider that any change in the existing requirements is practicable. No negotiations are proceeding for the further abolition of visas.
  Mr. Day: Does that figure of 183 represent permanent staff?
  Mr. Eden: I should like notice of that question.

  AUSTRIA.
  II. Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the integrity and independence of Austria are declared objects of British policy, he has any official information concerning the weekend conversations between the Austrian and German Chancellors; and, if not, will he ask to be informed of the purport of those conversations?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I understand that the working of the Austro-German Agreement of July, 1936, has for some time past been under consideration by the German and Austrian Governments. A meeting was eventually held at Berchtesgaden on Saturday last between the Austrian and German Chancellors, and, as a result, a new agreement has been reached between the Austrian and German Governments. This new agreement has not yet been published, but a communique was issued early this morning outlining what passed: and the reorganisation of the Austrian Government has been announced in accordance, so I understand, with the undertakings reached at Berchtesgaden. There is reason to believe that other provisions of the agreement contain undertakings by

  1863
  both Governments on a variety of subjects, but until the actual text of the agreement is published, I am not in a position to make any further statement. His Majesty's Government are meanwhile closely following developments.
  Mr. Bellenger: While not seeking to press the right hon. Gentleman at the moment, may I ask him whether he would give an assurance that the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the integrity and independence of Austria remains the same as that stated by him on a previous occasion in this House?
  Mr. Eden: My recollection is that what I said then was that His Majesty's Government desired in Central Europe, as elsewhere, peace and good understanding. That certainly is our policy.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Will His Majesty's Government stand by the joint declaration of February, 1934, to the effect that they re-affirmed the interest of this country in the integrity and independence of Austria?
  Mr. Eden: I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the Stresa Declaration. That is quite true. Of course, that was a declaration by three Governments—Britain, France and Italy. Italy has not, as yet, consulted His Majesty's Government on the matter.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY.
  Mr. Morgan Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in reopening discussions with a view to improving the relationship between Britain and Italy, the question of the issue of a loan to Italy will form part of those discussions?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir.
  Sir John Mellor: Having regard to the prices now current for Italian bonds in London and New York, is it likely that British investors will be anxious to lend fresh money to the Italian Government?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    EARTHQUAKE SHOCKS (SURVEYING SHIPS).
    Mr. Dayasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, on the report of ocean-bed earthquakes in an area roughly
    1864
    indicated by seismographic records, survey ships are or, if not, will be sent out to rechart depths for the safety of navigation?
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): His Majesty's surveying ships have been employed for this purpose in the past and, when circumstances warrant it, will be so employed in the future.
    Mr. Day: On how many occasions have His Majesty's ships been sent out for this purpose?
    Mr. Cooper: On three occasions in the last 25 years.

    RATINGS (DISCHARGE).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give an estimate of the probable number of Naval ratings who will leave the Service annually in future?
    Mr. Cooper: The number of Naval ratings and Royal Marines who, it is estimated, will leave the Service in the financial year 1938 is approximately 6,500. I am not prepared to commit myself at present to a forecast for future years.

    CHARGEMEN (PAY).
    Captain Pluggeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the annual cost of the recent award of increased charge-pay to chargemen in His Majesty's Naval establishments?
    Mr. Cooper: As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, the award allows a choice between two alternative scales of charge pay. As this choice has not yet been made by all the chargemen concerned, and as there are in any case certain factors in the calculation which are not constant, an accurate estimate of the cost of applying the award is not possible. Making, however, such assumptions as seem justifiable, the figure is roughly estimated at £10,000 annually.
    Captain Plugge: To what extent would this increase of pay enhance the pension?
    Mr. Cooper: I should like notice of that question.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME.
    Captain Pluggeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what new warship construction is to be allocated to each of the Royal dockyards for 1938?
    Mr. Cooper: I am afraid that I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await the presentation to Parliament of the new construction programme for 1938.

  PALESTINE.

    TERRORISM.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the constant attacks on omnibuses, the Jewish omnibus drivers are now allowed to carry arms, as urged by the executive of the Jewish agency in Palestine on 6th January?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No, Sir. After careful consideration by the civil and military authorities in Palestine, it was decided not to grant permission. I understand that further measures for the protection of road traffic have been recently introduced, which it is hoped will prove effective.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only yesterday, after a fortnight's interval, another bus was attacked and another man killed?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am aware that in the last week an Arab bus has been attacked, but I think the steps that have been taken to deal with sabotage will have a very good effect. Obviously there is very grave danger, both to the individuals concerned and to everybody, in deciding to arm the drivers, Arabs or Jews, who are driving these buses.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Do the steps taken involve sending an armed policeman with each bus?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Quite frankly, I am anxious not to divulge the steps which the military have decided upon to deal with this particular matter.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the continued terrorism in Palestine and the consequent loss of life and economic uncertainty, he is now in a position to state the settled policy of the Government and the steps they intend to take to carry it into effect?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on 2nd February.
    Mr. Williams: As the Mufti has stated that terrorism is destroying the mandate, and that if it goes on long enough it will destroy the Jewish national home, does not the right hon. Gentleman see the real necessity for expedition?

    ARAB DEPORTEES (SEYCHELLES).
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Arab exiles in the Seychelles are in receipt of financial or other support from the Palestine Government or are they treated as were the Cyprus bishop exiles who had to support themselves?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The cost of providing accommodation and maintenance for the; Arab deportees in the Seychelles is being borne by the Palestine Government.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Would it not be possible to leave the Arab exiles in the Seychelles free to move wherever they like?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, it would be most undesirable.

    IMMIGRATION.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inquire what happened to 20 Jewish children and eight women who were arrested at the Palestine frontier on 25th January as illegal immigrants?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. I am inquiring into the matter.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to say what the basis of regulating immigration into Palestine will be after 31st March?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not at present in a position to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 9th February.
    Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no undue delay is caused, in view of the situation in Palestine at the moment?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think the situation in Palestine affects the matter. It involves certain other considerations, which must be borne in mind.
    Mr. Morgan Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a very serious economic depression in Palestine at the present time, attributable to the absence of a decision on this matter?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think the economic depression is caused by this question. There is a large number of unemployed in Palestine, it is true, but the question of a decision as to the forthcoming quota involves many considerations.
    Mr. Morgan Jones: Is it not a fact that this question has tended to make people unwilling to advance money to investors in that area until they know what the policy of the Government is to be?
    Sir Archibald Sinclair: Did not the Royal Commission itself point out that the continued prosperity of Palestine would depend upon the maintenance of immigration at a substantial rate?

    COMMISSION.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed that the members of the new Commission for Palestine shall carry out both sections of the terms of reference, in view of the fact that the first, dealing with boundaries, is mainly political and strategic, while the second is economic and financial; and whether any invitations have yet been issued or appointments made to the Commission.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is certainly the intention that the Commission should carry out all parts of its terms of reference. As regards the second part of the question, invitations have already been sent to the persons whose services I hope to secure for the Commission, but final replies have not yet been received in all cases
    Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the same persons can carry out both parts of the Commission effectively?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is essential that this Commission should report as a whole. The question of finance is interlocked with all the other questions, and they must present a report as a whole on the whole of the terms of reference.

    PARTITION.
    Mr. V. Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government are still determined upon partition as a solution to the problem of Palestine?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. and gallant
    1868
    Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) on 9th February.
    Mr. Adams: Does the appointment of a new Commission mean that the whole question of partition is still open?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I replied very fully to that question in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) last week.

  WEST INDIES.

    TRINIDAD.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to re-establishing peace and contentment in Trinidad, he will arrange for the troops recently sent to that island to be withdrawn?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In view of the Acting Governor's report that the situation in Trinidad remains quiet, I am now in communication with him and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War with a view to fixing the date for the return of the troops to Bermuda. I hope to make a further announcement on the subject shortly.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the position shown in the report of the Commission to Trinidad, he will recommend the immediate appointment of full-time health officers?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) given on 3rd February.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the industrial troubles which have arisen in several of His Majesty's West Indian dependencies, and of the similarity of conditions between all such dependencies, he will take steps for the setting up of labour departments or the appointment of industrial officers in territories where they are not yet in existence?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have not yet received replies from the Governors of the Bahamas, Bermuda, British Honduras, Jamaica, the Leeward Islands and the Windward Islands, in regard to the establishment of labour departments or inspectorates of the nature suggested in my circular despatch of 24th August, 1937,

    1869
    a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. When sending the despatch to these Governors I suggested that they should carefully consider any recommendations which might be made by the recent Commission appointed to inquire into the Trinidad disturbances before they submitted their detailed proposals, and a number of them have intimated that they are taking advantage of this suggestion.
    Mr. Ridley: Having regard to the disturbing terms of the Trinidad report, will the right hon. Gentleman impress on the other Governments concerned the urgency of this matter in order to avoid similar explosive consequences as occurred in Trinidad?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is the point. I urged the appointment of these labour departments, and one was appointed in British Guiana. I asked the other Governments to consider the proposals of the Trinidad report in this connection before making their final recommendations.
    Mr. George Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement on the operation of the minimum wage legislation for agricultural labourers in Granada, St. Vincent, and Santa Lucia?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Minimum Wage Ordinances which exist in these three colonies have already operated in each to the extent of the promulgation of Orders by the Governor, in accordance with his powers under the Ordinances, fixing minimum wage rates for unskilled agricultural labour.

    NUTRITION.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he hopes to receive a survey of the position as regards nutrition in Trinidad, as a consequence of the circular despatch to colonial Governments in April, 1936?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As a consequence of the despatch referred to, a committee was set up in Trinidad to study and report upon the whole question. It presented an interim report in October, 1936, which was laid before the Legislative Council. Since then it has done valuable work in the preparation of educational pamphlets and other useful memoranda on the subject.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the report eventually be available to the right hon. Gentleman and subsequently to the House?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that the next question covers that. These individual reports from the Colonial Empire are being sent to an expert committee in this country who will co-ordinate them and publish them in that form, which I am sure will be of more value and instruction to hon. Members.
    Mr. Ridley: Does that mean that they will be published in an available form to this House?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It will be a summary of the reports from all these colonies with the opinion of the expert nutritionists in this country.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will it be indicated in the pink circular?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I cannot say the exact form.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the reports of the nutrition committees in Barbados, Jamaica, and any other surveys of the position as regards the nutrition of the population from any of the Governments of the West Indies; and whether he will publish such reports?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the reply is a long one I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The circular despatch sent to all Colonial Dependencies by my predecessor in April, 1936, aroused great interest in the subject of nutrition throughout the Colonial Empire, and not least in the West Indies. I have received printed copies of reports by special committees set up in Trinidad, Jamaica, Barbados and British Guiana; all these have been published locally and copies can be obtained through the Crown Agents for the Colonies. A lengthy and informative report from British Honduras has just been received and will be published shortly. In addition, many useful memoranda have been sent in from the smaller islands, notably St. Vincent. All these papers have been laid before the Expert Committee of the Economic

    1871
    Advisory Council which has been appointed to advise on nutrition matters in the Colonial Empire. I understand that this committee are preparing a summary of all the replies from Colonial Dependencies for publication with their covering report. Meanwhile, practical steps are being taken in the West Indies, as elsewhere, to improve nutrition by increased attention to infant welfare and the feeding of school children, by the teaching of domestic science, by encouraging the growth of green vegetables, etc. The Legislature of Barbados, for instance, have recently authorised the expenditure of £4,500 to inaugurate a new scheme for the provision of milk to school children.

  NIGERIA (IJEBU PROVINCE).
  Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what changes have occurred in Ijebu Province, Nigeria, which cause the present Governor to recommend the partition disapproved of by previous Governors; and whether, as the decision in favour of partition is widely criticised as biased and unjust, he will reconsider the matter in the light of the full evidence given at the recent inquiry?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The separation of Ijebu Remo from Ijebu Ode has been approved, not on the ground of any changes in the province but because the administrative arrangements decided upon and maintained by previous Governors were based upon an incomplete knowledge of tribal relationships as previously existing, which have now been fully examined by the commission. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the commission's report. I am aware that this decision must cause some dissatisfaction to the party opposed to separation, but I see no reason to reconsider it, nor can I agree that it is biased and unjust.
  Mr. Mathers: In view of the doubts that are thrown upon the wisdom of this decision, will the right hon. Gentleman postpone its operation until he himself has examined the full text of the evidence laid at the inquiry; and will he be good enough to absolve me from any advocacy of partition?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, I certainly absolve the hon. Member from that. I entirely misunderstood his question last week. For some time past there has been
  1872
  a desire on the part of a large number of people in Ijebu Province to form a separate native authority. There are two sides to that question. They were exhaustively examined by a special committee, under an experienced native commissioner, whose report has been examined and approved by the Governor of Nigeria. I am satisfied that the balance of justice is on the side of partition and I am unwilling to postpone its coming into force.

  GOLD COAST AND NIGERIA (COCOA TRADE).
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to the position of the cocoa trade in the Gold Coast and Nigeria?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) on 14th February.

  CEYLON.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the dispute between the Governor of Ceylon and the State Council concerning an Order-in-Council; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not aware of any dispute between the Governor and the State Council, but I am aware that there has been criticism in the State Council of the terms of an Order-in-Council recently issued. I have received certain representations from the Board of Ministers, to which I am about to reply.
  Mr. Sorensen: Do I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will give further information to the House in due course?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, NATIVES).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many

  1873
  floggings of natives have been carried out by the courts in Northern Rhodesia during the last quarter of 1938; for what crimes this penalty is inflicted; and what action he proposes to take to abolish this form of punishment?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As regards the first part of this question, I regret that separate figures for the period mentioned have not yet been received, but I will ask the Governor for them. As regards the second part, corporal punishment is not prescribed as a penalty for any specific offence under the Penal Code of Northern Rhodesia, but under Section 29 of that Code a court may order whipping or caning in addition to, or in substitution for, any sentence of imprisonment for any offence punishable by a term of three months or more, not being imprisonment which may be ordered for non-payment of a fine. As regards the third part of the question, the power entrusted to the courts as above is at present wide, and I propose to take up with the Governor the wording of this particular section. I do not, however, consider that it is possible to abolish corporal punishment altogether.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman supply information with regard to floggings for the whole year in the same way as the Secretary of State for the Dominions supplied information with regard to Southern Rhodesia? Further, may I ask whether he thinks that the institution of flogging is an indication of due appreciation of the British Empire?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Flogging is not allowed under the particular penal code. Flogging is a term of art. Only whipping or caning is allowed.

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    CADMAN COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Prime Minister whether the report of the Cadman Committee will be published before the House debates the Air Estimates?
    Mr. Hulbertasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Cadman Report on civil aviation and the Government's recommendations thereon to be available to Members of this House
    1874
    before the publication of the Air Estimates?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I cannot at present add to the answer given on 9th February last, in reply to questions on this subject addressed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air.
    Mr. Perkins: Does not the Prime Minister realise that it will be difficult to discuss the Estimates, especially the civil side of the Estimates, unless the report is made public?
    The Prime Minister: I realise that it is desirable, if it be possible, to have the report before the Estimates are discussed, but I cannot give a guarantee at this stage.
    Mr. Attlee: Do I take it that the Prime Minister's reply is dealing only with the possibility and not with the desirability of publishing this report?
    The Prime Minister: I think I must adhere to what I have said.
    Mr. Mander: Do I understand that it is intended to publish the report, but that it is a question of date?

    AIRPORT, FAIRLOP, ESSEX.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the steps taken by the Court of Common Council to provide financial assistance for the airport at Fairlop, Essex; whether this is to be an airport for London; whether he can now say what arrangements have been completed for the establishment of this airport; whether the site has been approved and definitely selected; and what transport facilities are, or will be, made available for it?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I have seen a report in the Press on the method which, it is stated, is being adopted to finance the airport scheme at Fairlop. I understand that the completion of the acquisition of land is now imminent, and that as soon as purchase is completed the City Corporation will proceed with their plans for the development of this airport, which is intended to be a terminal one to help to meet the needs of the increasing volume of air traffic to and from the Metropolis. I am informed that the corporation has

    1875
    approved and definitely selected the site, and that when the London Passenger Transport Board have completed extensions to their line an electrified service to the City will be available from Fairlop Station.
    Mr. Lyons: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say now that the site has been definitely selected and the machinery started for financing purchase, and can he say when it is likely that this airport will be definitely established?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think the hon. Member will find the information in my answer. The Air Ministry is not directly concerned with this matter, and therefore I have given my information in the form of an understanding, but the site has been selected. I am afraid that I cannot give a date when the airport is likely to be opened.
    Mr. Lyons: Will this be an additional airport to Croydon, or will it take the place of Croydon?

    OBSTRUCTION LIGHTS, CROYDON.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that an obstruction light has been intalled on a mast approximately 70 feet high, marking a group of trees on the southwest comer of Croydon airport; whether he will state the distance between this light and the trees; whether the light is a flashing beacon; and how high is the top of this mast above the trees?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am uncertain to which light my hon. Friend refers since there are two obstruction lights which answer the description in the question. They are both double filament, fixed, red obstruction lights placed at the top of masts in the midst of trees. They extend about three feet above the tops of the trees. One is in the grounds of the house called West Dean and the other in the recreation ground known as Round Shaw.

    CUSTOMS AERODROMES.
    Mr. Dayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there have been any new Customs aerodromes approved during the three years ended at the last convenient date; and whether arrangements have now been made at the principal aerodromes situated on the coast for the Customs clearance of passenger traffic?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Since 1st January, 1935, eight new Customs aerodromes have been approved. Customs facilities are provided at those aerodromes on or near the coast where there is a reasonable demand for them. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of aerodromes at which Customs facilities are now provided.
    Mr. Day: Is it contemplated to introduce Customs clearance arrangements at all the principal aerodromes?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: If the hon. Member looks at the list which will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that it is a very extensive one.
    Following is the list:
    Bedford (Cardington).
    Blackpool.
    Brighton, Hove and Worthing.
    Bristol.
    Cardiff.
    Carlisle.
    Doncaster.
    Exeter.
    Gatwick.
    Gravesend.
    Harwich.
    Hull.
    Leicester.
    Liverpool (Mersey).
    Liverpool (Speke).
    London (Croydon).
    London (Heston).
    Lympne.
    Manchester.
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
    Newtownards.
    Plymouth.
    Portsmouth.
    Ramsgate.
    Renfrew.
    Ronaldsway (Isle of Man).
    Southampton.
    Southamptoin Water.

    OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED AIR ROUTES.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air in what official publication the definition of an officially recognised air route is to be found?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: There is at present no published definition of an officially recognised air route, but any air route which is specified as such in an Air Ministry publication is regarded as an officially recognised air traffic route.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has it been brought to the notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that while notices to airmen issued by the Air Ministry refer to an "officially-recognised air route," companies operating aircraft services can find no book which gives such a definition?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The question of providing a specific definition of "officially-recognised air routes" is under consideration.

    "AIR PILOT."
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air for how many months the "Air Pilot" was out of print last year; and whether any complaints have been received concerning the present issue of the book on the ground that it is incomplete and inaccurate and consequently dangerous?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I regret that the main volume of the "Air Pilot" was out of print for 11 months last year. As regards the second part of the question, certain inaccuracies have been reported and steps have been taken, or are being taken, to promulgate the necessary corrections in one of the monthly supplements to the "Air Pilot." The possibility of any danger arising from any of these inaccuracies was slight.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the Ministry aware that during the 11 months in which the "Air Pilot" was out of print the other publications issued by the Air Ministry laid it down that as a condition of obtaining an air navigation licence a candidate must possess a detailed knowledge of the contents of the "Air Pilot"?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: We regret that the "Air Pilot" was out of print for II months, but the position has now been rectified.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not the fact that this essential book was out of print for 11 months indicate great inefficiency in the Department?
    Mr. Montague: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many times in the last five years the control of the "Air Pilot" has been changed?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, I could not say that.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING.
    Mr. Montagueasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many hours of flying for the purpose of advertising commercially took place over the built-up area of London in 1937?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the reply given to him on 3rd February, to which I am afraid I can add nothing.
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is my hon. and gallant Friend convinced that these aircraft will always fly at a safe height?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not think that arises out of the question.

    FORCED LANDINGS.
    Mr. Montagueasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many aeroplanes, commercial, private, and military, were forced down in the built-up area of London in 1937?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not know what precise area the hon. Member has in mind. The Air Ministry records show that taking an approximate 10-mile radius from Charing Cross, three Service aircraft forced-landed at Hendon, New Maiden and Edmonton respectively and two civil aircraft at Bromley Hill and Hounslow respectively.
    Mr. Montague: Is the Minister aware that these three are two more than the number stated in the last answer which he gave me, less than a week ago?

    ROUTE (PORTSMOUTH-RYDE).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the air route laid down by the Air Ministry for the passage from Portsmouth to Ryde directs pilots to fly for some two miles on a circular route, keeping a distance of exactly 4,520 yards distant from Portsmouth dockyard clock tower; why pilots may not fly in a straight line from Portsmouth to Ryde; and, as the present instructions are impracticable, whether he will withdraw them with a view to revision.
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Air Ministry has no information that compliance with the existing instructions is impracticable or presents any special difficulty to pilots. The possibility of a revision of the present air route, which was instituted with regard to Defence considerations, in order to permit a straighter line of flight between Portsmouth and Ryde is, however, under consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the Minister seen this clock tower, and is it not practically indistinguishable from the air?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, I have not seen it personally.

  ARMY, HOME AND EMPIRE DEFENCE LEAGUE.
  Sir Percy Harrisasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the registration of a guarantee company to promote and assist recruiting offices and the well-being of all branches of His Majesty's Fighting Forces and Civil Defence organisations, under the title of the "Army, Home, and Empire Defence League"; whether the Government are identified in any way with this company; and, if so, how?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
  Sir P. Harris: Does that mean that any body of men can form a body to promote recruiting in His Majesty's Forces without any status?

  CYPRUS.
  Commander Marsdenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as the prosperity of Cyprus largely depends on the irrigation of the Mesaoria plain, containing 400,000 acres of fertile land, he will say what steps the Government are taking in the matter?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As I stated on 10th November, exploratory work is now being undertaken in this matter with the aid of a grant of £30,000 from the Colonial Development Fund.
  Commander Marsden: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect this report
  1880
  to be ready, and will it be available to the House as a White Paper?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I cannot undertake to publish it as a White Paper, but I might arrange to put a copy in the Library, or to send the hon. Member a copy.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AEROPLANES (TOWN NAMES).
    Captain Piuggeasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider, in addition to existing markings, attaching the names of towns and places to different aeroplanes, with the object of stimulating public interest in this branch of the services?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: There are objections to adding to the existing markings on aircraft, but my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind when opportunity arises in so far as the nomenclature of types of aircraft is concerned.

    AIRMEN (RETIREMENTS).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can give an estimate of the probable number of airmen who will leave the service annually in future years?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The number of airmen who may normally be expected to leave the Royal Air Force annually on completion of the expansion programme is approximately 6,500. During the next few years, due to the demands made by the present programme, the numbers are expected to be substantially less than this, but no exact estimate is possible.

    TURNHOUSE AND DONIBRISTLE.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether Turnhouse and Donibristle stations will be utilised in the scheme of air defence; and whether the staffs at these stations now under threat of dismissal on account of Royal Air Force changes will be retained?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence in reply to his supplementary question on this subject on the 9th instant. As regards the second part of the question, I cannot at present add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 22nd December.
    Mr. Mathers: Is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that the answer given by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is looked upon, not only by me, but everyone concerned in the area, as totally unsatisfactory and as conveying no information, and is it not possible for him to give some indication to those persons who are at present under notice of dismissal or who are likely to be dismissed that appointments will be found for them?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not really think that people ought to look upon the answers of ray right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence as unsatisfactory. As regards the employment of staff, I indicated to the hon. Member that we were, in point of fact, retaining some staff, and I indicated the number of people most likely to lose their occupation and the arrangements which are normally made to find them fresh employment.
    Mr. Mathers: Forty-six people are being sacked.

    SPITFIRE AIRCRAFT.
    Mr. Hulbertasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, how many Spitfire-type aircraft have been delivered up to date; and how many Royal Air Force squadrons will be equipped with this type by the end of 1938?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Delivery of this type of aircraft has not yet commenced, but it is expected that it will do so shortly. It would not be in the public interest to state how many squadrons will be equipped with it by the end of 1938.
    Mr. Montague: Can the hon. and gallant Member state the date of the first issue of aeroplanes of this class?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, I could not give the information to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Montague: If I put down a question on the subject will that be the answer?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question I will certainly consider it.

    RESERVE TRAINING CENTRES, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is the intention of the Government to
    1882
    maintain the present distribution of the Royal Air Force Reserve Training Centres under which 31 such centres are established or about to be established in England and only two in Scotland; and whether, in view of the Government's declaration that no part of the country is now immune from air attack, he will consider rapidly increasing the number of centres in Scotland?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The question of increasing the number of training centres in Scotland for the Royal Air Force Reserve will not arise unless the resources of the two which are being provided prove to be inadequate. As regards the second part of the question, I would point out that these centres have no operational function, but are used for the training of reserve personnel for the Air Force as a whole.
    Mr. Stewart: How does the hon. and gallant Member justify this unusual distribution as between Scotland and England, especially in view of the considerable population round about Clyde-side and elsewhere from which pilots could be drawn?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The hon. Member will recognise that there are considerable areas both in England and Scotland from which pilots could be drawn where, under present arrangements, no volunteer reserve stations have been set up.
    Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister aware that his further answers add still more to the apprehensions of people in the area about its defence?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I might point out to the hon. Member——
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Montague.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Sir Gifford Foxasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the public concern over the increasing number of fatalities in the Royal Air Force; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am aware of and fully sympathise with the public concern at the increased number of fatal accidents in the Royal Air Force. It must, I fear, be recognised that the very great increase in the size of the Force inevitably tends to be accompanied by an

    1883
    increase in the number of accidents. My hon. Friend will, I hope, accept my assurances that the subject is one which receives unremitting attention from the Air Ministry and throughout the Royal Air Force.
    Sir G. Fox: Is any action taken against Royal Air Force pilots for taking unnecessary risks?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have not any figures on the matter, but disciplinary action is taken where considered necessary.
    Sir Hugh Seely: Would the Minister consider publishing the number of flying hours?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, I do not think, in the public interest, that I could do that.
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is it not a fact that the proportion of accidents is less than before expansion took place?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I would not like to answer that question off-hand, but there is no reason to believe that the proportion has increased.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Minister not aware that the French Government publish the number of hours flown by their pilots, and why is it not in the public interest in this country to publish similar information?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not think we need always follow the example of other countries.
    Mr. Garro Jones rose——
    Mr. Speaker: We have already dealt with this question.
    Sir Thomas Cookasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make concerning the accident to a bomber which took place at Oulton, Norfolk, on Friday, 11th February, resulting in the death of three members of the Royal Air Force?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: A full official investigation of the circumstances of this accident is taking place, and it would not be appropriate for me to make any statement at present. I am sure that the House will wish me to express their condolence with the relatives of the personnel involved.
    Sir G. Foxasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the disclosures at the inquest on a fatal accident to a Royal Air Force pilot at Enfield, as also to the verdict of the jury that unnecessary risk was a contributory factor to the accident; whether the Department exercises control over fancy-flying of the kind in question; and whether he will investigate the circumstances of this accident for the information of the House?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have seen the statements which have appeared in the Press in regard to this accident, which occurred near North Weald on 11th February, 1938. In accordance with normal procedure a court of inquiry is being held and it would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to make any statement at present. I am sure that the House will wish me to express their condolence with the relatives of the officer who was killed.

    COSTS.
    Sir G. Foxasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the average cost of training a pilot, and the average cost of a bombing aeroplane and a fighting aeroplane, respectively?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No up-to-date figure is available of the average cost of training a pilot and it has not been considered that an investigation into the present cost would be of value in view of the abnormal circumstances attendant on the rapid expansion of the Royal Air Force. As regards the last part of the question, I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give the information.

  TRANSPORT.

    PROPOSED BY-PASS, SELBY.
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet approved any scheme for the provision of a toll-free bridge at Selby?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I am not yet in a position to make a statement regarding the proposed Selby by-pass.
    Colonel Ropner: How much more time will be wasted before the right hon. Gentleman's Department is ready in this matter?
    Mr. Burgin: I do not think it is a waste of time to examine plans for by-passes and to reject those which are misconceived.
    Colonel Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the local authorities concerned have approved the scheme submitted by the civil engineer which his own Department appointed?

    DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS.
    Mr. G. Griffithsasked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange for the more important circulars issued by his Department to be made available through His Majesty's Stationery Office, in view of the difficulty at present experienced in obtaining them?
    Mr. Burgin: The more important circulars issued by my Department in regard to matters of general interest are made available through His Majesty's Stationery Office. In addition, explanatory memoranda dealing with the licensing of commercial road vehicles are available through the offices of the area traffic commissioners. If there are any particular circulars, which the hon. Member has in mind perhaps he will communicate with me.

    WATERLOO BRIDGE.
    Sir William Davisonasked the Minister of Transport under what circumstances and by what authority he has agreed to make a grant from public funds to the London County Council towards the cost of rebuilding Waterloo Bridge, seeing that Parliament has refused to make any grant for this purpose?
    Mr. Burgin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by me on 22nd December last to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), when I explained the circumstances in which the Government proposed to approve a contribution from the Road Fund towards the cost of building the new Waterloo Bridge.
    Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answer to which he refers me dealt with neither of the two questions which I am asking, namely, in what circumstances and by what authority the Minister of Transport took upon himself to override the decision of Parliament, expressed on more than one occasion, that no grant should be given?
    Mr. Speaker: That is exactly the same question as the one on the Paper.
    Sir W. Davison: May I call your attention to the fact that the Minister referred me to a reply which he gave on 22nd December and which dealt with neither of the two points I am now raising?
    Mr. Burgin: My hon. Friend suggests that Parliament came to a decision not to make a contribution to Waterloo Bridge. The fact is that the Government came to the conclusion not to make a grant to Waterloo Bridge. Circumstances have changed and, in the interests of highway facilities in London in general and cross-river facilities at the site of Waterloo Bridge, I am convinced that it is necessary in the interests of traffic that Waterloo Bridge should be constructed, and constructed on certain lines. To retain the control of that construction and to contribute to highway improvement generally, I advised, and take the responsibility for advising, that there should be a grant, and the Government have so decided.
    Sir W. Davison: Are we to understand that there was no object in Parliament expressing an opinion on three occasions that no grant should be made because the London County Council had decided to pull down the bridge and not to recondition it as Parliament desired?
    Mr. Thorne: This Parliament has more common sense.
    Mr. Burgin: It is not proposed to make any grant towards the cost of pulling down the old bridge. That was done in defiance of Parliamentary opinion. What we are now dealing with is a River Thames over which there is no Waterloo Bridge, and London traffic demands that there should be a bridge.

    MOTOR CARS (SKIDDING).
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared favourably to consider making compulsory the use of chains by all motor vehicles in times of frost-bound roads with a view to reducing to the minimum accidents caused by skidding?
    Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. I do not think that such a requirement would be practicable.

    ROAD SCHEME, WEST SUTHERLAND.
    Mr. Boultonasked the Minister of Transport whether the whole of the proposed scheme for road reconstruction from Lairg, via Laxford, Durness, to Tongue, North-West Sutherland, has been finally approved; if so, for what purpose these roads are being reconstructed; what is the estimated cost; and by whom is this to be paid?
    Mr. Burgin: The northern 55 of the 90 miles of route A.838 from Lairg through Laxford to Tongue are to be reconstructed at a cost of about £350,000, which will be borne entirely by the Road Fund. Work is in progress on about 40 of the 55 miles. Reconstruction is necessary because of the bad and often dangerous condition of the road.
    Mr. Boulton: Is the Minister aware that there is little or no traffic on these roads during six months in the year; and is it now the policy of the Government to make 100 per cent. grants for secondary roads?
    Mr. Burgin: This is part of what is known as the crofter county scheme, which is a very attractive scheme for improving the roads of West Sutherland, I am quite aware that at present the traffic is relatively slight; I hope that it will considerably increase.
    Mr. Kimball: Can the Minister say whether it is a condition of these contracts that local labour should be employed; and, if so, how much?
    Mr. Burgin: I could not say without notice.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS, MARYHILL, GLASGOW.
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Transport the total number of fatal road accidents in the Maryhill Division of Glasgow for the years ended January, 1937 and 1938, respectively?
    Mr. Burgin: Nine persons were killed in road accidents in the Maryhill Police Division of Glasgow during each of the two years ended 31st January, 1937 and 1938, respectively.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that new bus traffic routes have been established in this division because of the increased building on new housing schemes; has he carried out the inquiry promised to me on a previous occasion;
    1888
    and, if so, can I have some indication of the result of that inquiry?
    Mr. Burgin: I think that that is quite a different question. The question on the Paper is a purely statistical question, which I have answered.

    CARRIERS' LICENCES.
    Mr. Grant-Ferrisasked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to avail himself of the powers given to him by the Road Traffic Act, 1937, to extend the period of currency of carriers' licences?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I referred this question to the Transport Advisory Council, and am about to publish their report, which recommends an increase of the periods to five years for "A" and "C" licences and to two years for "B" licences, provided that the observance of the conditions of licences be upheld by the strongest possible measures, including, after fair warning, suspension and revocation of licences. I have accepted their recommendations, and shall make the necessary regulations with as little delay as possible.
    Mr. Robert Gibson: Will these extensions apply to current licences, or only after new applications?
    Mr. Burgin: I think that perhaps the hon. and learned Member might wait until I have made the regulations.

    WESTERN AVENUE.
    Mr. Dugganasked the Minister of Transport when he will be able to announce his decision in respect of traffic conditions in that part of Western Avenue which lies within the borough of Acton?
    Mr. Burgin: I shall reach a decision when the London Traffic Advisory Committee have completed their inquiries and submit their report on the traffic conditions in Western Avenue.
    Mr. Duggan: In view of the fact that the Traffic Advisory Committee have been considering this very important matter for more than two months, can the Minister, in view of the urgency of the matter, expedite a decision by that body?
    Mr. Burgin: I expect to receive their report in the first week in April, after a

    1889
    meeting with the Ealing Town Council which has been convened for a date in March.

    NEW BRIDGE, GUARDBRIDGE, FIFE.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the representations of Fife County Council regarding the decision of the Ministry that the width of the new bridge at Guard-bridge should be 20 feet, although prevision has been made in constructing the bridge for a carriage-way of 30 feet, in view of the very awkward road junction at the west end of the bridge; and whether a final decision can be postponed pending further consideration?
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that though the new bridge at Guard-bridge, Fife, has been constructed with a carriage-way of 30 feet, the Fife County Council have been instructed by the Ministry of Transport to construct a curb reducing the effective carriage-way to 20 feet; that this restriction disfigures the bridge and is regarded by local opinion as representing a short-sighted policy; and whether he will examine the matter afresh with a view to permitting the local authority to make full use of the new bridge?
    Mr. Burgin: The representations regarding the width of the carriage-way on this bridge have been carefully considered, but I am advised that, having regard to the width of the approaches, there is no present justification on traffic grounds for providing a greater width of carriageway than 20 feet. The bridge has, however, been so constructed as to enable the carriage-way to be increased to 30 feet whenever this dimension becomes necessary.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that it is now 30 feet wide, and that his instructions have had the result of forcing the county council to insert a kerb reducing the effective width to 20 feet; and is not that a very reactionary policy at this time of day?
    Mr. Burgin: That is a matter of opinion.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (COMPRESSED GAS FUEL).
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that in Berlin there is one omnibus route covering 2,460 miles daily running entirely on
    1890
    high-pressure gas, and in Hanover coal-gas is being retailed at approximately two-fifths the price of petrol; and, in view of the fact that the Birmingham Corporation has spent £5,000 on successful experimental work, is he prepared to collaborate with them to further the development of compressed gas, which would be of great benefit in the case of national emergency?
    Mr. Burgin: I am aware generally of the experiments which have been made in the use of compressed gas as a fuel for motor vehicles, and shall welcome the opportunity to study further any developments in this field.
    Mr. Louis Smith: Does not the Minister consider that this is a very important question; and will he, in the interests of national economy and in the interests of the coal industry, give instructions to his Department to have every point carefully examined?
    Mr. Burgin: I think that that follows automatically. I have already said that I shall welcome the study of further developments. I am well informed on the matter, and I appreciate the interests to which my hon. Friend has referred.

    RAILWAY TRAVELLERS' TICKETS (COMPANIES' LIABILITY).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered introducing legislation to prevent railway companies from contracting out, by the issue of cheap or excursion tickets or otherwise, of their common law liability for loss, injury, and damage sustained through the fault of the companies or through negligence or inadvertence of their servants or officials; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
    Mr. Burgin: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given yesterday to questions on this subject by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells).
    Mr. Gibson: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question whether, in the event of a Member of this House, travelling to or from his constituency on a voucher, being killed, his representatives would be deprived of any right against the railway company?
    Mr. Burgin: I have considered it, and the answer is that they would not.

    MOTOR INSURANCE (PASSENGERS).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered amending the law affecting motor vehicles so as to make it compulsory for the owners of such vehicles to insure against accidents to passengers and pillion-riders; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
    Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. I do not think that it is incumbent on the legislature specially to protect passengers in or on private vehicles who are injured through the fault of the person driving them.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (REGISTRATION).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the difficulties and dangers arising from the fact that, where a lending company has advanced money for the purchase of a motor vehicle, and is the true owner of the vehicle, only the name of the nominal owner appears in the relative registration book as the owner, so that a bona fide purchaser from the nominal owner is liable to be compelled to surrender the vehicle to the lending company; and whether he will consider making compulsory the disclosure of the name of such lending company as owners in the registration book?
    Mr. Burgin: This question has been considered on numerous occasions since the institution of the present system of licensing under the Roads Act, 1920. The registration book does not purport to be a document of title, but is part of the machinery for collection of the licence duty payable under Section 13 (2) of the Finance Act, 1920, by the person keeping the vehicle.
    Mr. Gibson: Is that the only purpose of the registration?

  INDIA (UNITED PROVINCES AND BIHAR: MINISTRIES' RESIGNATION).
  Mr. Benn(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement on the resignation of the Ministries in Bihar and the United Provinces?
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I greatly regret that the Ministries in the United Provinces and Bihar, which, since they took office in July of last year, have administered the Government of two important
  1892
  Provinces with prudence and moderation, have found it necessary to resign. Their resignation arose out of the policy they proposed to pursue in connection with the release of so-called political prisoners. It had been an important feature of the programme of Congress Ministries in all Provinces to secure the release of all prisoners convicted of crimes which were considered to be actuated by a political motive. The Governors of the Provinces in which there have been Congress Ministries had, after consultation with the Governor-General, found themselves able to accept the proposals of their Ministries for the release of a substantial number of such prisoners, having satisfied themselves, after examination of each individual case on its merits, that no menace to the peace and tranquillity of the Province was involved. In the United Provinces 14 political prisoners had been released in this way, and in Bihar 15, but there remain 15 more in the United Provinces and 26 in Bihar, some of whom had been convicted of serious crimes of violence. The Governors were fully prepared to deal with the cases of the remaining prisoners on the same basis of individual scrutiny, but the Ministers in both Provinces were no longer content with this procedure, and proposed to release forthwith the whole of the remainder of the so-called "political" prisoners in their Provinces without regard to the nature and circumstances of their crimes.
  The Governor-General, upon whom the Act has placed a special responsibility for preventing any grave menace to the peace and tranquillity of India or any part thereof, after the most anxious consideration, decided that he could not agree to the immediate and indiscriminate release of a body of legally convicted prisoners which includes dangerous terrorists with very bad criminal records. He is satisfied, and my Noble Friend is in full agreement with him, that adoption of the proposal of the Ministers in these two Provinces would be attended by the gravest risk to the peace and tranquillity of India. It is clear that unconditional acceptance of the doctrine that crimes of violence, if actuated by a motive that can be described as "political"—and this description might well be regarded as covering communal activities—need not be subject to the penalties prescribed by the law of the land and imposed in the due course of justice, must strike at the very

  1893
  root of law and order in India. Even if there were some Provinces in which the effects would not immediately be felt, in the end the basis of good government everywhere would inevitably be dangerously impaired. The Governor-General accordingly felt bound to use the power conferred on him by the Act, and directed the Governors of the United Provinces and Bihar to refuse their assent to their Ministers' proposal. The Ministries thereupon tendered their resignation.
  Mr. Benn: May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether he does not agree that it would be very unwise not to do everything we can to avoid a constitutional crisis in India; and, secondly, whether, inasmuch as the responsibility for all these decisions rests entirely on this House, because the Governors are exercising powers for which we are re sponsible, the Minister will give us a full statement, including the statements of the Congress Ministries themselves, and also a catalogue of the crimes of which these prisoners were convicted and on what dates?
  Earl Winterton: Of course it is my duty, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to afford all possible information to the House, and I quite appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I would deprecate making any attempt to anticipate the future course of events. These Ministries have only just resigned, and it is possible that other Ministries may be formed. I should like to add that the Governor-General took action himself in pursuance of his own statutory duty.
  Mr. Benn: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that this House, in the Statute, deliberately assumed responsibility for these matters? While I agree entirely with the Noble Lord that precipitate action might do much harm, is it not the duty of the Government to see that we, who have to decide, are put in possession of the fullest information from both sides?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has just promised to do such a thing.
  Miss Wilkinson: Is it not a fact that the whole situation under which these prisoners were convicted was due to their objection to an alien rule? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, most of them.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not raise the question of the merits of the convictions of these prisoners. We cannot consider these at Question Time.
  Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. I wanted only to raise the point in view of the very ex parte statement which has been made by the Minister. Is it not a fact that the change in rule—the character of the rule—in this country makes all the difference in the attitude of these men to the Government?
  Mr. A. Bevan: When will this information be given?
  Earl Winterton: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I would not afford the House the fullest information. I quite appreciate that it is my duty to do so. All I said was that I would deprecate any attempt to anticipate the future course of events. Certainly, I shall be prepared to ask my Noble Friend to lay papers or, if necessary, publish a White Paper on the subject.

  UNITED KINGDOM AND EIRE (MINISTERS' MEETINGS).
  Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to say when the meetings between United Kingdom Ministers and Ministers of Eire will be resumed?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As was announced on 19th January, the meetings between Ministers were suspended pending a more detailed examination of a number of points by the officials of the two Governments. The necessary data are now available for further discussions between Ministers, and it has been arranged that Mr. de Valera and his colleagues should return to London for a resumption of the meetings next Monday, 21st February.
  Sir Ronald Ross: Will the Prime Minister communicate to the Ministers from Eire the results of the Northern Ireland election?
  Mr. Thurtle: Do this question and answer refer to the Irish Free State?
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Has the Prime Minister receved any protest because we have called Deutschland "Germany"?

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1938.
  Estimates presented,—for the financial year 1938 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 52.]

SUPPLY OF BRITISH NEWS ABROAD.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Lees-Jones: I beg to move,
"That, having regard to the increasing activity of certain foreign Governments in the field of propaganda, political and cultural, by means of the Press, broadcasting, and films, this House urges the Government to give the full weight of its moral and financial support to schemes to further the wider and more effective presentation of British news, views, and culture abroad."
Up to 1914, we in this country were somewhat indifferent to the opinions of other nations and peoples, with the result that we took very few steps to advertise ourselves. Pride of race was partly responsible. Also, we thought that our position in the world was quite sufficient to make our actions and views speak for themselves. We have been inclined to assume that others would understand our motives, and, to some extent, I think we were justified, in that at that time we were a democratic country, in the midst of democratic countries. Films and wireless were in their infancy, and newspapers, which were the principal media for discussion of world news, were untrammelled by Government control. To-day things are different. In some countries, parliamentary government exists in name only. Their institutions have no power of government, and are subjugated to the will of a dictator. The democratic form of government has gone, and, with it, that freedom of exchange of views which resulted in a greater knowledge of world affairs and culture as a means of engendering knowledge and understanding of each other's views, actions, motives and attainments.
In the earlier days, when the Press was free, there was very little distortion of authentic news; but to-day we hear from various quarters of Ministers of Propaganda, subsidised and controlled news services, which either suppress entirely British news or so mix it with false deductions as to make an entirely erroneous picture of the people of this country. The result of this is that our true views and culture are unknown in the dictatorship countries, and also in other countries where attempts have been made, and, as far as I know, are still being made, to poison the minds of the inhabitants, to whom we have a special responsibility for their care. We now realise that we have
1910
to take steps immediately to present ourselves and our views, actions and motives to the world in their true colours, and to combat the insidious attacks which are being made upon us.
What media have we to combat this propaganda, and how can they best be utilised? There are four media at the moment—first, the film; second, methods of cultural propaganda; third, wireless; and, fourth, newspapers and printed journals. The films, we must appreciate, can be made into a powerful instrument of propaganda by our using the splendid educational, instructional and news films which are not only shown in this country but are produced by the British film industry. The field of subjects can be tremendously widened and can be shown abroad with very great advantage to ourselves. There are certain difficulties to be overcome, I know, but, given good will, they are not insuperable. One difficulty that has been suggested to me is that to some extent the British film industry is disorganised. We hope that the Bill which has just passed through a Standing Committee will assist the industry to organise itself on better lines. Another suggestion put forward to me is that picture houses abroad are American owned, or many of them, and certainly that the presentation of films in foreign countries is not quite so free and unfettered as it is here.
As far as methods of cultural propaganda are concerned, they devolve to a great extent on foreign agencies which, as far as they are able, bring the places and the beauty and culture of this country before the peoples of other nations. Students from foreign countries are welcomed here. They are instructed in our arts, our sciences and our industrial methods; they are introduced to our mode of life, our character, our aims, our hopes, and our attainments. They are introduced to our political international methods and motives, and, perhaps what is as important as anything, many of them are introduced into our homes and see what home life is like in the average British home. There are branches of Anglo-foreign societies in various foreign countries, and by lectures, study circles and so on information is given on our arts and sciences; and we may add to those agencies the travel agencies which do so much good work in persuading foreign people to come over here to see exactly

1911
what we are like and what are the beauties of our land.
But those two items are mainly on the cultural side. We are becoming considerably perturbed at the way in which our aims, our motives, and our actions in the political international sphere are being misconstrued and misrepresented. Many instances come to one's mind. Hon. Members will recall that when steps towards a rapprochement with other countries have been mentioned our actions and our aims have been completely misrepresented by the foreign Press. Our recruiting figures have been belittled and erroneously compared with foreign recruiting figures, foreign correspondents or whoever is responsible for putting the figures in the foreign papers entirely ignoring or hiding the fact that enlistment in this country is on a voluntary basis and that conscription has no place whatever in our life. Aggressive designs have been attributed to our rearmament proposals when one would have thought that in view of statements which have been so frequently made in this House, all foreign chancelleries know perfectly well that we are rearming for defensive purposes and in order to be in a position to meet our treaty obligations if and when we are called upon to do so. Our support of the League of Nations has been called in question, and because we have not joined any ideological bloc we have been held out to people of other countries as supporters of Bolshevism.
I do not propose to weary the House with more instances, because many will be in the minds of hon. Members, as they are in my mind. But I consider that the items I have mentioned force us to take some action and to do so in the very near future. Great damage is being done to us by a subsidised and controlled foreign Press service. But we have a powerful medium in our hands in the form of wireless. The world is much smaller because of wireless, smaller in point of the ease and rapidity of communication, and it is about the simplest and easiest-to-handle mode of transmitting our true views to other countries, and at the same time the news that we would transmit would have the advantage of not being obliterated by any foreign comment. There is no doubt that our incursion into the field of broadcasting in
1912
foreign languages has been very successful. The insidious propaganda of a foreign country has to some extent been eliminated, and we were relieved a short time ago to hear that it was proposed in the near future to broadcast in languages other than that in which we are now broadcasting.
There remains the newspaper. In trying to get ourselves across—the House will forgive the expression—as far as newspapers and journals are concerned, we are met with the language difficulty, for I suppose that only a minority of people in other countries read and speak our language, and those who can and desire to read our journals frequently find that they cannot get them in the country where they live because those journals have been debarred from entering for a few days, due to something in the paper recording events in their own country and elsewhere upon which the Government of that particular country wishes its inhabitants to remain completely ignorant. That is where a tremendous difference lies between a subsidised and unsubsidised Press service, a free and uncontrolled Press as compared with one which is controlled by a particular State. So far we have been content with authentic information having been given by various Government Departments and with the supply of information by various voluntary bodies. But a strong move has to be made and to be made soon. It was heartening to read in the papers the other day that the Government, realising to some extent its responsibility, has appointed Sir Robert Vansittart as chairman of a committee which will be representative of most if not all the voluntary agencies, and he will take steps at once, I hope, to plan means by which the problem can be alleviated and the overlapping of effort prevented. But even that does not preclude the duty on the Government itself to assist in seeing that we are truthfully represented abroad.
We are very jealous of our rights in this country. Among those rights are the rights of free speech and having a free and uncontrolled Press service. We do not look with favour on any suggestion whatever that this service should be subsidised or controlled by the Government. Nor would a Minister of Propaganda be free from objection in certain quarters. I believe that the Government can do a

1913
very great deal by inspiration and direction. They can also make it financially possible, without subsidising, for the British Broadcasting Corporation to take in hand immediately the question of still further foreign broadcasts, that is broadcasts in foreign languages, so that news may be given much more frequently in the language of the most important countries of the world, commencing with Europe. The prevention of the presentation of ourselves by the written word in a misleading light by foreign Government-owned, controlled and subsidised agencies, presents a far more difficult problem, but methods have been adopted by the Foreign Office in the past and more recently whereby there has been a considerable diminution, sometimes a cessation, of the misrepresentation of ourselves to the inhabitants of other countries.
Finally, I would urge that this problem is not a sectional one. It is truly national in the full sense of the term. I urge the Government to give the full weight of its moral and financial support to such practical and effective schemes as will secure a wider presentation of true British news, views and culture abroad, and that the Government will give their attention to it at the earliest possible moment.
4.14 p.m.
Mr. Maitland: I beg to second the Motion.
I would like first of all to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Lees-Jones) upon his good fortune in securing an opportunity for submitting this Motion to the House, and, secondly, upon the choice of subject which he has brought to our notice. If I may I would like also to congratulate him upon the speech which he has just delivered, in which he has shown very commendable restraint. In that direction I shall do my best to emulate his example. Like him, I am satisfied that the need exists, and that the time has come for the fullest and most effective efforts to spread in other lands a correct understanding of this country and the British people. We must try to check the harm which propaganda against Great Britain can do, and, in some instances, has already done. The British people at home and abroad resent this sort of propaganda, and there is a certain section of our people whom the House of Commons should not forget,
1914
namely, the British nationals abroad. We owe a special duty to them. Hon. Members are quite aware of the existence of the propaganda to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I am going to assume the need for British propaganda abroad, and proceed to a consideration of the objects of that propaganda.
Perhaps it is wise to say, first of all, what is not mentioned in this Motion, and certainly not intended, as far as I can judge, by any hon. Member in this House wherever he may sit. It is not intended or desired in any circumstances that we should interfere in the domestic concerns of other nations. I will give one example of that which comes at once to my mind. It is not our business to interfere with the form of government of any other nation, but it may be our concern what other Governments do. There is a wide distinction. I would say, especially in view of the terms of the Amendment on the Paper, that the Motion does not advocate in any circumstances the idea that retaliation in the way of propaganda should be indulged in by this country. The very idea is repulsive to everybody. It may be, that at times there is provocation, and that there is temptation to indulge in some form of retaliation. Our own Press, Members of Parliament and public men have a special responsibility in this matter, and I am glad to think that, on the whole, it is a responsibility both of the Press and of public men which is honourably recognised and discharged.
I would suggest one or two objects, which, I hope, will receive general acceptance, in regard to British propaganda abroad. The chief objects should be to explain and support British policy and action in foreign countries, the British Dominions, the Colonies and Mandated Territories, to refute charges against, and criticisms of, British policy and action, to establish and extend our influence on the side of world peace, further the interests of British trade and commerce throughout the world, make more extensively known the beauty and charm of Great Britain, propagate the principles of British culture, and, in a single phrase, try to tell the world what we are like as human beings. I hope that these are objects upon which we may all agree. I doubt whether we should agree upon the methods that should be adopted to secure that result. I join with my hon.

1915
Friend in welcoming the action that already has been taken by His Majesty's Government by appointing a special committee to deal with this important subject. We recognise that in the chairman, Sir Robert Vansittart, one from whom we shall get the greatest possible service, and one who enjoys in full measure the confidence of his fellow-countrymen. One sees at times all kinds of interesting things in unexpected quarters, and perhaps hon. Members saw in the "Daily Mail" the other day a rather interesting contribution dealing with the subject which is now before the House. It was an article written by the eminent novelist, Sir Hugh Walpole, headed, "How I would tell the world about us." It was not only well written but a very important contribution, and one which contained suggestions which might very well receive the sympathetic and favourable consideration of those who are charged with the duty of trying to tell the world about us.
My hon. Friend has already made some general and valuable suggestions. I know that it is dangerous, but, on a subject of this kind, I hope that it is not unprofitable for Members to try to make practical and constructive suggestions as to how the task before us should be pursued. It is with great diffidence and a sense of responsibility that I attempt to do so. I shall not expect to be told that they are all good suggestions and that they will be adopted—that is not the way in this country—but I hope that the suggestions which I submit will be useful in view of the work ahead. I turn at once to the Press, a very powerful weapon of propaganda, and perhaps the most effective instrument that can be used. What can we do with the Press? The first thing I suggest is to supply foreign newspapers regularly with articles signed by eminent British writers and public men and women on current affairs. Secondly, we should secure the widest possible publication of the official British view on international affairs by creating special contacts with Press representatives in foreign capitals and important centres.
I hope that I shall not be misunderstood in the next thing that I am going to say. There is no one in this House who has a higher regard for our Civil Service than I have, but I feel constrained
1916
to say—whether it is right or whether it is wrong—that I believe it to be the fact that in Press circles our officials are regarded as ultra-reserved. In this country we are living to-day under, perhaps, the broadest and widest form of democracy, and it is essential that, both at home and abroad, the policy of the Government should be expressed frankly, and not treated as the exclusive domain of officialdom. Of course, at times there must be reticence, but wherever possible, and to the fullest extent, the public should be informed both as to Government policy and the reasons for that policy. I recognise—not so much due to the circumstances at home but to other circumstances—that we may not be able to have complete open diplomacy, but it should be much more open than it is if we are to let the world know where we stand and what our policy is. The day has past for confining ourselves to the old diplomatic channels. We have to reach not only the Governments and officials of other nations, but the people of other nations, and, therefore, we must adopt our diplomacy and make use of the new methods provided by the Press, the radio and the film. In the United States of America the President holds a weekly conference with all foreign correspondents. He speaks to them with frankness and tells them what his objects are, and I believe that, on the whole, these conferences are conducive of great good. Is there any reason why our Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary should not have similar conferences? I welcome this Debate so that we may know what the Government are doing in this and other directions. I understand that the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton) is to reply, and I would ask him to be good enough to tell the House as much as possible as to the activities of the Government in this connection.
It has been brought to my notice that one obstacle to British news being sent abroad is the high cost of cable communication. I am told that because of this cost very often news of British Cabinet decisions appear in the Canadian and United States Press from a French news agency in Paris. That may or may not be so, but that is the information which has been given to me. If it be the fact that we in this country are behind

1917
anybody else in our appreciation of rapid communications, I would suggest that we should consider the question of putting our prices for cable communication in better line with the prices operating in other countries. There is one other thing about which, perhaps, the Minister will be able to tell us something. Some of our newspapers have special features such as "Paris Day by Day" or "Pans Week by Week," and in these columns we have news of France, French people and events. To what extent is the Government in contact with the representatives of the foreign Press who watch these affairs in this country? We ought to have a London and England feature in all important foreign newspapers. We should not overlook the value and the development of the photographic side of the newspapers, and we should supply foreign newspapers on the widest possible scale with non-copyright photographs of events and persons in this country. It is true that some of the countries have, perhaps, developed the art of publicity much more than we have. Only this week I, and, I believe, other hon. Members, received a number of publications from Spain, Italy, Germany, Latvia and Estonia all directed to pointing out to the British people something of the beauties and aims of their countries, and something about their philosophy, and culture. Whether we like it or not, we have to recognise that these publications, beautifully illustrated on fine art paper, which must be very costly to produce, are a form of propaganda used by other countries, who think it well worth while that the people of Great Britain should be told something about their countries.
With respect to the subject of films, it is possible that some working arrangement might be made with British producers which would be helpful to our propaganda. Not only our own people but the people of other countries are greatly interested in the national events of Great Britain. In my own experience of two foreign countries I know that almost before the Coronation was over there were pictures in those foreign capitals of the Coronation proceedings. Our pageantry, our history and our industrial and scientific achievements are of great interest to other nations, and I believe that some arrangements might be made with British producers whereby pictures
1918
might be shown throughout the world, through the usual trade channels, and later free of charge in other places which are not able to pay the price of the first exhibition of British films.
My hon. Friend in moving the Motion referred to the wireless and said that we had been to some extent rather backward in our use of the wireless for propaganda purposes, compared with other nations. I join with him in the view that more use ought to be made of the wireless by means of lectures, and I suggest that there ought to be not a spasmodic but a regular and consistent service by means of the wireless in the language of other countries. We must use every possible means at our disposal to make the most effective use of our propaganda. I suggest, among other things, that we might have supplies of effectively produced pamphlets to be supplied to British ships for distribution at foreign ports. Aeroplanes might also be used for the same purpose. Letters for abroad might bear a British slogan, varied according to the circumstances, and exporters of British goods might accompany those goods with suitable literature of a propaganda character. Britishers travelling abroad might also be persuaded to leave a few pamphlets at hotels and in trains, ships, etc. [Laughter.] It may be amusing to some hon. Members, but if we are thorough in the desire to propagate the kind of information that is desirable, why should not every Briton take it upon himself or herself to be an advertiser of their own country and the objects of their country so long as they are objects to which they can honestly and honourably subscribe? The British Embassies and Consulates and perhaps the military establishments and agencies might be organised for the distribution of suitable literature. Branches of the British Council might be formed in every country wherever possible, in order to promote friendly relations, and to hold meetings with that object in view.
I would emphasise the value abroad of British exhibitions showing our progress and achievements in industry, literature, art and science. There is certainly a great opportunity for the advancement of British interests by means of British exhibitions in foreign centres. If we do take part in exhibitions abroad I hope that we shall take a prominent part and not be cheeseparing in regard to the

1919
money which is involved. There is ready to our hand an instrument which could be used for the purpose of propaganda within the next few months. In Glasgow there is to be a great Empire Exhibition. What are the Government doing about that? Are any efforts being made in order that other countries may be advised that this great Empire Exhibition is to be held? There are many other suggestions that might be made. I recognise that the carrying out of these ideas would involve considerable expenditure, but we ought to recognise the fact that other countries are spending large amounts in propaganda. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy could give us any information on that subject, and also give us comparative figures as to how we stand. If he was able to do that I think it would be a revelation to many hon. Members.
There is one further point to which I would refer. Is it the case that some foreign news agencies, through State subsidies, are able to supply certain countries with services of news at cut prices? Perhaps the Minister may have some information about that. I have seen that statement made on many occasions. Finally, if any objection is to be raised on the ground of the expenditure of money, I would say that money would be well spent in these directions and that both money and imagination are required in work of this kind. It is not only our national prestige that is involved but the much greater question of the creation and continuance of international understanding. I believe that these objects are well worthy of the expenditure that would be involved and hope that I have been able to make some practical suggestions to the House.
4.39 p.m.
Mr. Watkins: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"is of opinion that the evil effects of State propaganda of a tendentious or misleading character can best be countered, not by retaliation, but by the widespread dissemination of straightforward information and news based upon an enlightened and honest public policy."
Having listened to the very excellent speech of the Mover of the Motion, it seems to me that there is practically no difference of opinion between us. The
1920
purpose of our Amendment is to call attention to the necessity of adopting methods of providing news which is straightforward, truthful and uncoloured as a means of informing the people in other countries of the position of Great Britain. The hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Lees-Jones) said that he wanted the views and policy of this country to be truthfully represented abroad. That is precisely the point of view expressed in the Amendment. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) agreed with the hon. Member on that point, because he said that retaliation by the supply of coloured news to counteract the coloured news supplied by other countries would be repulsive to the British people. Therefore, the note of controversy will not be very violently sounded in this discussion.
The Motion calls attention to the increasing activity of certain foreign Governments in the field of propaganda. We are living in a world of propaganda. I do not know whether the word "propaganda" has not become one of the most significant words in the languages of the world. We find certain Governments, notably the Italian Government and the German Government, using heavily subsidised new agencies to supply the people in countries other than their own with all sorts of false news about Great Britain, the people of Great Britain and the policy of Great Britain. For instance, Italian propaganda in Palestine is exceedingly well organised. I read an article recently in one of the more popuar journals which stated that a large number of Italian women are out there dressed as nuns, posing as nuns, teachers and doctors, and their work is to spread Italian propaganda. They disguise themselves as charity workers, enter Arab homes and supply faked pictures of Jewish atrocities. They persuade poor Arabs that their poverty is due to Britain's mismanagement of the Mandate. In the hills of Palestine travelling cinema vans are to be found which provide free shows of films. Those shows are attended by hundreds of Arabs, and faked pictures are given of Jews killing Arabs. The effect of these shows is very great on the minds of ill-informed men and women. Concurrently with these films there are running comments in order to provide that impression. The consequence is that large numbers of people in that part of the world get a completely false view of

1921
what Great Britain is doing, and an untruthful view of the situation in their own land.
From the broadcasting station at Bari there is an Italian broadcast which I am advised is picked up in Palestine, and seductive Arab music is interspersed with slogans such as "Palestine belongs to the Arabs"; "Kill the Jews"; "Let Palestine Arabs arm." This sort of propaganda is going on continuously, and no doubt it is one of the causes of all the trouble that has been occurring in Palestine recently. A little time ago the British Government instituted something in the nature of a counteracting broadcast, which was sent out from Daventry. The inauguration of that service was fairly successful. It was attended by the son of the Imam of the Yemen, and no doubt a considerable number of people listened to it, but I understand that the Italians have captured the art of being able to provide the kind of entertainment which is appreciated, when they are giving their propaganda, and that they are able to do it better and more efficiently than we can. I understand that a lot of our music is Western and does not appeal particularly to Eastern minds and Eastern tastes, whereas the Italian broadcasts provide the kind of programme to which people in that country will listen. I read in one newspaper that an Italian broadcast finished up with a very salacious story. I do not suggest that the Noble Lord should copy that kind of thing, but the fact is that the Italians are endeavouring to make their broadcasts so as to attract great numbers of listeners, with the result that they receive false information which is dovetailed into the musical programmes.
It is not only in Palestine, but also in the neighbouring district of Syria. I have here a report from a paper published in Damascus which speaks of a high German official who went to Damascus and first appeared in the salon of the Orient Palace Hotel. It seems that there have been certain new developments in the Syrian Youth movement, in local organisations and even in some political circles. Money was found for establishing a club, which is the centre of propaganda amongst the people and seeks to persuade them that they would be far better treated under a German Mandate than under a French Mandate. All this fishing in troubled waters is going to endanger not only the peace of the East but
1922
the peace of the world. I understand that even in the United States of America there is a section of the Press which publishes violently anti-British news and views, and the people there think that something more ought to be done to get American people to understand our point of view on matters which are dealt with in this anti-British Press. The tone and temper of them are that Great Britain is selfishly and disgracefully imperialistic, is seeking her own national aims, pretending all the time to be concerned with collective security and international peace. They say that Great Britain treats her subject races with cruelty that is most improper; in their papers they say precisely the same things about Great Britain that the Italian and German broadcasters say.
In South America there is practically no dissemination of authentic British news. The news they get comes via the United States of America or via France. The Prince of Wales in 1931 said:
"All the news from England to Latin America is transmitted by non-British agencies. A Latin-America reader sees us and our affairs through spectacles which are neither ours nor those of his own country. I sincerely hope some means can be found to increase the volume of purely British news in South America."
One Press agency responded and worked for three years supplying information in that part of the world, but in competition with the heavily subsidised news-agencies of other countries it was un-remunerative, and had to be stopped. In Brazil, the only British news service which is available is an incomplete one picked up from the air by one newspaper. All the other British news in Brazil comes from France or the United States of America. I welcome very much the announcement in the "Times" this morning that the British Broadcasting Corporation from 14th March are going to commence a series of broadcast news bulletins in Spanish and Portuguese for Central and South American districts. It should do something to help us, especially as the announcement says that the bulletins will be objective in character.
There will be, I think, general agreement among hon. Members of what I have said, and I hope that in the further remarks I make there will also be general agreement. The worst thing we can do is to enter into competition with foreign mischievous news agencies and colour and treat our news in the way that they

1923
colour and treat theirs. I would like to see some expenditure of public money on broadcasting services and for any other medium of propaganda which would provide for the people in other countries a faithful picture of what Britain stands for and the policy of Great Britain. I do not want to discuss the question of policy, but I am convinced that Great Britain stands for peace, for democracy and for decency, in international affairs. She is not actuated by any ambitions of aggression, and does not desire to appropriate anyone else's territory. What is wanted is a stream of information going from this country which will inform the people of other nations and make them realise where we stand in regard to the great international problems in front of mankind at present.
Wars spring from mistakes and misconceptions in men's minds. If everyone thought truly and clearly there would be no danger of war. As the Motion says, there are certain Governments—there is no need to be mealy-mouthed about the matter; they are the German and Italian Governments and in some measure the Russian Government—who are concerned with putting mischievous and lying information into the minds of men in order to stir up trouble for their own national ends. Great Britain should counteract this by a campaign of truth and plain-speaking, so that the name of Great Britain will stand for truth, good will and peace. In this propaganda campaign Great Britain will emerge as the champion of truth, honesty and fair dealing among the nations.
4.54 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) has moved the Amendment in a very effective speech, and I agree with him that there is little difference between us and the proposer and seconder of the Motion so usefully brought before the House. May I say at the outset that I am convinced we ought to approach this question not from the point of view of retaliating upon, or going one better than, other nations, but with the prime objective of improving our relations with other nations by letting the true facts about our actions and our aims be known. I have already called the attention of the
1924
House to the question of news services abroad. I did so on the Adjournment last July, and in consequence of what I then said I received a large number of communications and cables from abroad. If the House will allow me I will read, as an example, a cable which reached me from a newspaper in Vancouver. It says:
"Thanks for your statement in the House of Commons pillorying foreign propaganda for the purpose of colouring British news; we, residing on the borders of the Empire, are most anxious to obtain authentic news and opinions from the House of Commons. However, we are now completely at the mercy of Japanese, French and German interpretations, and also friendly but superficial United States opinions. We consider that the British Government should give attention to the fact that official agencies blindly copy propaganda from foreign sources because of their cheapness."
That cablegram reveals the true state of affairs, that great damage has been done, and that we are rather late in the day in taking steps to counter a situation caused by other countries subsidising their news services so that our own non-subsidised news services are unable to compete with them. In order to compete, our own news agencies will have to have access to cheap radio transmission, or to cheap cable rates comparable to the charges for radio transmission which those other countries enjoy. London used to be the great clearing-house of the world for news, but our failure to provide transmission rates competitive with these subsidised news services has led to the volume of news now circulating via London being only a fraction of what it used to be. There may be some objections to radio transmission, but are they insuperable? France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States of America all provide this cheap radio transmission for their news services. In some cases they sell radio transmission on a time basis. They may, for certain reasons, work out the charges in such a manner as to make them appear as calculated on a word basis. There are rates going up to as high as 100 words per minute, which works out at only a fraction of the corresponding cable rates. They use these services for serving their own interests and policies. These services have been literally swamping our own. My hon. Friend has referred to South America and to the fact that Reuters, who patriotically responded to the appeal of

1925
the Prince of Wales, established a news service there, have had to give up the effort: because they were unable to compete on an economic basis with subsidised foreign services. Now the Italian and German Governments are using short wave services to pour out news in Portuguese and Spanish which are easily picked out in South America, especially in the Argentine, while the British Empire broadcasts, I am told, are extremely difficult to pick up,
As I have mentioned Germany in connection with short-wave programmes, I should like to give the House an interesting example of German methods in the United States of America. As soon as the British news bulletin is finished, Germany follows it up on a wavelength which is just a hair's breadth away from that of Daventry, and as an ingenious refinement they employ announcers with an Oxford accent to give these bulletins. I quote from the "Chicago Tribune":
"It is easy indeed to believe that these services come from London."
Let me return to South America for a moment. The British Chambers of Commerce in South America have for long deplored the inadequacy of British news services there. After all, we have £1,000,000,000 of British capital sunk in these countries and yet for news we leave them at the mercy of these antagonistic, detrimental and distorted foreign news services. Are we to consider that as common sense? In North America, in the Near and Far East, in Africa Reuters have to compete with Havas in France, the D.N.B. in Germany, Stefani in Italy and Tass in Russia—all subsidised and all putting their country's news to good advantage, and in some degree or other distorting the news about our own country. The foreign news services operating in the Far East at the present time could not possibly compete if they were not subsidised, and some of them are used deliberately to damage our interests in the Far East. In support of that statement, I will quote to the House from secret instructions issued by the German propaganda department to its agents abroad. It orders them to throw discredit on news agencies other than German ones, and
"to damage as much as possible the relations between such agencies and important foreign newspapers."
The instructions go on to say:
1926
"All disturbances created in the good relations existing between other States are indirectly to the advantage of Germany."
That is the country with which at the present time we are hopefully trying to fix up another of those Gentleman's Agreements. News items, twisted to our detriment, are poured into China and Japan, and of course, our position has been damaged by them, for say what one will, a persistent flood of lies and, what are more dangerous, half-truths, is bound to have some effect in the long run. Brazil was mentioned by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. What is the position in Brazil, a very important country indeed? I will give the House one example of what happens. A little time ago the chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries was addressing a meeting of the company in London, and in doing so, he pointed out that the situation in Spain, Palestine and Japan had interfered with the business of the company in those countries. A Brazilian newspaper reported that in these words:
"Important British chemical trust in serious difficulties."
In Japan there is only one news distributing agency, the "Domei" through which all foreign news has to pass. It has offered to it foreign news services at rates infinitely cheaper than anything which Reuters can run. These news services are not to be despised; they may be tendentious, but they are also comprehensive and very well compiled, and they are offered at a fraction of the cost of the equivalent British services. In fact, it is only Reuters' reputation for reliability, impartiality and political and financial independence which has prevented the final disappearance of British-handled news from the Far East. But that cannot go on indefinitely. If British news services are not to be ousted from the Far East, we have to find a way of selling services which are just as comprehensive and cheap as the services which I have mentioned.
Not only must that be done, but it must be done without importing into British news services those defects which are so often associated with Government-subsidised services, defects which breed suspicion and distrust. I believe that can be done if the problem is tackled, for even during the War Reuters maintained their reputation for impartiality. In Europe, Havas and the German D.N.B.

1927
are supply newspapers with news services at absurdly cheap rates, and, incidentally, they acquire most of that news from Reuters, but twist it to suit the purposes of the relaying agents. News is the bloodstream of the international body politic, and month by month it becomes increasingly difficult for news from British sources and news of British affairs to find its way into that bloodstream. We have to find a way of nullifying the poison which is being disseminated at the present time. To do that we must stick to straight news and not endeavour to answer or out-do propaganda in kind. I have never heard that it helped the pot to call the kettle black. Nor must we give to our news any political bias, for if we do so, we shall defeat our own ends. The decision of the Government last October to broadcast in foreign languages was very much welcomed. Great technical difficulties are involved, but I believe they can be overcome.
But to counteract foreign propaganda will not be cheap, and very large assignments of money will be required. I hope that the Noble Lord, when he speaks, will be able to tell us what, if any, arrangement has been come to between the Treasury and the B.B.C. in that respect. It will not be cheap, but whatever it may cost, it will cost less than the damage which is being caused to our interests at the present time. I also ask the Noble Lord whether it is intended to publish any portion of Mr. J. B. Clark's report, and whether we can be told anything about what the Government are doing in regard to the Press Conference now sitting in Cairo. Has the Committee of the Cabinet which has been set up yet come to any decisions? Is there anything to be announced in that respect?
I think it is generally agreed in the House that the Government ought to give their full support to the presentation of British news, views and culture more widely abroad; but when I use the phrase "British news, views and culture," may I say that I consider it is absolutely essential to keep news entirely separate and distinct from views and culture. If we have to resort to subsidies in any form in presenting our news, let us remember that news from any subsidised source is always viewed with a certain amount of suspicion. We must face that fact and overcome it. The B.B.C. may have its
1928
faults, but at any rate its news bulletins enjoy a very high reputation for impartiality, and what we want is that other nations should get their news of this country in the same straight form in which we in this country receive it from the B.B.C. It must be emphasised that we are concerned with news and not with propaganda. In emergencies the antidote to poison is sometimes another poison, but real health requires not antidotes, but steady nourishment on a healthy diet. That is what we have to aim at in this matter. There is enough propaganda poisoning the air already, and we do not want to add to it. I believe that objective news delivered on equal terms will always find its own market.
The first effort of the Government, therefore, should be to ensure an unhandi-capped circulation of legitimate news, and to do this, the Post Office should arrange transmission rates sufficiently low not only to enable British agencies to transmit on equal terms with foreign agencies but also low enough to encourage foreign agencies to use London in preference to other cities as a transmitting place. I agree that many statements that have been made in the House recently have shown that the Foreign Office have had their eyes opened in this matter, and are taking tardy steps to remedy what has gone wrong so far. Are those steps effective? In this connection may I ask if it is the intention of the Foreign Office to increase the number of Press attachés and commercial secretaries at our missions abroad? I fear that the average diplomat, pure and simple, or perhaps not so pure and all too simple, is neither by training nor aptitude very well fitted for watching and countering foreign news and propaganda. Anti-British propaganda, disguised as news, has been spreading and damaging us in our Colonies as well as in foreign countries, and the point up to which it could be treated with contempt was passed long ago. The virulence of this propaganda now passes all limits and we must set up, whatever the cost, the necessary machinery for putting our home, our Commonwealth and our foreign policies before the world. I think I cannot do better than to conclude by a quotation which I read yesterday from Commander King-Hall in his "Newsletter" and written after his return from abroad:
"I am convinced, after talking with professors and business men, that right through

1929
Central Europe there is a dismal ignorance of British achievement both in the field of social reform at home and in the development of the Empire. There is no knowledge of what British democracy is contributing to the world. We cannot ignore public opinion in the world and be too proud to take steps to see that what we are achieving without suppression of free speech and a free Press is adequately described."
5.14 p.m.
Mr. Harold Nicolson: I rise to support the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Lees-Jones), but also, with some reservations, to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) and seconded by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher). The Amendment contains three words which are not present in the Motion, and to my mind those three words are central to the problem of British propaganda. Those three words are
"not by retaliation."
It is valuable that we should talk about this subject in the House, but if we are to achieve any creative unanimity, apart from that passive unanimity which the hon. Member for Central Hackney noticed, we must have some idea of what is the sound philosophy, or the sound theory, of British propaganda. I think the presence of the three words I have mentioned indicates the line—not by retaliation; and by that we not only mean not abusing the other side, but also, as I think the supporters of the Amendment will agree, not imitating the methods adopted by the other side. I think that is vitally important. I think we must realise—and we do realise as the speeches made already show—that this question of propaganda is a new, multiple and highly dangerous instrument in international policy. We must bear in mind something more. It is an instrument which is uncongenial to ourselves. I do not want to be self-righteous, but I think it will be agreed that propaganda, in the first place, is based upon avoidance of the truth and I think it will also be agreed that in this country, in general, we object to untruths.
As I say, I do not want to be self-righteous, because in a national emergency we can be as untruthful as, or more untruthful than, anybody else. During the War we lied damnably. Let us be clear about that. [An HON. MEMBER:
1930
"Splendidly?"] No, damnably, not splendidly. I think some of our lies have done us tremendous harm and I should not myself like to see such propaganda again. It has done us harm in several ways. If you read the early chapters of Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" you will find that the impression which was made by our propaganda upon the then Corporal Hitler was damaging and persistent and is now a dangerous impression. He thought it tremendous. He admired it very much. I think also that if you follow the lists of books published in the United States you will find, even at this moment, an enormous number of books being published devoted solely to the subject of the effects and methods of British propaganda in 1917 and 1918. It is most unfortunate. Therefore, we must not be self-righteous and say that we could never practise propaganda by such untruthful and dirty methods—because we can. But that was in a time of war. In peace, the ordinary Englishman does not like telling lies and that is one reason why the whole thing is uncongenial.
There is another and more subtle reason. Propaganda, like commercial advertisement, is based on over-statement, and that over-statement is not adapted to our national temperament, whether English or Scottish. Our national temperament is based on under-statement and when we have to compete in superlatives with Italy or Germany or even America, we do so half-heartedly. If propaganda is half-hearted it is bad. We have to get our propaganda wholehearted. We have to get it on a basis which accords with our national temperament and that must be a basis of truth. Therefore, we cannot compete with or imitate other countries. That is why I support the Amendment, because it makes that vitally important point.
I do not want to enlarge on the dangers of foreign propaganda. A considerable number of admirable suggestions have been made as to the methods which we can adopt. I think we can leave that with confidence to the committee which is now working—which was I believe only to-day inaugurated—under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Vansittart. There we have a man of great experience, intense culture, and a very wide type of mind, who will be able to devote to this great problem, not only purely political but also psychological considerations.

1931
The point to my mind is not so much to avoid errors or to consider details of procedure, but to consider actual principles and actual guidance as to the lines which we should take. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton laid great stress, I think rightly, upon the need of having a news service something like that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. We all know that the news bulletin of the British Broadcasting Corporation is the most impartial statement of fact that has ever been produced in any country and that being so it gives us an enormous advantage. But there are other ends and it is here that I leave the Amendment and pass to the Motion because although the Motion leaves out the vitally important fact of not imitating foreign methods, I think the framers of the Amendment have probably, unconsciously, left out two points which are also vital.
The first is culture—not merely news and views but culture—and the second is finance. I wish to speak now not about news and views but about culture. I think Members of this House are probably insufficiently aware of the extraordinary ignorance of foreign countries in regard to British culture. They do not know what it is. They do not know the British point of view. They do not understand, for instance, what the Commonwealth idea is. We in this House have, in our hearts, a feeling of tremendous pride in the Commonwealth idea and in the Statute of Westminster. We think this is a brilliant thing, a new invention, a thing never done before by any country in the world which may develop in wide circles and to an extent of which no one has any conception. Foreigners, even people in the United States, have no conception of it at all. Educated men, professors in American universities, still imagine that Australia is something like Uganda, ruled from Whitehall. This great contribution which we have made since the War to human governance is ignored and unknown by people who otherwise would be very interested in it. That is the British point of view and that is the sort of thing which is not made known.
There are other things. There is intel-lectural culture. Culture, from the point of view first of the Dominion idea is unrealised and I regard that as culture because it is the thing that we have done
1932
best. Another thing which we do best is what is vaguely called liberty, or let us call it easy-goingness. That is vitally important; it is also easy to get across. If we are to have these propaganda methods we must have something peaceful. We must, in contrast to the strident superlatives of Bari, put across something very sedative, very quiet, very calm—always seeing the other person's point of view and prepared to give way to it when it is right; never being angry; seldom ironical; and always sympathetic. That is British culture, the capacity of being sympathetic. And we must get it across.
The intellectual forms of culture are more difficult, and I am very much afraid that the committee may make the error of thinking, for instance, that we should send second-rate companies to act Shakespeare in Stockholm. We must not do this sort of thing; we must not send third-rate village companies to act "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in Berlin. That will not do at all. I have suffered the torture of listening to English plays badly performed in foreign countries by English companies when they would have been performed infinitely better by foreign companies. We must avoid sending the second-rate abroad. We must not spend one penny in that way. We must work out carefully what is first-rate with us and send only that, and spend a great deal of money on sending it, but not spend odd slight sums on sending troupes of amateur Morris dancers out to Stockholm.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: The hon. Member made such a point of being completely honest that I would ask him whether, if we send only the first-rate abroad, we are giving a correct impression of this country?
Mr. Nicolson: We would certainly give an extremely correct impression of this country if we sent no actors or musicians or artists abroad. I think we should keep all that as a purely internal matter. If we can find first-rate actors in this country—which I doubt—we should send them abroad. If we cannot, let us keep to what we can do of the first-rate in different ways, and it is perfectly obvious what we can do. Let us concentrate, for instance, first upon our politics, and our Press. Let us in our broadcasts say that the "Times" was suppressed in Berlin yesterday while such-and-such a German

1933
paper containing such-and-such an article is on sale in every bookstall in London. That is the way to get our type of mind, our culture, abroad. It is to give to these people who may be "listening in" the impression that the "Times" newspaper, that admirable old lady, is forbidden for her apparent indecency to enter Germany, whereas these prostitute papers of foreign countries are on sale every day in London. I think the House will agree that the constant strain and pressure of increasing claustrophobia existing in the dictator countries, is caused by the absence of news, and is producing a reaction which is making them very ready to receive a pure breath of wind from our perfectly sane and rather humdrum discussion of affairs in this country.
That brings me to my last point, and that is the question of money. I think it was the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) who asked whether the Noble Lord could give us any figures about propaganda. It may be a little difficult for the Noble Lord to do so, but I can give figures which are pretty correct. We spend in this country on propaganda some £60,000 a year. That is the maximum which we have ever spent, but without question Germany, France and Italy spend £1,000,000 a year on propaganda. They spend ten times what we spend. If we get an increased grant how are we to spend it? I come back to the word culture. What do we do best? Do not let us make the mistake of trying to do things that other people can do better. Let us concentrate first on education.
I do not know how many hon. Members have been in Alexandria, but I do not think an Englishman could go to Alexandria recently without being appalled by the spectacle of that enormous Italian school dominating the whole place as a sort of Acropolis of culture—and the meagre arrangements which we have in our own schools. There is, near Alexandria, a British college which is admirably and beautifully run, the Victoria College. It is run on public school lines, is very fine and very well-equipped, and is rendering great and valuable service. It is now, I am glad to say, being duplicated by a similar institution for girls, which is doing wonderful work, but it lacks money. If it were Italian, not only would it be financed lavishly from Rome, but it would be made a sort of ostentatious Pharos towering over Alexandria.
1934
Another point is that there is no university in the Near East which can attract English students. We need that. There is an American university at Beyrout, but its culture is not English, and it very often is anti-English. Let us empower the council to create some university in, say, Cyprus. It would cost a lot of money, but it would attract not only the Syrians, the Palestinians, and some of the Egyptians, but also the Greeks, the Yugoslavs, the Turks, and, what is far more important, that new generation of educated Africans which is arising in the Sudan, in Uganda, in Tanganyika, and even in Kenya. That is the sort of way in which I envisage propaganda. Not, as the Amendment says, by trying either to imitate or to refute the lies of others; not by telling any lies ourselves; but by thinking out calmly, quietly, what we do really represent in terms of culture, and by spending a great deal of money in order to see that that theory is enhanced, fortified, and spread abroad.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Graham-White: If this Debate is losing anything of the exhilaration due to disagreement and controversy, I think it is gaining in usefulness by enabling us to clear our minds and to reach constructive agreement upon what is a newly recognised task in our national life. From the speeches which have been made so far, there emerges a very clear realisation that, quite apart from the question of propaganda of one kind and another, there is a task, or I would prefer to say a duty, which lies upon any nation which conceives that it has a contribution to make either to culture, to education, or to art: a duty of projecting itself to the rest of the world. Like the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson), I rise to support both the Motion and the Amendment. I have only one word of criticism to say of the former, and that is of the word "moral" which is contained in it. The Motion calls upon the Government to lend its "moral and financial support," but the word "moral" in this connection seems to me to be redundant. Financial support cannot be given without moral support.
There is another and somewhat important aspect of this question of Government support. The last speaker said that the British Broadcasting Corporation has a reputation for giving an impartial and truthful news service, and I

1935
agree that is so. I think that in that Corporation we have an institution which is recognised as being entirely impartial and as seeking solely to give the news impartially and faithfully. One of the reasons why that is recognised is that it is known, at all events in this country and, I think, in British-speaking countries generally, to be independent of the Government, and that is an important thing. It is unfortunate that perhaps in some countries the fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation has a monopoly here makes it difficult for them to understand and believe that it is not a Government institution, and I think it is part of our task of projecting ourselves to the world—and I wish I could imitate or conjure up the terms in which it has been described by the hon. Member for West Leicester—that we should project the fact that we have institutions like the British Boardcasting Corporation, which are capable of carrying out, and which in fact do daily carry out, their duties without the influence and direction, and still less the coercion, of the Government. Institutions of that kind are of exceedingly great value in these days, and I wish it might be made clear, in countries where there is an effort to misrepresent us and where these attempts are to some extent successful, that the British Broadcasting Corporation is an independent body.
I am in complete agreement with the terms of the Amendment. There can be nothing worse from every conceivable point of view than that this country should condescend to enter into a sort of political Billingsgate discussion on the air. That would be a lamentable thing. We are also in agreement that we should attempt to broadcast British character and British influence, and to make our contribution effective throughout the world in science, art and culture, not neglecting our achievements in the sporting field. The hon. Member for West Leicester gave some reasons why he thought we had neglected this important task. I am rather inclined to think that there is another which has had some part in the fact that we have not prosecuted the attempt to advertise ourselves and to project ourselves and our country as vigorously and as efficiently as other countries, which perhaps we might take into account without wishing to appear self-righteous. I
1936
think we have had, instinctively, some respect for the culture and the system of civilisation which prevail in some of our overseas Dominions and Colonies, and that we feel rather diffident in thrusting our own ideas and culture upon them. I think there is something in that, but it makes it all the more important that we should give a purely objective projection of ourselves to the world. It can give offence to none, and it can only give encouragement to those whom we wish to encourage.
I said just now that it was important that the British Broadcasting Corporation should maintain its independence and that we should, if possible, secure the knowledge in other countries that it is an independent organisation, and I would like to address a practical question to the Noble Lord who is to reply on this discussion with regard to the committee which has been set up. I think it is important that the relationship of that committee to the House of Commons and the Government should be defined, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he has in mind, or what the Government have in mind, as to the relationship of the committee, which, as we understand, started its deliberations today, to the House of Commons. I think it should have some sort of appropriate relationship, such as that of the B.B.C. to the House of Commons. It would be wrong that a committee of that kind should be entirely its own master and be allowed to go unchallenged and unchecked wherever it was so minded. On the other hand, it is important that there should be some process whereby a Minister should be in the House of Commons, prepared to answer questions in regard to it, very much in the same way as we are entitled to put questions with regard to the B.B.C. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would clear up that position for our future guidance and help.
If I might say a word or two with regard to the actual Committee itself, I think it is an admirable Committee. In the course of the Debate there has, if anything, been an attempt to depreciate perhaps too much what we have done in regard to a British news service and the like. There is no question at all that the British Broadcasting Corporation has done a very great deal and a very great

1937
service, and if it is given adequate finance, it has all the technical ability and the resources which would enable it to give a service which would compare favourably with anything in the world. Hon. Members have only to look at the map which was recently published in the "Listener" to see what an immense field the broadcasting which is now being done does cover over South and Central America and over the Arab-speaking countries. It is true that work of this kind cannot be done most effectively in a day. It requires careful study and knowledge, recruitment of personnel, and so on, but we have—and let us recognise it freely—an admirable institution for carrying out that work.
I would like to stress the importance in the field of culture of another aspect of the matter, which I think has not received attention from any previous speaker in this Debate, and that is the importance of personal connections and personal relations. The British Council has made a beginning. It has started a number of bursaries, I understand, for foreign students in this country, and I think an extension of that service would be very valuable. I should like to draw attention also to the vastly important work of another agency, the National Union of Students, which for years past has been exchanging students between this country and foreign countries and has made an enormous number of contacts between the educational services of this country and those of the Dominions and foreign countries. I recall, one day last summer, walking into Westminster Hall and finding it fuller than I have ever seen it on any occasion that was not a public ceremony, and echoing with the French language. Indeed, I had difficulty in making my way through it, and I found on making inquiries that there were 2,000 Belgian students there at the invitation of the National Union of Students. This is a very valuable work, and this organisation has valuable contacts, which could be further developed, and I would like to suggest that the Committee under Sir Robert Vansittart might well consider having representation from that body.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) asked whether anything had been done to make known abroad the forthcoming Glasgow Exhibition. I refer
1938
to that in order to point out that we have had some very valuable work done by the Travel Association of Great Britain and by the Board of Trade. The Travel Association has been doing a very effective service to this country for a long time past, and I am glad to see that it is to be represented on the new committee. But there again, as the hon. Member for West Leicester pointed out, it is a question of money. We can do all these things at least as well as and more effectively than anybody else. It is a duty we owe to ourselves. We have still a mission and a contribution to make to the common life of the world, and we ought to make all these things known. We have all the technical ability and the resources, but we cannot do it with an empty purse. The work that is being done by the Broadcasting Corporation wants more adequate support. The British Council, the Travel Association and the National Union of Students could do more effective work if they received the amount of support that is necessary.
I agree with what has been said about propaganda abroad. There would have been nothing easier than to come here this afternoon and make a sensational speech with numerous quotations from various broadcasting stations abroad. I do not think that that would have served any useful purpose. I have a strong idea that this propaganda tends to defeat itself. It is unfortunate that it leads to a false coinage in international relationships. Those who indulge in a policy of misrepresentation and of abusing or making fun of this or any other country might well think that these practices must cease if we are to return to the common decencies in international relations. That must be an essential preliminary to the establishment of normal friendly relations. The constant reiteration of misleading information does in the end defeat itself. It has other unfortunate consequences. When people begin to disbelieve the broadcast messages and propaganda of other countries they begin to disbelieve in the statements of their own country. The other day I met a distinguished foreigner, a Dutchman, who asked me what the state of commerce and the economic position of this country was. I gave him what I conceived to be a true and faithful account, and he said, "I am relieved to hear that; I thought it was in a really bad way." I said, "Why?"

1939
He said, "Did not your Prime Minister and your Chancellor of the Exchequer in one week make speeches in which they said that everything was all right?" That shows the unfortunate atmosphere in which the responsible statements of Ministers who speak with the greatest authority are disbelieved.
We should not take part in this spurious language of controversy and propaganda, but deal with affairs as best we can in the most efficient way according to the ancient historic formula, "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I am glad that we have had this Debate, for it shows that the House of Commons is of one mind on this subject. We have a duty to ourselves and our country if we believe in ourselves, as we do. If we are going on from day to day and to year making contributions in art, and science, which are the common language of the world, we have to see, cost what it may, that they are presented to the rest of the world.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. W. Astor: The House will support whole-heartedly both the Motion and the sentiments expressed in the Amendment, and I am not going to disturb the harmony in any way. The field of international propaganda is a purely postwar growth and can be traced, in the main, to the spread of democracy and to the realisation that is necessary to teach, not only officials and diplomats of other countries, but also their public opinion. Not only in democracies, but even in dictatorships, the spread of popular education has meant that public opinion is a much more important factor than it has ever been before. There has been every effort to show that practically every foreign country is engaged in a great spate of energetic activity, and it is rather assumed that we have done nothing in that sphere. No impression could be less true. We may have gone through difficult times, but our social services have helped us through them extraordinarily well. The tributes paid to our social services from the benches opposite to-day week tend to show that. It is true that some of our old industries have gone through bad times, but new industries have grown up as well as, and probably faster than, they have in any other country. Our Dominions have got
1940
closer to us. In India we have carried out great peaceful changes. In the Colonies we have been more conscious since the War both of our responsibilities to the natives and of the opportunities of beneficent economic development. Moreover, we have governed them with a negligible military establishment. Our Navy is still the most powerful, our Air Force the most modern, and our Army probably the most adaptable in the world.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson) implied that England had no first-class contribution of a cultural nature to make to the civilised world. That great man of action who was also a great thinker, the late Colonel Lawrence, said and believed that we were living in one of the greatest creative ages of English literature. In literature and the art of fine printing, in the production of books and in music, this country has a world contribution to make to civilisation. We can hear in London and the provinces fine orchestral music, and the Old Vic and Sadler's Wells have shown that even the opera and the ballet are not something confined to the leisured classes but are things which appeal to all classes in this country.
I would like to pay tribute to the admirable work of the British Council in making known these activities on a very small subvention from the Treasury. That Council has had the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), and it has done admirable work. Anyone who reads its report, which is well worthy of attention by hon. Members, will see that the Council has kept up a high quality of lectures and other cultural activities abroad. The visits of the London Philharmonic Orchestra to Paris and Berlin last year were great revelations of English culture, and I hope that the Council will supplement its activities by translating the best British works into foreign languages. I hope that when we take part in exhibitions our contributions will be worthy. In the Paris Exhibition our pavilion looked from the distance like a tin of Huntley and Palmer's biscuits, and from the inside like a branch of Fortnum and Mason's. It did not suggest that this country was the centre of a great Empire,

1941
with many and more varied productions than those, high class as they were, that were on view.
Other countries have created an atmosphere of great activity. We have all been deluged with the U.S.S.R. publications. We have had beautiful German and Italian books, and even the Spanish Government in Barcelona, whose friends are asking the working class of this country to contribute their sixpences for milk, have issued the most expensive booklets showing the achievements of their army. This propaganda is no prerogative of the extreme countries. France, a democratic country, has been spending something like £1,000,000 a year on propaganda. I hope that we shall encourage the Government Departments of this country to extend and to improve their annual reports. Some Departments have already done this, and whenever an interesting report is published, whether by the Post Office or the Home Office, it has a ready sale and fine publicity. That system of interesting annual reports on the different activities of our Government should be extended, and in appropriate cases they should be translated into foreign languages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) make a remark about the Press departments of Government offices. What he said might have been true 10 or 20 years ago, but is not true now. The news department of the Foreign Office has the confidence and trust of British and foreign correspondents. It has done the most admirable objective work, and it needs supplementing by the same work being done by our embassies and legations abroad. The work is done in the Foreign Office, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), by perfectly simple diplomats. I am sure the members of our legations abroad could do this work equally as well, if they were instructed and guided. Too often our embassies abroad regard the journalist as some form of "nosey Parker" who is trying to find out something it is their duty to conceal. They should be instructed to imitate the news department of the Foreign Office in London, which has a fine reputation for keeping friendly contact with journalists of all shades of opinion. I hope that we shall keep the independence of Reuters and the other English agencies. Even if
1942
it may be necessary to help them financially I hope that their independence will not be affected.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is now entering for the first time into the field of competition. Until now it has had a monopoly, and it must gird up its loins substantially if it is to succeed. Even in England it has suffered severe competition from the activities of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge). It has to go out more than in the past to please its listeners abroad. That faint aura of superiority, and perhaps that slight tinge of priggishness, is unsuitable if we are to be listened to in South America, in the Near East, and in the countries of Europe. It must be in close touch with the views of listeners abroad and must vary its programmes and its presentation of news to suit the audiences in foreign countries. One activity which has not been mentioned to-day is news reels. We should try to cultivate relations with foreign news reel companies and give them opportunities to film in Britain, and, if necessary, to give foreign versions of English news reels with titles and commentary in foreign languages.
One thing is clear, that the treatment of all these questions will vary immensely from continent to continent and from country to country, and the first thing we should do is to ask all our embassies and legations to make their own suggestions of what would be most suitable for the countries to which they are accredited, and not try to impose any standard from London. If they know that there is a little money available for this purpose they will be very prolific in their suggestions. There is one thing we can do without great expense—and there is no better form of propaganda—and that is to increase the visits paid to foreign ports by ships of His Majesty's Navy. The propaganda value of the presence of those ships and of the officers and men of the Royal Navy in ports abroad is absolutely inestimable.
Another point is that in the past we have been slow to recognise our friends in foreign countries, like those who have been secretaries of Anglophile societies, who have cultivated English ways and friendship with England. We have been slow to give them recognition by the bestowal of honours, or any other recognition which may be appropriate in the circumstances. We reap great advantage

1943
from their activities, and it would be doing only justice to recognise those friends abroad in some way. It would have the effect of attracting further friends, and we here would have the satisfaction of knowing that those friends abroad were not neglected. It is impossible to over-estimate the value which proper recognition of our friends abroad would be to us.
In conclusion, I can only support what has been said about not going in for foreign propaganda. It is impossible to embark upon such propaganda in a democracy, because if we start putting forward political views abroad we shall broadcast matters which may be the subject of acute party controversy. Weshould have the intolerable situation of public money being used to diffuse abroad matters which are the subject of acute controversy in this House. That is one of the overriding reasons why we must stick to objective news and the creation of good will, and not carry on any vendetta. That, I am sure, will be the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I am sure the House welcomes the fact that they have so experienced and so important a public servant as Sir Robert Vansittart as Chairman of the new Committee. I know that the House will wish it every success, and will support it not only with speeches to-day but with grants-in-aid when the Estimates are laid before it.
6.4 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): Since I returned to the Government I have not altered the opinion which I frequently expressed from the back benches, that Front Bench speakers should not occupy an undue share of the time of the House, or get too much in the way of other hon. Members who want to speak, and normally I should have intervened rather later in the Debate; but this is a very important subject, on which, I feel, it is most desirable that the House should have the views of the Government at an early opportunity. In the first place, I would say that no one listening to the Debate could take the slightest exception to the speeches which we have heard, either on party or partisan grounds. It is an excellent thing that it should go out to the world at large how united we are on this subject.
1944
It is, indeed, high time that the House did discuss it. If I were asked what was the most startling and effective method invented in the last 20 years for attracting and holding human attention, I should reply that it was neither the vast improvements in radio and moving pictures, great as the improvements have been, but rather the systematic, the scientific and, in some cases I must add, the devilish use of propaganda by all sorts of methods ranging from what I may call the old wooden conduit pipe, so to speak, of the deliberately instigated rumour to the modem air road of the highly tendentious broadcast. I should like to make this observation, which is not a new one, but which it is desirable that we should make in a democratic Assembly like this, that one of the few limitless commodities is human credulity. People will believe anything if you say it loud enough and often enough and they do not hear the other side.
Mr. Gallacher: That is why the National Government are in power.
Earl Winterton: I have seldom heard a more foolish interruption than that. That is exactly what is not true of this National Government or of any other Government, because they hear the propaganda of both sides. It is the difference between democracy and the form of Government favoured by the hon. Member. His Majesty's Government could not, nor would the House have it otherwise, compete at home or abroad in that sort of propaganda. We shall never, let it be hoped, believe in propaganda in the bad sense. As many speakers have emphasised, we believe in objectivity, in untainted views and sincere views, honestly expressed. But while that is so neither the Government, the House nor the country can afford to ignore the use of publicity and propaganda in which foreign Governments engage—or the majority of them—sometimes quite legitimately but sometimes decidedly otherwise, where the results are detrimental to British interests. When statements are made by official or semi-official sources abroad which are inaccurate as regards our policy, our intentions and the state of our country or such parts of the Empire as are directly governed from here, naturally we must take steps to contradict them if the matter is sufficiently important. We must bear in mind the very

1945
proper limitations imposed by our democratic constitution, which prevents anything like a censorship of news, and also the traditional British reputation for fairness and moderation in statement which has always been a bulwark of our prestige abroad. None of us who travel about the world, as I do, can fail to realise the immense value which is attributed to British statements. It is almost a cliché to say that the reliance placed upon the Englishman's word—I apologise to those in the House who are members of other races in the British Isles, and perhaps I ought to say British—the reliance placed upon Britain's word abroad is really of help to this country.
Bearing these things in mind, I have to satisfy the House that proper steps are being taken to deal with the situation which has been described. I have collected a great deal of information on this subject from more than one Department. Naturally I do not want to cite everything in detail, or read to the House long typewritten documents, but I will try to give an impression of what has been done, and in doing so to answer the various points which have been made by hon. and right hon. Members. First let me take the all-important subject of broadcasting. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) in the excellent speech he has just delivered, and other hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson) who referred specifically to this matter. It is the case that the British Broadcasting Corporation is in a unique position, as regards both its National and Empire services, in the accuracy of its news, which is unchallenged for its fairness and moderation. It is widely listened to abroad, often as a check upon broadcasts from elsewhere, just because it aims at being objective and accurate.
In regard to what might be fairly termed reasonable counter propaganda against statements made which are inimical to our interests in other countries by broadcasting, reference has been made to our decision to broadcast in foreign languages, in which a commencement has already been made. A start is being made with Spanish and Portuguese broadcasts for South America, and Arabic broadcasts for the Near East have been in operation for some time. There was
1946
a reference in one of the speeches to the Arabic broadcast and I think it was the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) who said, basing himself no doubt on some statements in the Press, that it had not been very successful. I saw those statements, and I have taken particular pains to make inquiries of the appropriate Department about this matter. As the House may be aware, I have some interest in the Middle East, having served there under a certain famous soldier, and I know a good many people in Arabic countries, and I can say from my own personal knowledge that, having due regard to the fact that this is a novel venture, nothing of the sort having been attempted before, the broadcasts have been very successful. No doubt as we go along it may be found desirable to put in some features which are missing and to omit others.
I hope it will not be regarded as a wounding reference to Arabs to say that their sense of humour is often of a broad character, and had it been possible to broadcast the speech which was made in the House some time ago by the junior burgess for Oxford University (Mr. A. P. Herbert) perhaps it would have found many listeners in Arabic countries. The Spanish and Portuguese news bulletins are expected to begin shortly. I think that is all I need say for the moment about broadcasting.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: The Noble Lord may remember that on the Address I raised the question of broadcasting in German, Italian and other languages, and I understood at the time from the Postmaster-General that this was to be done. Since then there has been a change in the Government decision, and I wonder whether the Noble Lord can tell us anything about it.
Earl Winterton: I have no exact information on that point. As I say, it is intended to start this foreign broadcasting with Spanish and Portuguese, and if my right hon. and gallant Friend the Postmaster-General gave any undertaking that there was to be an extension of it to German and Italian, no doubt that will be carried out; but the service at present is still in an early stage.
Now we come to the very important question of telegraphed news. It was suggested by one hon. Member that we

1947
suffered very much in this country from the fact that news agencies in foreign countries receive subsidies such as made it difficult for English companies to compete with them on favourable terms. That is one of the things which will, of course, receive consideration from the Cabinet Committee which is dealing with this matter. Broadly speaking, the object of that committee is to consider the supply of British news telegraphed abroad. Somebody asked when it was likely to complete its labours. I understand it will not be for two or three months. It is undoubtedly the fact that the supply of telegraphed news from this country is subject to increased competition from the big foreign telegraph agencies. Of these the American agencies, which I believe are purely commercial, have great financial resources, and the German, Italian, Russian, Japanese and French agencies enjoy special facilities, financial and otherwise, in varying degrees. It is difficult, until this Cabinet Committee has reported, to say anything further on that subject, because no doubt the committee will deal with the particular point of how this unfair competition can be got over.
Perhaps it would be appropriate, in this connection, to refer to a question which was raised by one of my hon. Friends—I think it was the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion—who asked whether steps could be taken to send signed articles by eminent British writers to foreign newspapers. I can assure my hon. Friend that that has been done for many years past. Whether it has always been a satisfactory system I should not like to say. Whatever I were to say might reflect in one way or the other upon Members of this House. It is well known that a highly-paid writer for foreign newspapers is a very respected Member of this House. Signed articles will continue to be sent, and it is, I agree, a most legitimate means of making British news known to a foreign public.
Now I come to a matter which will have the sympathy of the whole House, and that is the work which is being done by the British Council to promote cultural and educational activities in foreign countries. The Council consists of official and unofficial members, and the leaders of both Oppositions are members of it. It has the full backing of His
1948
Majesty's Government, who are satisfied that it is the right way of handling these matters, and that the Council is doing admirable work within the limits of its budget. It receives a sum from the Treasury and it has secured also some financial and other assistance from private and commercial sources. May I, without boring the House, give in tabloid form some account of its activities? These are, on the educational side, the bringing of foreign students to this country, many of whom are teachers or prospective teachers of English. In that connection the Board of Education are actively engaged in an exchange of teachers and students upon an increasing scale. On the cultural side the Council sends lecturers abroad, assists societies for the study of English and English culture in foreign countries by the presentation of English books and periodicals and by other means, and spreads a knowledge of English music by means of tours and gramophone records, and of English art.
In the work of the British Council is to be found, in my judgment, a form of propaganda or publicity to which no one can take exception. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester said that all propaganda is based upon false news, or something of that kind, and perhaps I should have challenged his statement, but I did not do so, as a Member of the Government. This is a form of propaganda, to which no one could take exception. Its primary object is to make known to the whole world, what I may call the golden storehouse of British literature and the arts. I agree that, in our folly, we are too prone, as a nation, to allow ourselves to be regarded as an unintellectual and unintelligent community. Some of our newspapers represent the wealthier classes of this country as interested only in bathing beaches, night clubs, and field sports, and the wage-earners only in football pools, racing results and the dogs; yet we have an unrivalled heritage of artistic craftsmanship and a wealth of human intellectual endeavour for which the whole world is under a debt. Without being vainglorious we could, by co-operation and the assistance of individual voluntary contributions, always readily accorded to a national object, greatly increase the world's knowledge of those matters and thus promote what I may call the invisible export of cultural relationship. I

1949
should like to make an appeal, standing at this Box, for all possible support of the work of the British Council. I think the House will agree that it will be undesirable that the whole financial side of the work should be provided by the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Obviously Government help and private enterprise should work in combination.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the council in contact with the British Broadcasting Corporation?
Earl Winterton: I could not answer that question offhand. Obviously both are aware of the existence of each other and wherever they can assist each other they do so. I think there is a representative of the B.B.C. on the British Council, and there is a number of subcommittees of the council connected with all sorts of objects, such as an advisory committee for British teachers, a fine arts committee, a lecture committee, a students' committee and others.
The question of films has been raised. A joint committee of the British Council and of the Travel Association has been promoted for the showing abroad of British films. Through the activities of that committee, British documentaries—hon. Members will understand this expression, no doubt—have been widely shown in a number of countries, in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Near East. I am informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who is sitting beside me and whose Department has had some connection with this matter, that these films are first-rate in character and are as good as those of any other country. Special editions of a few films have been prepared for exhibition in Latin America, with Portuguese and Spanish captions or commentaries.
I come last of all to a very important matter, to which attention has often been called in this House. I think question and answer were given on the subject on 7th February when it will be recollected that the Prime Minister made an announcement concerning the co-ordinating committee. I will not quote the whole of what he said but the concluding portion only, which was:
"It has now been decided to set up a co-ordinating committee whose function it will be to prevent overlapping and, by exchange of information among the bodies engaged in various forms of publicity abroad,
1950
to co-ordinate their programmes and activities. His Majesty's Government have appointed Sir Robert Vansittart, Chief Diplomatic Adviser, to be chairman of this committee, and they propose to invite representatives of other bodies engaged on work of this character, such as the British Broadcasting Corporation, the British Council and the Travel Association to serve on the committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1938; col. 671, Vol. 331.]
Before I go on to say a word further on the matter perhaps it would be right if I said, merely from the strictly chronological point of view, something about the publicity work of this committee. The hon. Member who seconded the original Motion asked what steps were being taken to disseminate from Government Departments news suitable for reproduction, as I understood him, in foreign newspapers. He rather suggested that that was a matter which needed improvement. He said that civil servants in this country were known to be very reserved. I ought to point out that it is the primary duty of Ministers and Governments to make known the activities of their Departments, but that there is some slight danger that if that were done on a widespread scale to foreign countries it might be held by the Opposition of the day, whoever they were, that the Government were endeavouring to take an unfair partisan advantage.
On purely non-party questions and questions of external affairs, in the Dominions Office and the Colonial and India Offices, as well as the Foreign Office, there exists to-day and has existed for a long time an official whose business it is to interpret to the public and to the Press the work of the Department and to give out statements. Hon. Members need not think that we are behind other countries in that respect. I have had some personal experience of the work of these officers and it is highly creditable in every way. I would take the opportunity of saying that any responsible and reputable pressman, whether he represents a great newspaper or a small newspaper, or comes from a big country or a small country, or any gentleman or lady who is interested in international affairs or problems, or anything of that kind, may, through the proper channels, find someone in those offices who will be glad to give them any information of a reasonable character. It is a very good thing to call attention to these activities on this occasion. It is one of the matters with

1951
which the Vansittart Committee will be concerned, in order to see whether it is possible to improve it.
It would be unwise to attempt to define too exactly the scope of the committee's work at this stage. The committee is tackling a new problem. It will have to examine the whole field, consider the activities of the principal bodies already at work, seek to increase co-operation among those bodies on a co-ordinated line, prevent overlapping and help to promote further efforts in any direction in which the field is not already adequately covered. A great deal of ground work has already been prepared with other Departments, and the committee will be able to build upon foundations that have been well laid.
In some other countries, national publicity, as I have already indicated, is entirely Government financed, controlled and directed. I want to make it clear that not only is that not the English method but it is not the intention of the Government to make any change in our historic policy in that regard. I want to make that very clear. I am grateful to Members of the Opposition for also making it clear that we do not want to engage in the sort of propaganda that we see other countries engaging in. I heartily agree that what we want to do in this country is to present to the world the facts as we see them, if possible by agreement among parties upon the presentation of those facts.
I think it is necessary also to make some mild reply to the criticisms abroad upon the establishment of this committee. One has noted in some of those criticisms the assumption that the committee's activities will be inspired by a desire to attack other countries and that the committee will occupy itself with propaganda in the bad sense. I want to give a very emphatic denial to that suggestion. I may further say that those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones, especially unnecessarily throw stones at windowframes in which the glass has not yet been inserted. The object of the committee is to instruct this country not to hide its light under a bushel. There is a great deal under the bushel which is worth revealing and which will be a revelation to those who have not so far been assisted to look underneath.
In conclusion, I think the House will gather from these remarks that the Government agree that an effort is required to make this country better understood abroad. They are glad that the matter is receiving such wide public attention, and they welcome—indeed they appeal for—the widest measure of public support. Commercial organisations can cooperate in the course of their efforts to push British goods. May I point out very definitely to hon. Members who have raised the point relating to the exhibition in Scotland that the appropriate Department for Overseas Trade will see to it that such a thing is widely known abroad We sometimes hear the criticism to-day—I am not in a position to say whether it is well founded or not—that British business firms do not adopt modern methods of publicity for their goods. In helping to make British goods and the resources of this country known to the world, we are helping to achieve the object both of the Motion and of the Amendment.
The Motion seems to me to express, on the whole, the views of the House, and personally I should prefer to see the Motion adopted. I should also like, if it were possible, to avoid a Division, simply from the point of view of the effect on public opinion. I am grateful for the spirit of almost complete unanimity which has been displayed in the course of the Debate. We have had some very excellent speeches, which will, I hope, have an effect abroad. I do not think it is out of order to say that this House has hitherto taken less interest in this subject than has been taken in it in foreign countries. I hope that nothing I have said has spoiled that spirit, and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will feel able to follow on the same lines. Each one of us has a contribution to make to this important subject, and each one of us should feel that it is a national responsibility to make it.
Mr. White: Could the Noble Lord tell us what will be the relationship of the new committee to the House of Commons? I do not want to press him if it has not been decided, but will it be under the Foreign Office?
Earl Winterton: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Patronage Secretary tells me that there was a question on this matter, but I shall, of course, make it

1953
my duty to find out to which Department questions should be addressed, and to inform the hon. Gentleman. I think he will find from the OFFICIAL REPORT that it is merely a technical matter which Department will be responsible for the committee.
Mr. White: I understand that it is to be a new directing force, co-ordinating all these activities, and it is desirable that we should know with which Department it is connected.
Earl Winterton: I will study the procedure in the matter very carefully. I think it has already been decided.
6.34 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: This has been one of the most peaceful debates that we have had in the House of Commons, and is an enjoyable occasional change from the more turbulent discussions that usually take place here. I will do my best to maintain the equanimity of the atmosphere on this subject of foreign and international propaganda, or dissemination of news, whatever it is and however one chooses to regard it. That there is a problem is undoubtedly the case. The problem is to get to the peoples of the world the truth about our country and the policy of our country; and there is the equal, reciprocal problem of receiving really truthful information about the life and policies of nations abroad. One of the incidental disadvantages of government under dictatorship, to put it no higher, is the very great difficulty of knowing what the Governments of dictatorship countries are thinking, and what the peoples of dictatorship countries are thinking. But, if this matter were handled in a way that was clumsy or crude, we could find ourselves commencing with a policy of propaganda for the dissemination of information for foreign consumption, which, though started with the best of intentions, and, indeed, with the best of practice, could, if we were not careful, merely degenerate into the character of propaganda that was conducted by the various nations of the world during the period of the War. That would be a great pity, and that, in part, is why we have put into our Amendment the words
"not by retaliation."
We should like the spirit of any such activity to be, not a retaliatory spirit,
1954
but a genuine spirit of desire to inform and to disseminate information it is very easy to start an information department for the circulation of news abroad, and to see it degenerate into a mere propaganda department, the mission of which is to get the interest or the policy of the country over irrespective of truth and accuracy.
Moreover, the subsidising of propaganda abroad can lead to some exceedingly undesirable practices. It means, or can mean, that there would be a good deal of secret public money about, and it can mean the corruption of public men. It has meant, in some cases, undoubtedly, the corruption of public personalities and the purchase of newspapers. It is well known that certain newspapers on the Continent of Europe have from time to time been subsidised, or even purchased outright, by foreign Governments. When this kind of thing reaches anything like that point, it becomes thoroughly unpleasant and thoroughly nasty, and, rather than helping to clear up international relationships, it can actually have the reverse effect and create a great deal of international scandal. The type of mind, the type of man who as a journalist, a producer of films, or sometimes now and again a politician, who will allow his opinions or property to be bought by foreign money for propaganda purposes, is usually a very unpleasant type of person. Therefore, in starting on this line, if we do, we had better face it with our eyes open to the very great dangers that might well exist. That kind of propaganda is more appropriate to the nations that have not a great deal to boast about, or that have a good deal to be ashamed of, than to countries which are better situated in that regard.
The Noble Lord has expressed the hope that the House might be unanimous about this Motion. We are not wanting to be "sticky" for the sake of being "sticky," but, quite honestly, we think that the wording of the original Motion is open to objection in certain respects. It looks as if it is merely retaliatory, because it opens by saying that:
"having regard to the increasing activity of certain foreign Governments in the field of propaganda,"
we should do something. I am sure there was no evil intention in the drafting of the Motion, but it goes on to urge the Government.

1955
"to give the full weight of its moral and financial support to schemes to further the wider and more effective presentation of British news, views, and culture abroad."
It is very easy not illegitimately to read into that the mere subsidising of propaganda in the ordinary sense of the term, because, if the Government is to give the full weight of its moral and financial support, in the dissemination, not only of British news, but of views and of culture, it might well be thought to be merely subsidised propaganda of the ordinary international sort that we do not like. Therefore, we thought it better to substitute the words of the Amendment, which indicate that our purpose is not retaliation, but the dissemination of straightforward information and news based upon an enlightened and honest public policy. In view of the general agreement that has been shown throughout the Debate, I hope that the Mover of the original Motion will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment, so that the House can be unanimous.
One of the difficulties lies in our getting the views of our own politicians of all parties known, as well as the policy of the Government itself, and I shall make a suggestion on that point for the development of existing policy which I think would be helpful. But we are not free from problems in our own Press on that score. There is a certain limited number of newspapers which give much more extended reports to the speeches of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini than they ever did, or ever will, to those of any British politician or any British Prime Minister. A certain body of the Press has come to the conclusion, and it is not for us to say it is wrong, that the statements of politicians, whether in power or in opposition, in this country are dull and ought not to be reported except to a very limited extent; but the curious thing is that the same newspapers which will not report the speeches of Ministers or of Members of the Opposition will report at great length the speeches of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini, and it seems to me that their readers are more likely to know the political opinions of the ruler of Germany and the ruler of Italy than they are to know the opinions of the British Prime Minister and the other Ministers who sit on the Treasury Bench, not to mention
1956
those of us who sit on this side of the House. Unfortunately, that is in part the case with one of our great Sunday newspapers, which was formerly a remarkable institution and very fair to all quarters. Sometimes one wonders whether that great Sunday newspaper, now owned by Lord Astor, has not come to feel to a certain extent that it is an organ of the official point of view of the Governments of Germany and Italy. Let us recognise, therefore, that there are problems at home as well as abroad in these matters.
I wanted particularly to refer—and I was sorry the Noble Lord could not give us any great amount of information about it—to the question of broadcasting. I agree entirely, and we all agree, that we do not want the British Broadcasting Corporation to be made a mere engine of propaganda of any sort. When it broadcasts opinions in this country by way of debate, we know what it is doing. As regards the dissemination of news abroad, in my view, and I think in the view of everybody, it would be exceedingly unwise, indeed wrong, to disseminate for foreign consumption propaganda on behalf of our Government or anybody else; but what I think is particularly important under modem political conditions is that the news of happenings in this country—happenings of public interest, statements of public interest—should be disseminated in various languages. A beginning has been made with Arabic. I should not have thought that that was necessarily the most urgent language with which to begin, though I see its significance in relation to events in the Near East. We have also begun in Spanish and Portuguese. But all the European Governments are now disseminating both news and propaganda in-English, and I think it is really important that we should disseminate from the British Broadcasting Corporation, not propaganda, not what is known as "dope," but straight news, in the great languages of the European Continent I do not see that we should lift that into a major diplomatic issue. I cannot get an answer from the Government as to why it is not done. It may be that there is a perfectly complete, definite and proper answer. It may be that the technical explanations are fully adequate, though I find that difficult to accept without further information. Is it that the Government take the view that dictatorship countries will object to our disseminating; honest straight news?

1957
The important thing is that Central Europe should have some chance of knowing what is happening in the outside world and what the people of other countries are feeling. It is a terrible thing that, so far as the Government and the internal Press and internal wireless of those countries are concerned, everything is done to make it difficult for their people to know what we are doing and thinking; and, indeed, for us to know what they are doing and thinking. Those countries disseminate and broadcast news and opinions in English. I would not make any ado about that, but why should the British Broadcasting Corporation not disseminate news as well? Is it because we are afraid of other people objecting? I do not want it done in a spiteful, nasty way, but merely as a duty to the world, so that people living in other countries would be able to listen to news of what is happening here. It is time that we had an indication of the Government's intention. The Postmaster-General did say that they were going to do it. Subsequently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the number of languages in which it seemed to have been intended by the Postmaster-General that we should broadcast. I think that that ought to be cleared up.
Reference has been made to subsidies to Press agencies. That is a question that wants thinking over. There may be something to be said for postal facilities and facilities for things like cables and telegrams, but Government subsidies to news agencies, even for sending news abroad, might be very dangerous, because it might lead the agencies to think that they were under obligations to the Government. There is something to be said for improving British Embassies abroad. In a number of cases, the British Embassy in a foreign country is a sort of island on its own, very much cut off from the life of the country. It ought to be the duty of an Ambassador and his staff to meet all the people they can in those countries, of all types and opinions. Moreover, though they ought not to be politicians in the party sense, they ought to be familiar with political opinion at home: not only Government opinion, but opposition opinion as well; so that they can fully and intelligently interpret British thought to those countries.
I wish that Ministers, in their speeches on foreign affairs, would remember that
1958
those speeches may be read, not only by Governments abroad, but by the peoples abroad. We are having a good deal of discussion between this and that personality—the Foreign Secretary and the Italian Ambassador, for instance. Lord Halifax goes to Germany. I will not say whether that is right or wrong. It may be that it was a very good thing. Nobody knows what has happened; whether it was any good or not; it has all been secret. Our Ministers ought to be delivering the kind of speeches which are calculated not merely to strike an answering chord in the heart of some dictator, but to convince the people of Germany and Italy that this country wants to do the right thing. That is the really fundamental need. I know that the dictators have to be dealt with, but in the long run it is the peoples of countries that matter. If we can get the peoples of those countries to feel that we are anxious to give them a square deal, let them draw the inference, which Ministers cannot utter, that somebody else must be standing between them and the justice which we want to do to the other peoples of the world.
As far as I can see, the Government want to be very pleasant to Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini. Up to a point, I know that Ministers have to be very careful in dealing with those gentlemen, but it should be remembered that there are still the German people and the Italian people, who are really much the same kind of people as we are, and that it is getting our voice to them that matters. Above all, we need a clear, upright and intelligible foreign policy that everybody can understand. That is terribly important if British influence is to be aroused and made strong. We must all do our best to make British democracy work, to prove that it is the best system, to get results from its workings, because if the people abroad see, as sooner or later they will be in a position to, that the British representative system is working here and producing good results for the people of our country, that clear and enlightened policies are being sought for here, that will have the best effect. It is worth more than all the subsidised propaganda, doctored films and controlled newspapers of the dictator countries. So while, up to a point, the means which have been suggested for getting information to foreign peoples are good, the

1959
fundamental thing in the end is for the British people to earn a reputation for clearness of policy, upright dealing and efficient and good government. That will get us the highest name among the peoples of the world.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. Keeling: The House must have been very much struck by the unusual and quite refreshing display of unanimity which is being shown on this subject. I shall have a proposal to make in a few moments, which, I hope, will commend itself to the House, for registering a unanimous expression of opinion on this matter. But, before I do so, I would like to refer again to a matter which has been only briefly touched upon in the Debate—the first regular broadcasts by the British Broadcasting Corporation in a foreign language, namely, Arabic. I am sorry that I am following, and not preceding, my Noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because during his service with Lawrence he must have got to know the Arabs very well, and I should have liked to hear his comments on what I am going to say. I have obtained from the British Broadcasting Corporation—and I take this opportunity of thanking them—copies of the news broadcasts which have been sent out by them in Arabic. I have read them in English, and I have not found a single fact twisted, or a single syllable which is either anti-Italian or even pro-British. This shows that, whatever other nations may do, we have no intention of entering into an international slanging match. A French newspaper made the suggestion the other day that a new decoration should be created, called the Order of Without Hatred. The British Broadcasting Corporation have certainly earned that decoration, and I wish that certain English newspapers which specialise in inflaming public opinion against Italy would try to earn it. But I add this. If any nation outside France has good justification for broadcasting in Arabic, it is England, with her close alliances with Egypt and Iraq, and her mandates for Palestine and Transjordan. We certainly have more excuse for broadcasting in Arabic than Italy for broadcasting, as she does, in Hindustani.
In introducing the series of Arabic broadcasts, Sir John Reith stated that the
1960
object was to strengthen the understanding between this country and the Arabic-speaking nations. If that is to be achieved there are two obvious essentials. The first is that the broadcast must reach the Arabs, and the second is that it shall be sufficiently interesting for them to tune in and remain tuned in. In spite of what my Noble Friend has said, I do not consider that the British Broadcasting Corporation have yet achieved either of these objects. The broadcasts, according to my information, are not reaching the Arabs. The problem can be very simply stated. I believe that there are about 60,000 wireless sets in the hands of Arabic-speaking people in Egypt, 4,000 in the hands of Arabic-speaking people in Palestine, and about the same number in the hands of Arabic-speaking persons in Iraq. In addition, there is, at any rate in Egypt, in every café, barber's shop and grocer's shop a wireless instrument. Now, the Arabic broadcasts from Daventry are sent out only on the short wave, and very few of the instruments in Egypt, and only a minority in Palestine, are capable of receiving short-wave broadcasts. If there were a broadcast on the medium wave, everybody in those countries could listen to it. There is no doubt about that: I have frequently listened in, both in Egypt and in Palestine, and heard the British National or Regional programme coming over well. We were told the other day by the Colonial Secretary that people who have only a medium-wave set can listen in to Palestine; but the Palestine radio is regarded as Jewish, and the Arabs will have very little to do with it. If the Palestine radio were a satisfactory substitute for Daventry, why spend money on Daventry?
I contend, therefore, that it is most desirable that the broadcast should be on the medium wave. It might mean cutting out one of the English programmes for half an hour or so, but we must pay that price if we are to make the Arabic broadcasts a success. A broadcast on the medium wave would, moreover, reach not only the Arabs in the Arabic-speaking countries, but many thousands of Arabs in England and France. There are at least 1,000 Egyptian students in London, and I am told there are at least 100,000 Arabs in Paris. If these people want to listen to our Arabic broadcast on the short wave they cannot do so, whatever

1961
their set. There was a complaint in the "Daily Telegraph" the other day on this point, from an Arab in London. Of course, all the difficulties about the length of wave would disappear if there was a medium-wave broadcasting station set up in Cyprus, but that would cost a lot of money.
My second criticism of the Arabic broadcasts is that they are not sufficiently interesting. Sir John Reith said that their strength would lie in their reliability and accuracy, but he omitted another essential, namely, that they should have drawing power. If the Arab is not interested he can, without being impolite—and no Arab would be impolite—merely turn off the station. Do not let us forget that the Daventry broadcast is in competition in Egypt with the Cairo radio, which is an excellent service, and in Palestine not only with Cairo but with the Bari radio which, for obvious reasons, is popular in Palestine. It is therefore important to make the news attractive. There ought to be more news about the Arab countries and less about Europe. The Arab is not interested in knowing that France has had 41 Cabinets since the War, though he might be interested to hear that the French contemplate some change in their policy in the Near East. I should like to know who is responsible for selecting the news which goes over. Has he lived for a long time in Arabic-speaking countries or has he simply a superficial knowledge of those countries? The Spaniards have a proverb that one should not speak Arabic in the house of a Moor. Whoever controls these broadcasts should have a real insight into the Arab mind.
There should be more talks as distinct from news. I understand that since the service began six weeks ago, there have only been eight talks, apart from a few talks relayed from Cairo. These talks should be on non-political subjects. A wide range of topics is available. There could be descriptions by Arabs in England of life in English homes. There could be an appreciation of the Arab horse, explaining why it is so admired in England. There could be an account of the two Egyptian ships now being built in England; a description of the cotton market here; and talks about famous English travellers in Arabia, such as Burton and Doughty. There could be a descriptive account of the work of the School of Oriental Studies, and talks
1962
about the popularity of the Arabian Nights in this country, and the influence of Arabia on European literature, art and music. On the other hand it is futile to talk to the Arabs about subjects on which they already know everything. One of the talks sent over by the B.B.C. was on the pilgrimage to Mecca. That is like carrying coals to Newcastle or, to use an Arab proverb, it is like selling water in the water carriers' own quarter.
The B.B.C. began very badly indeed with their music, because they sent over almost exclusively European music, for which the Arab has no more liking than we have for Arab music. I am glad to say that that mistake has been put right and that Arab music is now broadcast. My last criticism is that nearly all the broadcasting is, I understand, done by Egyptian Arabs, who give out Egyptian newspaper Arabic, just as the Cairo radio does. As ray Noble Friend is well aware, the phrasing and vocabulary of Egyptian Arabic differ from Palestinian and Iraqi Arabic, and I suggest that if persons who speak Palestinian and Iraqi Arabic are available in this country they should have a share of the broadcasting. I have felt it necessary to make these criticisms of the B.B.C., and I hope they are constructive. But I echo the tribute which my Noble Friend had paid to the B.B.C. for being true to their lifelong policy of honesty and impartiality, and I am certain that in the broadcasts that are to be made in other foreign languages this policy will be continued.
With regard to the Motion, I have indicated that I have a suggestion to make. We have in this House to-day shown great unanimity. Why should we not display that unanimity to the world by passing a unanimous Resolution? Why not combine the Motion and the Amendment? A very good point was made by an hon. Member opposite when he said that the Motion omits, while the Amendment clearly emphasises, the fact that we do not believe in retaliation. The suggestion that I have to make is that the Amendment should be spatchcocked in so that the complete Motion would read as follows:
"That, having regard to the increasing activity of certain foreign Governments in the field of propaganda, political and cultural, by means of the Press, broadcasting and films, and being of opinion that the evil effects of State propaganda of a tendentious or misleading character can best be countered,

1963
not by retaliation, but by the widespread dissemination of straightforward information and news based upon an enlightened and honest public policy, this House urges the Government to give the full weight of its moral and financial support to schemes to further the wider and more effective presentation of British news, views and culture abroad."
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Lees-Jones) tells me that he would accept that arrangement, and if it commends itself to the hon. Members who were responsible for the Amendment, and to the House generally, I should very much like, when the time comes, to move that Motion.
7.9 p.m.
Miss Rathbone: From the very early hour at which the Noble Lord wound up the Debate, I assume that he considered that this subject had been sufficiently discussed some two hours ago. That seems to me a little unfair, both to the importance of the subject and the private Members whose opportunities of discussing these topics are so limited.
Earl Winterton: On the contrary. I adopted the method I did only because a large number of questions had been put to me, and by arrangement with hon. Members opposite and on this side I thought it only fair to the House to give them the information for which they asked. There was no question of winding up the Debate.
Miss Rathbone: The Noble Lord will recognise that it takes the stuffing out of a debate when the Ministerial reply is given when only half the speeches have been delivered. However, the Noble Lord was within his right, and I am not complaining. I am apologising for prolonging the Debate. I want to draw attention to an aspect of the subject which has hardly been touched upon. With nearly everything that has been said I have been in agreement. I have hardly ever attended a debate where there was so much unanimity of opinion on all sides. I have been, however, struck by two facts; first, the general assumption that the evil of uncounteracted foreign propaganda has been an evil only to ourselves, an evil to British prestige and interests and, secondly, the assumption that the main incidence of that foreign propaganda has consisted in direct propaganda in the form of grossly unfair, tendentious
1964
and vituperative broadcasts, and in the brochures and literature which have been disseminated. It seems to me that both those assumptions underrate the very serious significance of this whole problem.
To my mind the worst feature of the Nazi and Fascist propaganda—why not speak frankly and name the countries of origin—is not only that it misrepresents ourselves to the foreign countries where it is indulged in, but that it is doing terrific harm in those foreign countries, especially those whose civilisation is of a rather less matured type in some respects than our own, and who are feeling their way as independent nations. Perhaps I can bring my point home best if I give two instances of countries which I visited not long ago, where I observed things for myself. About four years ago I visited Palestine and Cairo. That was about a year before the Abyssinian adventure of Italy had begun, or had been talked about, although we all recognise that it had been prepared for by Italy for a considerable time. It came as a complete surprise to me when I was beset in Cairo with complaints from some of my own graduate constituents who happened to be teachers or doctors in the service of the Egyptian Government. What they said was confirmed completely by British officials themselves as to the immense pervasiveness of the propaganda that was being carried on by Germany, France and, above all, by Italy.
What they complained of were not the broadcasts—the famous broadcasts from Bari had not begun—but the enormous sums of money that the Italians were spending on objects which, in themselves, were apparently innocent, especially scholarships and lectureships in Cairo, financed by Italian money. The best Italian lecturers were sent to lecture on Italian culture and art, all for the purpose of drawing young Egyptians towards Italy. Schools were established, supported by Italian money. I think the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) referred to the magnificent Italian school at Alexandria. Hospitals were also established. Enormous sums of money were being spent by the Italians, to say nothing of the money that was being spent by France and Germany. My attention was drawn to the fact that in that way all the young Egyptians were

1965
being gradually brought up to look to these foreign countries not only for the material help that was given by them for educational and humanitarian purposes, but they were looking to them for their political ideals and their examples of what a young country ought to strive for. At the same time, it was pointed out to us how we were leaving the whole field to these other countries, although at that time Egypt was a country where we had had special rights and claims. One quite small aspect of the question, not altogether unimportant, is that whereas these foreign countries choose their best lecturers and teachers and second them to go out to Egypt and take service under the Egyptian Government, the English people had to go out there at their own risk and disadvantage. They lost step in the hierarchy at home and the years they spent in Egypt did not count for superannuation. That, I believe, has been put right, though I am not quite so sure to what extent. But also they lost the chance of promotion. The years they spent in Egypt were regarded as dead years. As a result I was told that whereas Egypt was getting the very best French, German and, above all, Italian teachers, it was getting relatively a very second-class quality of British teacher.
Take the case of two other countries, Yugoslavia and Rumania, which I visited about a year ago. I find it very difficult to speak critically of two countries where I met with the greatest hospitality and cordial friendship. They have an old civilisation and a magnificent peasant art, and are a delightful people in many ways. But we have to face the facts. Those who have been reading the papers lately will have realised what is happening in Rumania alone. There is an open military dictatorship following upon a terrible drive of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution. When we were there a year ago all that was coming. It has brought with it all the worst features of Nazi and Fascist ideology.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady cannot go into these questions on this Debate.
Miss Rathbone: I am not going to dwell upon them. I am referring to them only for the purpose of illustrating my point. I submit that they are really relevant to the subject. The point I am making is that Nazi and Fascist propaganda is carried on in these countries to an extent,
1966
and at an expense, and with a subtlety and perseverance of which we can get no idea at all simply by talking about broadcasts and brochures. These methods are like tentacles which are penetrating into every department of life. All the educational and humanitarian activities are simply pervaded by Nazi and Fascist young men and women who are sent out there for the purpose. For example, there is a rule in the universities of Rumania that nobody shall remain in the university hostels—the universities are far more directly under the State than they are here—for more than a certain time unless they are taking university examinations at fixed periods. It has become the established custom that the young Germans who come over shall remain for far longer periods, so that every student who goes to the university becomes thoroughly pervaded with Nazi propaganda. It is not only the bad aspects of Nazi and Fascist ideology that is put before these people, but also the good aspects in the way of an appeal to patriotism, love of the Fatherland and religion.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is now introducing subjects which are not in order on the Motion which we are now discussing. She is talking about foreign questions on their merits and policies in other countries which have nothing to do with this Debate.
Miss Rathbone: I must have, indeed, failed to make myself clear if what I said did not appear to be relevant to the purpose of the Debate. The point I am trying to make is that Fascist propaganda is not only injurious to us if it attacks us, but it is injurious to the country where it is carried on, and that we are allowing it to be carried on without doing anything to speak of to counteract it by carrying across to those countries our own better ideals of democracy, progress and freedom. Is not that relevant?
Mr. Speaker: That is, but the other was not.
Miss Rathbone: The other would have led on to this. I do not want to detain the House by saying anything that is irrelevant, but merely to bring home the terrible responsibility which rests upon us—not only a responsibility for the harm done to ourselves by propaganda which we do not counteract, but harm done to

1967
countries for which we have some responsibilities. They are countries set up by ourselves as a result of the Peace Treaty. We have a responsibility to minorities who are ill-treated, yet are doing nothing to bring home the reasons, ideals and principles which make us refrain from cruelly treating people because they are of a different race or religion from ourselves. I suggest that, if we are to carry across our true, beautiful and real ideals of democracy, peace and order, we shall not do it merely by having a few B.B.C. broadcasts and good news bulletins. All that is very good, but we need something which will be very much more elaborate, and it will have to be very much more carefully planned. The Noble Lord spoke of the admirable work of the British Council. That is on right lines and it is educational work, but upon what an infinitesimal scale! As the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) said, £60,000 a year is spent to carry across to the world British culture and British ideals as against £1,000,000 per annum in the budgets of Germany, Italy and France. How can you really counteract so much by so little?
Earl Winterton: It is not the only method. There are many other activities—the promise of exhibitions and things of that kind.
Miss Rathbone: This is not the only example, but everything which is done by them, and everything else, is a drop in the ocean as compared with what Fascist countries are doing. They are getting it across and we are not. It is pathetic to see the people who are on the side of liberty and in the peace movement of these countries. It is like the cry:
"Sister Ann, Sister Ann, is nobody coming?"
They are ready to clutch any friendly hand held out to them from this country and other democracies. I suggest that the Vansittart Committee should not only investigate what is being done by the British Council and kindred bodies, but should enter at once upon plans for an extensive and carefully planned campaign of educational work by getting our books in far greater numbers into these countries, and by sending teachers who shall not merely give a couple of lectures and a concert or two. I speak as a representative of universities when I say
1968
that they should get into touch with the universities in this country and ask them for their co-operation. Teachers and lecturers should go and settle in those countries for a number of years and give courses of lectures and instruction, not so much in our literature and art, of which the Noble Lord spoke, but, above all, in the things which are peculiar to ourselves and which other countries ought to be learning from us, such as democratic ideals, sociological conditions, and industrial history. After all, are we not the first great Parliamentary democracy? That is our great contribution to the culture of the world. We have great art, drama and all the rest of it, but there is one thing we have which other countries have not, and that is our forms of democracy, our traditions of liberty, and our methods of ordered progress. Ours is the one country in the world that has not had a revolution for two and a-half centuries, and has never been defeated in war for about the same period. These are the secrets which foreign countries want to learn from us. We have a great opportunity, if we would only seize it, of making our true and beautiful song of liberty as frequently and as well heard as the hideous din of the Nazis and the Fascists. But until the Government have the courage to open their pockets instead of dribbling out a miserable £50,000 a year, we shall never be able to do the thing upon the scale upon which it ought to be done not only for our own sakes, but for the sake of those who have learnt the lessons of democracy at our knees, and whose constitutions after the War were professedly founded upon our Constitution, but who are following false ideals because they are not given the opportunity of seeing and learning what our true ideals are like.
Mr. Watkins: In view of the suggestion by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) that the point of my Amendment might be met by amending the Motion differently, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in line 3, after the word "House," to insert:
"being of opinion that the evil effects of State propaganda of a tendentious or misleading character can best be countered, not by

1969
retaliation, but by the widespread dissemination of straightforward information and news based upon an enlightened and honest public policy."
Question, "That those words be their inserted," put, and agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That, having regard to the increasing activity of certain foreign Governments in the field of propaganda, political and cultural, by means of the Press, broadcasting, and films, this House being of opinion that the evil effects of State propaganda of a tendentious or misleading character can best be countered, not by retaliation, but by the widespread dissemination of straightforward information and news based upon an enlightened and honest public policy, urges the Government to give the full weight of its moral and financial support to schemes to further the wider and more effective presentation of British news, views, and culture abroad."

PENSIONS DISABILITIES OF CERTAIN UNMARRIED WOMEN.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. Leach: I beg to move,
"That, in view of the widespread feeling that unmarried women have legitimate grounds for complaint against their treatment under the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Acts, this House is of opinion that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the justice and practicability of acceding to the claims made by organised spinsters for a pension of 10s. per week at 55 years of age and the inclusion in a contributory pensions scheme of all those who do not come under the Acts in question."
The House, I think, will realise that I am in very considerable difficulties for two reasons, if not more. The first is that the responsible Minister is not in attendance, and the second is, that in a minute and a-half I shall have to resume my seat. I hope hon. Members who are interested in the two Bills which are immediately to be put before the House will agree to curtail their remarks and thus allow me proper liberty to develop this subject.
It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

PENSIONS DISABILITIES OF CERTAIN UNMARRIED WOMEN.

GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
7.31 p.m.
Sir Arnold Wilson: There are several Motions in my own name and those of several hon. Members dealing with this Bill. It will not in fact be necessary to move them, as an agreement has been reached with the Promoters in regard to each of them, to which, subject to the concurrence of the Committee upstairs, effect will be given in due course. With your permission I should like to explain on behalf of the hon. Members who have been opposing this Bill both the circumstances in which we have put down these Motions and the nature of the settlement which has been agreed by the promoters, subject in every case to the Committee upstairs. There are a few Members of Parliament, of whom I am, I fear, one of the least active, who have for the past year or two made it their business to scrutinise very carefully every Private Bill which comes before this House and to draw the attention of the House to such Clauses as appear to them to seek to confer, whether on local authorities or on public or private companies, powers which are greater than, or vary substantially from, the common form Clauses which have been established by a Committee set up at the instance of the Chairman of Ways and Means. There are on the Statute Book about 125,000 Private Acts of Parliament, none of which are indexed, although they are roughly catalogued. Comparatively few are in print, many of them are quite unobtainable except in two or three libraries.
We believe that we are doing a public service in endeavouring to keep a close eye on Private Bill legislation and to let it be known to parliamentary agents and to public and private companies as well as to local authorities that there is a close watch being kept in this House upon their legislative ambitions. Viligance is the more necessary because almost every Private Bill introduced in recent years by local authorities has created 20 or 30 fresh offences punishable by fine or prison, and it is very seldom that the public at

1971
large are aware of the nature of these offences until those concerned are summoned. This vast Bill is indeed obtainable by the public in Guildford—but at a cost of 5s., for which it is possible to buy the whole of the Government of India Act or the Unemployment Act. So it is not easy for the public to get to know what is being done in their name. May I refer to a few of the Clauses to which objections have been taken on the Order Paper, in order to explain how they have been settled?
Clause 52, which covers no less than five pages, empowers the Corporation to appoint a committee of six individuals, none of them elected persons, to deal with facia boards, signposts and other matters, and to pay that body fees and expenses. There is no precedent for it and there was no provision for an appeal to the Courts from the decision of this tribunal, consisting exclusively of non-elected persons. The promoters have agreed that these matters shall, subject to the concurrence of the Committee upstairs, be dealt with by a committee of the Corporation who have, as we understand, power under the Town Planning Act, Section 47 (3), to co-opt non-elected persons to assist them; and they have further agreed, subject to the approval of the Committee upstairs, that there shall be a right of appeal to quarter sessions as in the case of the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1925. Under Clause 55 (Betterment charges) in respect of the construction of sewers on undeveloped land, the promoters have agreed to bring that Clause more closely in harmony with that approved by this House in the case of the Poole Corporation Act, 1937, and to accommodate it if practicable more closely to the wording recommended by the Macmillan Committee, and to consult further with the Minister of Health before finally putting their proposals before the Committee upstairs in agreed form, and they have further agreed to reduce the sum apportionable under Section 55 (3) of the Bill to 75 per cent. and to propose certain other minor changes. Clause 58, dealing with the right of an occupier to look into his own dustbin after he has filled it, will be omitted from the Bill.
There only remains Clause 93. Clause 93 deals with a subject on which all of us feel strongly, the existence of bad time-keepers scattered all over the country
1972
with no obligation at present on their owners to see that they keep decent time. We should have been very glad to see the Guildford Corporation—we hope one day to see the London County Council—take powers to regulate clocks by by-laws; but this particular Clause seemed to us to be quite unworkable in that it gave the corporation power to require the occupier (who would not in most cases be the owner of the clock) to take it down, failing which the corporation would do so at the expense of the occupier, who, I repeat, would seldom be the owner. The promoters have agreed to remove that Clause. Agreement having been reached I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name and to intimate that the other Motions will not be moved.
7.35 p.m.
Sir John Jarvis: I have much pleasure in confirming what my hon. Friend has said, and to state the bases of agreement which will enable this Bill to be discussed upstairs. I crave the indulgence of the House for reading this brief communication because, after all, the exact wording is of considerable importance. As regards Clause 52, which deals with the regulation of advertisements, the promoters undertake to submit to the Committee on the Bill Amendments (a) for substituting a committee of the Guildford Council as tribunal for the purposes of the Clause. This committee, with the consent of the council, is to have power to co-opt experts under provisions similar to those contained in the Town and Country Planning Act. The right of appeal to quarter sessions by any persons aggrieved by a decision of the tribunal is accepted. (b) The power to pay the members of the tribunal, who were originally to be an outside body and not members of the council, is to be deleted. This arrangement will not affect the opposition of any present petitioners upstairs, but it will clear the air.
As regards Clause 55, which deals with objections to the betterment charge in respect of the construction of certain sewers, this Clause is to be amended so as to bring it into line with the provisions of a somewhat similar Section in the Poole Corporation Act of 1937. The Section is, I think, Section 16, and it provides among other things that the amounts which may be recovered from the landowners concerned shall not exceed 75 per cent.

1973
of the increase in value resulting from the construction of sewers, and that the total sums which may be recovered by way of betterment shall not exceed the cost of providing nine-inch sewers in a private street. The Section also provides that the money may not be recovered until the sewer is actually constructed, and contains certain other minor alterations which give better protection to property owners and landowners generally. In case these alterations do not satisfy all parties, I would remind the House that the Clause can be further dealt with, if necessary, by the Committee upstairs, while the movers of the Instruction are reserving any further objections to the Clause until the Third Reading. Clauses 58 and 93, which dealt with the prohibition of sorting contents of dustbins and refuse pits and the control of public clocks, have been withdrawn.
7.39 p.m.
Mr. Croom-Johnson: Our attention has been called to the fact that as regards Clause 52 and Clause 55, certain persons have petitioned against those Clauses, and of course their rights under the procedure of the House will be left absolutely untouched and untrammelled owing to the very courteous way in which the Guildford Corporation has met the immediate objections of the mover and others of my hon. Friends and myself in regard to the form of the relief which was proposed in this particular instance.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Ede: My name appears with that of the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir J. Jarvis) on the back of the Bill as one of the persons presenting it to the House, and as is usual in such circumstances, when the promoters get into trouble they communicate with the Members whose names appear on the back of the Bill. I have not heard from the promoters, but only from the opposers, that this agreement has been reached. Inasmuch as the promoters through my colleague in the House who is associated with me in the presentation of the Bill, have intimated that they are satisfied, I do not propose to quarrel with the particular arrangements that have been made, but I think it is time something was said about the self-appointed and reactionary Members of the House who call before them in a committee room upstairs the promoters of these Bills. Last year I was engaged in the promotion of a Bill
1974
for the Surrey County Council, and although these gentlemen did not call the promoters that time they at any rate called us before them.
Mr. Croom-Johnson: I am sorry to have even the appearance of controversy with my hon. Friend, because on that particular occasion I happened to be the Member who was in the Chair. The whole thing was done with the most courteous intention in order that we might see whether the difficulties which had been raised with regard to some Clauses in the Surrey County Council Bill could be removed, and the result was that the Bill was unopposed.
Mr. Ede: I gather that the only exception the hon. and learned Gentleman takes is to the words "call before them," because an invitation was sent. Well, there was a perfectly clear understanding that if the invitation had not been accepted there would have been a long and controversial discussion on that Bill on Second Reading—as I imagine there certainly would have been this evening if these arrangements had not been entered into. I desire to make this protest, because I hold very strongly this point of view. It seems to me that this is really getting round a position that this House has established for its Committees upstairs, where evidence is called in support of these Clauses and against these Clauses on oath, and the Committee, which consists of three or four Members of the House, who give a very considerable amount of time to the question, are able to weigh up the whole of the considerations and to reach a decision on the point.
I suggest that there ought not to be these meetings at which certain people, taking advantage of the opportunity that a public Second Reading discussion gives them, can invite (I will use the word that the hon. and learned Member prefers), can invite people to come in front of them. He says the arrangements were perfectly courteous. It is true they were, but there is always an agent there who says, "Now, we do not want to have this Bill held up on Second Reading," and pressure is used to get items that might very well be required, and are certainly desired, by the local authority, withdrawn from the Bill merely to gain time.

1975
These are activities which ought not to be encouraged, and I sincerely hope that the time is not far distant when some authority will have the courage to say that they are not going to accept this invitation and prefer to have their case heard on the Floor of the House. I take Clause 52 as a good example of what ought to happen. On Clause 55 I am prepared to agree that the Poole precedent, having recently been created, should be worked for some years before anyone tries to extend it, and I have no doubt that upstairs in Committee very particular proof will have to be given before any extension of the Poole precedent will be allowed. I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) would not have ruined the living of the Parliamentary Bar by trying to do their work for them before the Clause gets to them.
Clause 52 deals with a High Street which is unique. You cannot put Guildford High Street in the same category for town-planning purposes as an ordinary High Street in a south country town, and the corporation are entitled to have special powers to protect one of the glories of an English country town. You have mixed roofs and buildings which can be seen for a considerable distance. I know a particular spot on the Hog's Back from which you get a clear view of Guildford High Street, Ayl-ward's clock, the front of the Guildhall, Abbott's Hospital and the red brick of Trinity cathedral church. I suggest that a corporation with such a tradition of beauty to guard is entitled to get a special Clause to protect it. I very much regret that they should have been invited upstairs—perhaps they were not invited—that this committee should think it part of their duty to examine things like this and intimate that unless certain concessions were made there would be a Second Reading discussion on the Floor of the House. That is an abuse of the powers which Members of the House enjoy owing to our peculiar cumbrous procedure. The kind of thing which is now occurring, these meetings upstairs to which people are invited and then informed that unless they make certain concessions they will be put to a loss of time, is entirely wrong. I look forward to some authority with a good case saying that they are not going
1976
upstairs, they are not going to any self-appointed committee of people like the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater or the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who is generally very alive on these occasions, and two or three other hon. Members who are to dictate to them—this is virtually dictation—the limits within which Private Bill legislation is to be conducted.
I regret having spoken at this length, but I am sure the House will have to face the position which is being created by half a dozen Members appointing themselves as a body to supervise work which should be submitted to a Committee of this House and which hears evidence on oath. This self-appointed committee does not hear evidence on oath, and the statements they make are not made on oath. When one thinks of the limitations under which their discussions must be carried on one is reminded of the lady who was being sworn in court to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"; to which she replied, "With all these limitations I feel that I have no useful observations to offer." We have instituted a procedure of committees before which evidence is heard on oath, so that on these important matters hon. Members who are not delegated themselves to serve on these committees shall be assured that local needs and requirements are being adequately met and that no local injustices are being inflicted.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. Lees-Smith: The speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) seems to me to reveal a position of a very grave character about which the House should be informed, and on which the House should give its opinion. The House lays it down that if a Private Bill is introduced, any hon. Member can exercise an immense influence over the Bill merely by the power of delaying its appearance before the Committee upstairs, but, of course, this power given to a single hon. Member is, it is understood, to be exercised with the greatest discretion not only towards the promoters of a Private Bill but also towards other hon. Members of the House. This means that three or four hon. Members can get together and can practically hold up Private Bill legislation to ransom. They are arrogating to themselves powers to

1977
which they have no right in fairness to other hon. Members. Who are the committee? I have never been asked to join them. The hon. Member for Hitchin said that he was a Member of a committee which met upstairs to consider Private Bills and that if they were not satisfied, etc., they threatened to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. It is holding up the promoters of a Private Bill to ransom. If there is this committee upstairs, why have not been invited?
Sir A. Wilson: I said it was a group of Members, not a committee, and I have been long enough in this House to remember instances, not infrequent, when a group of Members, Friends of the right hon. Gentleman, have opposed railway Bills.
Mr. Lees-Smith: There is no case of a group of Members permanently associated to look at every Private Bill and threaten to hold the Bill up if certain concessions are not made.
Mr. Croom-Johnson: I think there is a misunderstanding. The only Bills which my Friends and I look at as a general rule are unopposed Private Bills, with the object of co-ordination, so that we get the same type of Clause dealing with the same subject in different Bills. The Chairman of Ways and Means last Session appointed a committee to report to the House, not a group, on, I think, about 300 common form Clauses. There is, I think, a misunderstanding about what is being done. All that is being done is to see that a Clause in one district dealing with one subject is in the same language and for the same purposes as a Clause in another district, unless the committee on Unopposed Private Bills finds there is a reason for allowing special circumstances to have special treatment. There is no idea of interfering with the promoters of a Bill or with the ordinary Rules of the House, and on more than one occasion we have been thanked for the assistance we have given in this matter.
Mr. Lees-Smith: If the machinery of this House is shown to be inadequate to deal with Private Bills, the House has the power to reform its machinery and set up a new Committee. The hon. and learned Member says that it is a group, not a Committee. Who are they?
Mr. Croom-Johnson: They are Members of the House discharging their duty.
Mr. Lees-Smith: They are Members of the House who are taking advantage of the fact that hitherto it has been possible to allow a single Member of the House to hold up a Private Bill to ransom, but always on the understanding that this power is used discreetly. But as soon as two or more hon. Members get together and call themselves a group and say that they are going to constitute themselves a permanent group to look at every Private Bill of a certain character, and that if they do not like it they will insist on evidence being given before them, they are taking upon themselves functions which properly belong to a properly constituted Committee of the House. I say that it is taking advantage of the Rules of the House for a group of Members to arrogate to themselves a right which belongs to the House, and the speeches to-night of the hon. Member for Hitchin supported by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) appear to me to be speeches full of nothing but the most arrogant impudence. Why am I not invited to this group of well-meaning hon. Members?
Mr. Fleming: Because they do not want you.
Mr. Lees-Smith: Exactly! This is a group of Members who take a certain partisan view of these Bills, and they are proposing to hold up Private Bills to ransom.
Mr. Fleming: I have listened with great interest to the Debate, but will the right hon. Member tell me what Rule of the House this Committee has broken? I have nothing to do with the group; but what Rule have they broken?
Mr. Lees-Smith: It has been the Rule of this House for generations, and it has remained unchallenged, that while a single Member can oppose a Private Bill, it is always on the understanding that this power is used with discretion. Now we have a group of Members, and we are told that the only persons admitted to this group are those of their own view. I am not to be admitted; I am excluded.
Mr. Fleming: And so am I.
Mr. Lees-Smith: They have set themselves up as a committee to use this power, and I say that it is an abuse of the Rules of the House. If hon. Members

1979
of this particular point of view can do so, why should not I, and five or six other hon. Members who take another view, also constitute ourselves a group and say to every promoter of a Private Bill that unless they appear before us we shall hold the Bill up? If that were done by a series of groups of Members, the Private Bill procedure would become impracticable. These Members have arrogated to themselves rights which we shall not, without protest, allow them to continue to have. I hope that the protest which we have made will bring this piece of impertinence to an end.
8.1 p.m.
Mr. Annesley Somerville: It seems to me that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) are unnecessarily indignant. They seek to curtail the liberty of Members of the House. It is open to any number of hon. Members to form a group for any legitimate purpose of the House. As an example of what happens, I would point out to hon. Members that last week a Private Bill came up which had my name on the back of it. There was objection to it, and one of the chief objectors came to me afterwards and said, "Why can we not come to some arrangement?" The result was that the promoters and the objectors got together, and a compromise was reached. The hon. Member for South Shields and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley overlooked that in the case of Private Bills, especially those promoted by municipalities, the custom has grown up of attempting to introduce into the Bills special powers of a very extensive character which are not in the possession of other municipalities. It is very necessary that those special powers should be debated on Second Reading. If such powers are to be granted, they should be of a national character, and should be granted generally by the House. Consequently, a Second Reading Debate is necessary unless such provisions are withdrawn.
The group of hon. Members to which reference has been made was perfectly within its rights in examining this Bill. I do not belong to that group, but on two occasions I have benefited from its examinations. In two Private Bills, powers were sought which conflicted with
1980
the customs and rights of two bodies with which I was connected, and because of the examination of the group of hon. Members, I was able to obtain from the promoters of the Bill the withdrawal of those powers. I repeat that the hon. Members concerned have not done anything which was outside their rights. Any group of Members has a right to examine Bills and to take a certain line of action. What hon. Members opposite are asking is that the right of obtaining a Second Reading Debate should be curtailed. That would not be consonant with the custom of the House or the liberty of hon. Members. I maintain that there is no case for this protest and this indignation.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) has overlooked one thing. It is true that when a Private Bill is brought forward those who object to it on merits may put down a notice of objection or an Amendment; they are then approached by the Private Bill Committee, and the grievance is adjusted. That is the legitimate function of any hon. Member. What the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) does is to form a group or committee, of which he is chairman——
Sir A. Wilson: No, Sir.
Mr. Benn: Well, the hon. Member should be chairman—and advertise to the House that the group is going to examine all Bills, not because of grievances against the Bill, which is the legitimate function of an hon. Member, but in pursuit of some policy or in defence of some interest which it considers has been overlooked.
Sir A. Wilson: May I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that we are in pursuit of one thing only, the reasonable liberty of the subject. We are defending no interests and we are briefed by no interests; but are concerned solely with protecting the private citizen who cannot appear before the Committee upstairs, who is not in a position to know the contents of the Bill, and who may even be unaware of its existence.
Mr. Benn: I am making no imputation on the hon. Member. What I am saying is that it is the function and right of a private Member, in pursuit of the duty of protecting some interest in his constituency, to object to the Second Reading

1981
of a Private Bill and to come to terms with the promoters of the Bill on behalf of the interest which he legitimately represents. But if there is a group of Members associated together in order to see that they put united force on this great privilege which we all have, so that no Bill shall be passed which does not conform to some general principle which meets with their approval, I say it is an abuse of the ordinary rights of this House.
Mr. Fleming: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain one simple point? Where does the abuse arise in this matter?
Mr. Benn: I am trying to explain that. Opposition on a political Bill is a thing which we all exercise in groups or in parties, as we please, but to object to a Private Bill which is protected by special Rules in the House and by a special procedure—every hon. Member who has served on a Private Bill Committee knows how religiously we contrive to protect the interests of those who come before it with a private proposition—is a special privilege which must be exercised with discrimination. This group or committee does not object to a Private Bill because this or that thing is wrong in the Bill and then comes to terms with the promoters, but arrogates to itself the function which belongs to the House alone. The group says that the Bill must conform to some principles of its own, and if not, the Members in it pool this special privilege of private Members and see that the Bill does not get a Second Reading. That is the reason they tell local authorities to come before a Committee upstairs. As my right hon. Friend said, it is an impertinence. [Interruption.] Well, they invite, and what happens if the invitee does not accept the invitation? The Bill is opposed. That is tantamount to an order to appear. I am glad that my right hon. Friend made a protest, and I hope that notice will be taken of it, and that the hon. Members concerned will abandon what was always a very ill-conceived device.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Stephen: I am at variance with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) on this matter. I think the Debate has been a storm in a teacup. I am surprised that hon. Members above the Gangway seek to take away from Members of the House the
1982
right which they have enjoyed for so long. To my mind, the fact that certain hon. Members have formed themselves into a committee to watch over Private Bills brought forward under the Private Bill Procedure does not constitute any invasion of the rights of the House, but is simply an attempt by hon. Members to protect what has always been the right of Members, and the right of the public, to have these Measures scrutinized. I have had a good deal of experience with regard to objecting to Private Bills which have come before us. For example, in the case of a Railway Bill which is at present before the House, there are some hon. Members who are very closely interested in the conditions of railway workers, and those hon. Members have formed themselves into a committee for the purpose of examining how best they can utilise the proposed legislation so as to try to secure justice for the workers whom they represent.
It is a good thing that hon. Members still have this right and privilege. I plead with hon. Members not to allow any invasion of Private Members' rights in this matter. One case which comes to my mind is that in which a local authority brought forward a Private Bill in which it sought to limit chalking in the streets, the advertisement right which is enjoyed by working-class organisations. Some of us blocked the Bill, but we realised that we were still unlikely to secure what we wanted. Therefore, we tried to enlist the support of hon. Members of all parties in blocking the Bill in order that those rights might still be enjoyed. Were we wrong in doing that? Certainly, we were carrying out the ordinary practice which has existed for a very long time.
No committee can prevent the Bill concerned from getting a Second Reading. The committee of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) examined this Bill and expressed their dissatisfaction with it, but it is within the right of the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill, in spite of the hon. Member for Hitchin. I do not believe that the Parliamentary agents advising the Guildford Corporation are so simple as to think that they must compromise with that committee. I think hon. Members above the Gangway and the party to which I belong have to be very careful to see that the old rights are preserved. There is always

1983
pressure on the part of the great organisations in the community to utilise this machinery in order to get through the House something which they would find it difficult to get through in ordinary public Bills. The capitalist interests of the country did not call this Private Bill procedure into being for no reason whatever. The great private capitalist interests were very largely responsible for this machinery being set up. We, as the representatives of the working-class movement, ought jealously to preserve the right of using any attempt on the part of those private capitalist interests to get legislation through the House to wring concessions from those interests.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) seemed rather "peeved" at not having been invited to join the committee. I would not have anything to do with the committee of the hon. Member for Hitchin, but it is open to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley to form his own committee. In fact, he has already got a committee. He has his party, and each party examines all this legislation to some extent and operates as a party in connection with it. I hope that hon. Members will not allow any of their privileges in this connection to be taken from them. We have little enough chance as private Members of influencing legislation. We see private legislation which is, in our opinion, opposed to the public interest going on to the Statute Book, and we cannot prevent it, and I hope that all Labour Members will see to it that we retain such liberty as we have in this matter.
8.17 p.m.
Mr. Fleming: With reference to the statement made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I notice that he agreed with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) that he was "invited" to come before this group or committee.
Mr. Ede: It was because the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the phrase "called before" that, in order to satisfy him, I said that I had been invited. But I still believe that I was called before them. There was a clear intimation that unless——
Mr. Croom-Johnson indicated dissent.
Mr. Ede: Why should the hon. and learned Gentleman shake his head before he knows what I am going to say?
Mr. Croom-Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to explain I think I can show that the boot is on the other leg. In accordance with ordinary Parliamentary procedure we put down certain Instructions which the House was entitled to adopt or reject. My recollection is that instead of an invitation going from us, we were asked to meet the chairman of the county council—who at that time was my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—the deputy-chairman, the clerk and one other gentleman, in order to hear their views. They came, and they expressed their views.
Mr. Ede: If such an invitation had been issued by the county council I should have issued it, and I certainly did not issue any invitation. I still believe the proper phrase to be that we were "called before" the committee and a clear intimation was given that unless we were prepared to meet their wishes, seven or eight Instructions would be moved, which would take up the whole of an evening and destroy the chances of the Bill.
Mr. Fleming: I do not think it matters much whether we say that they were "invited" or "called before" the committee. The point I wish to put is this. Later in his speech the hon. Member for South Shields said he hoped that at some future time some local authority would have the courage to refuse to accept the invitation. I cannot understand why, in the case of the Surrey County Council Bill, he did not show that courage and refuse the invitation.
Mr. Ede: Because I did not know then, what I have since ascertained, that it was the regular procedure to have such group action.
Mr. Fleming: I wish to put a specific question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). He spoke about an abuse of the Procedure of this House. If there has been an abuse of Procedure, some rule or order must have been infringed. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what rule or order or practice of this House has been infringed by Members who have formed this group—to which, I may add, I have not been invited?
Mr. Lees-Smith: The point is that a Rule of the House allows an hon. Member to delay a Private Bill for a considerable period, but the practice has been for hon. Members only to utilise that power, so to speak, ad hoc when there was a special point to which they wished to call attention. For a group of Members to come together to utilise that power in order to press forward a general view, which is largely political in its nature, is to make use of that Rule of the House for purposes for which it was not intended, and therefore amounts to abuse of the Rule, and the introduction of a new practice in reference to Private Bills.
Mr. Fleming: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. If what he says is true, then I think there is no right of existence in this House for the Independent Labour party, because they contravene the Rule as put forward by the right hon. Gentleman
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Wise: Some protest ought to be made against the view that it is an abuse of the Privileges and Procedure of the House if a group of hon. Members examine, in detail and intelligently, Private Bills which are brought before the House. Apparently, the Opposition view is that if a Private Bill is examined by an hon. Member unilaterally, to use a modem expression, it is perfectly all right, but it is an abuse of Procedure if a group of Members take the trouble to look into the details of the Bill, remembering the historic function of this House which is to protect the liberty of the subject in this country. I was surprised that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) took such exception to the procedure in the case to which he referred. The Bill which he thinks was so unjustly opposed created 47 entirely new crimes, including that of picking daisies on the council's property.
Mr. Ede: May I say that the Private Bill Committee, having heard me on oath on the question of picking daisies, included that matter in the Bill, and it is now part of the Act?
Mr. Wise: Then the hon. Member has no complaint. He says that as a result of his resolute swearing about the daisies, this was put into the Bill. I think that all Members of this House have a perfect right to resent this attack on their privilege of examining legislation on their own
1986
account. I trust the practice will long continue that independent investigation will be given to any effort to enforce tyranny, whether municipal or national, and that we shall not be dependent on the permission of the right hon. Gentleman opposite for exercising the privileges which this House has exercised for very nearly a thousand years.
8.26 p.m.
Sir J. Jarvis: I just want to say that in the present instance certainly no one has been called upstairs or invited——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I thought the hon. Member was rising to make a personal explanation or correction, but I must remind him that he has spoken once already.
Sir J. Jarvis: I was endeavouring to explain a personal matter, in that it has been stated that in the present instance we were called upstairs before a Committee and held up to ransom, and I wanted to make the personal explanation that most certainly that was not the case.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed.

GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order).
  LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL (By Order).
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PENSIONS DISABILITIES OF CERTAIN UNMARRIED WOMEN.
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question:
"That, in view of the widespread feeling that unmarried women have legitimate grounds for complaint against their treatment under the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Acts, this House is of opinion that a committee should be appointed to enquire into the justice and practicability of acceding to the claims made by organised spinsters for a pension of 10s. per week at 55 years of age and the inclusion in a contributory pensions scheme of all those who do not come under the Acts in question."
8.27 p.m.
Mr. Leach: I hope the House will permit me to start afresh after the interruption for Private Business to which I was subjected. I have no doubt that hon. Members have had their correspondence

1987
very largely increased since my Motion appeared on the Order Paper, and that, I think, is clear evidence of the enormous public interest that is being taken in this subject. The aims of the organised spinsters of this country may be briefly stated under two heads—first, to secure that all those unmarried women who are in National Health Insurance should be pensioned at 55 instead of at the present legal age of 65, and, secondly, to secure for those spinsters who for any reason are not in National Health Insurance a contributory pension scheme. I want it to be clearly understood that no spinster in the country seeks to take away a single pension from any present recipient. What they are seeking is to be placed on an equality with the widows who are now in receipt of pensions.
Perhaps it is not so generally understood as it might be how far this inequality extends. In round figures, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there are some 400,000 health insurance widows at present in receipt of pensions. Some achieved them in their early twenties; some had to wait till they were nearer the 65 of the married woman. The average age, however, at which those pensions have been granted is round about 55. In addition, there are the pre-Act widows, created by the Act of 1929. In many cases these widows never paid a penny of contribution to the pensions that they receive, and as far as I can learn these widows number round about 300,000; they also receive the pension at 55. There you have 700,000 or so widows who may be said to be in receipt of pensions at the age of 55. I want most emphatically to repeat that no spinster seeks to deprive a single one of those widows of the pension which she now receives. This 10s. pension is not adequate to keep that widow, and her need, therefore, to work exists. Most of them are therefore competitors with the unpensioned spinsters in the labour market, and they can if they care undercut them for a job.
It can certainly be said that, broadly speaking, though both are poor, the widow is slightly better off than the spinster. The younger widow, with children of school age, reseives an allowance for those children of 5s. per week for the first school child and 3s. a week for each younger child. The older widow, whose family is grown up, may be looked
1988
after by her sons and daughters. These widows can, therefore, compete for jobs in an overstocked labour market on better terms than can the spinsters. As far as I can ascertain, some 175,000 spinsters between the ages of 55 and 65 are in insured occupations, and of that total only 80,000 ultimately qualify for pensions at 65. What is it that happens, therefore, to the other 95,000? Some of them die, in the proud consciousness that they have contributed to the reduction of national taxation and got nothing from the State in return. They are not, of course, listed in the public rolls of honour as having saved the taxation of the nation. Most of the others, however, lose their pension rights by poverty and unemployment.
The Ministry of Labour Gazette published about a fortnight ago draws attention to the fact that of the women applicants for unemployment relief, only a very small proportion are married, the majority being elderly spinsters; and a Lancashire return is quoted to show that between the ages of 55 and 59, while 12 per cent. of men are unemployed, there are 30 per cent. of women unemployed. An unmarried woman of 55 seeking a job stands about the smallest chance of any competitor in the great industrial army, so that scores of thousands of unmarried women between 55 and 65 go mider, unsaved by the State, to which they have paid their money, some of them for a quarter of a century. They have lost their insurance rights, and they have had no husband to pay their contributions for them.
No one will dispute that the laws of Nature are directed more harshly against the woman than against the man. There comes a time when her physique and general health are subjected to a tormenting trial by Nature, which often results in a complete breakdown of health. In the teaching profession provision is made for this special risk of women, but in ordinary industry no such provision is made. The matter is ignored and the victim is left to go under for anything that pensions may have to say on the subject. The fact that the 175,000 spinsters who are in insurance at 55 become 80,000 at 65 throws an unhappy light upon these casualties. An important factor in this problem was created by the Great War. About 1,000,000 young men perished in that unhappy tragedy, most of them being unmarried. That

1989
tragedy made a vast and vital difference in the lives of a large number of young women, who must number something like 750,000. What is left of those women who were defrauded of husbands are now in middle age. It is their problem we are discussing to-night.
They have not been made the subject of any social investigation. Little is known statistically of their economic conditions, or of their income or poverty standards. We know enough about the middle-aged spinster in industrial employment, however, to enable us to draw some conclusions. Generally speaking, she is poor, thrifty, hard-working and very law-abiding. Often she has dependent on her an aged father or mother. I would certainly claim that, as a class, she occupies a premier position as a decent citizen. She ought, therefore, to head the list of those people who have grievances to redress. The law has helped the mother and the father of the dead soldier. The law has helped his children and his widow. Even his unmarried lady-love has been helped, but it never occurred to any of us to help his sweetheart although her whole life may have been tragically altered by his death. Moreover, unlike the married woman when she falls sick, she is in terror of ceasing work and claiming sickness pay for fear of losing her job. The middle-aged spinster's hold on jobs in the industrial market is precarious at best. I will quote from a letter in my possession:
"I have been insured since the commencement, and during that time have only drawn 10s. £d. sick pay. Frequently I have had to visit my doctor, but in the strain of life have been afraid to stop work even against his wish, in case my job would be given to someone else."
The House will realise that that is a typical case. On 14th November, 1929, we had an interesting Debate in this House on spinsters' pensions. It was during the passage of the Bill giving to some 300,000 widows a pension for the first time at 55. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who now acts as one of the distinguished Deputy-Chairmen of this House, moved an Amendment to include in the Bill spinsters of 55. I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not present, because I feel sure that he would be my foremost supporter to-night. Supporting that Amendment also was the right hon. Gentleman
1990
who is the present Minister of Health, whose absence I deplore even more. He complained that the claims of the spinsters had been omitted from the Bill and spoke of the spinsters as being as deserving as the widows of 55. Another Ministerial supporter was the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare). He said it would be a great boon to a large number of deserving cases. He was right, and I regret his absence to-night because I hoped to hear him repeat that admirable sentiment. Into the Lobby went 97 Members in support of the Amendment, and they consisted of a perfect galaxy of present ministerial talent. They were led by Lord Baldwin, and following him was the present Colonial Secretary, whose absence I also deplore. My most distinquished supporters to-night are conspicuous by their absence. He was followed by the present Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of War, the Minister of Agriculture, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and a number of others who are now under Ministers, whose absence is significant.
The Labour Government of that day resisted the Amendment because they feared to face the added expenditure which would be entailed in an already very expensive Bill. I am sorry to remember that I voted with them. I will not repeat that offence to-night. I offer the excuse, however, that it was a very short and totally inadequate Debate. There was little or no attempt to deal with the merits of the case. No examination into the financial aspects of it was suggested by anybody. The idea of Government actuaries being called in was never remotely referred to. It was a whole-hog Amendment supported by this great galaxy of ministerial talent. It may have been put forward for the purpose of embarrassing a Labour Government insecurely placed in a minority position, but I should hesitate, in view of the influential support given to it, to describe it as a manoeuvre in parliamentary insincerity. Surely the seven Members who later became Cabinet Ministers who supported it knew what they were doing. I cannot for a moment doubt their sincerity, regretful as I am of their absence to-night.
The Amendment asks for an actuarial examination. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. These Cabinet

1991
Ministers did not want any actuarial examination. They were satisfied that the case was good without that necessity. That was nine years ago, and everything that has happened since confirms the righteousness of this case. I fear the Amendment would just simply shelve the problem. This problem is much more than an actuarial one; it is one concerning justice and the redressing of hardships. The Minister of Health did not seek it in 1929, and I am not seeking it now. He was satisfied that the case was made out, and so am I. But if my Motion is carried to-night an actuarial examination of the problem by the Government actuaries is bound to follow, and I have no objection whatever. What I want to secure is that the findings of the Government actuaries are presented to a committee for examination pro and con. The Amendment provides for no such thing.
In this matter my greatest catch of all is no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and again I have to deplore his absence to-night. He is the leader of the Liberal National party. I know that it would be possible for me to exaggerate the importance of that party, although I am bound to admit that its existence affords the last shred of excuse for the word "National" used by the Government. It would not be so easy to exaggerate the importance of its leader. The party led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now inscribed upon its banners:
"Item No. 15, Pensions for Spinsters."
So the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no doubt as to its financial practicability, and he is the custodian of the national purse; and he is ably backed in this matter by the Minister of Transport and the Minister for War. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer endorses these proposals, as he does, there should be little difficulty in their early march to the Statute Book.
As to the finance of this question, I will give the figures as rapidly as I can and from the best available sources. At any given moment we choose to take a census there are some 4,000,000 unmarried girls and women of 16 years and upwards paying health insurance contributions. Their contributions and those of the employers together total £4,500,000 per annum paid to the pension fund. The
1992
rate of contribution is 5½d., out of the total of 14d., the other 8½d. being for sickness and maternity benefits. The total amount annually paid as pensions to unmarried women is about £2,000,000. Clearly, therefore, on these figures, the spinster is contributing annually £2,500,000 more than she is getting back in pensions. I understand the Minister of Health combats the validity of the argument I have just used, pointing out that of that 4,000,000, starting at the age of 16, unmarried contributors some marry and therefore leave the ranks of spinsters. That is perfectly true, but as married women they cease, in large numbers, to contribute at all, unless they work as married women; and such as have the misfortune to become widows not only cease to contribute but come on to the pensions fund as recipients. So I think it is justifiable to claim that the contribution drawn from unmarried women is actually the figure I give and should be credited to the spinsters. That is my conception of the arithmetic of the matter. In other words, my claim is that the spinster is subsidising the pensions of other recipients.
If an insured man dies, whatever the age of his widow she gets a pension. If a spinster dies before 65, no matter what dependants she may have, nobody belonging to her gets a penny piece. If pensions are granted at 55 to the 175,000 spinsters who will be eligible the cost will then go up from £2,000,000 to £4,500,000. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon whom I rely to-night, has confirmed these figures. The spinsters, it will be seen, would then be getting a reasonably square deal, financially speaking—£4,500,000 paid in and £4,500,000 drawn out. But the Government would have to find £2,500,000 more per year than they are doing at present. Would that involve new taxation? Not necessarily. We have to bear in mind the case of the pre-Act widows of 55 and over, those who are receiving pensions of 10s. under the Act of 1929. The annual cost of that, I believe, is about £9,000,000, but it is a stop-gap provision, and it is a reducing amount each year, and will in time totally disappear, and these disappearing non-contributory widows will be replaced by contributing widows. It does not therefore seem to me that there is need to introduce new taxation at all.

1993
The Minister of Health, whose absence I am going once more to deplore, has expressed the opinion that if pensions are granted to spinsters other classes of recipients will have to have similar rights granted to them. That does not in the least degree follow. We have seen, I hope, that the widows already get it at an average age of 55, and they can be ruled out. The case of the married woman, who does not get it till she is 65, affords no ground for reduction in the age. She still has a husband, and she is making no demand whatever for any alteration of the age at which she receives pension, notwithstanding that a far larger number of widows are getting it at 55. There then remain only the uninsured, unpensioned widows. Their numbers are small enough to make little difference to the total cost, and I for one would be very glad to see their claims met when this scheme covering our demands is under consideration.
There is another aspect of the matter to which I think attention should be devoted. When an unmarried insured woman reaches the age of 45 it can be generally assumed that she will neither marry nor bear children, but she has to go on for another 20 years making her weekly contribution both to maternity benefits and to orphans' pensions. I cannot recall in any of our insurance laws or schemes any similar case where it can be said that an insured person has to go on making contributions towards benefits that are absolutely barred to the contributor at any future time. If I am wrong about this, no doubt the Government spokesman will be able to tell me my error.
An inquiry into the amount paid by unmarried women from 45 to 65 for benefits that they can never possibly receive or enjoy would probably produce an interesting and surprising result. I venture to make on my own account an arithmetical calculation of what the amount might be under this heading. It is quite possible that the spinster's own contribution plus that of her employer might easily amount to £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 a year. Let us not forget that the records of approved societies show that spinsters claim less in sickness benefits than do married women. A proper inquiry into this aspect of the subject will assuredly bring to light the harshness of the lot of the average middle-aged spinster
1994
and the urgent need for earlier pensions on her behalf.
The final point of my Motion relates to the spinster who is not in insured employment or who is over the income standard. Her numbers may be large but I have no figure relating to her, because she may be the household drudge in a poor family or the untrained stay-at-home plunged into poverty late in life. In any case, the position of such women demands examination, and I am asking that their case shall be examined. A few months ago a petition was presented to this House. It contained the signatures of more than 1,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects in favour of the spinsters' case. Why had those people signed? Because they believed that here was a grievance which Parliament alone could redress. They were not by any means all spinsters. Members of this House of all parties signed that petition because they were convinced, as the Minister of Health was convinced nine years ago, that the spinsters' case was just and sound, and that she had been receiving a raw deal at the hands of the pensions law. They desired that Parliament should examine the case and take action, and they were convinced, in the words of the Minister of Health, that spinsters of 55 are as deserving as widows of 55.
8.59 p.m.
Mr. Simpson: I beg to second the Motion.
I have to congratulate my hon. Friend upon his well-documented and, for him, quite moderately-phrased speech. My hon. Friend has been characteristically frank, even in regard to his historical researches, which brought forward an admission as to his own previous vote in the House; but that reveals at any rate, the progress he has made in the meantime. I am sure that hon. Members would not regard the Mover of the Resolution as a sentimentalist, but would agree that he has a very keen sense of social justice—not that social justice, in its strict and narrow sense, is by any means adequate to meet many of our human problems.
The Motion might be considered in two aspects. First there is that of actuarial justice, the problem as related to the economics of the present scheme and the relationship between payments made by these women and benefits they receive. The Amendment is strictly confined to that point, but we are concerned also

1995
with the adequacy and scope of the present benefits to meet the needs of this special group of a very deserving portion of the community. On the face of it, unmarried women do not get a good insurance bargain under the present scheme. It is true that the data which we have in our possession may not be complete, but with the figures we have it is clear that the existing rate of payment should entitle the spinsters to a pension at an earlier age. The arithmetic and the calculations associated with the matter can be made only by actuarial examination, for which we ask. It will be argued, and it has been argued, against the proposal that, taking the insurance scheme as a whole, the women for whom we make these representations, are, in their earlier years, potentially wives and widows. It is clear also that under the insurance scheme women are covered by insurance for those other eventualities; but the fact remains that there is a substantial residuum who inevitably, and in the nature of existing circumstances, will never qualify for the married women's benefit. It is fortuitous which particular women finally constitute the spinster category, but there is a very large number of women who are finally left in that position. They cannot be a liability as widows and they can never qualify for the inclusive benefits. It seems clear that there is a justification for this Motion on grounds of financial equity and the arithmetic of the position.
I wish to deal with another aspect of this case and with some of the arguments that have been advanced against the spinsters' claim. Most people would agree that 55 years of age is not too early for women to look for relief from toil. Some industrial undertakings make that the retiring age, and women are not kept in their employment after that time. Some of the more progressive industrial concerns make a small provision for superannuation at that time, but 55 today is nevertheless regarded as a reasonable figure at which women may retire from industry. It may be argued that 10s. a week is not sufficient to enable a woman to retire from industry and in that way the scheme is insufficient. We are asked, in some correspondence and some propaganda which has taken place against the proposal: "Would women gain or lose by this arrangement?"
1996
They would gain 10s. a week, which may not be an adequate sum, but nevertheless would be a very substantial improvement on the existing position and give these people some hope which they do not possess at present.
In any event, if 10s. would not enable them to retire, they could, in some industries, like the cotton industry, take some respite by working fewer hours, or having a day off each week, and lighten their toil to that extent. If they were fortunate enough to have some other means, this additional 10s. would enable them to retire in that way; or again, if they remained in employment, they could fund or save the 10s., which, in addition to their wage, would enable them possibly to save sufficient to retire on at 60 or earlier. There are many hypothetical objections that can be raised against this proposal, some of them of course, quite encouraging in character. It is suggested that it would be prejudicial to an improvement in women's rates of pay, and so on. But many of these arguments could be adduced against any insurance scheme and any improvement in people's position in this world. Let us have these improved rates of pay and improved industrial standards by all means, but, after all, the trade unions, which in the main are responsible for these improvements, if they could secure them, could surely do something to prevent any exploitation of this pension if it were secured. These improved standards are achieved by organised effort rather than by any new form of benevolence, and I think we could depend upon those authorities which have been in the past, and which are at present, responsible for these improvements, to resist any expropriation of the advantage that would accrue from this pension.
Moreover, the degree and date of any of these improvements is problematical, but the need of the spinsters is immediate. Within the insurance scheme and this present proposal there are possibilities of relief now, and some prospect of a modicum of security and comfort for this section of the community. My hon. Friend who moved the Resolution referred to the character of this section of the community, their desire to be self-helpful, their spirit of independence. What he said is undoubtedly true, and that is one of the special reasons why they resent

1997
very bitterly the idea that they might be compelled to seek public assistance, whereas a scheme of this contributory character, in the payment for which they were partners, would make them feel independent and self-respecting in the receipt of the pension which they now seek. I think the House will agree that life generally has dealt very hardly with the unmarried women. I will not detain the House with any elaboration of that argument, which hon. Members will readily appreciate, but will only say, in conclusion, that in my opinion the spinsters are frequently a sort of social buffer in the community, and not infrequently a refuge and help to the married folk who have attained another kind of status. The spinsters have frequently sacrificed themselves to help and maintain their parents, and I think that possibly it would not be unfair to describe this section of the community as universal aunts. They certainly deserve better of the community, and I hope that the Motion will be carried in the House to-night.
9.10 p.m.
Captain Conant: I beg to move, in line I, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"this House, recognising that the practicability of financing extensions of contributory pensions is a matter for His Majesty's Government, is none the less anxious that no class of contributors should suffer injustice under the present scheme, and is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should present to the House a report by the Government actuary on the position of spinsters under the Contributory Pensions Acts."
I think the House would wish that my first words should be to thank the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) for putting down this Motion, which has enabled us to discuss a matter of considerable interest to all sections of the House. It is unfortunate that our discussion has been somewhat delayed, though, owing to the private committee upstairs, perhaps not for so long as some hon. Members expected. The claim that we are considering to-night has received widespread publicity throughout the country, and I think that hon. Members who have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Central Bradford and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson) will agree that, in selecting those hon. Members as their champions,
1998
the spinsters have made a very happy choice.
All parties are sincerely anxious to extend the social services of the country, but most Members will agree that the extension of the social services, in so far as such extension costs money—and very few such extensions do not—must depend upon the financial position of the country as a whole; while the direction of any particular advance must depend, of course, upon the relative merits of the particular claims submitted. The financial position of the country at a given moment seems to me to be the concern of the Government, and I think it is for the Government to decide upon the practicability of financing an extension of the Contributory Pensions Acts. The Motion suggests the setting up of a committee to examine the practicability of the claim, but it seems to me that such a committee, with the limited material that would be available to it, would not be able fully to examine this aspect of the case.
What would be the cost of this claim? The hon. Member for Central Bradford has told us, as I believe we were told in November, that the cost of a 10s. weekly pension for spinsters at the age of 55 would amount to some £4,500,000. The claims of these ladies have been submitted, as hon. Members will recollect, very largely on humanitarian grounds, and if we are considering these claims on humanitarian grounds, which occupied a considerable portion of the speeches of the hon. Member for Central Bradford and of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, while that is an important part of the case which certainly appeals to me, we have to consider the claims of other sections of the population who have an equal right to have their claims examined.
Mr. Leach: My key word is not "humanitarianism," but "justice."
Captain Conant: I quite agree: the hon. Member is arguing the case on the grounds of justice. But a great part of his speech was devoted to pointing out the hardships to which spinsters are submitted. It is on humanitarian grounds, in part, that he is arguing. On those grounds, I would submit that there are other sections of the population whose-claims also have to be considered. There are the uninsured widows or the wives of uninsured men; wives who have been deserted by their husbands, or whose

1999
husbands, for some reason or other, are unable to support them. These are in exactly the same position as spinsters. There are the wives of pensioners who, under the law at present, are unable to receive old age pensions until they reach the age of 65. All these sections are claiming that their rights ought to be considered. We were told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 1st December, 1937, that the cost of these other schemes, if included, would about treble the original cost of the proposal. That brings it up to £13,500,000. It is not for me to decide whether the country can afford that at present; but I am rather doubtful whether we ought to spend so large a sum on one section of the population, because we are already committed, without further legislation, to a substantial payment on account of the automatic increase in the pensions scheme, apart altogether from the enormous increase in expenditure for Defence.
I am not so heartless as to turn down the claim on the grounds which I put forward: I have not the information before me to justify my doing so; and I am extraordinarily sorry to find that the party opposite have decided to turn down this scheme. In an interesting document entitled "Labour's Pension Plan," which offers pensions of one sort or another to practically every section of the community, almost the only claim which is turned down definitely is that of those worthy ladies whose case has been so well presented this even by a Member of the Labour party. The cause for this action is, as the document says, the prohibitive cost, and, while I cannot agree with the action which hon. Members opposite have taken, I think I might congratulate them on their unique forbearance.
The claims of spinsters differ from those of all other sections in one respect. As the hon. Member for Central Bradford has told us, they are claiming to be paying more in contributions than they can receive in benefit. That is the distinction between their claim and the claims of other sections of the community. It seems to me that the justice of that claim cannot really be determineed by a debate here, nor even by a study of the propaganda which is circulated among Members of this House and in the country. It seems to me that the only correct manner
2000
to determine the justice of the claim is by an actuarial calculation. Hon. Members may feel that the Government Actuary, because of his title, is in some way subservient to the will of the Government. I can assure the House that that is by no means the case. The Government Actuary is a leading member of a very great profession. He holds a very high position and has a professional reputation at stake, and he is as competent and as willing to criticise, and, if necessary, condemn, proposals which originate from the Government as those which originate from other sources. I think, therefore, that we should be taking the wisest course if we asked the Government to obtain a report on the justice of this claim from the Government Actuary. The hon. Member for Central Bradford referred to an argument which is repeated in a document sent round to hon. Members two days ago, described as: "A concise case." The document is, to my mind, extremely misleading. It says:
"4,000,000 spinsters contribute annually £4,500,000 to the national pension fund and the 80,000 spinsters who reach the pension age of 65 receive only £2,000,000 in pension benefit, therefore £2,500,000 is paid annually in excess of benefits received."
The deduction which hon. Members might draw from that is that the surplus morally belongs to the spinsters. The argument is misleading, because the majority of the 4,000,000 who contribute get married, and leave industry at an early age. There is no reason why the contributions of those who marry should be allocated to those who do not and who remain in industry. What has happened, in practice, has been that these contributions have been regarded as a windfall for the pension fund, and have been used to provide pensions for the wives and widows of insured men at a later stage. I think the fallacy of the argument arises from the idea that spinsters are a static class, whereas a person may be a spinster one day, a wife the next, a widow the next—and I was going to say, an old age pensioner the next. If one could go to a factory and look around and say, "This one is a spinster for life, this one is a certain wife, and this one will become a widow," our task would be considerably simpler.
I notice that at Birmingham the national organiser for the National Spinsters' Pension Association made the astounding statement:

2001
"At present, only one spinster in ten lives long enough to attain her pension."
When I read this, I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions was responsible for such an appalling rate of mortality. But I am happy to be able to absolve him from responsibility, because I find that the other nine spinsters have not died at all, they have merely got married, or the majority of them. Whatever hon. Members may feel about this propaganda, still it does not seem to me fair to condemn a case merely because misleading statements are made in putting that case forward. Even hon. Members sometimes find that their cases are pulled down to the ground and yet their faith in their cause is not in any way finished. So I feel that we should not be acting fairly if we were to turn down this cause on the ground that the propaganda which has been employed on all sides is not altogether free from criticism.
Mr. Holdsworth: What proof has the hon. and gallant Gentleman that nine out of ten spinsters get married? How many of them die?
Captain Conant: Does the hon. Member really think that the majority of spinsters do not get married? Of course they do.
Mr. Holdsworth: I am not saying what I think at all. The hon. Member made a definite statement that the remaining nine got married.
Captain Conant: If I said that, I apologise, but I think what I said was that the majority got married. Obviously some of them may die, but the greater number get married. I believe the best course we can take is to ask the Government if they will obtain a report from the Government actuary. I believe that by that method we should obtain as unprejudiced an opinion as we could possibly hope to get from any source. It would be entirely in accordance with precedent to take such action, because the Government actuaries' are always called upon to report when any alteration is made in pensions. I would therefore ask the House to support my Amendment, which I believe points to the better way of dealing with this claim, genuinely and sincerely made by so many people in the country, so that we may really have the true facts before us.
9.27 p.m.
Mr. Fleming: I beg to second the Amendment, and, in doing so, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) for bringing forward this question, because there is no doubt that during the last few months it has been debated up and down the country, I should think, more than anything else. But the debate has not been all on one side, even among the spinsters. I think there is general agreement among us on that, because in my Division, the Withington Division of Manchester, there are a great many spinsters of what I call the educated class. [MR. GALLACHER: "Oh!"] In making that distinction I am not referring to the wealthier class at all; I am referring to the type of spinster who has had a good education. If the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will allow me, he will understand that I am referring to some people who may possibly support him in other directions—to the class which he often refers to as the intelligentsia, and I do not think it is because of their wealth that they are referred to under that style. But even those are not unanimous on this question, and some of them have brought out a pamphlet, issued quite recently, practically opposing the idea of spinsters receiving pensions at 55. But I am not going to deal with the discussions among the spinsters themselves; I shall leave them to fight it out, because I have deeply considered this matter, and I have come to the conclusion that the spinsters undoubtedly have made out a very good case on humanitarian grounds. The hon. Member for Central Bradford put it on the basis of justice, but I am sure he did not exclude the humanitarian principle entirely.
The hon. Member who seconded the Motion seems to have the same view that I have on this matter. He said the data we have may not be complete. Where he used the word "may" I definitely say it is not complete. Then he went on to say that precise calculations can be made only by actuaries. I entirely agree. I want the House clearly to understand that I am in favour of the principle of pensions for spinsters at 55. I am not opposed to the principle at ail, and nobody who supports either the Motion or the Amendment will jeopardise the principle in the least. The word "practicability" appears in both Motion

2003
and Amendment, and practicability is the vital point. In the Amendment we suggest that the practicability of this proposal should be tested by an actuarial report. That is the proper business way of tackling any problem where finance comes into the question.
Mr. Morgan Jones: To whom have the actuaries to report?
Mr. Fleming: I take it the hon. Member has read the Amendment. It is a Government actuary, who would report, I take it, to the Government Department concerned, and his report would eventually be presented to the House. The hon. Member rather sneered at the idea that the Government Actuary would report in the first instance to his own Department. He rather sneered at the idea, but I think one of his hon. Friends has already remarked that Government actuaries always back up the Government. They do, and they take no notice of what kind of Government is in power. They back up the Government in this sense, that the material is put before the Government by a Department, which, of course, for the time being is under the control of the Government in office. In that sense the report will back up the Government, because it deals with matters put before them by the Government in power at the time. But if the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) means that the Government Actuary in any way is biased so that he will go out of his way to fabricate a report and back up the Government, I part company from him there.
Mr. Buchanan: I have seen the reports of actuaries both on National Health Insurance and Pensions and Unemployment Insurance, and each time the actuary's report has been so wide of the mark that it was not worth the paper it was printed on. That is the experience of the past.
Mr. Fleming: I do not see how that justifies the assertion that the Government Actuary always backs the Government. I frankly confess that I do not follow that at all. A report may not be worth the paper it is written on, but that does not justify the remark of the hon. Member that the Government Actuary always backs up the Government, whatever that may mean. I am satisfied that the gentlemen from this Department of the Civil Service are among the most
2004
reliable in the world. I am confident that, whatever be the type of Government in power or in office at the time, they can always rely upon these servants to do their best in the interests not of the Government, but of the country as a whole on the details put before them. So that on that account, if there was any credence to be put upon the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals, I should certainly not support the Amendment. I am independent enough to do that, but in my opinion the Amendment expresses the correct way of approaching this question of pensions for spinsters at 55. Recently I saw a brochure issued under the auspices, I think, of the Labour party, entitled "Labour's Pension Plan," and on page 18 of that booklet, the Labour party do not turn down absolutely the idea, as far as my reading goes, of pensions for spinsters at 55, but they say that for the time at any rate the very prohibitive cost of such a scheme puts it out of court.
Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Does it not occur to my hon. and learned Friend that the Labour party may be wrong?
Mr. Fleming: I do not always express my opinions of the Labour party, though I may think a lot about them. I am not saying whether that particular statement is right or wrong, but merely stating, for the benefit of the House, what I have read in one of their booklets. It is our duty when considering a pensions scheme, first and not last, to find out whether the cost would be prohibitive. That is the real function of the actuarial report. It is the ordinary process of the business man launching a new venture. If he wants to land himself in the bankruptcy court he makes no inquiry at all into the financial cost of his new venture, but if he is a wise man he certainly makes inquiry' into the financial cost of his scheme, because it is that part which, if it goes wrong, usually puts a man into Carey Street. The proposal that we should consider an actuarial report prepared by the Government Actuary meets entirely my ideas of how these schemes should be approached in the first instance.
Mr. Denville: It is not so much a question of cost as the justice of the case.
Mr. Fleming: That is just the type of business man I have been attacking. My hon. Friend, I am afraid, had better take

2005
notice of what I said if he launches any new venture. I think that he is interested in some financial ventures at times. This is all that is guiding me in approaching the Motion and the Amendment, and it is what a really sound business man would do in approaching these schemes. As I am not a sound business man myself, I naturally look round to see what they do. They even do this in trade unions. They consider the cost not after they have plunged into a scheme, but before doing so.
Miss Rathbone: If the Motion were carried instead of the Amendment would not the committee proposed to be appointed have the benefit of the actuary's advice?
Mr. Fleming: I think it is far better that we should pass the Amendment because it distinctly suggests what any sane business man would do. You should get the actuary's report first, and then you could have as many committees as you like afterwards. I am satisfied personally on this principle, but I do not yet understand what would be the cost of such a scheme. I have listened to the figures given by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach), who spoke of £4,500,000 or so, and to the figures given by my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that nobody knows exactly what the scheme would cost. That is obvious from the discussion. There has been no actuarial report upon this matter yet, and I want to see one before a scheme is launched. What I and a good many hon. Members in this House are afraid of is that anyone who supports this Amendment, as opposed to the Motion, will be dubbed in the country as being opposed to the idea of pensions for spinsters.
Mr. Stephen: And rightly so.
Mr. Fleming: It is an utterly false idea, and very unfair to say such a thing.
Mr. Gallacher: Oh, no.
Mr. Fleming: I made it quite clear, I thought, that I am in favour of the principle of such a scheme.
Mr. Gallacher: Then vote for the principle.
Mr. Fleming: Perhaps the hon. Member for West Fife will allow me to continue. I am in favour of it. [Interruption.] I am speaking of England, and not of Russia.
Mr. Gallacher: Vote for it.
Mr. Fleming: I want to know and am entitled to know the cost of such a scheme. It is for that purpose that a report by the Government Actuary should be presented to this House. It is clear from the expressions of opinion that I have obtained from some hon. Members opposite—not all, thank goodness—that this Debate is going to be used in a way in which I thought it would not be used. I am afraid that it is going to be used in the future against Members like myself who have the courage to vote for the Amendment. My division of Manchester has, I should think, without an actuarial report, more spinsters than any other division in that city which would be affected by the Motion. A great many of them belong to the intelligentsia, and do not seem to be very active in the marriage market. I am perfectly satisfied that in adopting the attitude that I have taken on the Amendment, although I may be turning great numbers of spinsters against me and may be helping hon. Members in opposition to me, I am adopting the same procedure that any business man would adopt. Let us get an actuarial report first, let us know what the cost will be and then let the Government consider whether it can bear the cost.
Mr. George Griffiths: Did the hon. Member inquire for an actuarial report when he voted for the £1,500,000,000 for armaments?
Mr. Fleming: We are not discussing that subject. Even if I did not ask for any actuarial calculation on that occasion, and even if I made a mistake in that instance, that is no reason why I should make a mistake now. If hon. Members can prove to me that it would be saner to launch out on a scheme like this without considering the cost, I should be agreeable to support the Motion.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. Holdsworth: The House will have been interested to hear from the last speaker that he is in favour of spinsters' pensions and that he is the real representative of spinsters in this House, seeing that there are more spinsters in his division than there are in any other division in England.
Mr. Fleming: I did not say that. I said that I thought there might be more spinsters in my division than in any other division in Manchester.
Mr. Holdsworth: Whatever the Seconder of the Amendment believes, it is obvious from what the Mover of the Amendment said that he had already prejudged the issue. He said that the country is spending so much money on armaments that he was very doubtful whether we could afford the money for these pensions. If that be the case, would an actuarial report alter his opinion? He knows the amount that is to be spent on armaments. I am not saying a word about the spending on armaments, but when one thinks of the tremendous amount that is being spent on armaments, compared with the £4,500,000 a year expenditure on giving these people who are really suffering, and the hon. Member doubts whether we can afford this extra cost, he is prejudging the issue before he begins. The whole point of his speech made it clear that the Amendment was not put down simply to get to know the finance of the scheme, because that is known, but for the purpose of shelving the question.
If hon. Members vote for the Motion, there is nothing to prevent an actuarial report being presented to the committee. Some of us attended on a deputation to the Minister of Health on this subject. I am not going to criticise what the Minister said, but he told us exactly what the scheme would cost, and the House is well aware of what it would cost. What the House has to decide is whether this particular class of person is really in need of 10s. a week at 55. I have great admiration for the way in which the Mover of the Motion put forward his case. He founded his case upon justice, but there is no reason why humanitarian principles should not be added. I get rather tired in this House of the denunciation of emotion. Emotion is the greatest thing in our lives, and I shall not apologise for putting this case on humanitarian grounds.
Since I have been interested in this movement I have interviewed scores of spinsters. One hon. Member who has the honour to represent another constituency in Bradford, now sitting below the Gangway, was kind enough to extend an invitation to hundreds of spinsters in the summer and provided them with facilities for a garden party. I was astounded to see the number of hard-working women in the grounds, women who had given their best years to work. Let us remember
2008
that not only have these women to work so many hours a day in the factory, but more often than not they have to start work again when they reach home. I was astounded at the circular that has been sent round, which makes the following statement:
"To give old age pensions at 55 to spinsters would provide a plausible excuse for getting them out of the labour market earlier than 55."
I sincerely wish they could get out of the labour market earlier than 55. I know something about the textile trade, and I think every employer of labour would be glad to see every woman able to get out before she reached the age of 55. The nonsense that is talked by some organisations in saying that if we give pensions at 55 we shall encourage these people to work for smaller wages and to undermine the wages of the remainder, makes me feel ill. Let us be honest about it. We who are employers of labour do not employ these people out of charity. Many of these women lose the ability to follow the speed of the machine, although they have the desire and go to their work hundreds of times when they ought never to be there. They have lost the physical ability to do the work. I know that employers of labour use a good deal of mercy, but there is a point when the machine is going at a certain speed and you cannot keep in employment the person who cannot follow it. It is sheer nonsense to say that this proposal will undermine the wages of the workers. The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) dealt with that very serious point.
I asked the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming) why there were so many spinsters in Manchester. I was not sneering at spinsters. Thousands of them missed their opportunity during the War, and as to their studying finance very often the girl who refused to marry did so because she was not certain of her fiancé returning from the War, was not certain of an assured position and turned down the offer of marriage until she was sure her husband would remain with her. The penalty that she is paying is to have to continue to work during the whole of her remaining life until she reaches the age of 65. I have no medical knowledge, but I have always said, "Thank God I was born a man." Physically I think we have an easy life as compared with a woman.

2009
On reaching a certain age there must be a terrible demand on her physical vitality to get up at 6 o'clock in the morning and be in the textile mill at 7. Very often women are afraid of staying away because they might lose their job. I am not afraid of putting a case before the House purely on humanitarian grounds. I say that a great country like this ought not to find it impossible to afford £4,500,000 to ease the burden of these women.
There is a lot to be done as far as pensions are concerned. We treat this problem in a patchwork manner, and it is time there was some co-ordination of pensions. I am not saying that there are not other classes who deserve pensions, and my experience is that it never keeps one class back if you give it to another. The more people who get pensions the greater light is thrown on those who do not. I know it is easy to say that A is entitled to it, and so also is B and C but I contend that if you give it to A, then B and C will receive it much more quickly than otherwise. I should have liked to have developed the idea that we should really get down to considering a national all-embracing pension scheme. It is a great mistake to segregate funds to this and that particular thing, and the House would well occupy itself in studying the whole pension scheme. I beg hon. Members to support the Motion. If they do so there is no reason why an actuarial report should not be made to a committee of inquiry. I am sure the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) would never dream of having a committee unless he was prepared to take all the evidence necessary to come to a reasonable decision, and he has had too much experience of municipal work to think that a committee would reach a decision at its first meeting.
There is one other class to whom I want to refer. It is true that the insured spinster has a terribly hard life, but there is another class of spinster about whom I am worried. There are thousands of spinsters who have remained at home looking after their parents, never able to earn a penny, with little or no pocket money out of which they might have insured themselves, and with no provision whatever at the age of 40 or 50 when their parents are dying off. Usually their parents are not well off, and these particular spinsters are left at a most awkward age in life, with no business experience,
2010
without a penny in the world, probably saddled with overhead charges on a house, and I appeal to the Government to consider the case of these uninsured spinsters so that they might have the benefit of a pension at 55 as well as insured spinsters. That is my case. I am not reviewing anything said from the actuarial and arithmetical point of view, but I repeat that the greatest reason why we should give pensions to spinsters at 55 is on humanitarian grounds.
10.1 p.m.
Viscountess Astor: The claim for pensions for spinsters has, I think, been admitted by the whole House, and I hope it will never be made a party cry. I would remind hon. Members opposite that this question was first brought up in the House not by the Labour party but by the hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Guy) and while I hope they will not try to make it a party question I would recall to their attention that they promised all women pensions and won an election on it. I think we ought to be very careful not to make this question of pensions a party matter. Spinsters have a really good case, not only in justice but because there is no class of people in the country who are more deserving of pensions. I am sure that actuarially we can do it. We certainly ought to have some co-ordination of our pensions schemes. Everyone knows that that is coming. I could give the House heart-breaking cases of spinsters who have fallen out of work at 55 on account of health, women who have spent their whole lives in working for others, and just when they should have someone to look after them are generally left entirely alone. They provide some of the most tragic cases in the country.
I hope the Government will realise that pensions for spinsters are bound to come. It is no good putting it off; it will certainly come. Some of the spinsters have to compete in the labour market with young widows with pensions. There is no justice in that. Nobody can pretend that there is any justice in denying spinsters their right. I am referring only to genuine and permanent spinsters. People very often make fun of unmarried women and spinsters, but I think that on the whole they are less pathetic than old bachelors. Financially they are more hard up, but spiritually they are better than old bachelors.

2011
I beg the House to take this matter seriously and to go into the Division Lobby in favour of the Motion. If hon. Members vote for the Motion, it will start the Government thinking. I assure the Government that thousands of their supporters feel strongly about this matter. We have an overwhelming case, and I hope that we shall hear no nonsense about the country not being able to afford these pensions. The country that can give £7,000,000 a year for sugar beet can do this. [Interruption.] Everybody is guilty about that. The Labour Government knew what a ramp it was, but they continued it. As long as the country can go on wasting money in that way, I shall go on pushing the Government to give these pensions. If they say it is impracticable, my reply is that it cannot be impracticable when they go on wasting money on sugar beet. I beg hon. Members to vote for the spinsters, and to know that in doing so they will vote for some of the bravest, most courageous and most worthy people in the world.
10.7 p.m.
Mr. Salt: In supporting the Amendment, I wish to draw special attention to the statement which it contains that
"no class of contributors should suffer injustice under the present scheme."
It is because I believe that spinsters have an absolutely just case that I rise to speak and to add one or two arguments to those made by the Mover of the Motion, the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach), with which I entirely agree. Out of the £4,500,000 that are paid for the spinsters to get £2,000,000, at least half of the difference will not be likely to go to the spinsters, since, after 40 years of age, there remain 25 years during which they have to pay contributions at the same rate as they have already paid, and there will be a very small number likely to benefit by marriage and the possibility of widows' pensions. I would like particularly to refer to the 1925 and 1929 Acts, and also to a statement made by the then Minister of Health, the present Prime Minister, with regard to the 1925 Act. He said:
"Surely, a scheme of insurance which puts a heavy charge upon the whole community and only brings benefit to a certain portion of the community is not complete."
The 1925 Act first brought widows and orphans into benefit, and by 1933 no
2012
fewer than 264,000 benefited. But the Minister of Health at that time was not satisfied that the contributory pensioners should only receive the benefits, but included those whose husbands had died previous to the Act, if they had been in insurable occupations, provided that there were children less than 14½ years of age. When the 1929 Act, which was a non-contributory pensions Act, was brought in, the age of 55 was specifically mentioned as the one at which those who came in from the 1925 Act should receive 10s. a week. The cost of that Act to the country was no less than £93,000,000, for which no contributions were made.
What we have particularly to consider as a matter of justice is whether the widow of 55 is more in need than the spinster of 55. The widow is likely to have children who are able to support her. Probably she has some resources from her late husband, such as furniture, a house, or some insurance money which comes to her. On the other hand, probably the spinster has some aged parent or other person dependent upon her, and every year her old mother or father may become more and more dependent upon her. When we compare the position of widows and spinsters, we cannot fail to come to the conclusion that in justice the spinsters need support. We must also remember the spinsters who drop out of their insurance rights because they cannot keep the contributions going after they are 55 years of age. They may lose their employment, and be unable to pay the contributions. The spinsters desire only that a proper actuarial examination should be made, and they feel that if they obtain that, the justice of their claim is such that the Government will be bound to accede to it.
10.14 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I see there are still several hon. Members who wish to speak, and my intervention will be a very brief one; but I feel that it is proper that at this stage I should express the Government's view on the discussion that has taken place. The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach), who moved the Motion and urged in such persuasive terms that the House should accept it, based his speech very largely on the two points of justice and practicability. He was anxious to keep to the word

2013
"justice" rather than to anything which suggested sentimentality, and he also dwelt at some length on the word "practicability," which appears both in the Motion and the Amendment. I see no other meaning which can be given to the word "practicability" than the possibility of providing money for an improvement of contributory pensions in the direction suggested. That is the responsibility of the Government. Why I cannot recommend the House to accept the Motion is that it would be impossible for a Government to lay aside that part of their responsibility which deals with deciding the most important issue of all, namely, "Can we or can we not finance a particular project?" The claim that the justice of the case should be examined is one which, I think, the Mover and Seconder of their Amendment had fully in mind. But on the point of practicability I wish the House to realise that no Government could divest itself of the responsibility which I have indicated.
The hon. Member who moved the Motion did so with all the fervour of a convert—for he was frank enough to tell us what his attitude was on this question in 1929—and he explained that the Labour Government which was then in power rejected the proposal at that time on the ground of financial impracticability. It did not do so at the instigation of any committee or other outside body but in the exercise of its function as the Government of the day. Hon. Members opposite went into the Lobby against the proposal at that time, and if I wanted to make a speech on small party points like that I could readily do so. But I merely wish to demonstrate that what was true then is true to-day, and hon. Members opposite who, some day, expect to sit on these benches would not, I am sure, wish me to put aside the principle that a Government must be responsible for saying whether or not they can finance an improvement in the social services. I had intended to dwell on the money which we are spending today on pensions and social services and the automatic increases which are taking place. It is my duty to scrutinise the Estimates, and I am very busy at present in doing so, and I wish to repeat what I have said on previous occasions, namely, that the automatic increase in the money spent in pensions is a matter for careful consideration.
Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman treating me fairly? I am not asking for the expenditure of money at all. I am asking for a committee,
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The hon. Member cannot get away from his use of the term "practicability." What is the meaning of that word in this connection, if it does not mean taking out of the hands of the Government the determination in this matter? This question goes far beyond the question of spinsters' pensions. It goes to the very heart of the function of government and I could not possibly advise the House to accept a Motion that appears to put aside our responsibility in this respect. Some play has been made this afternoon with pamplets. I would remind the hon. Member that the party to which he belongs not only voted unanimously against pensions for spinsters in 1929—and most of the hon. Members who are now on the Opposition Front Bench went into the Lobby against that proposal—but much more recently than that they drew up their pensions scheme and, without going into details, I need only say that in that scheme they definitely placed the spinsters at the very back of the queue.
Mr. Gallacher: You want to push them out of the queue.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: When the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to-night explains the position of the Labour party I hope he will explain his own attitude, his presence in the Lobby in 1929 and also the attitude of the Labour party as expressed in their own pamphlet. The Amendment recognises that the House does not desire that any section of the people should feel any grievance in this matter of pensions and there is, undoubtedly, a feeling among a certain number of unmarried women that they are not getting fair treatment under the pensions scheme. I do not express my view on it one way or the other, but I admit that there is that feeling. The Movers of the Amendment admit that, too.
Mr. Gallacher: Then why——
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to continue. It may not be a matter of great importance to him, but it is of importance to the rest of the House. The Amendment proposes that the course should be taken of submitting this question to the Government

2015
actuary for an inquiry and report. If that proposal is adopted, I can undertake, on behalf of the Government, that such a report will be made and laid before Parliament in the form of a White Paper so soon as it is ready.
Mr. Holdsworth: Should we be able to discuss it?
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That is hardly a matter on which I could pronounce tonight. The hon. Member will appreciate that it is not within my competence, but I will undertake that if the Amendment is passed and such a report is called for, I will see that it is laid before Parliament in the form of a White Paper. I can do no more than that. I had intended to discuss the question at much greater length, but I know that our time has been curtailed. I feel that the offer that I have made of acceptance of the Amendment and a White Paper to be laid before Parliament indicates the proper course to take in the circumstances to-night.
10.22 p.m.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been com-mendably brief, because there is a large number of Members who desire to take part in the Debate, and I intend to follow his example. What is actually the proposal before the House? If the House votes for the Motion, for what is it voting? The Motion starts with the phrase:
"That, in view of the widespread feeling that unmarried women have legitimate grounds for complaint against their treatment under the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Acts …"
I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and with one or two doubtful exceptions I have not heard a single hon. Member who has taken any other view than that spinsters have a legitimate ground of complaint. I have taken that view ever since the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) first mentioned pensions insurance, and I should have thought that it was clear that they had a legitimate ground of complaint. I have always thought that they have had a raw deal. They have had a raw deal because young widows have been able to compete against them with 10s. in their pocket. They have had a raw deal because they are liable to be pushed out of industry between the ages of 55 and 65 and to have to
2016
leave all their pensions contributions and get nothing in return. I think that is the most tragic fact that has been brought out by this discussion.
The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach), who moved the Motion, pointed out that out of 175,000 spinsters at the age of 55 only 80,000 are able to get pensions when they reach the age of 65. A few may die, but the great bulk of them, who have contributed for a great part of their life to pensions, are pushed out of the scheme because they cannot hold down their job in those years when their health is being affected. I should have thought that the great bulk of the Members of this House would agree that spinsters have a legitimate ground of complaint. This Motion does not even go as far as that. It asks the House to agree only that there is widespread feeling that unmarried women have cause for complaint. I should have thought that was at least common ground. The second half of the Motion says that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the justice and practicability of acceding to the claim. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken from the Government Bench alleged that this Motion would take out of the hands of the Government a decision on the matter. There is not a word in the Motion to support the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in that claim. He only -made the claim by distorting the wording of the Motion, and by altering the word "inquire" into "determine." All the House is asked to do is to agree to a committee to inquire into the practicability.
There is no suggestion that the final decision of the Government should be taken away. That could be taken away only by breaking the Rules of the House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the Standing Orders as well as I do, and he knows that it would be impossible for the House to take from the Government the final decision. There is nothing in the Motion to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could possibly take exception. Other hon. Members have alleged that in order to determine this matter satisfactorily we must have an actuary's report. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford himself said that the committee which he is asking to be set up would have an actuary's report, and I imagine it would

2017
be the Government Actuary who would make the report. The Amendment proposes to omit the committee and leave it to the Government Actuary to report to the Government. In our opinion, we should have a committee in addition to the actuary's report. The committee is needed to consider not merely figures, but arguments on public policy, and to make its report accordingly. I shall ask my hon. Friends—and other Members of the House, too—to vote for this Motion as against the Amendment because the Motion is on broader lines. Should the House, however, feel disposed to reject the Motion, I hope that the Motion as amended will be carried. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion agrees that in that event we should support the Motion as amended, although we would much prefer and shall vote for the Motion as it stands.
I wish to add a word which relates, not to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke for the Government, but to his chief. I really think that the House ought to know where the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands in this matter. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion made a reference to this, but many Members were not present and there is much more to be said than he said in regard to it. According to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Government have not made up their mind. They are going to wait for the Government Actuary's report and it will then be for the Government as a whole to give a decision on this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, has apparently made up his mind already, and, in a written document, takes up a definite position. This is called "Twenty Liberal National points of policy," and I would ask hon. Members to note the words on the front page:
"The following points are taken from a Resolution accepted by the National Liberal Conference at the Central Hall, Westminster, 24th and 25th June, 1937, and by the executive committee of the Liberal National Council."
I am aware that we cannot all be committed by some stray resolution passed by a body of which we may be members; but when we are members of an executive committee, and it is expressly stated in the text that the resolutions are accepted by the executive committee, we are entitled to assume that the members of that
2018
executive committee, when they are responsible people, do at least stand by the statement made in them. It is very common in political documents to make a number of loose statements that can be "got away with" when the time comes. I see quite a number of them here. There is the general phrase "Increase of old age pensions." That is a general phrase, and the making of a very small concession can be held to redeem it; but surely that argument does not apply to a perfectly specific statement, and I find that No. 15 among these 20 points of policy says specifically and definitely:
"Pensions for spinsters at 55."
We have not got the Chancellor of the Exchequer here to-night. We have had his deputy, in the person of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I think we are entitled to know, if not to-night at any rate at some early date in the future, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer does really stand in this matter. After all, the president of this executive committee is no less a person than Viscount Runciman, the chairman is Lord Hutchison, and I notice that in addition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer there is the Minister for War. Here is a definite statement, a specific item of policy, and it is specifically announced on the cover that it has been accepted by the national executive, and we shall certainly want to know where the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his other colleagues in the National Government who belong to the Liberal National party stand on this important matter.
10.34 p.m.
Sir Henry Fildes: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his speech. It appears to me that the very slight difference between the Motion and the Amendment affords no justification for proceeding with the Amendment. The whole point at issue is whether the actuary's report shall be laid on the Table of the House of Commons and little done with it, or presented to a committee who are making inquiries as to the humanitarian and other grounds on which this proposal shall be put forward. It commits the House to nothing. It is merely an inquiry into these things, and I prefer an inquiry proceeding on much wider grounds than the simple facts in an actuarial report. If this Motion goes to a Division I, for one, shall certainly vote in favour of it.

2019
In view of the fact that the difference is so slight, only a question of whether a report shall be made to the Government or made to a Committee of this House, I would appeal to the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment to withdraw it, so that we can give proper recognition to the desires of a great many people.
A petition was brought into this House signed by over 1,000,000 people, making the request that this matter should be looked into. Quite a long time has elapsed since then, but we are asked to believe that the Government have not made the slightest inquiry actuarially into what the proposal would cost. The Government ought to have been in a position to tell us to-night what the cost would be. There has been an agitation for some years on this matter and it is very lamentable for the Government to say that they want to make further inquiries before they know anything about the position. We are not proposing to say what should be done; the idea is to appoint a non-party committee and to see whether anything is practicable or not.
10.37 p.m.
Sir Joseph Nall: I usually agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I do not agree with him to-night. I would also like to urge my hon. Friends not to proceed with their Amendment. I most seriously want to press upon my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we are dealing with a subject involving one of the greatest anomalies in one of our social services. Not only is there a gross anomaly but the most extraordinary hardships ensue from it, with the result that there is a feeling of resentment which ought to be allayed by amending action. There can be no justification for indefinitely perpetuating the present system whereby a young and childless widow in her twenties or, at any rate, in her early thirties, is endowed with 10s. a week for the rest of her life by the sheer accident of marriage, while those who did not marry can get no pension or provision of any kind until 65. What is worse, they may pay contributions to the scheme through many years of arduous work, at the end of which, by some failure of health, they are unable to complete the final years, and are left without any provision at all. Their contributions are
2020
confiscated, from their point of view, and they may never get any benefit from what they have paid. A whole series of the most absurd anomalies exists in the system to-day, and there is a widespread feeling of bitter resentment against these inequalities and anomalies. I beg my right hon. Friends to review the matter and to set up a committee. The Motion does not ask for a Select Committee of this House or for a particular kind of Departmental committee. The matter is left open for whatever may be the most convenient kind of committee.
I would reinforce the argument that this is not a party question. Whatever action we take cannot possibly accrue as a Labour party triumph, because nobody has been more lackadaisical in getting on with this job than they have. I hope that my hon. Friends, in deference to those who feel so keenly on this question, will not proceed with their Amendment.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I desire to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes). There is not very much difference between the Amendment and the Motion, but I think the Motion ought to be accepted by the Government, for the reason that it includes something which the Amendment deliberately excludes, namely, an examination, not only into the finance of the problem—what is called the practicability of granting this pension—but also the-justice of acceding to the claim. It is all very well to ask the Government Actuary to tell us what this is going to cost. That, of course, is essential. But there is another side to the story, the side of justice; and, having made it my business to inquire into this matter, I contend that, if the Government could be made aware of the justice of the claim of these older spinsters, they coul not resist the demand which has been placed before them tonight.
I will give the House one picture which seems to me to justify the passing of the Motion, with all the words that it includes. There is in my constituency an old linen mill, which is one of the oldest establishments in the country. Its machinery is rather out of date, and some of it has been laid aside. The people working in that mill are mostly old women of 55, 60, 65, and older. I really feel ashamed, when I go near that mill,

2021
to see those poor old women still having to work at this time of their lives. It makes one feel that we are not playing quite fairly by them. The Motion demands that the committee shall look into (a) the cost, and (b) the justice, of this proposal. I contend that the claim of justice is so great that it must be included in any terms of reference given to a committee of inquiry. I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary, because I know that in his heart he is entirely sympathetic with the case we are making. I would beg him to indicate to us that on reflection he would not object to the setting up of the committee for which we are asking. I do not deny the extract which was read from the statement of Liberal National aims and policy. That is what I personally stand for, as do my hon. Friends who are here to-night.
Mr. Morgan Jones: What about the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Stewart: I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend; I speak for myself, and I shall vote for the Motion. But I would beg my right hon. and gallant Friend not to divide the House on this matter. We are all one. I would ask my hon. Friends who have moved the Amendment to prevent this from becoming a party question, and to let the House of Commons as a whole declare that we all desire an improvement in the conditions of these women, and that the justice and practicability of the matter shall be looked into. I beg my hon. Friends to save dividing the House, and so make the Motion a unanimous Resolution that something shall be done.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Higgs: As I understand the feeling of the House, the spinsters will get a pension very soon whether the original Motion or the Amendment is passed. I rise to support the Amendment, because I consider that it would give the spinsters a pension on business lines. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) referred to armament expenditure. I would refer him to the Budget returns, to see with what accuracy the armament expenditure has been forecast. Surely, expenditure of all descriptions should be considered from a business and actuarial point of view. The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) said that he wants equality with widows
2022
who are now in receipt of pensions. I do not agree with that. Widows' pensions are being paid from the age of 25, and I do not think that the House would wish to pay spinsters at that early age. I support payment at 55, after the matter has been properly considered by the Government Actuary. We recently had a public meeting in Birmingham, in one of the largest halls, and it was filled with spinsters advocating payment of pensions. They want it at 55. I consider they are entitled to it, but I think we should go about the matter in a businesslike manner. There is opposition propaganda with regard to this request, and I notice that one paragraph runs:
"It would be a powerful lever for pushing women capable of good work out of their jobs."
Recently, I found that I had personally signed documents for widows who are entitled to widows' pensions. I made inquiries, and found that one or two of them are between 30 and 40 years of age and are in employment, earning from £2 to £3 10s. a week, in addition to which they get their widows' pensions. How it is possible to suggest that pensions would put them out of a job when that state of affairs exists, I cannot follow. I was opposed to pensions for spinsters originally, but my supporters have reformed me. I now think that it is the business of those who consider the spinsters entitled to a pension to state our case to the Government, and endeavour to reform them in a similar way. From time to time, additional benefits are being granted, and I have no doubt that, as a result of this Motion, the powers to be will consider this most important proposition when additional benefits are being granted. I sincerely hope the Amendment will be carried. If there were not sufficient money to pay the spinsters the pensions, I, as an employer, would be very pleased to contribute my quota in order that the money might be found. This is an insurance problem, not a gift; and I think it most necessary that it should be properly investigated before the Government accept the responsibility of paying these pensions. I, for one, again emphasise the necessity of putting the question of spinsters' pensions on the right lines and dealing with it in a business manner.
10.50 p.m.
Miss Horsbrugh: The question before us now is not whether we are in favour of or

2023
against spinsters' pensions, but whether we are to have a committee to go into the matter or first to have an actuarial report and a White Paper laid before this House. Personally, I support the latter course for this reason. I believe it has been stated, and I quite agree, that the committee would have to decide two things. First they would have to consider the practicability of pensions from the financial point of view, but they would also have to consider the wider policy, the question whether it is just, and whether these pensions should be paid, whatever the cost may be. I think it is Parliament which should decide that question of justice. A committee may be set up of people who may be quite able to pronounce an opinion on the financial question. They may be able to state what the cost will be, they may be able to tell us that women are now paying more into the insurance scheme than they are getting out of it. But it will be left to the members of the committee to judge what is just. If there is a majority report against the scheme, do not hon. Members agree that it would be far more difficult to get that scheme adopted? We ought to have the facts put before us, and then those who have said to-night that they are in favour of spinsters' pensions on the wide principle of justice would be able to advocate their cause with the support of the facts brought out by that report.
The Motion of the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) favours the setting up of a committee who would be asked to report on the practicability—that is, the financial question—and also on the justice of spinsters' pensions. I do not consider that the members of that committee ought to decide on the question of justice. You might have on it people who do not think it is just for anyone to get a pension at 55, and that committee might turn down the scheme. I have been working on this question, and I wish to state that I am in favour of an all-in pension scheme, but when I am told that the committee is necessary I want to say this, and particularly to the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). A Labour Committee went into the whole pension scheme. We were told that a pension scheme was passed by the Labour executive and the whole party, and then we found it was put off with these words:
2024
"Among other reasons, the cost will be prohibitive."
I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should issue a new reprint of their pensions scheme and those words should be left out. That Labour committee sat to go into the cost of all the pensions. On every other single item of pensions they gave us the figures. Why did not they give us the figures and the facts on spinsters' pensions? And why did not they in the pamphlet show why the cost is prohibitive? They have done more against the proposal by that pamphlet than anything else that has been done in this House. If we can get the facts, I believe it will be brought out that women have been paying into the National Health Insurance scheme more than they could justifiably be called upon to pay. If these facts and the cost can be put before us, it is for this House to judge the justice, and I do not wish to give up my right to judge that justice to any committee. A committee may be biased against it or for it, and it is not for a committee to judge the justice. It is for the committee to put the facts and the person to present the financial facts I believe is the Government Actuary. I shall vote for the Amendment because I believe it is giving the best chance.
10.56 p.m.
Mr. V. Adams: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) in supporting a moribund and a wholly superfluous Amendment? She said that we should be the judges of justice, and with that I entirely agree. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will hardly be surprised to hear me reinforcing the appeal that was made earlier that the Government should accept this Motion to-night, and he will also forgive me if I say that some of us are not primarily interested in the massive inconsistencies committed by the Labour party. Our chief concern is for justice and fair treatment for spinsters. My right hon. Friend said that the criterion of this proposal was its practicability, but why has not its practicability been determined long ago? Why, many of us Government supporters in this House, some of whom, I believe, are going to vote for the Motion to-night, have been advocating this proposal for the past three years and even before the last election. The Government have had abundant time to give

2025
an answer "yes" or "no" to-night instead of pleading for delay.
I tried to come to this Debate quite objectively and in no party spirit, and I have been unable to find anything wrong about the somewhat surprising Motion of the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach). With the best will in the world I cannot see that anything materially is either added or subtracted by the somewhat flaccid Amendment which emanated from Bewdley—an Amendment which was quite unworthy of the speech which proposed it. The substantive Motion before the House is, in all conscience harmless enough. I think it might command support if it were worded and phrased in far fiercer terms. I almost tremble to think how I might have tabled it had I been in charge of the Motion. I think that the justice of the spinsters' claim is beyond all argument. I do not believe it is necessary to have a single hour's further actuarial investigation. The Government know beyond question that 999 out of every 1,000 spinsters over 55 neither hope nor can they expect to become wives. In the case of the 4,000,000 spinsters who contribute to the national pensions fund, seven-elevenths, of their weekly pension contribution goes to swell the widows' and orphans' fund. Only 80,000 spinsters are
at present in receipt of pension at 65, and as a class they are bound to feel that nearly one-third of their contributions is being diverted to the pockets of certain women and children who certainly are no more deserving than they are themselves.
Mr. Leach rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
10.59 p.m.
Colonel Clifton Brown: I have taken in the past some part in Debates upon women's questions, and I do so to-night because I do not think that the women's point of view has been put during the Debate. If the Motion had been worded in wider terms one might have supported it. At the present moment large bodies of women are opposed to a sectional inquiry of this kind. It was opposed by the Women's Industrial Organisation, representing over 1,000,000 women——
Mr. Leach rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 98.

Division No. 101.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Adams, D. (Consett)

Fildes, Sir H.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

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

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

Foot, D. M.

Kelly, W. T.

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

Gallacher, W.

Kirby, B. V.

Ammon, C. G.

Gardner, B. W.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Asks, Sir R. W.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Astor, viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lathan, G.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Gibson, R. (Gresneek)

Lawson, J. J.

Banfield, J. W.

Gledhill, G.

Lee, F.

Barr, J.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Batey, J.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Leonard, W.

Bellenger, F. J.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Liddall, W. S.

Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

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

Lipson, D. L.

Bromfield, W.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Logan, D. G.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Lunn, W.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Graves, T. E.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Buchanan, G.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

McGhee, H. G.

Burke, W. A.

Hall, J. H. (Whiteshapel)

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Butcher, H. W.

Hardie, Agnes

Magnay, T.

Charleton, H. C.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Cluse, W. S.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Markham, S. F.

Cocks, F. S.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Marshall, F.

Daggar, G.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Mathers, G.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hepworth, J.

Maxton, J.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Hills, A. (Pontetract)

Messer, F.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

Milner, Major J.

Day, H.

Holdsworth, H.

Moreing, A. C.

Dobbie, W.

Hollins, A.

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

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Hopkin, D.

Nall, Sir J.

Ede, J. C.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

dagger, J.

Naylor, T. E.

Elliston. Capt. G. S.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Oliver, G. H.

Parker, J.

Sexton, T. M.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Parkinson, J. A.

Silverman, S. S.

Watkins, F. C.

Pearson, A.

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

Watson, W. McL.

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

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Westwood, J.

Pritt, D. N.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

White, H. Graham

Radford, E. A.

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

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Stephen, C.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Riley, B.

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

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Ritson, J.

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

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Tinker, J. J.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Tomlinson, G.

Sanders, W. S.

Turton, R. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Scott, Lord William

Viant, S. P.

Mr. Leach and Mr. Simpson.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Walkden, A. G.

NOES.

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

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

Pilkington, R

Bernays, R. H.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Porritt, R. W.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Grimston, R. V.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Bossom, A. C.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Ramsbotham, H.

Boulton, W. W.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Russell, Sir Alexander

Boyce, H. Leslie

Higgs, W. F.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Broceklebank, Sir Edmund

Holmes, J. S.

Salmon, Sir I.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Salt. E. W.

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

Hopkinson, A.

Savery, Sir Servington

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

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

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hutchinson, G. C.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Carver, Major W. H.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Channon, H.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Chapman, A. (Rutharglen)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Colman, N. C. D.

Kimball, L.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

Loftus, P. C.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Sutcliffe, H.

Groom-Johnson, R. P.

McKie, J. H.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Cross, R. H.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Crossley, A. C.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Cruddas, Col. B.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

De Chair, S. S.

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

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Morgan, R. H.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Duggan, H. J.

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

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

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

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Munro, P.

Wise. A. R.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Fox. Sir G. W. G.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Captain Conant and Mr. Fleming.

Furness, S. N.

Patrick, C. M.

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

Resolved,
"That, in view of the widespread feeling that unmarried women have legitimate grounds for complaint against their treatment under the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Acts, this House is of opinion that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the justice and practicability of acceding to the claims made by organised spinsters for a pension of 10s. per week at 55 years of age and the inclusion in a contributory pensions scheme of all those who do not come under the Acts in question."
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

DEFENCE (CALCIUM CARBIDE).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
11.13 p.m.
Mr. Sexton: I wish to raise a matter concerning the location of factories for manufacturing calcium carbide. Calcium carbide is a very necessary commodity to this country, both in peace time and in war time. We have lagged far behind all other countries in the manufacture of this commodity, and while we have been lagging behind, other countries have been working. Germany, Japan and Italy, three significant nations, have been turning their attention lately to the manufacture of calcium carbide, because calcium carbide is the basis for two very important basic products.

2029
The first of these is calcium cyanamide, which in itself is the basis of nitric acid, which means high explosives. Not only is calcium cyanamide used for the production of nitric acid for war purposes, but also for the production of nitrolim, which is an important fertiliser, so that in peace time calcium carbide factories are of great importance. The second basic product is acetylene, which nowadays is very prominent in the welding process by oxy-acetylene gas. That also can be used in war time and in peace time, since I am informed that aeroplane wings must be welded by oxy-acetylene gas, and aeroplanes can be used either in peace or in war.
The annual world production of this commodity runs to between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 tons, and this country uses approximately 60,000 tons. Not one ounce of that is made in this country, but the major part, amounting to about 54 per cent., is imported from Norway. Two elements that go to make calcium carbide ore are limestone and coal. Besides these elements we require power, and the power has to be electricity, because carbide is made by a fusion of coal and limestone in an electrical furnace. Electricity can be obtained in one of two ways—by steam, which is thermal electricity, or by water, which is hydro electricity.
In setting up these factories, we must consider the source of the electricity, the speed of construction and the vulnerability to air attack. While electricity can, as I say, be made from steam, the speed of construction, which is vital, depends on whether we use thermal electricity or hydro electricity. If thermal electricity, made from coal, is used, the plant can be constructed and producing carbide in about one year. If hydro electricity is used, the plant can be constructed and producing carbide in about three years. If we want to have these factories manufacturing quickly, and I believe we do, we must get thermal electricity.
I come now to the point where I say the National Government, through the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, have broken faith with South-West Durham. On 3rd February, 1937, I asked the Minister whether South-West Durham would be kept in mind when the sub-committee of the Cabinet was considering the allocation of factories. The answer was as follows:
2030
"The supply of calcium carbide is under consideration and I regret that I can give no information at present. The hon. Member may rest assured that the claims of Southwest Durham, together with those of other areas, will receive full consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1937; col. 1598, Vol. 319.]
The reason why I am so earnest about South-West Durham is because it is the home of the two elements which go to make up calcium carbide. As in South Wales, so in South-West Durham, we have abundant coal of varying kinds and the finest limestone in the country, containing 98 per cent. of calcium carbonate. They are close together; the transport cost would be practically nil and, more important, we have 10,900 fewer miners in work now than there were 20 years ago. Those men are on the spot. In the limestone quarries there are 700 fewer men at work now than there were 20 years ago—they are also on the spot. I contend that South-West Durham ought to have been considered. It has not been considered. The Minister in his reply to a further question gave the names of the authorities who had been consulted. On 24th November last, the Minister informed my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. J. J. Davidson) that the local authorities invited by the Sub-Committee to give evidence were the Borough of Inverness, Fort William Town Council, the Borough of Merthyr Tydfil, and the Ness Fishery Board, leaving out entirely South-West Durham, which he had pledged the Government to take into consideration on this matter.
I have a letter here from the South-West Durham Development Board, which has tried time and again to get something done in that distressed area. They told me, on 14th December last:
"In reply to your letter of 8th December, this Board was not invited to give evidence to the Government Committee dealing with the manufacture of calcium carbide."
I know that the Minister for the Coordination of Defence has said repeatedly that the Special Areas have received Government orders. In that same letter they say:
"In reply to your second inquiry, I have no knowledge of orders given out by Government Departments to Special Areas being granted to South-West Durham."
The Government have come to the decision to put these two plants, one in South Wales—I am very glad of that—and the other in the north of Scotland.

2031
In the one case they use thermal electricity and in the north of Scotland hydro-electricity. We in South-West Durham can provide all that South Wales can provide and over and above that I repeat that we have the experienced quarry-men and miners kicking their heels who want decent work and cannot get it. I say definitely that the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, has broken faith with me, as I have proved from his answers. If you put that factory in the north of Scotland, you will have neither the material nor the men there. The same argument that was used against the aerodrome being placed at White Waltham can be used against putting this factory in the north of Scotland, and more extensively so. The same argument that could be used for putting a calcium carbide factory in South Wales can be used for putting one in South-West Durham. There we have the men, the villages, the houses, the streets, the churches, and everything ready, whereas in the north of Scotland you will have all these things to supply. I here and now protest bitterly against the breach of faith which has been shown to South-West Durham.
11.24 p.m.
The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. Gentleman was good enough to inform me of his intention to raise what he described as the matter of the proposed location of calcium carbide factories, one in the North of Scotland and the other in South Wales. I gather from him that he now approves at any rate of the proposed location of a calcium carbide factory in South Wales. I am not sure whether he gives his approval also to the establishment of a factory in the North of Scotland, but although his letter contained no reference at all to South-West Durham, I now gather that the burden of his complaint is that South-West Durham has not been selected by any persons prepared to manufacture calcium carbide for the establishment of an industry. The hon. Gentleman is, I think, under a misapprehension as to the part that the Government are playing in the establishment of these factories. Unless I misheard him I understood him to say that the Government have decided to establish factories in North Scotland and South Wales. The Government have not
2032
decided anything of the sort. What the Government have done is to say that they approve, so far as their approval is necessary, the establishment by a company of factories in South Wales and North Scotland. This is a scheme which has been put forward in its entirety by one concern, the British Oxygen Company, and not one penny of Government money will go into the establishment of these factories. I am sure hon. Members with all their zeal for the promotion of the manufacture of necessary commodities will agree with me in saying that the more that can be done without the expenditure of money the better for the country, for hon. Members will, I hope, soon wake up to the fact that there is not a bottomless purse into which the Government can dip and that it is better if they can find the same result can be achieved without the expenditure of any Government money.
So far as South-West Durham is con-concerned, I am not aware that any real practicable proposal to put up money for the establishment of such an industry in South-West Durham has ever come forward. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared, or knows anybody who is prepared, to establish such a factory in South-West Durham no doubt the location is open to them to-day; and the Government would welcome such a factory. I gather, however, that the hon. Gentleman does not know the name of any company or person who is prepared to establish an industry in that part of the country. I entirely agree with him that it would be a most admirable form of employment. It would be useful, no doubt, to the country if such a factory were established. I think, however, that the real burden of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is to charge me with a breach of faith. I think I can quite lightly bear a burden of that sort, for, indeed, there is no foundation for it whatever. The hon. Member asked me, in February, 1937:
"whether the question of the establishment of a factory for the manufacture of calcium carbide in South-West Durham will be kept in mind, considering that an abundance of first-class limestone and coal is in close proximity, while electrical power is at hand and unemployment is rife among the quarry-men and miners of that district."
That was some three months before the committee was set up to inquire into the schemes which might be submitted to

2033
them. The terms of reference were stated in the House. The committee advertised in the Press inviting schemes to be submitted to them. I gave the fullest publicity to the establishment of the committee. Nobody came forward with any practical scheme in which money was put up for the establishment in South-West Durham of such an industry. If any proposal of that sort had come, of course the committee would have had the opportunity of considering it and recommending it, and I have no doubt that the
2034
Government, in those circumstances, would have given the same blessing to a scheme for South-West Durham as they have given to the scheme, which is a practical one, in South Wales and in the North of Scotland.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  CAPITAL SHIPS (JAPAN).
  CAPITAL SHIPS (JAPAN).
  LIGHTHOUSES, WEST SCOTLAND.
  LIGHTHOUSES, WEST SCOTLAND.
  HOUSING (AGED PERSONS).
  HOUSING (AGED PERSONS).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (STATISTICS).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (STATISTICS).
  ACCIDENT, DUMBRECK COLLIERY, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  ACCIDENT, DUMBRECK COLLIERY, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  LAND FERTILITY SCHEME.
  LAND FERTILITY SCHEME.
  SUNDAY TRADING (HIGH COURT JUDGMENT).
  SUNDAY TRADING (HIGH COURT JUDGMENT).
  BEER AND SPIRITS DUTY (STATISTICS).
  BEER AND SPIRITS DUTY (STATISTICS).
  FIREARMS (SALE AND LICENCES).
  FIREARMS (SALE AND LICENCES).
  TAXATION REVENUE (STATISTICS).
  TAXATION REVENUE (STATISTICS).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
TRANSPORT.
  TRAFFIC CONTROL, THORNTON HEATH.
  TRAFFIC CONTROL, THORNTON HEATH.
  COUNTRY OMNIBUS SERVICES.
  COUNTRY OMNIBUS SERVICES.
  LONDON-NORFOLK RAILWAY SERVICE.
  LONDON-NORFOLK RAILWAY SERVICE.
  BRITISH ARMY (AMERICAN SOLDIER'S DEATH).
  BRITISH ARMY (AMERICAN SOLDIER'S DEATH).
  BROADCASTING (S O S MESSAGES).
  BROADCASTING (S O S MESSAGES).
  POST OFFICE (MAILS FOR CHINA).
  POST OFFICE (MAILS FOR CHINA).
  TRINIDAD.
  TRINIDAD.
  CEYLON (PUBLIC OFFICERS).
  CEYLON (PUBLIC OFFICERS).
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  LAGOS.
  LAGOS.
  NIGERIA.
  NIGERIA.
  GOLD COAST.
  GOLD COAST.
  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND.
  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (REPAIRS).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (REPAIRS).
  ROYAL NAVY (HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "COVENTRY" AND "CURLEW").
  ROYAL NAVY (HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "COVENTRY" AND "CURLEW").
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD ROBOROUGH.
Sir Henry Yarde Buller Lopes, Baronet, having been created Baron Roborough of Maristow in the County of Devon—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD PERRY.
Sir Percival Lea Dewhurst Perry, K.B.E., having been created Baron Perry of Stock Harvard in the County of Essex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD rose to call attention to British foreign policy and to the dangers inherent therein, particularly in regard to the League of Nations; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two main features of British foreign policy are that it is based, first, upon the League of Nations, which means, so we are told, that we will be faithful to our obligations under the Covenant; and, secondly, upon the commitments to defend France and Belgium if they are attacked. If all these commitments are taken into account, and if those of the League are interpreted in the manner in which League supporters interpret League obligations, the outlook is more than disquieting, more particularly—I need hardly remind your Lordships of this—as the League of Nations is now less than half a League. Of the seven great nations of the world—the other sixty countries or so do not really count for this purpose—only three are in the League—Great Britain, France, and Russia. It would be rash to rely upon Russia as a valuable military ally, even if the people of Great Britain were willing to have her as an ally at all. The plain truth is that, for practical purposes, the League of Nations consists of Great Britain and France, and that when we are told that British policy is based upon

685
the League of Nations it means in practice that there is an Anglo-French alliance. This is confirmed by the reciprocal obligation entered into by those countries to come to each other's assistance if either of them is attacked.
Now this commitment is an exceedingly serious one for Great Britain, more especially in view of France's Eastern alliances. Probably these alliances constitute the greatest danger to Great Britain. This is all the more so when what are regarded by League supporters as the obligations of the Covenant are taken into account. It would almost seem as if it was the chief aim in life of some League supporters to drag this country into war on behalf of Czechoslovakia. As matters stand at present Great Britain might get involved in war if Germany took action in support of the grievances from which Germans suffer in Czechoslovakia. In that event France would seek render assistance to Czechoslovakia and war would come between France and Germany. France would then seek to draw Great Britain in. It would be a matter of ease for France so to manipulate the situation that she could claim that an act of aggression had been committed against her by Germany.
It is not always a simple matter to define "aggression." In 1900 the late Lord Lansdowne, when he was Foreign Secretary, said this:
"Action of a technically offensive character may be resorted to for a purpose which is unquestionably defensive."
Hence, France, assisted by the usual appeals to honour and so forth, could soon make a case for us coming to her aid; and there will be all the more pressure in this direction because, as I have indicated, of the obligations of the Covenant which League supporters hold impose upon Great Britain the onus of going to the assistance of a country like Czechoslovakio if she is attacked. Thus it may be that we shall become involved in another great European war, although no real British interest is at stake. Leaving Czechoslovakia aside, many League supporters envisage what apparently they regard as a League war between Great Britain, France and Russia on the one side and Germany, Italy and Japan on the other. It is almost incredible that the combination of Great Britain, France and Russia should be called collective
686
security, but so it is, though actually there could scarcely be a worse example of the balance of power.
The tragedy of the League is that it has been largely responsible for recreating in a dangerous form the balance of power which it was designed to prevent. Therefore, when we are told, as we are told again and again, that there is no alternative between the League of Nations and the pre-War condition of things, the reply is that we have the pre-War condition of things now and worse, and that it is the League which is largely responsible for that.
It is an astonishing circumstance that British foreign policy continues to be based upon the present Covenant of the League of Nations, having regard to the failures of the League in nearly everything which it set out to do for the cause of peace. Its failures are so manifest and so well known that I will not take up time by dwelling upon them. It is, however, quite certain that if in 1919 the failures of the League could have been foreseen no British statesman, however reckless, would have committed this country to the obligations of the Covenant under Article 16. We shall no doubt be told that in the last resort under League procedure it is Great Britain which will decide what its military obligations are under Article 16. It is also the case that great authorities like Sir John Fischer Williams have laid it down that as matters have developed there is now no obligation upon this country to use force under the Covenant. Nevertheless, the position is unsatisfactory, ambiguous and dangerous.
League commitments either mean something or they mean nothing. If they mean nothing let us say so; it is the only honest thing to do. If they mean something we ought to recognise and realise fully the liabilities and the dangers involved. It becomes more and more clear that a League of Nations with. Article 16 in the Covenant will not work. I am not arguing this matter to-day on pacifist grounds, strong though I hold them to be. But leaving that aside, surely the time has come to recognise that a League of Nations based on force will not work. A large and increasing number of people who are not pacifists at all are coming to that conclusion. It is not many months since The Times, in a powerful leading article, came to the

687
conclusion that the policy of a League of Nations not based on force should be supported on the ground that there is no practicable alternative. The more Article 16 is examined the more apparent it becomes that it is utterly unsuitable for the purpose for which it was designed. The next war, if there is another war, will come without notice. It will simply come, and the slow and cumbersome machinery of the League of Nations will be quite unable to cope with the situation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has told us that in the event of another war it is the first ten weeks that will matter most and that in his opinion the war will, in effect, be decided in that time. If that is so, the issue will be determined long before the League at Geneva has even appointed its innumerable sub-committees. It is, in fact, scarcely possible to overstate the incapacity of the League of Nations as at present constituted to deal with a European war. For instance, the League has given no real consideration to the vital problem of how much force is to be contributed by the individual nations composing the League for the purpose of implementing collective security. If the League ever did proceed to draw up plans for collective security, how is Great Britain to avoid having conscription? Other nations in the League have conscription, and how in common fairness can we escape? If we expect other nations to help us they will naturally expect us to help them. How can we effectively do that without conscription? Our Navy is almost entirely for the defence of this country and of the British Empire. As regards the Air Force, that again would be required for ourselves in view of the huge size and the vulnerability of London. Hence, if there is to be a pooling of forces under some scheme of collective security, Great Britain will have to adopt conscription. I wonder how many of those who signed the so-called Peace Ballot would have done so if they had realised that it meant conscription for Great Britain?
It cannot be emphasized too often that the principles on which the League of Nations was founded have not been sufficiently thought out. The underlying principle of the League was that its Members, banded together against an aggressor, would keep the peace somewhat in
688
the same way as the police do. This analogy with the power of the police, which is so often quoted to us, has no real basis. In a civilised country like Great Britain the criminal has no chance whatever against the police unless he escapes capture, and that contingency does not obtain as between nations. The point is that the power of the police, backed by public opinion, is so overwhelming that a criminal cannot put up any fight against it at all. No such overwhelming force is possible as between nations. It would never come about that all the nations would be united against Germany, for instance. There are too many cross-interests. In every quarrel there are two sides, and there will always be two groups in every international quarrel, though the groups may be of varying sizes. Again—I think this is most important—it is certain that some of the smaller nations contiguous to or near Germany would never be willing to go to war with her because they would know that if they did so their countries would be devastated owing to their geographical position. This geographical difficulty, or the peril arising through being contiguous, will always make impossible what is called collective security. This geographical difficulty will always mean that some of the countries bordering on a powerful aggressor either will be neutral or will side with that State.
It is largely because of these considerations that some of the smaller countries in Europe are drawing away from Great Britain and France. Yugoslavia, Rumania and, of course, Switzerland cannot be counted upon to fight on the side of Great Britain and France in another war, and there is no question that the same may be said of Austria and Hungary. Even Belgium has left Great Britain and France and is determined to be neutral. Leaving all these considerations aside, however, it is perfectly obvious that no union of countries against Germany would have anything like the overwhelming force which the police have against a criminal. It simply cannot be done. In the last War Germany, with very little help, fought nearly the whole of Europe, and she almost won. There is no guarantee that the League of Nations would keep the peace as against Germany or some other very powerful country. Germany would know that some countries would

689
not fight against her and that some would side with her, and it might be that she would decide to chance a war. That is all the more true because of two considerations. In the first place, the next war will be very largely an air war—that is, a war of incalculable possibilities in which anything may happen. The second consideration is that we are living in an era of dictators, and a dictator might decide on a war however great the force ranged against him. He might do that as the only way out of insuperable internal difficulties. When the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed in 1919 the statesmen of that time do not appear to have thought of the advent of dictators.
I repeat that the more the whole problem is considered the plainer it becomes that Article 16 ought to be taken out of the Covenant. If Article 16 were taken out of the Covenant, League supporters ask again and again, what will happen to the rule of law? In these strange days many people seem to think that there is some definite code of law between nations, and that if it is adhered to all will be well. In reality, there is no such code. According to many supporters of the League of Nations any infraction of the Treaty of Versailles is an offence against the rule of law. Indeed, presumably any breach of any treaty is an offence against the rule of law. This doctrine is really quite unsustainable. Take the Treaty of Versailles. Not only was it signed under duress, but apart from that, many of its provisions were unjust and indefensible. Any defeated nation would have broken most of them. The time has come to recognise that treaties will only be kept if they are just and right, and if the conditions which obtained when they were made remain more or less the same. It should be remembered also that there have been breaches of the Treaty of Versailles by the Allies. Notably Article 8 of the Covenant has not been implemented. Germany was disarmed on the understanding that the Allies, the other nations, would carry out a large measure of disarmament. That has never been done, particularly by France. The more the whole matter is examined, the plainer it becomes that there is no rule of law in the sense in which League of Nations' supporters use that term.
The main causes of war are not to be found in breaches of law. Under present conditions they are largely economic and
690
territorial. About two-thirds of the territory of the world is owned by the British and French Empires, Russia, the United States, China and Brazil, leaving about one-third to the remaining sixty or so countries, which include Germany, Italy and Japan. Is that fair? The British Empire and the United States own between them about two-thirds of the economic mineral wealth of the world. Is that fair? Of the twenty-five commodities judged essential for modern life, the British Empire has adequate supplies in no fewer than eighteen. Germany has adequate supplies in four, Italy in four, and Japan in three. Is that fair? It is this gross inequality in the ownership of the wealth and territory of the world which has more than anything else to do with international unrest. What has the rule of law got to do with this gross inequality? If all the treaties in the world are kept, that will not redress economic grievances. It will not make matters better; it will make them worse—especially the Treaty of Versailles, which aggravated and created economic difficulties.
I emphasise that if all treaties in the world were kept sacrosanct, some of the chief causes of war would not be touched. They are outside the area of what is called the rule of law. We are repeatedly being told that it is the democratic countries which are keeping this rule of law and the Fascist countries which are not keeping it. That is because democratic countries have, for the most part, got all they want. I have shown what a vast proportion of the wealth and territories of the world they have got. Also, they were the victors in the last War and made the Treaty of Versailles, and naturally they keep it, or most of it. They do not keep Article 8 of the League Covenant, because that does not suit them. When the matter is analysed, this talk about the rule of law will be found to be mostly rhetoric and to have little relation to realities. I am afraid the same must be said about a good many speeches made by League supporters about the League in general. It is devoutly to be wished that League supporters would face facts and realise that what they call collective security can never be established. Unless they will do that, Great Britain is faced with a dangerous state of things. Unless they will do that, we have before us a vista

691
of war after war—assuming that the nations survive another world war.
Is it not reckless and perilous in the last degree to commit this country to a policy which may pledge us to take part in a series of wars in which no real British interest is at stake? I should like to compare all this with the attitude of the late Lord Salisbury. He was opposed to entangling Great Britain with Continental commitments. He did not consider—I quote now from an historic memorandum—that
"in common honesty we could invite other nations to rely upon our aid in a struggle when we did not know what might be the humour of our people in circumstances which cannot be foreseen."
Contrast this attitude with the present state of things, when we have obligations, defined and undefined, all over Europe and, indeed, all over the world. Yet our population is only 45,000,000 and we are not a military nation. It is obviously physically impossible for us to undertake the obligations of what is called the "full League policy." Let me give an illustration of the risks we run if we are to be ready at all times to fulfil our obligations under the Covenant. Many League supporters hold that the League should have taken action under the Covenant when Japan entered Manchuria. What was the date of that? The date was September 18, 1931, and that was the very day that Great Britain went off the gold standard. It would have been little short of madness for any Government—the country was in a ferment—to embark on a war in the Far East in those circumstances. I will say in passing that the record of the League of Nations in the Far East has been a particularly unfortunate one, and throughout the doctrine of collective security has proved to be a complete myth.
Let me make it plain that my criticism of the League of Nations is of the present League, a League based on force. If that ceased to be the basis, if Article 16 were taken out of the Covenant, the League, I hold—and many other people take the same view, both pacifists and nonpacifists—would gain enormously in influence and power. Probably, as time went on, all the nations would join the League, and it would become a world conciliation court, exercising great moral authority, and would do far better work for the cause of peace than any League
692
based on sanctions. Whatever differences of opinion may exist on that question, it will, I am sure, be agreed that there are great objections to a League which arouses expectations like those which led to the tragedy of Abyssinia. Is that tragedy going to be repeated? Some of the smaller countries—and I again cite Czechoslovakia—are relying upon the League for help. Will that help be forth-coming? I would call attention to some words of the Swedish Foreign Minister. In a speech which he made last month he said that Sweden did not approve of alliances and that he had little respect for the heroism which found its expression in the saying "We must fight to the last Englishman."
I go on to say that certainly Great Britain has no sufficiently vital interest in Czechoslovakia to involve this country in war; and in general what are called German designs in Eastern Europe should in no circumstances, I contend, be made a casus belli for this country. The present population of Germany is about 70,000,000, and if she should actually unite with all the Germans in Austria and also with all the Germans in Czechoslovakia, her population would be increased only to about 80,000,000. It is most extraordinary to argue that Germany, with a population of 80,000,000 instead of one of 70,000,000, would be so dangerous that we must go to war to prevent that coming about—even if we could prevent it. If we are to go to war for such causes as that; if we are to go to war because of happenings in Eastern or Middle Europe, then the prospect before us is dark indeed.
I maintain that all these problems should be faced now, and that it is the negation of statesmanship to leave them over for decision in some heated crisis which may suddenly surge up. Now is the time honestly, fully and fairly to review the situation. If that is done, there ought to be a radical change in the policy of this country towards the League of Nations. Surely, even ardent supporters of the League must recognise that there is no likelihood of the League, as at present constituted, attracting back to membership Germany, Italy and Japan. Germany has said that she will not return to the League. Very well, let the facts be faced. It is no good going on as if they did not exist. In the maze and tangle of European affairs one thing

693
which is certain is that there can be no permanent peace in Europe unless there is a better understanding between Germany and Great Britain, unless there is an understanding between these two great countries which will keep the peace between them. Unfortunately there seems to be little recognition of this fact by France. If Great Britain draws a little closer to Germany, France appears to intervene to try to stop the process. Unhappily there are strong pro-French influences at work in British official circles upon which France relies to get her own way.
Now one of the chief difficulties in bringing about a better understanding between Great Britain and Germany is the Franco-Soviet Pact, which Germany has strongly objected to from the start. It would be very interesting to know how far Great Britain was consulted by France when that Pact was entered into, and it is not only interesting but urgently important to know what degree of danger exists for Great Britain because of that Pact. Last year Mr. George Lambert asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:
"Whether any commitment exists whereby under the Franco-Russian Pact Great Britain could be involved in a European war; and if none does exist, has this fact been made clear to the French and Russian Governments?"
Lord Cranborne's reply was as follows:
"The answer to the first part of the question is 'No, Sir.' As regards the second part of the question, I think the French and Soviet Governments are fully aware of the position."
I ask, what does that reply to the second part of the question mean? Nobody knows. It is alarmingly similar to pre-War replies regarding obligations and commitments abroad. Lord Grey in his book Twenty-Five Years has admitted that one of his replies to a question, also about whether there were commitments between Great Britain and Russia, was open to the criticism that it did not answer the question on the Paper. He also said that questions in the pre-War years about military arrangements had been put aside by the Prime Minister with a similar answer. Is not this reply to Mr. George Lambert open to the same criticism? The reply really does nothing to dispel the fear that Great Britain may again be taken into a Continental war because France has this commitment with Russia.
Next I want to deal very briefly with the question of German Colonies, a settlement of which is essential if there is to be that better understanding between Germany and Great Britain which is the pre-requisite of peace in Europe. On a fair view of the facts, there is one over-riding consideration in this matter which ought to govern it, because it is a moral consideration. The Armistice was concluded on the basis of President Wilson's Fourteen Points, No. 5 of which promised "a free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all Colonial claims." In view of those words it is impossible to justify the taking away of all the German Colonies. If we were in her position we should feel exactly as she does about this matter. It must be intolerable to Germany to be told that she is not fit to have Colonies and that France, Belgium and Portugal are fit. There does not seem any ground for saying that the treatment of natives by France, Belgium and Portugal has been any better than the treatment of the natives was by Germany. A special responsibility rests upon Great Britain in this matter of the German Colonies, because it was Great Britain and the British Empire, in spite of the fact that the British Empire already comprised about a quarter of the world's territory, which got most of the German Colonies. Therefore I say that Great Britain ought to take the initiative in this matter, and take it now.
Presumably this matter of the German Colonies was one of those matters discussed when the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, went to Germany on his momentous mission, now three months ago. It is devoutly to be hoped that the expectations aroused three months ago are not once again to be wrecked by procrastination. The great vice of British foreign policy in recent years has been procrastination and a fatal tendency to let things drift and drift. Successive British statesmen seem to have thought that there is unlimited time. In the last few years Herr Hitler has made offer after offer to Europe, but nothing has been done in any effective way about any of those offers except the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. Time passes on and nothing happens, and the peril is that the situation hardens, and it hardens in the wrong direction. Unhappily the time may come when the situation will have got out of hand and

695
it will be too late for helpful negotiations. But there is still time to negotiate and settle this matter of the German Colonies. Herr Hitler has not yet formally asked for Colonies. He may do so and if they are not conceded we might perhaps be precipitated into a war. What will posterity say if war should come about the transfer or non-transfer of some unimportant piece of tropical territory which not one Englishman in ten thousand could accurately locate on the map? Yet that is what may happen unless our statesmen will show more expedition and vigour in getting things done than they have shown in the past. If there could be a settlement of the Colonial problem with Germany and a change in regard to the Franco-Soviet Pact the prospects of peace in Europe would be vastly improved.
Nevertheless, it is vital to recognise that the Franco-Soviet Pact is only one of the dangers for Great Britain inherent in the alliance between Great Britain and France. We have also to take account of France's other Eastern commitments. In fact, the more the Franco-British alliance is considered the more manifest it becomes that the liabilities involved much outweigh any advantages in it for Great Britain. It is certain that no material help can be expected from France in the defence of Great Britain or of the British Empire. This is due to the obvious fact that if Great Britain is at war France will be at war also and she will be fighting for her life. She will need all her resources for the defence of her own country and of her Empire which is not a small one. I urge strongly that the whole question of the alliance with France and also of our commitment to Belgium should be reviewed afresh in relation to the dangers involved in them. The dangers have increased to an extent which no one could have thought possible when the commitments were first made. Then, war was a comparatively small affair. Now, it may mean the end of our civilisation. The alliance with France has never been specifically sanctioned by the British people, and if a ballot were held on the subject I believe it would be rejected by a large majority. That would appear to be confirmed by a ballot taken in a London suburb in 1934, in which 24,000 persons voted. The truth is that whereas there is an alliance between the Governments of Great Britain
696
and France, there is not an alliance between the peoples of Great Britain and France.
For my part I have no doubt that the best policy for Great Britain is one of complete freedom from all Continental entanglements. I know there is an important school of thought which holds that under all circumstances we must stand by France. This has become so much our traditional policy that it seems to be accepted without question and without regard to the changed circumstances of to-day. There has not yet been sufficient recognition of the tremendous revolution made by the coming of air warfare. The sea no longer gives security to Great Britain; and air warfare is more dangerous for this country than for any other country, owing to the huge size and vulnerability of London. All this ought to be taken into account, and should in my view lead to a revision of some accepted and traditional strategic theories. It has, for instance, for a long time been one of the cardinal principles of our foreign policy that the Channel ports must be in their present hands. The underlying idea of course is that Great Britain must not be within striking distance of an enemy Power; but in fact any security of that kind has now largely disappeared. The next war, if it comes, will be mainly an air war, and aeroplanes could be over London from Germany in a little over an hour. It therefore seems idle to talk about the supreme importance of the Channel ports, and about the Rhine being our frontier. Surely, the time has come to recognise that our frontier is much nearer than the Rhine; it is at Ilford or perhaps even at Kensington.
These considerations go a great deal further than simply to destroy the Rhine frontier theory and the Channel ports theory; they affect, I submit, the whole question of the Anglo-French alliance. France can no longer give to Great Britain the security of former years. If the alliance with France were brought to an end the cause of peace in Europe, I contend, so far from being jeopardised, would be helped. France is not likely to go down; on the contrary she will be much more tractable. I believe that France would have made a settlement with Germany long ago if it had not been that ever since the War she felt that she had got Great Britain behind her. But for that M. Barthou, for instance, would

697
never have rejected Herr Hitler's offer to limit the German army to 300,000 men. I again emphasise that France, if she felt that she had not got Great Britain behind her, would be much more disposed to compose her differences with Germany. Indeed, it may be that France will as years go on become Fascist. On the other hand, it may be—though this is less likely—that she will become Communist. But whether she became Fascist or Communist the British people would not be willing to fight for her. Those considerations in themselves show how unwise, how speculative, our alliance with France is.
So far as Great Britain is concerned, the chief difficulties in the way of a better understanding with Germany would disappear if the alliance with France were brought to an end. The last country that Germany wishes to fight is Great Britain, and any outstanding questions between the two countries could be amicably settled. If Great Britain freed herself not only from the French alliance but from all Continental commitments it would be a great gain to the security of this country and of the British Empire. If Great Britain stands aside in the event of another European war, she will be in an extremely strong position at the end of that war. Other European Powers will be weak and broken; all will be more or less vanquished; there will be no victors in the ordinary sense of the word. In those circumstances it is really a fantastic nightmare to suppose that Germany, or any other Power, will be likely to make war upon Great Britain. Moreover, taking a fair view of the probabilities, if Great Britain stood aside in the next war and should subsequently be attacked and be in danger, I suggest that the United States would not be likely to see this country and the British Empire go down. The United States are not in the League; they are standing aside from European affairs; but that does not preclude them from taking part in another war if they think it right to do so. If Great Britain stood aside and was in danger I think that the United States would intervene; but there is no such assurance that she would intervene in another general European war in which Great Britain was involved. That would be too much like the last War.
Summing it all up, my submission is that the risks to Great Britain and the
698
Empire in this policy, if I may so call it, which I am outlining to your Lordships are small compared to the risks of the policy we are at present pursuing, under which it seems too likely that Great Britain will be involved in another Continental war, although no real British interest is at stake. It is a question of balancing one policy against another. The chief duty of British statesmen is to keep this country out of war, and it far transcends any other duty; and the best way of doing that, in my submission, is in her ending all her Continental commitments, after of course giving due notice. There is unmistakable evidence that there is a large body of opinion in the country in favour of this policy—call it isolation or what you like. Let me say this. The policy of isolation does not mean that Great Britain would stand aside from measures of economic appeasement and so forth. In all such work she should take a leading part, and she can afford to be generous. I know it is said that isolation does not guarantee that Great Britain can keep out of the next war. The reply to that is that under isolation there is a very good chance of keeping out of the next war, whereas under League policy there is no such chance at all. Under League policy whenever war comes, wherever it is or whatever it is about, Great Britain is bound to be in it—and not only in the next European war, but in all European wars. I find it difficult myself within the limits of temperate language to find the right adjective for such a policy, especially bearing in mind, as Lord Baldwin has told us, that the next European war is likely to end in complete, barbarous anarchy from one end of Europe to the other. Can any fate be worse than that?
I must draw to a close. I am speaking of course for myself; I do not think it is necessary to emphasize that I am not speaking for the Party to which I belong. Also, if it should be any satisfaction to the Government I would tell them that I am by no means wholly opposed to their foreign policy. They are obviously, according to their lights, doing their best to keep this country out of war. Indeed, Mr. Eden has said that his policy is one of peace at almost any price; and I think, too, the Government are entitled to credit for standing outside the Spanish quarrel and for their persistence in connection with the Non-Intervention Committee. But unfortunately the achievements of

699
the Government in foreign affairs are very largely of a negative character; there is very little that is positive to their credit. They have made very little progress with a better understanding between Great Britain and Germany, or with bringing about better relations with Italy. New hopes have been aroused since the advent of Mr. Neville Chamberlain. He appears, as I read it, to be a realist in foreign affairs. I think it is clear that he has not very much use for the League of Nations or collective security. In June, 1936, when the League of Nations Union was pressing that sanctions against Italy should be not only continued but intensified, Mr. Neville Chamberlain described that as the very midsummer of madness. It would be indeed extremely interesting to know, despite what Mr. Eden may say at Geneva, what the members of the Cabinet really think about the League of Nations and collective security. My own opinion is that if there could be a secret ballot of the Cabinet the League would stand a poor chance. Of course, the simple truth is that, despite rhetoric at Geneva, British foreign policy is changing, it is moving away from collectve security. The danger is that it is not moving away fast enough.
I have spoken plainly, and I have tried to avoid what I regard as the prevailing habit of make-believe. I have availed myself fully of the scope afforded by the procedure of your Lordships' House for the expression of independent views, and I think it is only right to acknowledge that I have found that such views are listened to in your Lordships' House with more than tolerance. So I felt that I really had no excuse for failing to discharge what I deem to be a duty, because I hold, rightly or wrongly, that there is a considerable section of public opinion which is in favour of views more or less like those which I have endeavoured to put before your Lordships this afternoon, and, therefore, I think it is right that views of this kind should find expression in Parliament. I firmly believe that both the Government and the Opposition are mistaken in their estimate of public opinion about foreign policy. I think one evidence of that is to be found in the by-elections, where very often the polls are extremely low. I judge that to be partly because there are a good many electors who will not vote
700
for the foreign policy either of the Government, or of the Labour Party, or of the Liberal Party.
If another so-called Peace Ballot could be held, can it be doubted that the result would be very different from that of the last one? I would remind your Lordships that in the last Peace Ballot only 58½per cent. of those voting voted for military sanctions, and that was before the Abyssinian War, before the collapse of the League. Can it be doubted that the percentage to-day would be much less than that? Yet for another Continental war a Government must have the support of well over 90 per cent. of the British people, and also, as the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, has pointed out, the support of the whole Empire. The Dominions do not like Continental commitments. They refused to be parties to Locarno and, personally, I think it would be unwise to rely upon them in enforcing what is called collective security. It is, indeed, safe to say that the support of the Dominions and of over 90 per cent. of the British people will only be forthcoming for a war in which Great Britain herself is attacked. Nevertheless, League supporters never seem to give a thought to the appalling position which would arise if a Government endeavoured to take Great Britain into a Continental war about which public opinion in the country and throughout the Empire was sharply divided. Summing it all up, my view is that the dangers of the present position ought to be faced fully and fairly, and that Great Britain ought to retrace its steps and reverse its foreign policy while there is still time. I beg to move for Papers.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to British foreign policy, particularly in regard to the League of Nations. —[Lord Arnold.]
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Arnold for having taken the opportunity to get from His Majesty's Government some clear idea of their views about the foreign situation at the present moment. He is perhaps rather more sanguine than I am that he will get the information he wants. I agree with him that it would be interesting to know what the present Cabinet think about collective security. We shall not

701
be told. The Government have a very ingenious way of bringing in the League of Nations and saying that they support the League, but at the same time they are fully aware that collective security is quite impracticable. They hope therefore that any desire for it will not arise and that, should it arise, its impracticability will be so demonstrated that they will not have to participate in any such policy. I think that is what they are relying on while abstaining at the same moment from saying that Article 16 should be taken out of the Covenant. They will get away with that, but at the same time it would be more courageous, for the sake of strengthening the authority of the League, were they really to expose to the world the fallacy of supposing that collective security can really effect any useful purpose.
I am very glad my noble friend emphasized the chief point about collective security and leaving Article 16 in the Covenant, which is that it raises the hopes of the smaller nations. That is very unfair. I have heard it said by citizens of these nations that they may be able to hold out for a short time, but that they know in the long run the British Fleet will come to their assistance. It is very unfortunate and wrong that hopes of that description should be raised. But I do not want to waste any of your Lordships' time in emphasizing the points which my noble friend placed so clearly before the House, more especially the need of an initiative on our part to deal with the question of the German Colonies, because our Empire and its vast magnitude suggest that we should take the initiative in that matter, in order to prevent what is at present a sore place from becoming a gaping wound which it may be extremely difficult to heal.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention to a point which has been rather ignored in the various public discussions on foreign affairs in recent times. It may seem a detail, but it is a detail of some importance. It concerns the organisation of our foreign affairs as administered in this country. I refer to the creation of a new post which has recently been made, and I want to make it quite clear that any criticisms I have to make do not arise from any personal considerations whatever. The post I refer to is that of Chief Diplomatic Adviser. I well know that Sir Robert Vansittart is not
702
only a very popular but a very able official, but the creation of a new post to deal with the extremely delicate and difficult matters concerning our foreign relations appears to me of such importance that some elucidation of the duties connected with the position is a fit subject for questions and, if need be, criticisms in Parliament. To begin with, I am not very clear what the title of this official is to be, or is. He is Chief Diplomatic Adviser. So far I think I am accurate. I have seen the post described as Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have seen it also as Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government. I have seen it also as Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Cabinet. I have also seen it as Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Prime Minister, and I am sure that I shall be corrected in order that I may get that right, anyhow.
What exactly are to be the duties of this official? The position of Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is one of enormous responsibility. Hitherto he has been the chief diplomatic adviser to the Secretary of State, although no such title has been added after his name. A series of extremely able and eminent men filled that important post. My experience goes back to Sir Thomas Sanderson, afterwards Lord Sanderson, who was in charge of the Foreign Office when I entered it many years ago. He was succeeded by Sir Charles Hardinge, now Lord Hardinge, a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, by Sir Arthur Nicholson, who was afterwards made Lord Carnock, by Sir Eyre Crowe, Lord Tyrrell, Sir Robert Vansittart and now Sir Alexander Cadogan, who fills the post with an eminent record and is known to be an extremely able official. Now the duty of this official is to advise the Foreign Secretary, and one of the necessary functions, as I would call it, of a Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is to sit in a chair in the Foreign Office and to interview people, and to have all the threads in his hands of the detailed work of the Foreign Office, which makes him, more than anybody else should be, a very safe adviser. I remember Sir Eyre Crowe very vividly. I served in the Foreign Office while he was there. He would spend his day interviewing people and seeing foreign representatives. Late at night, after everybody was leaving the

703
office, he was surrounded by a wall of despatch boxes, and he had to see all the papers that went through the office and minute them and comment upon them. He was an adviser—whether his advice was good or bad has nothing to do with it—whose advice was founded on complete knowledge.
There were some of those I have mentioned who depended rather on their tongue than on their pen, but I believe that the pen is the most useful instrument in the Foreign Office. Now what is going to be the relationship of this Chief Diplomatic Adviser with the Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs? Is the Chief Diplomatic Adviser in the Foreign Office or is he in some other building? Will not the circulation of papers, a necessary part of the procedure of the Foreign Office, necessitate all the important papers being sent to him, and if not, how will he be aware of the latest information? Is he going to divide his responsibility with the Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs? If so, there may be some confusion which will be very unhelpful to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Nobody realises better than I do how in the course of these years the work of the Foreign Office has increased. The correspondence that has to be dealt with compared with what it was forty years ago is simply colossal. That would excuse the staff being augmented and officials of minor rank being introduced, but nothing is more fatal than to duplicate the senior officials, to divide the responsibility, to confuse the mind of the Foreign Secretary, and to have an adviser flitting in from I do not quite know where with imperfect knowledge, making suggestions with which the Permanent Under-Secretary may not agree.
If he is going to be adviser to the Government, or the Prime Minister, or the Cabinet, that may involve him having an office elsewhere, perhaps on the other side of the street in Downing Street, and we should have a repetition then of what occurred between 1918 and 1922, when there was a sort of duplicate Foreign Office set up in the Prime Minister's residence with continued friction going on in the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office staff. That again is most undesirable. Then I want to know what particular qualifications as an adviser Sir Robert Vansittart has? I know of his
704
abilities, but advice on foreign affairs in these days is a matter of such acute importance that it seems to me that his qualifications should be made known to us. I seem to remember the crisis of the Hoare-Laval proposals which ended in the Foreign Secretary himself having to be scrapped, and whatever we may think of the Hoare-Laval proposals—and some of us may think it was rather a pity they were not adopted—we all of us agree that they were badly mismanaged, clumsily launched and very inaptly handled. Whether the Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in these days was responsible for this I do not know, but anyhow it would not seem that it was checked sufficiently in order to prevent the lamentable consequences that ensued.
I notice that the Chief Diplomatic Adviser, to whatever Department he is attached, has been made Chairman of a Co-ordinating Committee for broadcasting, I think, information with regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government. This looks to me rather as if the Government were conscripting the Civil Service to make propaganda for their own support, which I think is rather undesirable. I am not in a position to deprecate the use of broadcasting, but I do feel that it is an extremely delicate weapon to use in international affairs, especially if the Government are going to be responsible for what is broadcasted. Now, is the Chief Diplomatic Adviser going to draft these bits of information for distribution abroad? Is he going to be solely responsible for them? Is it going to pass through the Cabinet? Is the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to have some voice in it and is the Permanent Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to have his former functions as adviser obliterated altogether? We are creating these new posts in a sphere where they matter very considerably, because if one thing is necessary in foreign affairs it is that there should be a single individual with unfettered discretion, taking advice, obtaining Cabinet sanction, and declaring his policy to the House of Commons. You want one chief. It seems to me that this new appointment is going to be an embarrassment. I am not at all sure that he will be a help. I rather think he will be a nuisance in the Foreign Office.
I hope very much that the Government are not going further and make an A.A.L. In case some of your Lordships do not

705
know what that means, I will explain that it means "Ambassador at large," which is a new form of appointment that we are not unlikely to copy as we copy so many things from European countries now. An Ambassador at large is an official who has an aeroplane at his disposal and is never to be found where he is wanted. I foresee that this is imminent and I foresee the possibility that the unfortunate Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having received advice from the proper source, which is his Permanent Under-Secretary, may suddenly hear a knock at the door and the Ambassador at large will enter breathless, having returned from Timbuktu with the very latest information which upsets the entire policy of the Government. I think many of your Lordships may have come across individuals who frequent foreign capitals arid have always got the latest information and embarrass people by their didactic laying down of the law as to what is going on in foreign countries. They are as a rule entirely mischievous. We have got our Ambassadors and Ministers abroad; we have got them in close touch with the Foreign Office, their functions are carried out quietly and silently, without sometimes even their names being generally known. They give their full information to their Chief at the Foreign Office, and with their information and with the advice of his Permanent Under-Secretary he is fully equipped to make what judgment he considers right.
This new appointment is adding some confusion, and I think that if the opinion of those closely concerned in the management of our foreign affairs was taken, they would look very much askance at this new, unstable, unexplained element that has been introduced into the Foreign Office. I have thought it right to bring this matter forward because no one else has done so. I consider it more important than the public seem to imagine. I do not know whether the appointment was made with the full and enthusiastic consent of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I do not know what the necessity for this appointment was considered to be, and I should have thought that Sir Robert Vansittart, having gained a well-earned retirement, might have spent his time in a sphere in which he excels—namely, that of literature. I see he wrote a book called The Cap and
706
Bells. I do not at all understand why the appointment was made, and it has never been explained, but we may perhaps hear what is the title of his appointment and what are his precise functions.
We live in a time in which I, for one, think war very unlikely. I think the general horizon is better than it has been. I have expressed my appreciation before now of the conduct of foreign affairs by the present Secretary of State in extremely difficult, puzzling and intricate circumstances. I do not want him to be embarrassed. I think that full advantage must be taken in the present situation, however confused it may appear to us, in Europe, for the Government to go forward with constructive initiative. That is where I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Arnold. This reluctance to take the initiative has been carried too far. When it is necessary to get consent to any united action or representation of many foreign countries the Government cannot be expected to go further forward than others, but there are several points upon which the world does look to this country for an initiative. This matter of calming German opinion with regard to the vindictive Treaty of Versailles on the subject of the Colonies, I think, is certainly one in which His Majesty's Government should go forward first. I think the world does look to this country, and I wish it could look to it for the real appeasement that is necessary. Although I do not want to embark on this major subject now, but to confine my remarks more or less to what I have already said, I do feel that the fact that instead of taking the initiative we are following others whom we so often condemn in this question of rearmament, has vitiated the policy of the Government.
On the one hand they are trying appeasement and conciliation and on the other hand they are building up these gigantic armaments. With their voice they are declaring the barbarity of air warfare as it has been used abroad, and yet they are building weapons of destruction from the air which are very much more colossal and destructive than those which other nations are producing. It is that contradiction that I think is deplorable. If the Government had turned in the opposite direction in a world of turmoil, and had said to the world: "We do not believe in this barbarity of attempting to settle international disputes by

707
modern methods of war, and we shall abandon that idea completely," the effect throughout the world would have been magical. I firmly believe that others would have followed our example, because that would voice not only the opinion of the Government but the opinion of the people in this country and in other countries. In that respect I do deplore the Government's policy, but I do not want to enlarge further on that. It was more the point of the conduct of foreign affairs to-day to which I wanted to draw your Lordships' special attention.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I find myself most unfortunately unable to agree with the concluding observations of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, because I had hoped, after listening to a good deal of his speech, that I should have been able, on one occasion at any rate, to express my adhesion to the views he uttered. However, that is not to be. On his main discussion of the position of Chief Diplomatic Adviser I do not express any opinion, but I agree with him—and I hope the Government will agree with him also—that some fuller explanation than has yet been given to the public would be reasonable and desirable. It is a new office altogether, and I think it is only reasonable for us to ask for some account of its creation.
I wish I could give even that measure of adhesion to the speech of my noble friend Lord Arnold. I am afraid he will not be at all surprised to hear that there was scarcely an observation in it from beginning to end with which I was not in profound disagreement. He made a very formal and elaborate attack on the League of Nations. It is quite true that he ended by saying that all he meant was that Article 16 should be removed from the Covenant. I am quite sure that when he comes to think of it he will agree that that is not what he meant at all, because he would certainly have to remove other Articles if he takes that view. Articles 10 and 11, for instance, would also have to go, and indeed the whole group of Articles, broadly speaking, from 10 to 17—what are ordinarily called the peace-keeping Articles—would either have to go altogether or be completely remodelled. He quoted with great approval an article in The Times.
708
I hope he has been reading recent articles in The Times. If he has, he will remember an article in which the writer concluded by observing that the Government were perfectly right in resisting all proposals for amendment of the League, because they were quite sure that any amendment of a searching character would kill the League dead. That is, of course, the truth, as everyone who knows anything at all about Geneva, or indeed about international affairs, must be perfectly aware.
My noble friend indulged in a great many observations on the "failure" of the League. I venture to commend to him a very recent speech in which—I am quoting from memory—the Foreign Secretary said that it was a great pity that people concentrated on the two or three failures of the League and forgot its many successes. That is the truth, and those who say that the League has been a complete failure, and all the rest of it, have entirely lost sight of the fact that unquestionably the League has been instrumental in preventing quite a number of smaller wars, and one great disturbance in which a great Power was an active party and which did seem at one time to threaten a very considerable disturbance to the peace of Europe. I will not go into the details of what he said about all that, except just to remark that he said, and I was sorry to hear my noble friend Lord Ponsonby repeat, that of course the League was quite impracticable; it could not work; there was no chance of it. I have already pointed out that in a number of cases it has worked, and I think that people who use that language should at any rate remember the very recent example of what was done at Nyon.
It was quite true that that was not technically a League matter. It was, however, done in the immediate neighbourhood of Geneva and I do not quite know on what ground it was not done at Geneva. It was in fact entirely League in its atmosphere, and I believe that the secretariat was provided by the Secretariat of the League. The conception of it was entirely in accordance with this much-abused Article 16. It provided quite simply that if there were any further attempts at what was called shortly— though I see that learned writers in The Times say wrongly—"piracy" in the Mediterranean, then all the Powers

709
there assembled, eight or ten of them, would agree to take the strongest measures. These were military measures, I am afraid, as my noble friend will perhaps remember; not merely economic pressure, but just a crude, brutal attack on the wrongdoer, which seems to shock my noble friend very much! Not only was that done, but it was a complete success, without any reservation whatever. It is quite true that some months afterwards one further attack has been made, but that has been instantly followed up by more stringent orders to the forces of the Powers concerned, and I feel quite certain that no serious infraction of the Nyon rule will be attempted.
That is all I have time to say this evening, and all, I am sure, that your Lordships have time to listen to, on the destructive part of the noble Lord's speech. He then began to explain the kind of policy that he would recommend. He said that in no circumstances must we protect Czechoslovakia. Put in that way, I do not suppose that there is anybody who would say that it was our duty to protect Czechoslovakia. That is a point of view which it seems impossible for the opponents of the League to appreciate. Nobody wants to say that it is our duty to protect Czechoslovakia. I think it is our duty, and I am quite certain that it is in our interest, to do our utmost to establish a new rule of law—if my noble friend will forgive me for repeating the phrase—in international affairs which will preclude the use of violence in order to secure political objects—in effect to make the provisions of the Kellogg Pact, which everybody has agreed to accept, a reality; that war ought not to be used in the pursuit of national policy. That is the principle. It is a principle of vast importance. I quite agree that it is undoubtedly a great change. It is, in my judgment at any rate, the greatest reform that could possibly be carried through, not only in national but also in international methods, because it would really strike a blow at the institution of war.
The noble Lord went on to explain how reasonable he thought it was for Germany to try to reacquire the German populations in Austria and Czechoslovakia. He said that, after all, it would only mean an addition of another 10,000,000 to the existing 70,000,000 of the Germans. That, he said, would be a great appeasement for Europe. It was
710
not the only appeasement he recommended. He recommended that the French should abandon—should be forced to abandon, I suppose, or at any rate persuaded to abandon—their alliance with Russia; and at the same time that we should abandon—I will not say our alliance, because I do not think that any alliance with regard to the Eastern frontier of France exists at present, but our entente with France. I do not know what arguments we are going to use to induce her to abandon her alliance with Russia if we are going to say that in any case she is not to expect any help from England. When we have done that, the noble Lord thinks that Germany might be more peacefully inclined.
He did, however, in an earlier part of his speech explain how very legitimate the discontent of Germany and others was if you took the general distribution of wealth and territory in the world. I forget his figures, but they were very considerable, and showed that we had a certain proportion of the whole surface of the world and Germany had a very much smaller one. I do not know what all that argument meant, unless it was to say to the Germans: "You have a perfect right to have a very considerable proportion of the British Empire handed over to you, because that would make a greater equality between the two countries." Indeed, both he and Lord Ponsonby said that in their view very considerable concessions in Colonial matters ought immediately to be made. I cannot conceive a more mischievous doctrine to be preached than that. It is an invitation to the German Government, who do not seem to require any encouragement in that direction, to put forward demands of an altogether extravagant character to this country, knowing quite well, as I think both noble Lords must know, that those demands will be quite incapable of concession, and leading, as Lord Arnold himself said, to the possibility of war between Germany and us. I confess that that form of peace policy does not appeal to me in the least. I will not trouble your Lordships with any further observations on my noble friend's speech, because I disagreed so completely with it that really there is no common ground between us.
I do not suppose it is at all possible for the Government to tell us anything about the Austrian situation. I imagine that it is quite impossible for them to do so, but

711
it is disquieting, as anybody who has read the newspapers must see. Let us hope that a good deal of what is stated in the newspapers will turn out to be exaggeration. I do not know, but it does look as if something in the nature of an ultimatum has been given by Germany to Austria, to say either that Austria must put her police, and the administration of what we should call her home affairs, under the control of a Minister known to be favourable to the Nazi system, or there would be, as it is variously stated, some steps taken by Germany against Austria—some say actual occupation by armed forces, and others say the creation of a state of things such as was created in Spain, as one newspaper puts it. It is, I think a very dangerous feature in our existing conditions that there seems to be growing up a new technique of aggression, not consisting in direct invasion of the territory, but in assisting some elements in that territory which are hostile to the Government of that territory, so that you get in effect an invasion while pretending, more or less plausibly, that you are doing nothing except allowing some of your citizens, as they have always been allowed, to take part in local national disturbances. I do not know whether anything can be said about that, nor do I know whether His Majesty's Government have any policy to announce or any statement to make, as to what they think would be the action of this country in events which appear to be not impossible of accomplishment in the near future.
My Lords, I cannot help feeling that, whether it is the fault of the Government or not, and I am quite ready to admit that in many respects it is not, we are in the presence of the fact—and that is why a discussion in this House is so desirable—that British policy has failed almost completely in the last few years. There is no doubt that our policy has been always—in the very unfortunate phrase sometimes used—to "keep out of war," but that is only a very imperfect statement of what should be the object of our policy, to promote peace. War everywhere is a danger to us, and war everywhere is a disadvantage to us, and in my judgment we have just as much a bounden duty to do our utmost to keep the peace of the world, so far as we can do so reasonably, as an individual is bound not only to keep him
712
self free from attack but to keep peace among his fellow subjects and citizens. Judged by that kind of standard—and I do not think it is a too exacting standard —I do not think we can doubt that the situation is very much worse than it was six years ago. There are two wars waging and vast numbers of people are being slaughtered, while almost every minute horrors and outrages are being committed. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have read the account in the Daily Telegraph of the sack of Nanking. If you have it must have been to your Lordships reminiscent of the great military crimes of past years, such as the sack of Magdeburg and Badajos. Long after the military occupation of Nanking had been achieved outrage and destruction were allowed to go on. And in Europe we see these continual feuds and new acts of aggression.
As Lord Ponsonby has said, the situation in very far worse than that which existed in 1931. On the whole the world was then free from disturbance, and was about to enter upon a very serious effort to accomplish disarmament. The League was powerful and respected, Germany, Italy and Japan were all Members of the League, and there did seem to be a prospect of entering upon a new phase in international history, where the danger of war if not actually prevented would have been very much lessened. That is not so now, and, as Lord Ponsonby reminded us, that barometer of unrest, the amount of armaments in the country, has shown a great warning of the condition we are in. I cannot, of course, agree with him that in the circumstances His Majesty's Government were wrong to increase the armaments of this country. I agree, not only with him but with the present Prime Minister and his predecessor, that the increase of armaments is a grave evil and a horrible waste of money—it delays and obstructs social progress—but I also agree that if the other countries of Europe insist upon increasing their armaments, it is impossible to say to this country that we can remain the only unarmed or partially unarmed State in Europe.
Without going farther into the details of that, it seems to me that we cannot deny—even the most zealous friend of the Government cannot deny—that the situation to-day is very much worse than it was in 1931, and that the principles and policy which are often so admirably

713
stated by the present Foreign Minister have not been accomplished. That may not be the fault of the Government, it may be the extraordinary perversity of the other countries; but there it is. And I must say frankly that in my judgment —I dare say I am quite wrong—the Government have committed very serious errors in their foreign policy. I think their conduct of the Disarmament Conference was most unfortunate. I think the speeches made by the then Foreign. Secretary about the Manchukuo incident were absolutely deplorable, and they led —I agree most fully with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on the subject yesterday—directly, as I think, to this aggression on China by Japan.
And of course there is the supreme instance of the conduct of the Abyssinian affair, which really it is impossible to exaggerate. I do not believe there is anybody in the world now who defends what actually was done—first the rather flamboyant declaration of policy in September, and then the abject retreat from that policy two months later in the Hoare-Laval agreement, with the most deleterious consequences in every country in the world. I do not believe any one defends that now. I have recently been in America, and I was startled to find how that incident is still remembered, and how the conclusion drawn by many people there is that, whereas we set out to say that we were going to interfere in this matter because we desired to enforce the rule of law and the principles of peace, yet in point of fact, for reasons not yet fully explained, we abandoned that effort when we had gone half way through it. There is undoubtedly a bitterness in some quarters over the fact that the American Government expressed themselves in a most friendly way in regard to our efforts, and were apparently prepared to second them to the utmost of their power, and at that moment we abandoned them in the very crisis of the question.
What I feel is that though there have been very frequent statements by Government speakers of acceptance of the new principle of International Law embodied in the Covenant of the League they have not carried that policy out with any steadiness or vigour. What is the principle?— and this is really where I think it is vital that we and the people of this country and of other countries should realise what
714
is at stake. What is the principle for which we contend? It is this, that peace is not the interest only of the immediate combatants, it is the concern of everybody, as I think the words of the Covenant put it, and all have a duty to combine to keep it. I believe that in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has said, that principle is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world. I do not think it is the least true to say that this is a fallacy attempted to be imposed by the League of Nations on the peoples of the world. On the contrary, my experience—and I have had some opportunity of testing the truth of my opinions on the subject—is that in every country people not only desire peace but accept the view that peace is the interest of everybody, that it is not the interest of the countries involved only, but it is the interest of everybody, and that everybody should combine to keep it. As far as I understand the statements of the Government, they also take that view.
And what is the rival principle, the principle recommended by Lord Arnold? It really is this—and one must never forget, in judging what Lord Arnold says, that fundamentally his view is that there ought to be total disarmament and no fighting under any circumstances by anybody, for anything. That, of course, gives a colour to what he says, and when you see that the proposals he actually makes lead to absurd results it may be that that is what he desires. But his principle is that everybody should be for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Those are the two principles—either that peace is a general interest or that each country just fights for its own immediate success and leaves all the other countries to look after themselves. I believe that if we adopt the first policy, and adopt it frankly and openly, we shall sweep away sooner or later the opposition to it. It only exists in my judgment among a comparatively small number of people, not in any case, as far as I can judge, in the great mass of the population. If you can once get that principle established, then you can really make progress in international civilisation. But in order to do it there must be clear, unambiguous statements.
I have heard people say that the Government are perfectly right not to say

715
exactly what they are going to do in particular events that may occur, that the great thing is to keep the foreigner guessing. I venture respectively to think that is the worst policy that you could possibly adopt. They will guess, and guess wrong, and guess what they would wish to be true. That is the ordinary frame of mind of the human being. They may say, "We are quite sure they will not intervene, we shall go on with our policy," and then at the last moment it will turn out to be such a policy as in no circumstances this country could admit. Those are exactly the circumstances in which war takes place. It is far better to say definitely what your policy is. Then everybody knows what it is, and they will formulate their conduct accordingly. But the most dangerous thing is to leave it doubtful as to what you will do and what you will not do in any particular case.
The second corollary to this principle is the necessity for going back to the old practice of the League and promoting open discussion. I noticed the other day an angry reference made by the Polish Government. They said, "How can you expect us to support"—I think it was a resolution with reference to China; "it was just got up by three or four Powers in a back parlour, and they put it before the Council of the League who are required to accept it. You cannot expect us to accept a policy on those lines." There is a great deal of truth in that. The world is entitled to know not only what is actually decided but the reasons which induced the Powers to put the policy forward so that they can judge as to what is right in the circumstances and what is wrong. In the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, yesterday, he drew a very terrible picture, very shortly but very vividly, of the conditions in China and the widespread destruction. He said that this was disapproved of not only by us but by the whole world, and he could not believe that the public opinion of the world would not have some effect on Japan. I am not very sanguine about that myself, but I do say with him that public opinion is, broadly and generally, a most important factor in keeping the peace of the world, and, broadly speaking, you will always find public opinion on the side of peace. Therefore the only thing
716
you have to do is to mobilise that public opinion, and for that purpose you must have open diplomacy, and not secret diplomacy. You cannot get public opinion to come along unless the people know all the facts of the case. For that reason I should like to see that change made in the Government's policy. I should like to see them bring their proposals quite frankly before the Council or Assembly of the League. I do not think, myself, it matters so much if they are not able to carry their proposals. They put them forward, if necessary there is a vote, and the world at large knows which side the different countries have taken. I think there is some advantage in that even if the result is that the Government are unable to carry any particular proposal.
Finally, we must do what I have urged already in the observations I have made: we must put forward the view that our principle of policy is the maintenance of peace. This talk that we will interfere only if British interests are involved is, in my judgment, most pernicious. It is fatal for the protection of these very interests. The only real protection for British interests and, indeed, for the interests of the world is to avoid war. Wherever any serious war breaks out, British interests are more or less involved, and owing to the immense extent of our interests that is more true perhaps of us than of any other country in the world. The only solitary way of protecting British interests is to preserve peace. When I and others press the Government to act up to their obligations under the Covenant, in spite of the observations of my noble friends, we do so not because we have any visionary and extravagant view of the duties of this country. Not at all. We believe that in this matter it is true that there is a great moral duty on this country to use its whole influence to prevent the horrors and wickedness of war; but in addition to that we hold that it is not only our duty but it is emphatically our interest to do so, and that it is worth almost any risk, almost any sacrifice, if we can get rid of this horrible institution which does us and so many other people infinite harm.
I said a word just now about America. I am quite sure there is no opinion which is more generally held in this country than that close collaboration between this country and America is, if not vital, at

717
any rate in the highest degree desirable. It is an opinion I hold myself, but I only hold it as one of an innumerable multitude in this country. I am quite certain of this, that if you say your policy is directed to the protection of British interests, you have no ground for asking for the support of the United States. They will say, "We have not the least objection to your protecting your interests. Why should you not, but why should we interfere?" There is a book which I have already quoted in public, I believe, published in America and which has had an immense circulation, with the title England expects that every American will do his duty. That is the common guide urged against any suggestion that there should be co-operation between England and America. "You do not want our co-operation," they say, "really for peace or for any large view of that kind. You want it in order to save your dividends, the£150,000,000 you have got invested in Shanghai or wherever it may be." And they say with great force, "Why should we interfere in a matter of that kind?"
My noble friend Lord Arnold is impressed with the possibility that his policy of isolation might lead to a position when we alone should have to face the attack of some militaristic combination on the Continent of Europe, and his only answer is: "We might rely on the United States to come and save us." Not, I think, a very glorious reply for any British Peer to make; but, apart from that, I believe it to be a most unsafe conclusion. I am quite sure that the United States would see with the greatest grief and reluctance the destruction of this Empire or the serious injury of this Empire. I am not in the least a believer in the theory of Anglo-American hostility in America. It only exists, if it exists, in quite insignificant measure. But if we are to set out with the policy of my noble friend that we are never to interfere to save anybody, that the only thing that matters for us is to save our own interests, and we proceed on that strictly self-regarding policy always in our conduct of foreign affairs, I say it is fantastic to think that if the result of that policy is to leave us in complete danger we can then go and say to the United States: "That policy which we have always rejected, and which we do not even now think is right for us to pursue, is the very
718
policy we are invoking to receive assistance from you." I feel sure that is a fantastic conception of international affairs.
I am sorry to have delayed your Lordships so long. I have only one or two words to say in conclusion. When views of this kind are put forward we are told they are visionary or Utopian or, nowadays, that they are ideological. I do not know in the least why people are so fond of that exceedingly cumbrous word. But that is what is always said. If that means they are unpractical, that they are not likely to receive support from other countries, then I say, simply, that I disagree. Every time that this country has gone to the League of Nations or elsewhere with a bold statement of what it desires in the general interests of the world, it has always received—I say so boldly—ample support from other countries. Take that very speech of September 11. Why, it was hailed with enthusiasm by all the other countries practically, with some quite insignificant exceptions. And it has always been so, It was just the same at Nyon. We had the complete support of all the countries there. It is not that. It is that we are afraid of our own greatness. We are not bold enough to state clearly and definitely what our policy is and call for assistance. Whenever we have done that we have had ample support.
If that is what is meant by Utopian, visionary, and the rest of it, I say simply I do not believe that is right. But if it means that our foreign policy must be based on definite principles, then I say of course that is true. All policies worthy of the name are in that sense visionary and Utopian and ideological. That is true. We ought to have a principle at the back of our policy, and our principle is that we stand not only for the protection of our property and dividends, but we stand also for the establishment of right in international affairs, and we stand' against the doctrine, now unfortunately so common, that the only thing that counts is force and that might is right.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I only ask for a few minutes of your Lordships' time to speak a word about the present position of the League of Nations. I fear that my modest contribution to the discussion will come very flat after the very

719
forcible and noble sentiments which have just been expressed by my noble friend Lord Cecil. I have been so long an ardent and admiring disciple of that valiant apostle of the League that I greatly regret to have even a seeming difference with him. I think he will see that my difference is only seeming. But there are many who are as unswerving in their allegiance to the principles of the League of Nations as my noble friend who are being driven by the pressure of hard facts to the conclusion that it is not really possible for the League at the present time to fulfil all the purposes for which it was designed.
Facts are facts, and the consequences will be what they will be, and there are some facts that it is very difficult to resist. I do not speak now of the patent fact of the greatly altered position of the League through the defection of the United States and, more recently, of Germany, Italy and Japan. My noble friend spoke eloquently about the difference between the state of affairs in the world in 1931 and now, but of course since 1931 this defection from the League has altered its character and, inevitably, its power. But the three facts which impress me most are these. First of all, that it has come to pass, through circumstances for which we are not responsible, that the League has the appearance of being an alliance of one set of great Powers in contrast to another set; Great Britain, France and possibly Russia on the one side, Germany, Italy and Japan upon the other. And this, to some at least, seems to embody that very principle of a system of rival alliances which the League was intended to supplant. In the second place, apparently as a result of this, it is beyond doubt that many States Members of the League find themselves increasingly unwilling to undertake obligations which might mean the risk of war in places and for purposes which are far remote from their vital or obvious interests. My noble friend did indeed mention as an instance of what he calls the success of the League the arrangements made at Nyon, but of course the whole point of that was that it was an arrangement made by Powers who were vitally and immediately concerned with the area in which these operations were to take place. The third fact is that I am afraid even I, with all my zeal for the
720
League, must admit that the efforts of the League to restrain aggression by the use of collective force in the way of sanctions under Article 16, whether economic or military, have not succeeded.
There could be no clearer instance, I suppose, of what aggression means than the invasion of Abyssinia by Italy and yet the effort made to apply Article 16. as we know, failed. I do not think it is any use now attempting to apportion blame. My noble friend said that the whole world was with us when the Secretary of State made that famous September speech, but very shortly afterwards those who are most closely allied to us seemed most unwilling to carry these words into effect. Nor, I suppose, can it be denied that the present operations of Japan in China are what the League has always regarded as aggression, and yet who is there that thinks that the League at this moment can interfere to bring these operations to an end? In those circumstances I must say I feel that it is difficult to expect the League to proceed, at least upon the basis of Article 16, to fulfil the purposes for which that Article was intended.
"…'tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity;
And pity 'tis 'tis true."
But, my Lords, I remember what Lord Grey of Fallodon said on one occasion, that it is not an act of service but an act of disservice to the League to attempt to lay upon it obligations which it cannot meet and tasks which it cannot fulfil.
But—as this is my main point and where I entirely differ from the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in his very comprehensive and able speech—this does not seem to me any reason why the main structure of the Covenant should be changed, or even that Article 16 should be scrapped. This would be a formal, public, deliberate abandonment of the ideals for which the League stands and the purpose for which it was brought into being. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said he could not conceive the time coming when it ever would be possible to apply the principle of collective action for the maintenance of peace. I do not know what powers of prophecy he has, but I should have thought it was very conceivable that in the kaleidoscope of international affairs the time might very well come when these provisions might be brought into being. Certainly one of

721
those principles which have just been so eloquently expounded by my noble friend Lord Cecil remains, that our interest is not merely to keep the peace for ourselves but to keep the peace for the world, and that in order that that should be done we ought to keep it as the principal thought of those who are concerned in the preservation of the peace of the world that they should be ready to combine when that peace is threatened. Therefore, because these difficulties occur at the present time—and I fully admit their force in the way of bringing Article 16 into operation—I can see no reason why the Covenant should be changed or even why that particular Article should be scrapped.
May I use an illustration which is perhaps more natural to me than to some of your Lordships? Some of us are committed to the ideal of one visible union of all branches of the Christian Church throughout the world. We know that there are obstacles at present and in any future that we can foresee, which are insuperable, and we know it would be the greatest folly to act as if that ideal were already abandoned; that would be the very surest way of preventing its ultimate attainment. But for that reason we do not abandon the ideal itself. We do not haul down the flag. We rather say that even if it is impracticable for the moment it is a line of purpose which we have steadily to follow with patience and with hope. Or I might use a simpler illustration. In everything that has been said recently by His Majesty's Government, by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, there is frank recognition that, unfortunately, we must increase our armaments and increase them with the greatest possible zeal, and yet they have never allowed that to interfere with their upholding the ideal to which we must move with steadiness of purpose, that there should be general disarmament throughout the world. Therefore I do not see that it follows in the least that because of these present difficulties we should make any fundamental change in the character, purpose and ideals of the League.
Rather I would say—and here I find myself in agreement with what was recently written by Lord Allen of Hurtwood in a letter to The Times—that for the present, because
722
of these difficulties, we should keep Article 16 in the background and bring Article 11 into the foreground. May I remind your Lordships of the effect of that Article? Any war or threat of war, whether it immediately affects any Members of the League or not, is declared to be a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. Under that Article there would still be opportunities, as the noble Viscount said, for what may be of great importance, a declaration of world opinion, which, even if it could not be complete and must be partial, might yet be very weighty and effective. There would be opportunities of promoting efforts at conciliation. There would be opportunities of dealing with cases of dispute that were expressly referred to the League and of promoting arbitration. There would still be opportunities of carrying on the work which the League has shown it can do.
It provides a neutral meeting ground of statesmen for conference. It has shown its care of minorities and of mandated territories. It is able to take action in regard to those economic conditions which, as has been rightly pointed out, are fertile causes of war or the desire of war. It has done noble work in promoting international health, social morality and standards of life. I believe that if the League will continue to make the utmost of Article 11 then it may gradually reassert its position, and a time may come when it will be able to fulfil all the principles that are involved in Article 16. My Lords, I still profess myself to be a League of Nations man, even although it is not capable at present of fulfilling all its purposes. I may put it in this way. I think the League is obviously encountering very rough weather, but taking in some of its sail may be its best chance of coming through and of resuming its course under clearer skies.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, before any reply is made from the Front Bench opposite I desire to touch on one or two points arising out of this debate. In the first instance, in sequel to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I should like to ask a question regarding the new appointment of Adviser to the Foreign Office, a Department with which

723
my acquaintance goes back for an even longer time than that of Lord Ponsonby. I do not want to adopt the somewhat subacid tone, if I may be allowed so to describe it, in which he touched on the actual choice of the Adviser, but there is one particular matter on which I should desire to be informed. What will be in the future the precise relations of this new Adviser to the Government with the Secretary of State as compared with the relations between the Secretary of State and the Permanent Under-Secretary? It fell to me for two considerable periods to be in charge of the Foreign Office through the absence of Sir Edward Grey, as he then was, through illness. I realised then, as I had realised during my earlier experience as a private secretary there, that the practically daily conferences of the Secretary of State and the Permanent Under-Secretary were of paramount importance. The question which I wish to ask is, how far will the Permanent Under-Secretary and the new Adviser both have personal access to the Secretary of State? It seems obvious that their advice on particular subjects may not be identical, and therefore the position of the unhappy Minister, instead of being eased by the fresh appointment, may become somewhat confused. I have no doubt that the noble Earl opposite will give me a satisfactory reply on that point.
I listened with great attention to the powerful and interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in opening the debate. One point that struck me was that in one sense he has over-proved his case. If it be true that there is no objection whatever from the point of view of Europe or the world to a dominating Pan-Germanism—that is to say, the union of the 80,000,000 Germans of whom the noble Lord spoke, with, one must presume, considerable control over some of their neighbours, because what exactly would be the lot of Poland in that case is not quite easy to foresee—if there is no objection to that now, why was there any objection to a precisely similar claim of Germany in 1914? If there was none then, the War or at any rate our participation in the War was a complete error, and from the tone in which the noble Lord spoke of the entente with France I do not feel certain that he himself does not hold that view. Surely if then it was undesirable from
724
our point of view that Germany should obtain complete control over Central Europe, and presumably in a considerable degree over Belgium and Holland, it would appear to be not less undesirable now. The noble Lord forcibly stated that the situation was greatly altered in that respect by the position which the Air Force has taken in comparison with the sea and land forces which then predominated, but I can hardly suppose that your Lordships would agree that that offers a complete explanation. We should undoubtedly be in an extremely precarious position, and one which would only be safeguarded by arming ourselves to an even greater extent than that which is now proposed by His Majesty's Government.
Then the noble Lord spoke of the German Colonies. I have never concealed my view, I have stated it freely in the House and often outside, that the complete taking over of the German Colonies by this country and to some extent by others was a radical error of judgment. From my point of view it was a practical mistake, because it would have been far wiser to leave Germany in a position natural for so great a Power; and it might even be argued from a lower point of view that a country with a Colonial empire, and with the kind of naval force which is required in connection with that empire, is in some respects in a weaker state than a country which is entirely concentrated on its own territory. That, of course, is altogether apart from the argument which is so freely used in Germany, that the abstraction of all those Colonies was an injustice. I think it was an injustice in this sense: that the argument that those Colonies had been misgoverned was greatly exaggerated. I had better means than many people of knowing what the government of some of those German Colonies was; and though it was conducted on lines different from those which we favour, it is a gross exaggeration to speak of the government of those German Colonies as having been altogether bad. But when it comes to questions of restoration, it must be obvious to everybody that nobody is going to propose to hand back those Colonies to Germany sans phrase. I think, however, that there is a very strong case for an examination by all the parties concerned and, if you will, by other parties who are willing to lend

725
a hand, to look into the whole question of Colonial possessions and see whether it is not possible to give some satisfaction to Germany in that respect.
I only want to add one word, arising from what has just fallen from the most reverend Primate, on the matter of the League of Nations. I find myself in complete concurrence with practically everything he said about the retention of Article 16; that is to say, that any revision or re-examination of the provisions of the Covenant should not involve any material change in the structure. It is quite true—in fact, it has been stressed over and over again—that little or no use has been made of the provisions of Article 16. But, as the most reverend Primate pointed out, many ideals are held enthusiastically which it is quite impossible to fulfil in their entirety. I think one may go even further than that, and say that there are many rules of law which it is often impossible to enforce but which at the same time are far better left on the Statute Book than removed from it. I feel sure that the effect of tampering with the structure of the League, in a way which might easily be understood as causing its reduction to a mere pleasant and sometimes useful debating society, would be a gross error. I feel fairly certain, from the speeches which have been made by the Foreign Secretary and from what I know of the general views of His Majesty's Government, that the view which they take will not be very different from that which has been expressed by the most reverend Primate.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, we all want to hear the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, who represents the Government, and I shall only bring before your Lordships one point. The Motion before the House deals with dangers arising from the policy of the Government. I do not think that those dangers lie in the wording of the Covenant, nor does the Labour Party despair of the system of collective security, which I must regard as the ideal to be pursued. The danger that impresses itself on me arises from friction between this county and Germany. I desire to bring before your Lordships one special point in regard to that matter. We understand that his Majesty's Government, now since many months, definitely wish to get to terms with Germany, if that be possible, and I am very glad to
726
be able to support the policy of the Government as declared in that form. The Prime Minister took an early occasion to say friendly things, and he was followed at not too long a distance by the visit of Viscount Halifax, which the public generally hopes will be followed up. The most reverend Primate has said similar things, representing as he does a vast body of public opinion.
But I think that the change of policy, which is fully realised here, has not been sufficiently proved to the minds of Germans on the other side. The bad impression of previous policy years ago requires to be removed. What you must call the anti-German record of previous years has not been definitely repudiated, as seen from the other side of the German Ocean. If we want to get straight with Germany we can never sufficiently recall what is the German outlook, and we must realise that there still rankle in the German mind the memories of many bitter events since the Peace of Versailles: the humiliation of 1919, the Versailles Treaty, the impression that they were tricked by the Fourteen Points, which induced them to lay down their arms. The declaration of war guilt was imposed upon them; they saw their country severed from East Prussia, as we might regard Scotland severed from England, by a band of enemy territory; they saw the Ruhr invaded, and worst of all, perhaps, they saw their people governed by negro troops. They felt that they were being kicked when they were down. Even more recent events up to 1935 have given a similar impression. Lord Cecil has already alluded to the mistake of 1933, when the Foreign Secretary declared that Germany must go through a period of probation. Then, in 1931, we had the question of the tariff union with Austria, and the final proof that the Allies at that time were not in favour of a genuine equality of status for Germany. After that we had the offers of the German Government, even since the Hitler régime, rejected. We had M. Barthou's famous "No, Never." We look now with something like longing to the German offer to keep their forces to 300,000 men, with a limited Air Force.
All these things left a deep impression on the minds of Germany which it is difficult to remove. We ourselves did not think very much of those events because we did not regard the policy as ours.

727
It was the policy of our friends across the Channel, but in Germany we had to share the responsibility which that policy naturally indicated, and along with us the League, naturally, appeared to the German mind to be responsible. We seemed to be definite supporters of the policy of M. Poincaré. We appeared to be docile, tame, subservient, complaisant and non-protesting against that line of conduct. The reasons may have been partly personal, probably temperamental, because of the English idea of true loyalty. That loyalty was weakly and sentimental and was not really loyalty to French interests, for pleasing is not necessarily serving. M. Poincaréhad an excuse in the menace which then appeared so clearly to the French mind. The policy also was not loyal to the League spirit, which implies a general appeasement and equal justice. Germany was therefore driven to hate the League and all its works and to believe even this country to be hostile.
Happily we can recall that since 1935 a definite change has taken place in our policy. We did not give a blank cheque to another Power in 1936, when others felt inclined to resist the German move into the Rhineland by force. Our change of policy must, however, be proved to the German mind, and our policy therefore needs to be a very active policy. The policy indicated by Lord Halifax's visit was a good beginning, and the communiquéof our Government which followed it showed that it was to be followed up. Time and definition are important factors. Now the way is open and the French Government have come to a definite change of front. It is for us to co-operate with France in making the attempt to come to terms a definite and vigorous one. The last debate in this House showed how wide is the support for a strong attempt to reach a real agreement. The responsibility for a wrong impression enjoins an extra vigour on the part of His Majesty's Government to correct it.
Let me attempt to define what I feel to be the directions in which such definition can be made. We want clearly to show by our actions, especially at Geneva, that we are definitely in favour of the fullest equality of status. We must show that we do not despair of a
728
general agreement. We must pursue the policy which the Foreign Secretary has laid down with full vigour. The Foreign Secretary said at Geneva that he was all in favour of the separation of the Covenant from the Treaty of Versailles; but no definite steps have been taken. That should be pushed with greater vigour, and it is within our power to push it through. It is the same with regard to the War Guilt Clause, which long ago should have been dealt with. So also, if we are to make concessions, with regard to Colonies. As Mr. Eden said, there must be reciprocity, and that not we alone should make the sacrifice. Is it not also possible to raise again the question of disarmament? When Germany was feeble was not the time to attempt an agreement; now is the time, when she has taken a position of equality in regard to armaments.
Also we could show that we are definitely in favour of better machinery for revision, which is provided in the Covenant but has not been pursued. We have talked of collective security all the time, but we have been negative about revision. The questions of Austria and Czechoslovakia have already been dealt with this afternoon, but these also show opportunities of indicating that the one-sided policy of the past is no longer supported by us. When we come to the question of Colonies, we are to believe that the Government are discussing with the Governments of France and, I hope, of Belgium, what can be done in that matter. In Germany the emphasis is laid upon the point which Lord Arnold mentioned, of the obligation arising from No. 5 of the Fourteen Points. It is not for us to charge the German Government too readily with breaking faith, when we must be conscious that to them it must appear that we have not kept our word with regard to the Fourteen Points. The communiquéissued after the visit of Lord Halifax spoke definitely of the study of the Colonial question that would be proceeded with. I hope the noble Earl may be able to tell us something of progress that has been made in that matter. An article in The Times the day before yesterday spoke very firmly of the avowed action that must be proceeding in regard to Colonial preparations. The reason for deprivation of Colonies, which was the incapacity and inhumanity of the German Government—

729
on which I agree very strongly with the noble Marquess who has just spoken—we ourselves retracted when, at the time of Locarno, Sir Austen Chamberlain stated that we saw no reason now to stand in the way of the acquisition of Colonies by Germany if she could secure them. That deprivation, again, was false to the spirit of the League. The War was not fought to seize territories, but to end war.
It is surely not too late to uproot the seeds of war that were sown by the Versailles Treaty. To summarise my point in a word, the Prime Minister desires to make the most of the opportunity of direct talks with the German Government, and I would appeal to the noble Earl to show us that the Government are carefully avoiding the charge that our action is in any way supine, or lethargic, or procrastinating. Undoubtedly difficulties arise which tend to delay—Spain and the changes in the French Government—but I trust that His Majesty's Government will not be deterred by them from the greatest feasible activity. The visit of Lord Halifax proved that the Government had put their hand to the plough, and I trust that the intention is very firm not to look back.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in introducing this discussion has as usual made a very powerful and critical speech, but I must confess that I am still left in considerable doubt as to what constitutes his constructive suggestions for dealing with the difficulties with which Europe, and indeed the whole world, are to-day confronted. Let me say a word first with regard to his criticisms of the position in which we have been placed in relation to the League of Nations—and parenthetically I would say that I cannot agree with his verdict on the past performances of the League. It is easy enough, arid it; is the general inclination, to draw attention to failures and to lay no emphasis whatever on successes. But that is in parenthesis. In what he said about the League I was again in some doubt as to what exactly he had in mind. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said that what he proposed amounted more or less to the elimination of what are known as the peace-keeping clauses of the Covenant. But whether that be a proper interpretation
730
of the noble Lord's intentions or not, in any case I was unable to trace in his remarks any constructive suggestions as to what should take the place of the League and as to what general policy on the wide matters with which the League deals ought to be pursued.
I should like to ask him this question, whether he is really satisfied to go back once again to the state of affairs that existed before the war. It seems to me that if he is prepared and satisfied to do so, he is adopting nothing more nor less than a policy of despair. It must be remembered that the League was brought into existence as the result of the spontaneous desire of all nations to bring about a greater measure of international co-operation and to find a better way of settling international disputes than by means of a resort to arms. Are we prepared now, because the League has not worked as effectively as we should have liked it to do, and as a result of its partial failure, to abandon all that the League stands for and the principles of international co-operation which are the very core of the Covenant? I venture to say that that would not be the view of the great mass of people in this country, nor do I think it would be that of the mass of people in other countries.
I should like to define the position of the Government in regard to this matter and to refer to the speech which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made last month at the meeting of the Council of the League. He referred first to the difficulties with which the League is undoubtedly and admittedly confronted at the moment, and he said:
"By the defection of some of its more important Members, the League is now faced with the fact that the area of co-operation is restricted and that its ability to fulfil all the functions originally contemplated by it is thereby reduced."
I think the reasons for this are quite obvious. The most reverend Primate referred to them and pointed out that its lack of universality and recent defections from the League had undoubtedly modified the position and to a considerable extent affected the possibilities that were before it of fulfilling the objects with which it was brought into existence. Then the Secretary of State went on to say this:
"The principles on which the League was founded are laid down in the Preamble to the Covenant. They are the promotion of international co-operation and the achievement of

731
international peace and security on the basis of respect for International Law. To those principles His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom hold fast, and they believe that true peace and orderly progress cannot be looked for in the world unless all nations co-operate in some system based upon those principles. For that reason and others it seems to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom essential in these difficult times to retain what still exists. They consider that the League, despite its existing limitations, is the best instrument which has yet been devised for giving effect to the principles of international co-operation, and they-are therefore determined to keep it in existence, to give it their full support, and to make use of its machinery and procedure to the fullest extent that circumstances permit. Within the limits which they have to recognise they intend to make it as efficient an instrument as possible."
I know that it will be argued that if it is admitted—and I think it is generally admitted—that the League is not working as originally intended and hoped, there is consequently an overwhelming reason for proceeding to the reform of the League and to its adaptation to the new circumstances which now exist. I would therefore like to say one or two short words of explanation as to how the position stands with regard to the question of the reform of the League. As your Lordships know, in October, 1936, a Committee was set up to examine the whole question of the application of the principles of the Covenant, and that work was subsequently divided up and Rapporteurs were appointed for different subjects. At the third session of that Committee, which took place only a fortnight or so ago, important declarations were made by a number of States. These declarations were of such a character that the Committee, which, as your Lordships know, is only an Advisory Committee, thought it essential to report them to the League as a whole without attempting any assessment of the views that had been expressed. These declarations were mainly concerned with the application of the coercive clauses of the Covenant.
Widely differing views were held in the Committee on the advisability or otherwise of amending the Covenant or of codifying the attitude assumed by certain States. The Committee accordingly decided to adjourn until it received directions from the Assembly governing the future progress of its work. There, for the moment, the matter rests, and pending a decision by the Assembly I do not
732
think it would be advisable for His Majesty's Government to make any further pronouncement upon it. I would particularly like to emphasize this point, that everybody, even those members of the Committee who were most anxious in regard to their position in relation to Article 16 of the Covenant, agreed that this was not the time to start tinkering with the Covenant. I maintain that the position which was revealed at that meeting of the Committee was not a discouraging one. Indeed, on all sides there was evidence of continued attachment to the principles on which the League is founded and a continued belief in the vital importance of preserving the collective system.
I know it is argued that this is all very well, but the process is a very long-drawn-out one indeed; that in the meantime the dangers are always increasing; that nations are left in a state of uncertainty as to what their position exactly is and as to what their exact commitments might be; and that this is leading to a feeling of general insecurity and unsettlement throughout Europe. There are risks inherent in any situation that you might conceive. Indeed there is no reason to think that the present state of uncertainty would not have existed even if there had been no League of Nations, and it might, and probably would, have been much greater. You have only to look at the state of affairs which obtained before the War, and in this I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord who initiated the debate that that state of affairs was preferable to the one which exists now. I do not think that that position can possibly be maintained, for it seems to me that the state which existed before the War was fraught with every kind of danger, with no compensating safeguards whatsoever.
There is no denying that we have undertaken certain commitments as the result of our membership of the League. Of course we have. But I must repeat once again that the Covenant certainly does not impose upon us any automatic obligations to take up arms on behalf of others. In this matter we retain our complete sovereignty. The noble Lord holds the view—he explained it quite clearly this afternoon—that the automatic obligations which do exist under the Covenant, such as the imposition of

733
sanctions in certain circumstances, may lead this country against its will into a state of war with another country. As I have already pointed out, risks clearly exist in any situation, but the Government view is that the risks of the present situation are greatly outweighed by the advantages afforded by the existence of a system of co-operation between nations which the League of Nations provides. It seems to me that the dangers of the present situation have been, and can be, easily exaggerated. After all, there are considerable safeguards in the machinery of the League. We know that in the first place the machinery of Article 16 can only be brought into operation as the result of a unanimous vote on the part of the Council, and, in the second place, a further process has to be gone through. In all probability a Co-ordination Committee would subsequently have to be set up to examine the extent and manner in which sanctions might actually be applied in practice, and other allied questions of that kind.
Consequently I hold the view strongly that it is unlikely in the highest degree that any Government would allow itself to be drawn into a war such as the noble Lord had in mind by adopting a policy which had not the overwhelming support of the people of its country. But these and all cognate questions are now in suspense pending a decision by the Assembly, and I am therefore unable to say anything further on that point. But I should like to make one observation, and that is that I think all wise people will agree it would be an act of supreme folly seriously to impair or, indeed, as some people suggest, to sweep away the structure of the League without the fullest thought and without the most careful and responsible consideration. This is the position. We still believe in the principles of the League. We believe that that organisation, or an organisation modelled on the lines of the League, can provide the best instrument for international co-operation and for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Therefore we ought to think not once only but many, many times before we destroy what we should find it very difficult and indeed entirely impossible to rebuild.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said that British foreign policy was moving away from collective security. I do not think that that is a fair way of putting the
734
position. The policy of His Majesty's Government is still based on the principles of the Covenant, but in this matter we are realists as well as idealists and we do realise that limitations have been enforced upon us and upon the League by the present situation. Consequently, in any practical application in future of these principles, past experience must be taken into consideration and must naturally influence us in our actions. But that is no reason why we should abandon the principles of international co-operation. We do not intend to abandon them. On the other hand, it is, I think, a reason why we should put ourselves in a position to protect our country and fulfil our other responsibilities, and this, as your Lordships know, we are proceeding to do at this time.
The noble Lord has particularly stressed the dangers which in his view arise out of our commitments to France, with particular regard to the Franco-Soviet Pact and France's commitments to Czechoslovakia. He did in fact, as was pointed out by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood), argue in favour of a policy of isolation. With all respect to him I must repeat what I have already said on a number of occasions—namely, that the view of His Majesty's Government is that such a policy is quite impracticable in these clays. Apart from the principles involved, we believe it to be from the purely material point of view or practical point of view an impossible thing. As the noble Lord himself will admit, this country throughout its history has found it impossible to disinterest itself from events which take place on that part of the Continent opposite our own shores, and to suggest that we should do so now would, to my mind, not only be a complete revolution in policy but would be quite unsound and illogical as well. The noble Lord has argued that the invention of aircraft has made a very great difference; in fact, has made the whole difference. I quite honestly fail to follow his line of argument when he says that the presence of aircraft has made it less objectionable for us to have a potential enemy outside our shores. Indeed, I should have thought on the other hand that it was a state of affairs which supported the view that is held by His Majesty's Government in this matter, that it is impossible for them to dissociate themselves from what occurs on the Continent opposite our own shores.

735
I would like to point out that our commitments to France and to Belgium arise out of the Treaty of Locarno, and that these were reaffirmed by the proposals of March, 1936, after the reoccupation of the Rhineland. The obligations that we undertook were in general terms to go to the immediate assistance of France and Belgium in the event of unprovoked aggression by Germany. It should be remembered that the Treaty of Locarno was not an alliance but a treaty of nonaggression and guarantee concluded within the framework of the Covenant. That guarantee still has this character. Since then an assurance, as your Lordships are aware, was given by the French Foreign Minister to the effect that all French forces would be immediately used in defence of this country against unprovoked aggression. But what I wanted specially to point out to the House was that the only new element in fact since the time of the Treaty of Locarno was the Franco-Soviet Pact. As a matter of fact the Franco-Czechoslovakian Treaty was part of the whole Locarno settlement, and the Franco-Polish Treaty was as well. Therefore the only new element—the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, shakes his head, but I am led to understand that that is so.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not think any British Government ever took cognisance of any Franco-Czechoslovakian military alliance. It never entered into the discussions I think.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I will look into that point; perhaps I have been misled on the matter. However that may he it seems to me that the greatest emphasis has been laid upon the Franco-Soviet Pact. I must repeat that His Majesty's Government hold that the existence of that Pact has not in any way increased our legal obligations towards France. The noble Lord referred to a question put in the House of Commons in February of last year by Mr. George Lambert, who asked whether any commitment existed whereby under the Franco-Russian Pact Great Britain could be involved in a European war. That question was answered by Viscount Cranborne, who said:
"The answer to the first part of the question is: 'No, Sir.' As regards the second part of the question, I think the French and
736
Soviet Governments are fully aware of the position."
I do not think that answer can be swept away as if it had no significance whatsoever. I may say that the same thing is true of the French Treaty with Czechoslovakia as well. I think that it puts the position as clearly as it could be put in present circumstances. But the real point is this, that if war broke out and France became involved in hostilities, it is perfectly obvious that the action which His Majesty's Government would take would have to depend on the circumstances of the case in which those hostilities had arisen.
Now I pass to another subject. The noble Lord has pleaded for a better understanding with Germany, and I do not think that any one could fail to sympathise with the object which he had in mind. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships have noticed that during the course of his speech at Birmingham on Saturday the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs used these words:
"We offer friendship to all, but on equal terms."
What His Majesty's Government have in mind is the desirability of holding a discussion on the possible contribution of all parties concerned towards a general appeasement in Europe. We feel that all must help, and it is quite clear that it is only in a spirit of reasonableness and in an atmosphere of real conciliation that we can hope for success. The noble Lord, as well as the noble Marquess, suggested that a solution of the Colonial question would make a valuable contribution towards that appeasement. My Lords, I must frankly say that I am not in a position to discuss this question in detail, and I think the best thing I can do is to refer your Lordships to the communiquéwhich was issued at the end of November after the visit of French Ministers to London. That communiquéstated that
"a preliminary examination had been made of the Colonial question in all its aspects"
and that
"it was recognised that this question was not one that could be considered in isolation and moreover would involve a number of other countries. It was agreed that the subject would require much more extended study."
I want to make it quite clear at this stage that on the general question of an understanding with Germany there is of course no question of dropping the matter

737
and ceasing our efforts to reach that understanding. On the other hand, we intend to pursue those efforts and we are pursuing them. But for the moment I am afraid I cannot do more than draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the question which Mr. Mander asked the Prime Minister in another place on February 1 and the Prime Minister's reply. He was asked:
"Whether he has any statement to make with reference to the general European negotiations started by the visit of Lord Halifax to Berlin?"
The answer was:
"The matter is under the active consideration of His Majesty's Government, but I have no statement to make at present."
I am afraid I cannot add to that to-day, but I would like to say that of course the same offer made by the Secretary of State in Birmingham applies to Italy as well. It is made to all countries. But we do feel that any agreement that we make with Italy must be a complete and comprehensive one. We feel that efforts to approach matters piecemeal are not likely to be of any avail. As your Lordships will remember, in January last year we attempted a limited solution of the difficulties which existed between us, and I am afraid it is quite clear that that attempt was not very successful. I do not want to add anything further except that I am hopeful that it will be possible to eliminate any difficulties that at present stand in the way as a result of good will on both sides.
Now I want to pass, if I may, to the specific matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, this afternoon, which was referred to also by other speakers, including the noble Marquess the Leader of the Liberal Party. Before I do so, however, I would like if I may to refer to a matter which I am certain will not be controversial in your Lordships' House. This is the noble Lord's birthday and I would like to take the opportunity on behalf not only of noble Lords on these Benches but of the whole House of offering him warmest congratulations and wishing him many happy returns of the day. In reference to the question of the appointment of a Chief Diplomatic Adviser, I would like to make the following remarks: The reasons for the appointment of Sir Robert Vansittart as Chief Diplomatic Adviser were fully set out in the communiquéissued to the Press on
738
January 1 last. It is perhaps needless for me to say that the wording of that communiquéwas most carefully chosen. I should like further to state that the communiquéimplies no more and no less than it says. It is, I should have thought, obvious that the rapidly growing pressure of work on the officials in the Foreign Office has, in the actual words of the statement,
"seriously reduced the time available for the prolonged and careful consideration of questions of broad policy by those in the positions of greatest responsibility."
If this is so, then the need for some official who would have time to devote to such consideration, and ability to place the results of his reflection before the man bearing the greatest responsibility of all —namely, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—is at once apparent.
I should have thought that there would have been general agreement that no better person could have been found to perform this technical and highly responsible task than Sir Robert Vansittart. It seems to me that his career and his obvious qualifications speak for themselves and require no emphasizing on my part. I would, however, here observe that there is no question of his advising any other person than the Secretary of State, still less His Majesty's Government as a whole. I think that answers the question which the noble Lord asked. He is Diplomatic Adviser to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he does have a room in the Foreign Office. Like any other civil servant, he will be subordinate to his chief, and responsibility for his advice, if adopted, will be assumed by the Foreign Secretary. The noble Lord has foreshadowed all sorts of confusion and complications which he thinks may arise as a result of the new régime. I see no reason to fear these complications at all. It is not possible for me to go into the administrative arrangements which have been made as a result of this new appointment. They are matters for the Secretary of State, and it is quite clear that it is within the prerogative of the Secretary of State to seek the advice at any time of any member of his staff or indeed outside. I can only tell your Lordships that the necessary arrangements have been made within the office and that they have presented no difficulty whatever and are working very smoothly indeed.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Would the noble Earl say whether the new officer will be subordinate to the Permanent Under-Secretary or will he be placed above him?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I should have said it was not a question of being superior or subordinate; that they work on parallel lines rather than on the same track with one in front of the other.
VISCOUNT CECIL of CHELWOOD: I am very anxious to understand what the position will be. A set of papers comes in relating to some matter, and these papers are sent to the official immediately in charge of the subject. Then they go through the hierarchy to the Permanent Under-Secretary and from the Permanent Under-Secretary straight to the Secretary of State, unless they are sent to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I wish merely to ascertain the position: will that procedure still be enforced, or will the papers go to the Diplomatic Adviser before they go to the Secretary of State?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I put the same question in other words? Who will be the principal adviser to the Secretary of State? Will it be, as in the past, the Permanent Under-Secretary, or will it be the new official?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I was going to refer to that point at the conclusion of my remarks, but I wanted to say that that was the very thing which I thought difficult and unsuitable for me to deal with in detail. These arrangements are rather difficult to explain, but I only wanted to say that they have been made and in practice are working very well and giving rise to no difficulty. Perhaps I could continue my statement, which deals with another aspect of the proposed work of the Chief Diplomatic Adviser. Your Lordships will remember that the Prime Minister recently announced that he was to preside over a Committee whose function will be to co-ordinate and advise upon the work being done by various bodies engaged on British publicity abroad. Many misconceptions seem to exist regarding this Committee, which incidentally has not yet met. It will not, for instance, possess any executive functions, and will limit its activities to advice. Moreover, the fact that it will be composed of the heads of
740
all those bodies, such as the B.B.C. and the British Council, which are all working with one purpose—to explain this country to the world—should result in a profitable interchange of ideas and an elimination of overlapping.
I will not attempt at this stage to lay down what the Committee hopes to achieve, because it is clear that experience alone can show how wide the scope may be, and I am sure that nobody would wish to tie down its activities within narrow limitations. I can, however, say most emphatically what it will not set out to do. The Chairman of the Committee will in no sense be a propaganda dictator wielding mysterious powers, nor will the Committee exercise any kind of Press control. It will proceed along the lines already indicated—namely, act as a centre where representatives of Government Departments specially interested in various forms of publicity abroad can meet and consult with representatives of those private or semi-official bodies which are actively engaged on this kind of work. The main object is to stimulate the energies of these bodies and provide for closer co-operation, in the hope that by frequent contact they may be able to produce a co-ordination of effort and programme and extend the work already being done.
Finally, the Chief Diplomatic Adviser may, if the Secretary of State so desires, represent the Foreign Office at conferences abroad; and it is well that a man of his international reputation should be available for this purpose. But there is no intention (as has been suggested this afternoon) of transforming him into a kind of Ambassador at large, or, indeed, of conferring any special mission upon him.
With regard to the position of Sir Alexander Cadogan there is nothing I need say except this: that Sir Alexander will be Permanent Under-Secretary in as full a sense as any of his predecessors.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I gather that he will not retain his room, and that it is going to be given to the Chief Adviser.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I thought the noble Lord was unaware of where the Chief Adviser was going to be, but perhaps he has gleaned some information since he made his speech. There are one

741
or two further matters to which I wish to refer. The noble Viscount asked me if I could make any kind of statement with regard to the situation which has arisen in Austria. I am afraid there is very little that I can say, but it might perhaps be of some interest to the House to hear the answer which the Secretary of State made to a Question put to him in another place this afternoon. He said:
"I understand that the working of the Austro-German Agreement of July, 1936, has for some time past Seen under consideration by the German and Austrian Governments. A meeting was eventually held at Berchtesgaden on Saturday last between the Austrian and German Chancellors, and as a result a new Agreement has been reached between the Austrian and German Governments. This new Agreement has not yet been published, but a communiquéwas issued early this morning outlining what passed, and the reorganisation of the Austrian Government has been announced, in accordance, so I understand, with the undertakings reached at Berchtesgaden. There is reason to believe that other provisions of the Agreement contain undertakings by both Governments on a variety of subjects, but until the actual text of the Agreement is published I am not in a position to make any detailed statement. His Majesty's Government, however, are meanwhile closely following developments, since,
742
as I stated in the debate in this House on June 25 last, they desire in Central Europe as elsewhere peace and good understanding."
I am afraid I cannot say more than that.
With regard to the more general remarks of the noble Viscount I can only say this: that I feel difficulty in being able to reply to his more general remarks and statements; but it goes without saying that what he said on these matters commands widespread attention and will naturally be carefully studied, and if there is any particular point on which he would like a specific reply I feel certain that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, would do his best to provide that reply when he comes to wind up the debate to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before seven o'clock.