Sitting of 24 February 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till this evening, at half-past Seven of the Clock.
London Passenger Transport Board Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Halifax) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Nuneaton Extension) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
  Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Labour (1) the approximate cost-of-living index percentage rise at December, 1937, as compared with November, 1933, in relation to all commodities, in addition to or including coal usually bought for working-class houses, as a result of the increase in the cost of coal used for producing the usual commodities and services required by working-class households;
  (2) the approximate percentage increase in the cost-of-living index at December, 1937, as compared with November, 1933, in relation to all foods, commodities, and services required by working-class households for the production and provision of which coal is necessary; to what extent the increase in the index figure is due to the increase in the cost of coal; and will he exclude from the calculations the additional approximate increase in the index figure caused by the rise in the
  512
  cost of coal usually bought as firing for working-class houses and state it separately?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): At 1st December, 1937, the cost-of-living index figure showed a rise of 17 points, or nearly 12 per cent., as compared with 1st November, 1933. During the same period there was an increase of about 10 per cent. on average, in the retail price of coal used as fuel in working-class households; the effect of this increase was to raise the cost-of-living index figure by approximately nine-tenths of one point, or about two-thirds of 1 per cent. I regret that the information in my possession is insufficient to enable me to state to what extent the rise in the index number was due to increases in the cost of coal used in the production and provision of the commodities and services required by working-class households, and I am afraid it is impracticable to classify those commodities and services in two groups, according to whether coal is or is not required for their production and provision.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he will cause a memorandum to be sent to the staffs of all Employment Exchanges drawing their attention to the existence of the advisory form B1, and instructing them that it is to be issued on request to all unemployed persons who wish to apply for supplementary benefit from the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. E. Brown: Forms in the B1 series are already issued at Employment Exchanges. The appropriate form of application for use by persons in receipt of unemployment benefit is, however, form B.71. This is issued on request by the Employment Exchange if the area office of the Board is not within easy distance by road (normally three miles), but in other cases the applicant is referred direct to the area office for the purpose of making his application.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of statutory unemployment benefit drawing supplementary allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board at the last convenient date?
    Mr. Brown: In the week ended 28th January, 1938, allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board were paid to 8,664 persons in Great Britain in supplementation of payments of unemployment benefit.
    Lieut.-Commander Tufnellasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the strong general feeling that no man who fought in the Great War should have to seek relief from public assistance authorities, he will consider the possibility of bringing all such men within the scope of the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. Brown: The unemployment assistance scheme is limited to persons under 65 years of age who are capable of and available for work, and have a normal occupation in wage-earning employment. In so far as ex-service men fulfil these conditions they come within the scope of the Unemployment Assistance Board, but the scheme is not designed to deal with persons who do not possess these qualifications.
    Mr. George Griffiths: In considering this, will the Minister also consider the colliers who were not allowed to go to the War, and who are in as much need as these men?
    Mr. Brown: I regret any attempt to make any distinction between colliers and ex-service men in that way.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour under which section of the Unemployment Act, 1934, persons in receipt of an unemployment allowance have such allowance reduced in cases where sons or daughters have left home?
    Mr. Brown: I assume the hon. Member has in mind cases where a son or daughter with resources leaves home. I am informed by the Board that in no circumstances would their allowance to an applicant be reduced on such an occasion, but that there may be circumstances in which it would not be increased. In such cases the powers of the Board are derived from the duty which falls upon them of determining in the light of all the facts, and subject to the usual rights of appeal, whether the son or daughter has ceased to be a member of the household for the
    514
    purpose of Section 38 (3) of the Unemployment Act, 1934.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what the Section and the Sub-section concerned do is to make arrangements for rules and regulations whereby certain standards of allowances shall be paid, and that the regulations have as much legal force as the Act itself? Is he aware that there is no legal power to deprive these men of these increases or to make reductions?
    Mr. Brown: I could not agree with that interpretation, because it arises from the fact that the word "household" has never been defined, either in Poor Law or Public Assistance Law. These cases are very few, and cases where the interpretation of the word "household" acts to the benefit of the applicant are very many.
    Mr. Lawson: On what grounds are these people being deprived of these sums?
    Mr. Brown: The question is as to whether they are or are not members of the household.
    Mr. T. Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the instructions in this matter?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be quite prepared to consider that, but the House must understand that this is a case of the meaning of the word "household." It would be very difficult to read the thing another way without inflicting hardship.
    Mr. Lawson: How can a boy or a girl be a member of the household when in some cases they are not living in the same town?
    Mr. Brown: That applies equally to an applicant who leaves home for the purpose of securing work, in which case the allowance is still granted.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons receiving payments under the Unemployment Assistance Board in the County of Durham on the latest available date?
    Mr. Brown: In the week ended 11th February, 1938, allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board were paid to 47,908 persons in the County of

    515
    Durham (exclusive of payments in supplementation of insurance benefit).
    Mr. Batey: Will the Minister say what is being done for those men?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot go into that at Question Time.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now considered his answer as promised to a deputation from the Trades Union Congress and the Mineworkers Federation who met him on 20th January, 1938?
    Mr. Brown: I have now received details of the unemployment assistance cases which the deputation undertook to send to me, and they are being investigated by the Unemployment Assistance Board. I will communicate the result of these inquiries to the Trades Union Congress General Council at the earliest possible moment.

    BENEFIT (FIFESHIRE).
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour the number at the last convenient date of unemployed persons in receipt of statutory benefit in the County of Fife under the age of 25, between the ages of 25 and 50, and over 50 years of age?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The table below gives an age analysis of the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the County of Fife who were claiming insurance benefit (including agricultural benefit) at 1st November, 1937. The figures include a small proportion of cases in which claims had been suspended or disallowed or were under consideration for which separate particulars are not available.

    Age Group.

    Number.

    18–24 years

    …

    …

    956

    25–44 years

    …

    …

    1,494

    45–54 years

    …

    …

    454

    55–64 years

    …

    …

    419

    Total, aged 18–64

    …

    …

    3,323

    Figures showing the numbers aged 45 and under 50, are not available. At
    516
    15th November, 1937, there were on the registers of the exchanges in question 246 applicants for benefit aged 16 and under 18.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the prevalence of underemployment in the manufacturing section of the cotton industry at the present time; and whether he will take steps to enable such workers to sign on at the Employment Exchange when they have 50 per cent. of their machinery stopped, instead of 75 per cent. as at present?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the position in the manufacturing section of the cotton industry. I am not sure what the hon. Member has in mind in the second part of the question, and perhaps he will communicate further with me.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Will the Minister be prepared to consider the possibility of altering these percentages, inasmuch as many of the people at the present time are being called upon to live upon much less than unemployment pay?
    Mr. Brown: That question can be read in, perhaps, two or three ways. I would like to know what is in the hon. Member's mind, and talk to him about it.

    TRAINING CENTRES.
    Brigadier-General Makinsasked the Minister of Labour what is the annual cost of trainees per head at the Ministry of Labour centres; how many soldiers are now being trained; and how are they distributed at the various centres?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lawson: Is any considerable number of soldiers being taken for training under the Ministry of Labour?
    Mr. Brown: I think I answered that question some time last week, but if I did not, perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.
    Following is the reply:
    I assume that the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the non-residential Government training centres, at which

    517
    both civilians and serving soldiers are trained in specific trades. As the period of training in question is about 20 weeks, it is more convenient to give the cost in terms of a trainee week, rather than of a trainee year. At these centres, the net cost borne on the Vote for the Ministry is about 20s. 2d. per trainee week, on the average, for civilians in receipt of Unemployment Benefit, exclusive of any allowance for capital charges and headquarters' administration; with the addition of a sum averaging 14s. 6d. per trainee week for travelling, mid-day meals, personal expenditure, and special assistance in respect of dependants. These sums are exclusive of benefit to which men continue to be entitled while at the centres. The cost, borne on the Vote for the Ministry, of training (a) serving soldiers and (b) men in receipt of unemployment allowances at the centres is less than is indicated above because, in the former case, the cost of the soldiers' pay and allowances and of certain items (such as travelling expenses) is borne on Army Votes while, in the latter case, all allowances are met by the Unemployment Assistance Board. The number of soldiers being trained at this type of centre on 17th February was 1,535. There were 477 at Slough, 411 at Waddon, 291 at Southampton, 191 at Handsworth, 113 at Leeds and 52 at other centres.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour the number of training centres at present established in this country administered or financially assisted by the Ministry of Labour; the capital that has been expended in the equipment of same; the annual training charges; and the number of trainees, men and women, respectively?
    Mr. Brown: Particulars of training centres for men administered by the Ministry of Labour and of the annual training charges are given in the Estimates

    Wholly Unemployed Persons on the Registers of certain Employment Exchanges at 17 th January, 1938.

    —

    Pontypridd.

    Pontyclun.

    Taff's Well.

    Total number registered as wholly unemployed

    4,808

    460

    382

    Number with claims admitted for Insurance Benefit

    674

    143

    110

    Number with applications authorised for payment of Unemployment Assistance.

    3,427

    235

    188

    for the Ministry of Labour for 1937 (page 74 of House of Commons Paper 58—V. (subhead M)). The total cost of acquiring and equipping these centres was about £880,000. In addition, four special schemes are financially assisted by the Ministry; the provision for 1937–38 is £20,000. The training of women, for which £99,000 is provided in 1937–38 under Subhead N of the Ministry's Estimates, is conducted, in 38 centres, on behalf of the Ministry by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment; assistance is also given to a scheme conducted by another organisation. The training of women takes place mainly in rented premises and the capital expenditure has accordingly been comparatively small. The numbers in training at the end of January, 1938, were: men, 10,571; women, 926.
    Mr. Day: Do the figures include those of the Ocverseas training centres as well?
    Mr. Brown: No, Sir. These are the figures for the centres to which the hon. Member's question applies.
    Mr. Day: Do the figures also refer to the hostels?
    Mr. Brown: That is a separate question.

    PONTYPRIDD.
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons wholly unemployed at the Pontypridd Employment Exchange and branch offices; the number entitled to statutory insurance benefit; and the number in receipt of allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to wards the erection of a new Employment Exchange at Pontypridd?
    Mr. Brown: A site is being purchased and it is hoped to start building before the end of the coming financial year.

    EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. Ammonasked the Minister of Labour why the Employment Exchanges were unable to give the necessary guidance to unemployed ex-service men who were advised, in an announcement issued by the War Office, that there were a number of positions vacant for which application was to be made through the local Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am glad to have the opportunity of clearing up any misunderstanding on this matter. The announcement to which the hon. Member refers stated that the War Office had reaffirmed and emphasised previous instructions to their factories, depots, etc., that ex-service men should be employed to the maximum extent possible. It appears to have been interpreted to mean that there were at the present time a large number of suitable vacancies actually available for ex-service men at War Department establishments, but this did not follow from the announcement, which was of a general nature and affected vacancies as and when they occur. Instructions have been issued to the Employment Exchanges reminding them of the desire of the War Office to employ ex-service men whenever possible, and ex-service men registered at the Exchanges may rest assured that they will be considered, according to the circumstances for suitable openings in War Department establishments as they occur.
    Mr. Amnion: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this shows a bad lack of co-ordination by his Department.
    Mr. Brown: I cannot say that; but there is a misunderstanding about it, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for putting the question down.

    NYSTAGMUS SUFFERERS, CONSETT AND STANLEY.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the area of the Consett and Stanley Employment Committee there are at present 146 men who have suffered,
    520
    or are suffering, from miners' nystagmus out of a total adult insurable mining population of 20,700, and that 75 of these are at present desirous of obtaining colliery work; and whether, with a view to meeting this requirement, he will consult with all colliery owners in the area with a view to arranging for Employment Exchanges to bring to their special notice particulars of any of their ex-employés seeking colliery work who had contracted nystagmus while in their employ immediately they are certified fit for ordinary or light employment?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the position to which the hon. Member refers, which has been the subject of careful inquiry by the Consett and Stanley Employment Committee. I understand that the committee has invited a panel, representative of colliery workpeople and employers in the area, to examine a suggestion on the lines of that in the second part of the question, and I shall be pleased to consider the matter further when I have received the committee's recommendations.

    TRADING ESTATES.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour whether any buildings are being erected on the Team Valley Estate which are not factories that will employ labour at present unemployed?
    Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. There are administrative offices of the Trading Estates Company, a local training centre of the Ministry of Labour, banks, canteens, warehouses and other buildings of a similar character.
    Mr. Batey: When the Government decided on the scheme to build factories on that estate it was understood that they would employ the unemployed workers there. What is the need for building other factories?
    Mr. Brown: The fact is that this is a first-class industrial estate, and needs the most modern equipment if it is to be successful—as happily it is.
    Mr. Batey: Why is it necessary to erect a building for gas masks? Was that really intended?
    Mr. Brown: Surely whatever the labour may be, it is an advantage to those who are unemployed to get the jobs.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour the total expenditure to the most recent date on the Team Valley and Treforest trading estates, respectively?
    Mr. Brown: Up to 21st February, approximately £730,000 had been spent on the Team Valley Trading Estate and £400,000 on the Treforest Trading Estate.

    BARNSLEY.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered at Barnsley at the latest available date, and the comparable figures for each of the last five months in 1937?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures are going up or down?
    Mr. Brown: This is a long statement, and perhaps the hon. Member will wait until he sees it.
    Following is the statement:
    Table showing the total numbers of persons aged 14 and over registered as unemployed at the Barnsley Employment Exchange and Juvenile Employment Bureau at the dates stated.

    Date.

    Number.

    17th January, 1938

    …

    …

    7,264

    13th December, 1937

    …

    …

    6,647

    35th November, 1937

    …

    …

    6,560

    18th October, 1937

    …

    …

    6,723

    13th September, 1937:

    New Basis*

    …

    …

    6,802

    Old Basis*

    …

    …

    8,005

    23rd August, 1937

    …

    …

    8,193

    * The method of counting the unemployed was revised in September, 1937. Under the revised procedure persons subsequently found to be in employment at the date of the count are excluded from the figures.

    WESTERN ISLES.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Labour what number of people and what percentage to the population is unemployed, including all classes, in the outer islands of Inverness, and Ross and Cromarty; and what plans he has to deal with the problem and to provide employment in the near future?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 17th January, 1938, 3,720 persons, aged 16–64, insured under the general scheme of unemployment insurance, and 63 under the agricultural scheme, were recorded as unemployed at
    522
    the Stornoway Exchange, representing 66.9 per cent. and 48.5 per cent., respectively, of the numbers of unemployment books exchanged. These figures were largely inflated by seasonal causes and there are other reasons why I have thought it desirable to ask the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee to examine the significance of the figures. With regard to the second part of the question, the conditions in the Highlands and Islands are, as the hon. Member is aware, being examined by a sub-committee of the Economic Committee of the Scottish Development Council. I understand that the report of this committee is expected at an early date. The hon. Member will also be aware of the measures of development for the crofting counties which have recently been sanctioned.
    Mr. MacMillanasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that recently unemployed men in the island of South Uist were invited to take jobs on the mainland, and, on accepting, were told the jobs were not available, while others who accepted on conditions safe guarding their interests on the island were disqualified for benefit; and what steps he is taking against any officials at fault and to prevent such treatment of unemployed persons in future?
    Mr. Brown: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member as early as possible.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate other cases where people are asked to fulfil the impossible condition of leaving their small holdings to accept work by going elsewhere at lower wages on road-making, and so on?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps we may discuss these cases when I have completed inquiries into this matter.
    Mr. MacMillanasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now consider legislation in the interest of many fish-workers in the Western Isles coming under seasonal regulations, who are now penalised because it is impossible to fulfil the condition of employment in Stornoway in past or coming fishing seasons; and when that legislation is likely to come?
    Mr. E. Brown: The information at present before me does not indicate that it is desirable to amend the Unemployment

    523
    Insurance Act, 1935, in relation to seasonal workers. The seasonal workers regulations were reviewed and amended in 1935.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that under the present system many injustices are being perpetrated and continued, and that many people are being penalised by not being able to fulfil conditions which are practically impossible, and will he do something about it?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member asked about employment in Stornoway. This legislation was passed in 1931, and he will understand that it has been amended since, and that Stornoway is more favourably placed than some fishing centres, because as he will recognise, there is a winter as well as a summer season.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Stornoway many people come from districts outside, and when employment is not available, they cannot fulfil the conditions?
    Mr. Brown: The House will understand that there are many complications in this matter.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into these complications and do away with the injustice? That is the question?
    Mr. Brown: When the hon. Member talks about injustice he must remember that it was his own party that passed the legislation under which the injustice is done.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will the Minister give an undertaking to do something to try to do away with this injustice, which is manifest even to himself?

    RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT (LOAN).
    Mr. Dayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the unemployment figures at the present time are over 1,800,000, he will state the attitude of the Government towards a proposal of a national loan for reconstruction and development purposes for mitigating unemployment?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I do not think this proposal is an appropriate one.
    Mr. Day: Are the Government still of the opinion that unemployment will still right itself without some such effort?
    Sir J. Simon: That is a matter which cannot be dealt with by question and answer.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that this was a proposal of the Liberal party at the time he was a member of it?

  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
  Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Minister of Labour when he anticipates that the report of the committee which is investigating the question of annual holidays with pay will be available?
  Mr. Rileyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received the report of the special committee on holidays with pay appointed in June, 1937; and, if so, when he hopes to make the report available for Members?
  Mr. E. Brown: I have not yet received this report, but I understand the committee are actively engaged in its preparation.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea when he expects to receive the report?
  Mr. Brown: I understand that the next meeting of the committee is fixed for 3rd March, and I expect to receive the report shortly.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it true that the Minister expects to bring in legislation before the next Election?

  KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.
  Mr. Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Labour whether the King's National Roll Council have yet decided to extend the scope of the King's Roll system to include disabled ex-service men who received their disabilities on active service since the conclusion of the Great War?
  Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. The matter will be further considered by the King's Roll National Council at their next meeting.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Can my right hon. Friend say when the next meeting will take place?
  Mr. Brown: I understand that it is to take place in May.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Cannot something be done rather sooner than that, as the matter has been under consideration for rather a long time?
  Mr. Brown: I do not think it can. My hon. Friend will understand that this is a very complicated matter, and certain things have arisen which the National Council desire to look into more closely, and, as I have said, I understand that the next meeting will be in May.

  JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES (PRISON VISITS).
  Mr. T. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any facilities are available whereby judges and magistrates may make themselves familiar with the methods of prison treatment given to convicted persons; and, if so, how many judges or magistrates have made use of these facilities during the past five years?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. Facilities to visit prisons and Borstal institutions are always given to judges and magistrates who have the responsibility of sentencing offenders. I am informed that in the last five years visits are recorded by 1,6oo magistrates, 27 recorders and chairmen of quarter sessions and 12 judges of the High Court.
  Mr. Johnston: Are magistrates always so informed that they have these facilities?
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say that off-hand, but perhaps this question and answer will make that quite clear.
  Mr. Johnston: If that is not so, would the Home Office undertake that some communication should be made to magistrates that they have these facilities?
  Mr. Lloyd: I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that point, but I can say now that the Home Office welcome these visits by officers who have responsibility in this matter.
  Mr. Cassells: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these visits are unexpected?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do riot know.
  Mr. Thorne: Are these facilities open to Members of Parliament like myself, and will those who visit the prisons be given a similar meal to that which is given to the prisoners?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am certain that if the hon. Member wishes to visit a prison we will provide every facility, but I cannot say whether he will get a free meal.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. Cassellsasked the Home Secretary what steps the Government intend taking, in so far as new legislation is concerned, having regard to the findings of the Stewart Committee on Workmen's Compensation?
  Mr. Lloyd: I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) last Monday.
  Mr. Cassells: Can the Under-Secretary say what steps were taken by the Stewart Committee for the purpose of obtaining the necessary evidence?
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say. That is a different question, and it is a matter for the committee. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a question, I will give him an answer.
  Mr. T. Williams: In view of the grave shortcomings of the existing compensation law, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House when we may expect an authoritative statement with regard to amending legislation?
  Mr. Lloyd: A statement was made on a Friday some time ago saying that the Government would give consideration to these two reports.
  Mr. Williams: When will they reach a conclusion?
  Mr. Lloyd: A statement was given in respect of the consideration of two reports, but only one has so far been received.
  Mr. Cassells: In the event of a definite finding being given by the Stewart Committee of the right of appeal by aggrieved workmen against the referee, may I ask whether steps will immediately be taken to rectify this obvious injustice?
  Mr. Lloyd: This report was published only last week, and I think the House will

  527
  appreciate that a little more time is needed before my right hon. Friend can be expected to give a considered opinion upon it.
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. R. Routledge, a pony putter, at Ravensworth colliery, County Durham, who lost part of one leg, and Mr. William Pringle, a coal filler at the same colliery, who lost two fingers of a hand, and who were, respectively, awarded 16s. and 15s. a week light rate compensation; that no light work has been offered in either case; and whether he will amend the law of compensation so that in these and similar cases full conpensation shall be awarded?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member has been good enough to send my right hon. Friend some photographs showing the nature of the injuries in these two cases. I am not, however, in possession of any other information as to the circumstances or of any explanation as to why the existing provisions which in certain circumstances enable a partially recovered workman who is unable to obtain employment to recover compensation at the total incapacity rate, are not applicable here. I should be glad to consider any further particulars he may care to send me, but I am afraid I should not be in a position at present to make any statement as to legislation.
  Mr. Lawson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that these two young men are so badly mutilated that they are not likely to get work again unless it is light work, and is he aware that there are thousands of cases in the mines of the country for which the present legislation is totally insufficient? Will he take steps to amend the legislation on this matter?
  Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the cases which the hon. Member has mentioned, I shall be grateful if he will let me have details of the history and the negotiations—whether, for example, these cases have come before the courts or not. I would draw his attention to the fact that there is amending legislation which will improve the situation.
  Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. Member not aware that these cases have been before the courts and that these two
  528
  young persons are not getting full compensation or light work and are condemned to perpetual unemployment?
  Mr. Lloyd: I was not aware that the cases had been before the courts. We have not been informed, but it is a matter, I think, which should be considered in connection with a general review of workmen's compensation.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Home Secretary whether air-raid wardens and other recognised volunteer workers under air-raid precautions schemes will be entitled to receive compensation for injuries and losses incurred by them when on duty?
  Mr. Lloyd: As has already been stated, the view of the Government is that in schemes of peace-time training provision should be made to cover any risks which may be incurred by any air-raid precaution volunteers in the course of authorised training. Information about an insurance scheme for this purpose was communicated to local authorities last spring.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: I take it from the reply of the hon. Gentleman that payment made by a local authority in respect of insurance will be the subject of the grant?
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Mathersasked the Home Secretary what are the rates of wages and hours of duty of male and female staffs employed at the air-raid precautions depots where equipment is stored; whether he is aware it is complained that the conditions compare unfavourable with those prevailing in comparable employment in outside industry; and whether he will remove this grievance?
  Mr. Lloyd: The minimum weekly rates of wages paid at the Home Office regional stores vary between 45s. and 52s. for adult male workers and between 27s. 5d. and 29s. 6d. for adult female workers according to the districts in which the stores are situated, and I have no reason to believe they compare unfavourably with the rates paid by outside industry in the districts for comparable work. No complaints have been received except in

  529
  respect of the employès in the regional store at Manchester which is the subject of discussion with a trade union.
  Mr. Mathers: Am I to understand that negotiations with the trade union are in progress? Is the Minister aware that certain of the women workers are getting less for a 47-hour week than cleaners get for a 30-hour week? Is he satisfied with that position?
  Mr. Lloyd: These issues were discussed with the trade union, and, as a result of the trade union's representations, the wages have been increased from 47s. to 50s. a week. Further representations are now being considered from the trade union, and my right hon. Friend will be prepared to receive representations.
  Sir John Mellorasked the Home Secretary whether he has approved a scheme of air-raid precautions submitted by the Port of London Authority; and what progress is being made with the execution of the scheme?
  Mr. Lloyd: The details of the scheme submitted by the Port of London Authority are still under consideration in my Department in connection with schemes affecting ports generally.
  Sir J. Mellor: Is the Under-Secretary aware that on 16th February the Chairman of the Port of London Authority, in the course of a speech to the Docks and Harbours Association, said that the schemes were being held up on a question of finance by the Home Office. Does he agree with that statement?
  Mr. Lloyd: These schemes, which deal with complicated and technical questions, are under actual examination.
  Sir J. Mellor: Does the Under-Secretary agree that air-raid precautions in the Port of London are of the utmost urgency?
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.
  Colonel Nathanasked the Home Secretary what steps he has taken to ensure the circulation of the air-raid precautions handbook for householders to Members of this House and the public; and when the issue thereof may be expected?
  Mr. Lloyd: Arrangements have been made for copies of the book to be available for Members in the Vote Office when it is issued. As was explained in the answer given on the 3rd instant to the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) the present issue will be to local authorities only and not to the general public.
  Colonel Nathan: Can the Under-Secretary say when the issue will be made?
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot give the actual date, but it will be shortly.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Can the Under-Secretary say how many pages this book will contain, and whether it will be in simple language so that hon. Members will be able to understand it?
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say off-hand the exact number of pages, but every effort has been made to state the issue in the simplest possible form.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Member have it printed in block letters and with pictures?
  Colonel Nathanasked the Home Secretary how many complete or partial air-raid precautions schemes he has received from local authorities since 3rd February; from which authorities; and what action he has taken with regard to the same?
  Mr. Lloyd: No general precautions schemes in accordance with the terms of the Act and of the draft regulations have been formally submitted, but in the course of day-to-day correspondence proposals are made by local authorities covering a variety of subjects, such, for example, as administrative organisation, training centres and the like. These are dealt with as they arise, and in addition the regional inspectors are regularly engaged in assisting the local authorities in the examination of their proposals before they are put into final shape. In view of the different manner in which the proposals are submitted, and the varying ground they cover it would not be possible without disproportionate expenditure of time and labour to give particulars, but it may safely be said that in advance of formal schemes a substantial amount of work is already being done in organisation, in earmarking of buildings, and in recruitment and training of personnel.
  Mr. Noel-Bakers: Have the Government instructed their regional organisers to give special attention to those regions which are specially liable to attack?
  Mr. Lloyd: Naturally, the whole basis of the preparations is that special protection should be given to specially dangerous areas.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As a matter of urgency that they should be dealt with first?
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.
  Colonel Nathanasked the Home Secretary whether, in the event of a local authority failing with reasonable speed and completeness to submit a complete air-raid precautions scheme or to carry the same efficiently into effect when approved, he will appoint a commissioner to take over, on behalf of the Government, the duties and responsibilities of the defaulting local authority on the analogy of the taking over of public assistance duties?
  Mr. Lloyd: The Act imposes on local authorities the duty of discharging prescribed functions and my right hon. Friend has every confidence that they will carry out their statutory duties. The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion would involve further legislation for which my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that occasion will arise.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that local authorities realise their responsibilities in connection with this matter, and that the events of the last two days only increase their desire to realise their responsibilities?

  JUSTICES' COURT, BRADFORD (ACCOMMODATION).
  Mr. Muffasked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken to increase the accommodation of the City of Bradford justices' court, in view of the fact that the juvenile court is held in an ordinary court room and that a second court is held in the justices' retiring room, and, in particular, whether accommodation will be provided for a counsels' robing room when quarter sessions are held, a consulting room for counsel and clients, a suitable room for waiting jurors, and for a retiring room to be always available for a jury to retire to consider their verdict; and whether there is any
  532
  lavatory accommodation for either juries or public?
  Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the Town Clerk of Bradford and is informed that the question of increasing the accommodation at this court has been receiving the serious consideration of the special finance sub-committee of the corporation for a considerable time and that the subcommittee hope to submit at an early date for the approval of the city council a scheme for the provision of additional accommodation.

  CONSCRIPTION.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether his pledge not to introduce conscription in peace-time applies to compulsory service both military and civil?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir, so far as the present Government are concerned.
  Mr. Mander: Do I understand that the passo Romano will not be compulsory in this country?
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is it the view of the Government that the supply of trained men is in proportion to the scale of rearmament?
  Viscountess Astor: Does the Prime Minister not think that it should be the policy of the Opposition— [Interruption.]

  CIVIL AVIATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  Mr. Perkinsasked the Prime Minister whether he expects to be in a position to publish the report as presented by Lord Cadman this week-end?
  Mr. Lyonsasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when he proposes to publish the report of the Cadman Committee?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister when the report of the Cadman Committee will be published: and whether it will be published as rendered?
  The Prime Minister: The report will be published as rendered, but I am not yet in a position to name a date for publication.

  COAL (PRICES).
  Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet come to a decision with regard to holding an inquiry into the wide discrepancies existing between the ascertained pit-head prices of coal and the prices charged to the general domestic consumer?
  The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to add to the answer which I gave on 17th February last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell).
  Miss Ward: Can the Prime Minister suggest a day when I might be able to obtain an answer?
  The Prime Minister: I should not like to do that.

  ELECTRICITY BILL.
  Mr. Herbert Morrisonasked the Prime Minister whether he can now in form the House of the date when the Government's Electricity Bill will be introduced, and the probable date of the Second Reading Debate?
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on 1st February, to which I have nothing to add at present.
  Mr. Morrison: The answer the Prime Minister gave was that he expected to be able to inform the House in another month's time. Have we not reached that point?
  The Prime Minister: Nearly, but not quite.
  Mr. Petherick: Is not the necessity for the further postponement of this and other important Measures the fact that a day was lost on the egregious Vote of Censure last Tuesday?

  GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether the return of Italy to the League of Nations will form one of the subjects for discussion in the proposed Anglo-Italian negotiations?
  The Prime Minister: As I have already indicated, I am not prepared to pledge
  534
  myself in advance regarding the scope of these negotiations.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that a certain number of subjects have already been specifically mentioned, and in view of the fundamental importance of this issue, cannot the Government give us some information as to whether they are including this subject among the others?
  The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. Kennedyasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that heavy sentences of penal servitude, with hard labour and 20 and 15 strokes of the cat, were imposed on two men convicted at the Central Criminal Court, London, on 18th February, on charges of conspiring to steal, robbery, and assault; whether he will consider remitting the latter part of the sentences; and whether he can state approximately the date on which the committee now reviewing the question of corporal punishment is likely to report?
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent case at the Central Criminal Court in which two men were sentenced, in addition to penal servitude, to 20 strokes and 15 strokes of the cat, respectively; and whether he will take any steps to prevent the carrying out of that part of the sentences?
  Mr. Lloyd: If this suggestion is based on general objections to sentences of corporal punishment, such general objections would not justify my right hon. Friend in recommending interference with sentences imposed by a court of law in the exercise of powers conferred on the courts by Parliament. If the suggestion is that there are some special grounds in these two cases for the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy, any representations on this point should be made to my right hon. Friend in writing. As regards the last part of the question by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) the report of the Departmental Committee has now been submitted to my right hon. Friend, but until he has had time to consider it, it is not possible to make any statement as to the date of its publication.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: In view of the cowardly attack on an inoffensive citizen, will the hon. Gentleman see that the criminals receive the punishment they richly deserve?
  Mr. Ridley: Do not the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend think that this is a barbaric and sadistic form of punishment?

  METROPOLITAN POLICE> (ADMINISTRATION).
  Mr. H. Morrisonasked the Home Secretary whether he has now had an opportunity of examining the evidence submitted to him by the right hon. Member for South Hackney purporting to show that police constables are being threatened with the loss of long-service increments unless they prove their zeal and efficiency by an increasing number of arrests and summonses; and whether he will publish the terms of a recent communication published to the force on this matter?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): Yes, Sir, I have had before me a copy of the communication in question, and examination of its terms does not appear to bear out the interpretation which the right hon. Member places upon it. The order, which was issued by an inspector in charge of a particular station on his own initiative, contained no reference to arrests and dealt only with cases reported for process, of which the large majority are connected with traffic offences. The order pointed out that nearly two-thirds of the cases reported for process at the station in question during the year 1937 were reported by officers temporarily attached and not by the officers normally doing duty at the station, and said that this disproportion and the inspector's own observations clearly showed a lack of initiative on the part of the latter officers. The order went on to say that the majority of these officers are in receipt of one or two long-service increments and to draw attention to the provision in the General Orders of the Metropolitan Police that the retention of these increments is dependent on the constable continuing to perform his duties with zeal and efficiency. It was the duty of the inspector to bring to the notice of the men concerned indications of slackness, and it is not justifiable to draw from his order an
  536
  inference that an officer is liable to be penalised because the number of cases in which he makes an arrest or applies for a summons are few, or to be rewarded because the number is large.
  The Commissioner of Police fully realises the danger which must arise were the number of arrests and summonses to be regarded as anything more than one amongst many considerations which have to be taken into account in judging the work of officers, and there is no practice of keeping statistics of the number of cases for which individual officers are responsible. On the other hand, when, as in the present case, there is an obvious contrast between the activities of different officers or groups of officers, this contrast cannot be ignored. It would be disastrous to efficiency if senior officers of the Metropolitan Police were precluded from drawing attention to shortcomings and from warning their men against either slackness or excessive zeal.
  I am glad to have had this opportunity of making it clear that there is no policy of measuring the efficiency of officers by mere figures of summonses or arrests.
  Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman clear in his mind that the complaint of the officer against the men appears to have been based on the fact that they had not reached the general statistical average which had been reached by other constables, and does he not think that that is exceedingly dangerous, and that the preferable course would be to deal with individual police constables, if it is shown that they have not done their duty, on concrete evidence available?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I have investigated this matter very carefully and I am clear that that was not the case. It was one of many considerations, as I have stated to-day. I hope I have made it clear that the test of efficiency in the Metropolitan Police is not the number of cases.
  Mr. Morrison: In that case, can the Home Secretary tell me why it was stated in the Order:
  "I have checked through the process reports, and I find that the majority of officers at this station only found it necessary to report one or two cases during the 12 months,"
  and is that not a situation in which there is a complaint of assumed slackness because of the number of cases?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I do not think that is the case. The Order may have been clumsily worded, but, whether that be so or not, the comparison was between two sections of men in the station. The superintendent is taking into account as a significant fact that certain police coming into the station seemed to be carrying on their duties more actively than others. It was merely a comparison between two sections of constables.
  Mr. Attlee: Are not these facts capable of quite a different interpretation? Is it not significant that, in one case, you had temporary men who might be described as aspiring to be permanent, and in the other case you had men of great experience who managed their districts adequately without frequent arrests?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I am sure that that was not the case. These men were not temporary in the sense of being in the service for a short time; they were temporarily attached to the station, and there was a significant comparison between the two classes of men. I am satisfied that my statement will make that quite clear.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: On the average, are police officers who are temporarily attached to a police station of the same seniority with those who are permanently attached?
  Sir S. Hoare: That is another question, which the hon. Gentleman should put down.
  Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider his own statement carefully again, because he also accepts in it the suggestion that an officer should be rewarded by the number of cases?
  Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the answer which he has given to-day on this matter is conveyed to all police authorities throughout the country?
  Sir S. Hoare: I think that sufficient publicity has already been given to it, but if any further publicity is needed I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply and of the public importance of this matter, I propose to raise it on the Adjournment at an early convenient date.

  DRUNKENNESS (PROCEEDINGS AND CONVICTIONS, LONDON).
  Sir William Waylandasked the Home Secretary the number of proceedings and convictions for drunkenness in the County and the City of London, respectively, during the calendar year 1937?
  Mr. Lloyd: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:

  Number of Proceedings and Convictions for Drunkenness in the County and the City of London, respectively, during 1937.

  —

  Proceedings.

  Convictions.

  County of London

  …

  17,452

  15,236

  City of London

  …

  202

  171

  (The figures are provisional in each case.)

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can make a statement on Circular 1457 and on the advisory memo randum circulated to local education authorities by the Association of Education Committees?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): As regards Circular 1457 I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 16th December last, and my Noble Friend does not consider that the memorandum issued jointly by the Association of Education Committees and the Association of Municipal Corporations calls for any comment by him.

    MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of school children in receipt of free milk in the City of Stoke-on-Trent and in the Fenton and Longton areas, respectively, on the latest date available and on the same date in the years 1934 and 1935?
    Mr. Lindsay: In the whole of the area of the Stoke-on-Trent County Borough Council 149 public elementary school children received free milk in January, 1934, 1,868 in January, 1935, and 3,952 in January, 1938. Figures for the Fenton and Longton areas are not available for those dates but on 31st March, 1935, 141 children were receiving free milk in Fenton and 231 in Longton, and on 1st October, 1937, 123 in Fenton and 342 in Longton.
    Mr. Thorne: When a local authority spends a certain amount of money in supplying free milk, is it considered in the block grant?

    SIZE OF CLASSES.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered the need of revising the regulations governing the size of classes of infant, junior and other schools; and is it intended to make provision for classes not exceeding 30 in schools?
    Mr. Lindsay: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on 9th February, a copy of which I am sending him. But I would add that any such proposal as the hon. Member suggests would raise most serious problems of finance and of school accommodation. Financially it would be quite impracticable to place this additional obligation, involving the expenditure of many millions of pounds, on local authorities and managers, who are already burdened with expenditure on reorganisation and making provision to meet the raising of the school age. Nor is this the appropriate time, when the school population is steadily falling, to embark on the very substantial building programme which the adoption of the proposal would necessitate.

    VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS (ACCOMMODATION).
    Sir Charles Cayzerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, when a Church of England school is instructed to increase its accommodation for juniors, there will be any contribution from his Department towards the cost of the alteration called for?
    Mr. Lindsay: My Noble Friend is not aware of any powers under which the managers of a voluntary school can be
    540
    "instructed" to enlarge their school. Neither the Board nor the local education authority have any power to make a contribution towards the cost of public elementary school provision for junior children.

    NECESSITOUS SCHOOLCHILDREN (FOOTWEAR).
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the difficulties of obtaining footwear for necessitous schoolchildren through the medium of the public assistance committees and the Unemployment Assistance Board have been brought to his notice; and will he consider taking steps to extend the powers, already possessed by Scottish education authorities to make this provision, to local education authorities in England and Wales?
    Mr. Lindsay: The policy of the Board in this matter is set out in paragraph 10 of their Circular 1450, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. My Noble Friend is not aware of any difficulties in obtaining footwear for necessitous schoolchildren which cannot be overcome by co-operation between teachers, education committees, public assistance committees and the Unemployment Assistance Board. On the information before him, therefore, he does not consider it desirable to introduce legislation for the purpose of enabling local education authorities to provide footwear. If, however, my hon. Friend has concrete examples of such difficulties, I shall be only too glad to have the matter looked into.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to consider legislation if information can be brought proving that there is a difficulty?
    Mr. Lindsay: I said that I would be prepared to look into the matter.
    Mr. Leach: Has not the Minister himself written a book advocating this very thing?
    Mr. Lindsay indicated dissent.

    SOUND FILMS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the results of the reports he has received from the various educational bodies who have been responsible for the experiments of

    541
    using sound films for educational purposes; and whether the Government propose giving further facilities for experiments of this nature?
    Mr. Lindsay: I am sending the hon. Member copies of two recent reports from which he will see that the teachers and authorities concerned are satisfied that films, both sound and silent, may be of great value for educational purposes. This conclusion is supported by the results of similar experiments in other places. The Board are closely interested in the possibilities of the use of films for educational purposes and the answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Day: Is any grant made by the Board for these films?
    Mr. Lindsay: There is a grant for the apparatus of 50 per cent., and 20 per cent. for the films.

    SCHOOL CAMPS.
    Mr. Viantasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can give a list of the education authorities which sent scholars to school camps during the summer of 1937?
    Mr. Lindsay: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those authorities which are known to the Board to have sent schoolchildren to camps at some time during 1937. The list also includes those authorities which are known to have sent children on school journeys. The list may not be complete as the Board are not notified of all cases of camps or school journeys.
    Following is the list:

    (a)Holiday Camps.

    Accrington

    Derby C.B.

    Ashton-under-Lyne.

    Durham A.C.

    Felling.

    Barking.

    Folkestone.

    Brighton.

    Gloucester C.B.

    Bucks.

    Hunts.

    Cambridge M.B.

    Ipswich.

    Carlisle.

    Jarrow.

    Cheshire.

    Kingston-upon-Hull.

    Chester.

    Crewe.

    Lancaster.

    Croydon.

    Leeds.

    Cumberland.

    Liverpool.

    Darwen.

    Macclesfield.

    Derbyshire.

    Mansfield.

    542

    (a) Holiday Camps—continued.

    Nottingham C.B.

    Somerset.

    Soke of Peterborough.

    Staffordshire.

    Tottenham.

    Peterborough M.B.

    Walthamstow.

    West Ham.

    Royal Leamington Spa.

    Yorks, North Riding.

    Shipley.

    Llanelly.

    Shrewsbury.

    (b) Camp Schools during term time.

    Ashton-under-Lyne.

    Smethwick.

    Southampton.

    Birkenhead.

    South Shields.

    Birmingham.

    Sunderland.

    Croydon.

    Swinton and Pendlebury.

    Cumberland.

    Darlington.

    Tynemouth.

    Durham A.C.

    Wakefield.

    Durham M.B.

    Walsall.

    East Ham.

    Wallsend.

    Enfield.

    Walthamstow.

    Exeter.

    West Hartlepool.

    Felling.

    Whitehaven.

    Gateshead.

    Wigan.

    Halifax.

    Workington.

    Hartlepool.

    Aberdare.

    Hebburn.

    Abertillery.

    Hindley.

    Brecon.

    Ince-in-Makerfield.

    Carmarthenshire.

    Jarrow.

    Carmarthen B.

    Keighley.

    Ebbw Vale.

    Kent.

    Glamorgan.

    Leicester.

    Monmouthshire.

    Leyton.

    Merthyr Tydfil.

    Middlesbrough.

    Mountain Ash.

    Newcastle-on-Tyne.

    Pembroke Boro.

    Pontypridd.

    Northumberland.

    Port Talbot.

    Nottingham C.B.

    Rhondda.

    Oldbury.

    (c) School Journeys.

    Acton.

    Swinton and Pendlebury.

    Edmonton.

    Lancashire.

    Tottenham.

    London.

    Walthamstow.

    Middlesex.

    West Ham.

    Scarborough.

    Worcestershire.

    Surrey.

  SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the injustice arising out of the method of assessing compensation for slum clearance under the Housing Act, 1936, to thrifty people

  543
  who years ago acquired with their small savings a few houses, he proposes to amend the compensation clauses?
  The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): As my hon. Friend will be aware. Parliament has on several occasions affirmed the principle that the proper basis of compensation for houses found unfit for human habitation is site value and this decision was again endorsed after full discussion during the passage of the Housing Bill of 1935. Certain amendments of the law were then made with a view to mitigating hardship and in the circumstances, as at present advised, I do not contemplate further amendment of the law in this respect.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

  BREAD (DELIVERY).
  Sir Joseph Leechasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the insanitary way in which bread for human consumption is delivered at the residences of consumers by hand, from baskets or carts and without covering; and will he, in consultation with local authorities, devise some by-law to prevent the delivery of bread by this method?
  Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to Clause 14 of the draft Food and Drugs Bill recently issued with the third interim report of the Local Government and Public Health Consolidation Committee, which proposes to empower local authorities to make by-laws as to the handling, wrapping and delivery of food.
  Mr. Banfield: Is the Minister aware that there is any evidence to show that the delivery of bread is insanitary?
  Sir K. Wood: I would like to see that question on the Paper.
  Mr. Banfield: Is the Minister aware that the baking industry has for some years paid special attention to this problem with a view to giving the public their bread in the most sanitary condition?
  Sir K. Wood: I hope that is so.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that there are still 500 local authorities in whose area the Town Planning Act is inoperative, covering two-fifths of the acreage of England and Wales, he will consider the advisability of arranging that local inquiries should be held in all suitable areas where a planning resolution has not been passed, and, in particular, that he should exercise his authority under Section 36 (1) of the Act to ensure that planning schemes are prepared immediately for all areas of outstanding landscape beauty in coastal, moorland, and mountain districts, especially in those areas considered suitable as national parks?
  Sir K. Wood: The number of local authorities in whose areas a planning scheme is not either approved or in course of preparation is 330, but the extent of planning control is increasing by an average of 150,000 acres per month. The following areas tentatively suggested by the National Park Committee are already wholly or mainly under planning:

  Lake District,

  Pembrokeshire Coast,

  The Broads,

  South Downs,

  Dovedale,

  Peak District,

  Forest of Bowland,

  Cannock Chase,

  Forest of Dean,

  and the Cornish Coast and the Wye Valley are partly under control.
  I hope that the Joint Executive Committee which has been formed for Snowdonia will shortly pass a planning resolution. The Northumberland County Council are calling a conference for the county in April to consider the planning of the Scottish Border. In view of this progress, I doubt whether it would be wise to take action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member, but I shall always be willing to investigate any reports he might make regarding a particular area.
  Mr. Hannah: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of the Bilston area is planned?
  Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that, having regard to the fact that planning legislation was

  545
  first passed in 1909, it is a scandalous state of affairs that 350 authorities should not move, and does he not recognise that the Ministry has the responsibility of seeing that the law is carried out?
  Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I think, however, that considerable progress has been made in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that sometimes the local authorities have difficulties in these matters.
  Mr. A. Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that the whole purpose of these Acts is to prevent the country from being ruined by town planners?
  Sir K. Wood: So I have heard.

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

    OLD AGE PENSIONERS, DURHAM COUNTY.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Health the number of old age pensioners in the administrative County of Durham who are in receipt of Poor Law relief, and the cost to the ratepayers in the county for this purpose each year since 1930?
    Sir K. Wood: On 1st January, 1938, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 10,315 old age pensioners in the administrative County of Durham who were in receipt of poor relief. As regards the last part of the question, the returns received in my Department do not distinguish the cost of poor relief to old age pensioners.

    ABLE-BODIED UNEMPLOYED.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Health the number of able-bodied unemployed persons who are receiving Poor Law relief in the county of Durham and also in Great Britain?
    Sir K. Wood: Statistical information in the exact form desired by the hon. Member is not available, but in January, 1938, the average number of persons, excluding dependants, in the administrative county of Durham ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation who were in receipt of out-relief on account of unemployment was 595. The corresponding figure for the whole of England and Wales for that month is not yet available, but the figure for December, 1937,
    546
    was 22,853. Any question as regards Scotland should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Batey: Will the right hon. Gentleman hand that figure over to the Minister of Labour and ask him what he is going to do?
    Sir K. Wood: I will show it to him now.

    RINGWOOD, HANTS (ALTERATION OF AREAS).
    Major Millsasked the Minister of Health whether, when considering his decision on the report of the public inquiry held at Ringwood, Hants, on 25th January last, into the refusal of the county council to make an order applying for the division of the parish of Ring-wood, he will bear in mind that the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, authorising the constitution of special drainage areas in rural parishes, were specifically kept in force with amendments and improvements in the Public Health Act, 1936; and whether he will give effect to the intention of Parliament which has been so recently expressed?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that the provisions he mentions are not directly relevant to the issue raised at the inquiry, which was directed to a proposal for the constitution of new parishes.
    Major Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that legislation was passed a few years ago to make local government areas larger, and that the only way to relieve country districts which cannot hope to benefit by expenditure on drainage, and the like, is to set up these special purposes areas?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to consult with me.

    CRYSTAL PALACE (TRUSTEES' ACCOUNTS).
    Mr. Kellyasked the Minister of Health when the Ministry's auditor last dealt with the Crystal Palace accounts?
    Sir K. Wood: I understand that the audit by the district auditor of the

    547
    accounts of the trustees for the year ended December, 1937, was completed on the 12th instant.
    Mr. Kelly: May I ask whether the auditor has reported to the Minister and whether, if so, there is any suggestion in the report that the trustees are not carrying out their duties?
    Sir K. Wood: I have not yet received his report.
    Mr. Kelly: Has it been reported to the Minister that the trustees are holding this land against the people and refusing to carry out the conditions of the Act of Parliament?
    Sir K. Wood: Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. Kelly: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into it.

    INCOME TAX AVOIDANCE (HOLDING COMPANIES).
    Sir Arthur Salterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether his attention has been called to the growing practice of tax avoidance by Income Tax and especially Surtax payers by means of foreign holding companies; and, as the provisions of the Finance Act, 1936, designed to prevent tax evasion by such means, have proved ineffective, whether he proposes to introduce more effective measures;
    (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the number of holding companies in Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, the Swiss cantons, and Monaco, whose purpose is apparently to enable persons subject to English Income Tax and Surtax to avoid payment; and what steps he is taking to deal with the situation?
    Sir J. Simon: I can assure the hon. Member that the avoidance of taxation by means of holding companies established in other countries is a subject that is kept under close survey. The provisions of Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936, which were specially directed against avoidance of Income Tax by this means, have generally been found to be effective, but I have these and other provisions of the law relating to avoidance of taxation at present under review, and if I consider that they require any strenthening, I shall not hesitate to ask
    548
    the House for additional powers to ensure that individuals will not be allowed to escape paying their fair share of the national expenditure.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer noticed the reference in the second question to English Income Tax and Surtax, and are we to understand from that that no Scotsman pays Income Tax or Surtax, and that those taxes are applicable only to English taxpayers?
    Sir J. Simon: My assumption was that Scotsmen paid more willingly.
    Mr. Thorne: Why is it that big Income Tax payers can get out of their obligations and little men like myself cannot slip through at all?

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will examine present arrangements in the Treasury for reckoning for incremental increases a part of the sick leave taken by ex-service men undergoing treatment for their pensionable war disability; and will he consider the possibility of allowing all such sick leave in future to count for incremental purposes?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The present normal rule is for periods of paid sick leave, unless at pension rate, to be allowed to reckon for the purposes of increment. In consequence, established non-industrial staff may reckon absence up to a maximum of 12 months in any period of four years, and unestablished non-industrial staff up to a maximum of three months in any period of 12 months. Having regard to the generous nature of the present arrangements, I regret that I cannot see my way to agree to their modification.
    Sir A. Knox: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise that these men, owing to war disability, are absent for long periods in carrying out their treatment; and would it not be a fair thing, in view of their sacrifices for the country, to allow them to count the whole of that period towards their increments of pay?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This was considered sympathetically and carefully, but

    549
    the arrangements for pay during sick leave and for increments are so generous in the Civil Service as compared with the arrangements generally outside that I cannot really recommend a change.
    Sir A. Knox: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that some difference should be made with regard to the men who have suffered in the War?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: A high degree of preference is given to ex-service men to get into the Civil Service.

    STATIONERY OFFICE, HARROW (REVENUE STAMPING).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is in contemplation to transfer to the Stationery Office printing works at Harrow the bulk revenue stamping now carried out at Somerset House by the stamping department of the Board of Inland Revenue?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir.

  AGRICULTURE.

    CENTRAL SLAUGHTERHOUSES.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Minister of Agriculture how many local authorities and other bodies have submitted schemes to the Livestock Commission for the setting up of central slaughterhouses; whether the Commission are still prepared to consider further schemes of this kind; and by what date it may be anticipated that they will reach a decision as to where the three experiments permitted by the Livestock Industry Act are to take place?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am informed that the Livestock Commission have not yet been furnished with details of any arrangements made for the provision or alteration of a central slaughterhouse which would form the basis of a slaughterhouse scheme to be made and submitted by the Commission under the provisions of the Livestock Industry Act. Twenty-one local authorities and other bodies have, however, been in consultation with the Commission with a view to considering whether they will submit proposals. The Commission are prepared to consider
    550
    proposals from local authorities or other bodies who have not yet approached them. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in these circumstances it is not possible to indicate by what date a decision will be reached on the location of the experimental slaughterhouses for which the Act provides.

    HORSE BREEDING.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the transference of the National Stud from the Irish Free State to this country; and whether he has consulted those persons and societies interested in horse-breeding in this country with regard to this matter?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am not at present in a position to make a statement with regard to the future of the National Stud.
    Mr. Hall-Caine: As this matter has been going on for so long, will the right hon. Gentleman take it up with Mr. De Valera as part of the negotiations?
    Mr. Morrison: Conversations are now going on.
    Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that far better horses are bred in the Thirsk and Malton Division than in the Irish Free State, and will he consider the transfer of the National Stud for that reason to the Thirsk and Malton Division?

    MARKETS.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken by the Livestock Commission to investigate which markets in the country may be regarded as non-essential and redundant; and whether, before making inquiries in any district, those responsible for the market in question are advised that the investigation is to take place?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Investigations by the Livestock Commission have so far been limited to preliminary inquiries into market facilities in areas where proposals have been made by individual owners for the improvement or extension of their markets. No formal notice of such investigations has been given or is required; but there is statutory provision for consultation with interested parties before action is taken to control the holding of markets.

    DERELICT FARMS, WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. Lunnasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the condition of many small farmers in the West Riding of Yorkshire whose holdings are being allowed to become derelict; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the causes and consider what action is necessary to remedy the position?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have received from the county council of the East Riding of Yorkshire a copy of a resolution passed by the council relative to the condition of certain classes of small farmers in the county. The resolution is receiving my consideration, but I am doubtful whether any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry of the nature to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Lunn: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any other means by which these people can bring forward complaints and have them dealt with?
    Mr. Morrison: I am always ready to consider any complaints which are made to me, but on my preliminary investigation it appears that the condition of these farmers depends very largely upon general agricultural conditions in this country

    FLOODS, ESSEX.
    Colonel Sir Edward Ruggles-Briseasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the extensive flooding by salt water which has occurred recently along the coast of Essex, in particular in the borough of Maldon and Heybridge, where house property, business premises, and factories were submerged, and also in other parts of the county where considerable areas of land were affected; whether he proposes to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of the flooding; and whether, in view of the urgent need of affording security against further flooding, particularly of house property, he will consider the authorisation of a special grant to the area catchment board so that the necessary work of rebuilding and heightening the sea walls may be proceeded with forthwith?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am aware that flooding has occurred in various parts of Essex as a result of the recent storm, but I do not consider that any special inquiry into the circumstances is called for.
    552
    The Essex Rivers Catchment Board have approached me on the question of financial assistance towards the cost of the remedial works which they contemplate, and the matter is at present under consideration.

    VEGETABLES (RESEARCH STATIONS).
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that there is no research station in the country to deal with vegetables only, the Government are prepared to consider setting up a research station for this purpose, in connection with the cultivation of better varieties of vegetables and the control of disease?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The horticultural research station attached to the University of Cambridge is mainly concerned with vegetables. The question of extending the provision for vegetable research is at present under consideration by the Agricultural Research Council, my Department and the Scottish Department of Agriculture.
    Mr. De la Bère: Are not the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House aware that the very best vegetables in the world are grown in the Vale of Evesham?

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING (COSTS).
    Mr. Cassellsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether housing costs remain static at the present date as compared with June, 1937; and what steps are being taken to control such rising costs?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): While the average cost of houses fluctuates slightly from month to month, the general level of costs remains substantially unchanged as compared with June, 1937. In reply to the latter part of the question, steps have been and are being taken to increase the supplies of labour and material, which is, I believe, the most effective method of dealing with the position.

    WATER SUPPLIES (RURAL AREAS).
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the memorial recently sent to him by the Association of County Councils in Scotland regarding the urgent

    553
    need for extended water supplies in the rural areas of Scotland; and whether he is yet in a position to announce the Government's policy on this matter?
    Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend has not yet considered in detail the association's memorial, which is dated 21st February, but I observe that it contains a request that he should meet a deputation, and my right hon. Friend hopes to arrange this in the course of the next few weeks. In regard to the last part of the question, I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in many of the rural areas of Scotland the need for water supplies is of the greatest possible urgency?
    Mr. Malcolm Macmillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the northern counties there are many instances of water supplies which are definitely contaminated and a danger to the health of the people, and that this is a matter of urgency? Will he look into the matter?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    DENMARK.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will draw the Danish Government's attention to the severe handicap to the export of British goods to Denmark caused by the unfair operation of the Danish Valuta Control, which has caused the restriction in the import of British products for which there is a demand in Denmark, as shown by the letter to the President of the Board

    The following table shows the quantity and declared value of the exports of cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom to the undermentioned countries during the years 1936 and 1937.

    Countries to which consigned.

    1936.

    1937.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Thousand

    Thousand

    British West Africa—

    sq. yds.

    £

    sq. yds.

    £

    Nigeria (including Cameroons under British mandate).

    132,680

    2,729,712

    116,836

    2,816,506

    Gold Coast (including Togoland under British mandate).

    45,660

    1,062,313

    43,477

    1,199,455

    Sierra Leone

    12,829

    266,781

    11,510

    257,112

    Gambia

    7,629

    152,958

    6,200

    149,031

    French West and Equatorial Africa

    41,580

    904,739

    31,642

    758,730

    Portuguese West Africa

    1,962

    48,293

    2,108

    64,856

    Note.—The figures for 1937 are provisional
    of Trade from Messrs. Pedershaab Machine Works of Bronderslev; and, having regard to the inequitable trade balance between Denmark and this country in favour of Denmark, will he ensure that the necessary action is taken to correct the irregularity complained of?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am informed that the particular case referred to by my hon. Friend has been satisfactorily settled. As regards the general aspect of the question, certain trade matters are at present the subject of discussion with the competent Danish authorities.

    COTTON GOODS (EXPORTS TO WEST AFRICA).
    Mr. Kellyasked the President of the Board of Trade the exports of cotton textiles to the West African countries in 1936 and 1937?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: As the answer involves a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Kelly: Was there a reduction last year as compared with the year before?
    Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Kelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring it to the notice of the firm responsible for this reduction that it is against the interests of this country that they should act in that manner?
    Mr. Hudson: This is a very interesting illustration of the fact that when the prices of primary commodities fall, the exports of manufactured goods from this country also decrease.
    Following is the answer:

    DEFENCE (FOOD STORAGE).
    Mr. Kellyasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the number of depots arranged for the storage of food for use in time of war?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 9th February.
    Mr. Kelly: Do I understand from that reply that the Minister is indicating that there are no depots where food is being stored at the present time?
    Sir T. Inskip: I have informed the hon. Gentleman that I cannot add to the statement I made on 9th February.
    Mr. Kelly: Why do you not trust the House?

    PALESTINE (TRADING COMPANIES, INCOME TAX).
    Sir A. Salterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of companies registered in Palestine during the last five years; the present number of such companies whose assets are wholly or almost wholly outside Palestine; the present number of such companies which are not trading; and whether, in view of the absence of Income Tax and Sur-tax in Palestine, he is satisfied that the machinery of Palestinian companies is not being used to avoid the payment of English Income Tax and Sur-tax?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The numbers of new companies registered each year from 1932 to 1936 were 55, 117, 214, 273 and 183, respectively. The information requested in the second and third parts of the question is not in my possession. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister to state what the business will be next week?
The Prime Minister: Monday.—1st Allotted Supply Day: Civil and Revenue
556
Departments Vote on Account; Committee stage. Debate on the Report of the Trinidad Commission.
Tuesday.—Consideration of Supplementary Estimates in Committee, beginning with Prisons, England and Wales; Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales; State Management Districts.
Wednesday.—Second Reading of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill.
Thursday.—Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill.
Friday.—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
If there is time on any day, other Orders may be taken.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister who will be answering Foreign Office questions next week in the event of there being no Foreign Secretary or Deputy Foreign Secretary?
The Prime Minister: I suggest that Foreign Office questions should be addressed to me as Prime Minister, and that they should be placed in the position occupied by Foreign Office questions in the order of questions. That will keep Foreign Office questions separate from the questions which are addressed to me, and which begin at Question 45.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask, further, how far the Government propose to go with business to-night?
The Prime Minister: We are proposing to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to get the Report and Third Reading of the Cinematograph Films Bill. We also propose to take the four Government of India and of Burma Orders, which are exempted business, and I think there will be an opportunity to-day to dispose of the remaining stages of the National Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 122.

Division No. 108.]

AYES.

[3.54 p.m.

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

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Peake, O.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Furness, S. N.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Albery, Sir Irving

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

Petherick, M.

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

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

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Pilkington, R.

Apsley, Lord

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Grant-Ferris, R.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Assheton, R.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Ramsbotham, H.

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

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Balniel, Lord

Grigg, Sir E. W. M

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Grimston, R. V.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

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

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Beechman, N. A.

Hambro, A. V.

Rosa Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Hannah, I. C.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Bernays, R. H.

Hartington, Marquess of

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Russell, Sir Alexander

Blair, Sir R.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Bossom, A. C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Salmon, Sir l.

Boulton, W. W.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Salt, E. W.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Boyce, H. Leslie

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Holdsworth, H.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Holmes, J. S.

Sandys, E. D.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Loith)

Hopkinsen, A.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

Horsbrugh, Florence

Scott, Lord William

Bull, B. B.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Selley, H. R.

Bullock, Capt. M.

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

Shakespeare, G. H.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Caine, G. R. Hall.

Hulbert, N. J.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J

Cary, R. A.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hutchinson, G. C.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Channon, H.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

Leech, Sir J. W.

Storey, S.

Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Leigh, Sir J.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Levy, T.

Tasker, Sir R. l.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Liddall, W. S.

Tata, Mavis C.

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

Lindsay, K. M.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

Lipson, D. L.

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

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Lloyd, G. W.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Crooke, Sir J. S.

Loftus, P. C.

Touche, G. C.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Train, Sir J.

Cross, R. H.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Crossley, A. C.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Crowder, J. F. E.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.

Culverwell, C. T.

McKie, J. H.

Turton, R. H.

Davidson, Viscountess

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Wakefield, W. W.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Davison, Sir W. H.

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

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

De Chair, S. S.

Markham, S. F.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

De la Bère, R.

Marsden, Commander A.

Warrender, Sir V.

Denville, Alfred

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Doland, G. F.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Wayland, Sir W. A

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

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

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Duggan, H. J.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forett)

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

Dunglass, Lord

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Morgan, R. H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Ellis, Sir G.

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

Withers, Sir J. J.

Emery, J. F.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Errington, E.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Everard, W. L.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Findlay, Sir E.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr.

Fleming, E. L.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Munro.

558

559

NOES.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Adams, D. (Corsett)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Parker, J.

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

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Parkinson, J. A.

Alexander, R. Hon. A. V. (H'ltbr.)

Hardie, Agnes

Pearson, A.

Amman, C. G.

Harris, Sir P. A.

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

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hayday, A.

Price, M. P.

Banfield, J. W.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Barnes, A. J.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Ridley, G.

Batey, J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Ritson, J.

Bellenger, F. J.

Hills, A. (Pontefrast)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Hollins, A.

Sexton, T. M.

Benson, G.

Hopkin, D.

Silverman, S. S.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jagger, J.

Simpson, F. B.

Burks, W. A.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

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

Cape, T.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Casseils, T.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

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

Chater, D.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Cluse, W. S.

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, C.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

Cocks, F. S.

Kirby, B. V.

Stokes, R. R.

Cove, W. G.

Lathan, G.

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

Daggar, G.

Lawson, J. J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leach, W.

Thorne, W.

Davies, R. J, (Westhoughton)

Lea, F.

Thurtle, E.

Davits, S. O. (Merthyr)

Leonard, W.

Tinker, J. J.

Day, H.

Lunn, W.

Tomlinson, G.

Debbie, W.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Viant, S. P.

Ede, J. C.

McEntee, V. La T.

Walkden, A. G.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McGhee, H. G.

Walkins, F. C.

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

Maclean, N.

White, H. Graham

Gallacher, W.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Gardner, B. W.

Mander, G. le M.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Garro Jones, G. M.

Marshall, F.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mathers, G.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Maxton, J.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Montague, F.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Grenfell, D. R

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

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

Muff, G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Naylor, T. E.

SUPERANNUATION (VARIOUS SERVICES) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 60.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1936.
Copy presented of Statement of the Sums required to be voted in order to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Departments for the year ended 31st March, 1937 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 59.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Conditions governing registration of British films as quota films.)
    4.5 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move, in page 23, line 45, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) A film registered under this Part of this Act as a British film shall not be registered as a renters' quota film unless—

    (a) the maker of the film was, throughout the time during which the film was being made, a person carrying on business in the United Kingdom and having his principal place of business therein; and

    (b) the studio, if any, used in making the film is within the United Kingdom, and

    (c) at least half the requisite amount of labour costs, as defined by Sub-section (2) of the last preceding Section, represents payments which, as part of the labour costs of the film, have been paid or are payable in respect of the labour or services of British subjects ordinarily resident in, or persons domiciled in, the United Kingdom."

    This Amendment introduces a new condition into the requirements that have to be satisfied before a film is accepted as a renters' quota film. It is being inserted to implement a promise made to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), embracing the sentiments of the vast majority of the Committee, that some step should be taken to prevent the possibility of a quota film being made in parts of the Empire other than Great Britain—in which case, of course, the production would not in any way help the film-producing industry of this country—and then counting for renters' quota. The Amendment contains three essential conditions in addition to the cost test which a film must satisfy in order to be registered as a British renters' quota film. First of all the maker of the film must be a person carrying on business in the United Kingdom and have his place of business there during the whole time that the film is being made. Secondly, any studio used for the making of the film must be a studio in the United Kingdom Thirdly, at least half the requisite amount of the labour costs mentioned in
    590
    the amended Sub-section (2) of Clause 25, that is at least half of either three-quarters or four-fifths of the total labour costs according to whether one or two foreigners are excluded must have been paid in respect of the labour or services of British subjects ordinarily resident in, or of persons domiciled in, the United Kingdom. We feel that the application of these three conditions should ensure that the renters' quota provisions are not met by the production of films for foreign renters in other parts of the Empire merely for the purpose of satisfying their quota here. The Amendment carries out in their entirety the wishes of the Committee.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: We are not averse to accepting the Amendment, which is intended to fulfil a promise made in Standing Committee. But I would ask one or two questions. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Amendment can be taken as read, but with regard to paragraph (c), referring to labour costs, while the printed word is perfectly clear, we should like to know exactly what steps the Government are going to take to ensure that these payments are made to employes resident within the United Kingdom. For instance, it may be that a film is made two-thirds in East Africa and one-third in Britain. The one-third would obviously be made in a British studio, and it would be made by a British company, but how are we to ascertain whether or not the labour conditions are fulfilled in the case of a film made in East Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else? It is proper to put on paper this wording, but I can imagine it will be much more difficult in administration to determine whether or not these labour costs conditions are being met.
    One other question with regard to the words "or are payable" in paragraph (c) of the Amendment. They refer to the payments made to employés engaged on these particular films, assuming that the film has been made in some part of the Dominions or Colonies. My question is this: Why should not the wages have been paid before the film is registered at all? These words "have been paid or are payable" are very slippery, and it may be that although the producer of the film has paid some portion of the wages and has made a promise to pay the other part, that other part may never

    591
    be paid. Therefore, this particular film would be registered under false pretences. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not intend that and that he does not anticipate that it will happen, but at least we ought to be given an indication as to how it can be prevented.
    There is a further question. The words "have been paid or are payable," mean quite obviously that some of the wages might be paid during the course of the making of the film and other portions might be deferred to a later date. If the Amendment is to be accepted with these words in it, is any time limit to be enforced to ensure that the film is made strictly in accordance with the conditions laid down? What time limit ought to be given before the producer of the film pays the deferred wages? If there is a time limit, how long should it be before an appeal can be lodged to restrain the producer of that film from further exhibition unless the word as well as the spirit of the Amendment has been fulfilled? These questions are not intended to embarrass or delay, but from the point of view of the workers and of good administration, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a reply.
    4.13 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: Subject to the points raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), it seems to me that this Amendment is a reasonable attempt to meet a promise that was made in the Standing Committee on an Amendment that I had moved. It goes some way to carry out the recommendations of the Moyne Committee, and goes even further than they indicated.
    4.14 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: I think I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman opposite quite easily. He referred to a film being made in East Africa. The hon. Member will observe that paragraph (a) of the Amendment says that the film has to be made by a person carrying on business in the United Kingdom. There is just the same amount of control over his wages costs as if that film were made at home. Secondly, all the studio scenes have to be shot in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the question of these wages costs is covered in exactly the same way by statutory declaration as if it were an ordinary film
    592
    made in this country. The words "paid or are payable" are put in for this reason: In some cases persons employed in the production of a film obtain a share of the profits as some part of their emolument. The House will realise that it would be impossible to hold up the registration and exhibition of a film until those further instalments payable under a contract had been paid. There is no such time limit as he has suggested. All these people are under contract, under which they can sue. It will not be a practicable proposition if, at some future date, whether you put it at three months or six months or a year, the registration of a film could be cancelled because a company refused to discharge a contractual obligation for which there was a remedy open to the employé in the courts.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: I quite agree that the ordinary agreement between employer and workman exists, but, since this is a statutory condition, ought it to be left to an employé who finds that his employer has defaulted as regards the payment of deferred wages to go to the courts and sue his employer for the wages due to him? I do not wish to press the point further, but I hope the Parliamentary will look into it from the workers' point of view.
    4.16 p.m.
    Mr. Day: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will have heard of cases where labour costs have been adjusted by smaller film-producing companies by paying part of the wages in cash and giving I.O.U's. for the balance. In some such cases, where the companies have gone into liquidation, the employés have had to file their claims with the receiver in bankruptcy. As regards labour costs in foreign countries, surely the Parliamentary Secretary realises that many of these companies go out there and simply superintend the staff, engaging an enormous amount of labour in these foreign countries. That point is not covered by his explanation, and perhaps he will consider it also.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.17 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 25, line 7, to leave out "six," and to insert "twelve."

    593
    This Amendment introduces a further safeguard into the provision inserted in Committee providing in certain circumstances for an appeal against the cost test. It was originally suggested that if this procedure was brought into operation—and it would require a recommendation from the Films Council, the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, and approval by a resolution of this House—a period of six months should be allowed in order not unreasonably to harass the producer who has made his arrangements in advance. My right hon. Friend thinks that in all the circumstances a period of six months is on the short side, and the Amendment would substitute 12 months, thus providing that at least a year must elapse after the making of the order before an appeal can be entertained. It is, I think, a reasonable provision, and I hope that the House will accept it.
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: I must disagree with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this is a reasonable provision. Sub-section (4) of the Clause, which provides for an appeal against a succession of future "quota quickies," is a very poor and puny kind of thing, and I do not think it will have any real effect. I agree that it was a concession to those who display these films, but it is a very slow-moving procedure. If a film is produced which has not the requisite entertainment value, someone must first of all appeal, either to the Films Council or to the Board of Trade. The Films Council must examine the case, and must satisfy the Board of Trade that the film has not a proper entertainment value; and only then would it be possible to prevent its further distribution after a period of six months. It is proposed now to extend the period to 12 months, which I fear will not in any way discourage the production of such films. I think it will weaken what was already a very weak Clause. I do not propose to ask my hon. Friends to divide against it, but I am sure that those responsible for the exhibition of films will feel that, as I say, it definitely weakens an already weak Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 33.—(Films to which Act applies.)
    4.21 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 28, line 5, to leave out from "films," to "or," in line 6, and to insert:
    "consisting wholly or mainly of photographs which, at the time when they were taken, were means of communicating news or were of special interest by reason of their relation to topics of the day."
    This Amendment aims at defining the class of film to be included under the existing paragraph (a) of this Clause. We thought that in its original form the net was cast too wide. Difficulty has occurred in the past in interpreting the Clause, and we think that it has had a harmful effect on the production of documentary films. Films of this kind frequently deal with what have necessarily been regarded as current events. The present definition confines the class of films exempted from the operation of the Act to what are essentially news films, that is to say, just everyday news of passing events of special interest, An example which has been suggested to me is a film of a prominent public man speaking on some aspect of the League of Nations. We think that the new definition will considerably facilitate the production and registration of documentary films for renters' quota provided that they satisfy the conditions for renters' quota which other films are required to satisfy. I think that Members in every quarter of the House will desire to encourage the production of these documentary films, and that this Amendment will be a means of doing so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 28, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    "or
    (c) films certified by the Board of Education under Sub-section (2) of Section seven of the Finance Act, 1935, as being entitled to exemption from customs duties under the convention for facilitating the international circulation of films of an educational character which is referred to in that Subsection."
    This Amendment would exclude from the films falling within the Bill, and therefore requiring a quota against them if they are foreign, educational films certified by the Board of Education, under

    595
    Section 7 (2) of the Finance Act, 1935, as entitled to exemption from customs duty on coming into this country. This is simply a means of carrying out our obligations under an international convention signed at Geneva on 11th October, 1933, by which the signatories agreed to exempt films coming from each other's countries from the operation of any condition such as the necessity for the provision of a quota against them. The object is simply to allow of a freer international circulation of specially certified educational films which we wish to exchange with other countries.
    Mr. Day: Who is to decide whether these films are educational?
    Captain Wallace: I have already said that it is the Board of Education.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 34.—(Power of Board of Trade to vary by order minimum figure in respect of labour costs.)
    4.25 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 28, line 24, to leave out from the first "sum," to "as," in line 25.
    This Amendment has two effects. It will remove the limit of one-quarter by which the total labour costs or the costs per foot of a film, or the price paid for the acquisition of foreign rights, may be varied by the Board of Trade in a draft Order made after consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council. It is the outcome of an undertaking given in Committee, arising from an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who wished to leave out the overall figure of £7,500 for labour costs of a film qualifying for renters' quota, and simply to leave the figure of so much per foot. It was pointed out in reply that this minimum could already be reduced considerably on the recommendation of the Films Council, under the existing provisions, but my right hon. Friend, as a result of discussion, feels that it would be best to take away the limit altogether, and to leave it entirely open to the council to recommend to the Board of Trade any alteration in either direction, either in the overall costs or in the footage costs.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 35.—(Annual returns to be made by renters and exhibitors.)
    Amendment made: In page 29, line 22, leave out "each of the films," and insert "any registered film."—[Captain Wallace.]
    4.28 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I beg to move, in page 30, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    "(4) A return required by this Section shall be deemed not to have been furnished in compliance with this Section unless it is accompanied by a statutory declaration of the truth of the particulars contained in the return, being a declaration made by the person required to furnish the return."
    The object of this Amendment is to require that the annual returns to be made by renters and exhibitors shall be verified by a statutory declaration, in view of the importance of accuracy in these returns.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 38.—(Regulations of Board of Trade.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 31, line 33, at the beginning, to insert:
    "and also regulations providing that any statutory declaration which a person is required by this Act to make shall be deemed to be properly made if it is made on his behalf by any such person as may be specified in the regulations."
    The effect of this Amendment will be to enable the Board of Trade to prescribe the class of persons from whom a statutory declaration shall be required. The Bill requires statutory declarations in several connections—for example, in the case of any application under the reciprocity provisions; in respect of information desired by the Board of Trade in relation to registration; as an essential preliminary to the registration of a film in regard to the blind booking provisions, and the verification of renters' and exhibitors' annual returns. It is important in regard to each case that the Board of Trade should be able to make certain by regulation that the declaration was made by a person of responsibility.
    Mr. Bellenger: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us any examples of the kind of people who would sign on behalf of their principals, and in that event would a principle be held responsible for the signature of such a person?
    The Solicitor-General: The process really is to prevent something that might otherwise happen. The object is to see that a document is not signed by the office boy or by the junior clerk. Normally it would be by somebody such as the managing director. We desire to have the power, by regulation, to be able to prevent somebody of no responsibility signing documents of this kind.
    Mr. Bellenger: Then I take it that the principal in that case would be bound by the act of the servant who signed the declaration on his behalf?
    The Solicitor-General: I think so. The person would be an agent for the principal in this case, and the regulations would provide that the person who was to sign would be sufficiently responsible to bind the principal.
    Mr. McEntee: In the case of a company, I take it that it would be under the signature of the company?
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 39.—(The Cinematograph Films Council.)
    Amendment made: In page 32, line 21, leave out "Films," and insert "said."—[Captain Wallace.]
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 32, line 31, at the end, to insert:
    "(b) to enquire into the practicability of and, if possible, to make recommendations for enabling any group of exhibitors to co-operate in the booking of films."
    This modest Amendment is one to which some of us attach a good deal of importance, and we trust that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give it his best attention. On the Second Reading of the Bill there was a chorus of objections from all parts of the House to any Advisory Council being formed on the lines of that which has existed hitherto. It was described as being an almost useless body, and so pressure, not only on the Second Reading, but on the Committee stage of the Bill, was brought-to bear, and the President of the Board of Trade finally agreed to set up the Cinematograph Films Council that is now in the Bill. Everybody trusts that the council will get down to some of the problems facing the industry. We all hope that this Bill, when it reaches the Statute Book within the
    598
    next week or two, will work satisfactorily, that any differences that there may have been will be speedily forgotten, and that every section of the trade will combine to try and make the best of things. Upon their doing this will largely depend the success or otherwise of the council, and the amount of good will that is brought to bear, particularly by the trade representatives, will also play a very important part.
    This question of independent exhibitors being allowed to co-operate in booking films has been a thorny question in the trade for a number of years, and a good many hard words have been spoken over it, but it seems to me that if the trade interests, the Films Council and the public were to get their teeth into this question, considerable advantage to all sections of the trade would emerge, and probably a scheme could be devised which would be welcomed by all. For the benefit of hon. Members who do not know, I would explain that the position is somewhat unusual. The owner of one or two, or it may be half-a-dozen, cinemas has to compete for his films against the representatives of a combine which may be in a position to book for 300 or 400 cinemas, and if the growth of circuits in this industry increases, it will become a more and more difficult problem for the owner of one or two or half-a-dozen cinemas to compete against such people. As time goes on, this trade, like other trades, looks like getting into fewer and fewer hands, and I think this House has always prided itself that when that sort of thing has taken place it has done its best to see that the small man has not been ruthlessly driven to the wall, but has been given an opportunity of surviving.
    If you take a remote district like Inverness-shire, in the North, or Devonshire in the South, it will be seen that it would be convenient for the owners of small, independent cinemas to get together and agree that one of them should book for the whole lot, but the renters will not allow them to do that at the present time. To such an extent has this been carried that I am informed that in the case of miners' welfare institutes, where they show perhaps on only one night a week, where the booking with the renters is almost infinitesimal, and where it should obviously be for the convenience of all concerned that one person should

    599
    be able to look after the collective booking for half-a-dozen of these institutes, up to now the Renters Society have not seen fit to allow them to do that, but have insisted that every individual hall, with the exception, of course, of the collectively-owned combines, should book its own films. I am not proposing that this co-operative booking should be made compulsory; all that I am asking is that the Government should allow the question to go before the Films Council. It would have advantages certainly for the small, independent man and for the renters as well, because the amount of money that the renters spend in sending travellers to each individual cinema must be enormous. There must be a great waste of money in this way, and I am sure that a scheme could be devised, as in other industries, whereby benefits would result to all parties.
    It may be asked, "Why should they not agree among themselves?" Why should they not agree about quite a number of things? All that I am asking is that this question should be one of those to be referred by the President of the Board of Trade to the Films Council, so that they may endeavour to reach agreement among themselves and formulate a scheme. If they could do that, we should be very pleased in this House, and the trade itself would greatly benefit. If the question were referred to the Films Council and they could not agree upon a scheme, at any rate we should have done our best, and we cannot do more. I am only asking that the President or his representative, knowing how keenly the small exhibitors, particularly in country districts, feel on this question, should go thus far and ask the new Films Council to look into this question and to see whether they can agree among themselves. If they can, and if they put up a scheme, I am sure we shall have no objection.
    4.41 p.m.
    Mr. Bellenger: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I would say to those hon. Members who are not conversant with the position of the small, independent cinema owners in the country that most of the cinemas in this country are controlled by big circuits, and surely I can appeal to hon. Members opposite to give the small, in-
    600
    dependent man as good a chance as it is possible for him to have. We believe that if a system of co-operative booking were inaugurated among the independent proprietors, it would give them a chance of competing on more level terms with the big circuits than is the case at the present time. I would remind hon. Members, and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary, that in this Amendment we are only asking that the Films Council shall investigate the possibility, and I think that is not asking too much.
    4.42 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: I am sure the House will not want me to go into the merits of this proposal, because all that is asked in the Amendment is that it should be made a definite function of the Cinematograph Films Council to consider the question of co-operative booking of films by exhibitors. The terms of reference of this Council have been drafted very widely, as I think the House will recognise, and there is no doubt whatever in my mind that these terms of reference, which will be in the Statute, will include the ability to consider this particular question. One has only to read Sub-section (2) of Clause 39, and particularly the beginning of paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) to see that. But the point that I wish to put is that if we multiply the definite functions which we give to the Films Council, we shall make it more difficult for them to consider matters which are not specifically mentioned in their terms of reference. I think it is obvious that the exhibitor members of the Council, of whom there will be four, will raise this matter, and I hope therefore that the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, on the ground that the power which he seeks to give to the Council is already inherent in it.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am afraid I am obliged to disagree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. There is no specific instruction in either Sub-section (2,a) or Sub-section (2,b), or indeed in Sub-section (2,c), that this particular subject should be considered.
    Captain Wallace: I never said there was.
    Mr. Williams: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred the House to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2). Paragraph (a) does call upon the Council

    601
    to keep the industry under review, with special reference to the development of the production side, and paragraph (c) simply refers to the provision of an annual report of the proceedings of the Council. There is no specific reference to the question of co-operative bookings. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that the council ought to investigate this problem, there ought to be a specific instruction, such as the Amendment suggests. There is nothing compulsory about it, apart from the fact that they must in due course consider the question. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must agree that if in existing circumstances an injustice is being felt by 3,500 independent exhibitors, the problem ought to be examined by the Films Council. We might give the Films Council a long list of questions to examine, and we might invite them to concentrate their efforts at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Clause 39 is a modest one, with certain definite powers and certain powers that are indefinite. Here is an instruction with the power—there is no compulsion about it—that some time, in their own sweet way, they shall examine this very grave problem.
    We have approximately four large circuits owning 1,250 cinemas out of nearly 5,000. When it is a question of booking a foreign or a British film those circuits get the best terms, because they book for a large number of cinemas, while the poor, miserable owner of a cinema in the Provinces only gets certain films and on such terms as are imposed upon him. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman understands how delicate the situation is with regard to a large number of comparatively small independent cinemas. I recall the occasion when a halfpenny tax on the very cheap seats in two cinemas in my own Parliamentary Division meant that they made a loss for two successive years. That was due simply to the addition of a halfpenny tax on the cheaper seats. It may seem in-credible to residents in the City of London, where high prices are paid for good, bad or indifferent seats, but the Provinces, where the money is really earned and one gets little opportunity of spending it on pleasure, is a part of the country where the Government ought to try to be charitable and helpful when a situation of this kind arises. It is no use our blaming the renter or the foreigner.
    602
    We have to take our own experience over a long period and see what has happened.
    I would put to the right hon. Member this possibility—it may be remote—to indicate what might happen in the twinkling of an eye when there is no power on the part of the Board of Trade to prevent it. It is known that one individual has control of two large circuits, and it is on the cards that he is making a big effort to become controller of a third circuit. If he gets control of the third circuit, there is no reason why he should not get control of the fourth. Then one person would be absolutely in control not only of the four big circuits, not only of 1,250 or 1,300 cinemas, but he could use or abuse all the independent cinema proprietors as he wished. It is not impossible, in case all the power lands into the hands of one person, for him to exact what terms he cares to impose upon the 3,500 independent cinemas. That would compel one independent cinema after another, in sheer desperation, to lease its cinema to the person running the large circuits. That is the only safety valve that is left, namely, to lease the cinema instead of running it on his own, because he cannot get proper terms. One independent cinema after another is going into the big circuits, and the circuits are becoming bigger and bigger.
    As the circuits grow, the bargaining power of the remaining independent owners becomes less and less. A point might easily be reached where, overnight, one person in charge of the big circuits could sell them to America, so that we should have no control over the production or the distribution of films in this country. The Board of Trade have already admitted that they have no power to prevent that eventuality, should it arise. We do not want it to arise. What we ask is that impossible terms should not be imposed. Yesterday, we gave power to renters up to six persons to act as cooperative renters. Why not give that same power to a co-operative body of exhibitors? We do not even ask for that power. All that we ask is that the Films Council should examine this problem, and if, in their wisdom, they feel that they ought to produce a scheme and commend it to the President of the Board of Trade, then the President of the Board of Trade should act upon the recommendation of the Films Council. It is a most reasonable

    603
    request, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will respond to it.
    4.52 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not competent to speak about the merits of this question, but it seems to me that this is a matter that the Films Council might consider. There are, however, obvious objections to including the Amendment in the Statute, because when you once begin to enumerate a matter of this kind you may have to insert a good many others. It may meet the wishes of hon. Members if I undertake on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, to refer this matter to the council, and ask them to report on it to my right hon. Friend. In that way we should avoid putting this particular matter into the Statute, and the undertaking would ensure that the matter would be considered by the Films Council, as hon. Members wish. Perhaps on that understanding the Amendment might be withdrawn.
    4.53 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: I am glad to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend, which will go a long way to meet us. There is, however, one aspect of Subsection (2, b), on which I should like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary with a view to some slight alteration being made in another place. As paragraph (b) stands, the Board of Trade has no power to do that which the Minister of Health says it will do. The Board of Trade can act only when it receives a request. I have no doubt the request would be forthcoming.
    Sir K. Wood: "Or otherwise."
    Mr. Williams: Does "or otherwise" mean those who have a substantial interest, or do the words "or otherwise" relate to the request? If "or otherwise" means that there is power, whether requested or not, then I am satisfied, but if "or otherwise" means those who have a substantial interest, then the point needs attention.
    The Solicitor-General: I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade can make inquiry at the request of any persons, or for any other reason. The words "or otherwise" can be interpreted in the widest sense.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance that if I withdraw the Amendment the President of the Board of Trade will refer this matter to the Films Council that is to be set up. On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.55 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 33, line 19, at the end, to insert:
    "(7) The said Council may, subject to any such limitations and conditions as it thinks proper, delegate any of its functions to a committee of the Council consisting of such members of the Council as it may determine."
    Owing to the expressions of opinion in the Standing Committee that the Cinematograph Films Council, consisting of 21 members, was too large a body to deal with routine matters which might arise under the new legislation, such as quota defaults, an undertaking was given by my right hon. Friend to consider whether power could be taken to authorise the Council to delegate some of its duties to sub-committees. This Amendment implements the undertaking then given. It will leave full power in the hands of the Council to delegate any functions they may wish to committees of the Council, who can report direct to the Board of Trade.
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps the Solicitor-General will recollect that the President of the Board of Trade stated in Committee that probably there will be occasions when in his decision he will be guided largely by the majority view on the Films Council of independent members. In connection with the subcommittees to be set up, would it be possible for a sub-committee to have no independent members on it? There may be occasions where sectional trade interests would be considering a matter in the sub-committee, and they would not report back to the main committee but direct to the President of the Board of Trade.
    The Solicitor-General: I think that is a misconception. The Amendment gives power to set up sub-committees, but it does not delegate the obligation of the Council as a whole to advise the President of the Board of Trade. It is only a machinery arrangement as between the Council and its own sub-committees.
    Mr. Mander: It could appoint a subcommittee consisting wholly of independent members which would report to the Council.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 42.—(Interpretation.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 35, line 28, at the end, insert:
    "'studio' means a building constructed or adapted for the purpose of making films therein, and includes any land occupied with such a building, and a studio shall be deemed to be used in making a film if any part of that film, or of any other film used in making it, consists of photographs taken in that studio; and 'studio scenes' shall be construed accordingly."
    In line 31, leave out "exhibitors' quota."—[Captain Wallace.]
    4.59 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 36, line 17, to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert:
    "(b) displayed to exhibitors or their agents on one occasion on which the film is exhibited to the public at a theatre in Great Britain during the first three consecutive days on which the film is so exhibited."
    This Amendment is in fulfilment of a promise made to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in regard to what are known as trade shows. Cases have occurred where a film of some importance has been shown in the first instance to the public in aid of some charity, and such exhibition constituted the trade show. It was considered by the hon. Member that some grievance might arise in this respect. We have not had any complaint in regard to the matter, but the Committee agreed that it was a contingency which should be provided for, and an undertaking was given to seek an amicable solution in the trade. A solution, with which I think everyone will agree, has been reached, namely, that if a film of this kind is exhibited for the first time to a large, distinguished, and handsomely-paying audience in aid of some deserving cause, the requirements of the Statute in regard to the trade show will be met provided that the exhibitors allow it to be seen as a trade show on one of the first three consecutive days on which the film is exhibited.
    Amendment agreed to.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    The following Amendments stood, upon the Order Paper in the name of CAPTAIN ARTHUR EVANS:
    In page 40, line 7, column 1, leave out "15," and insert" 20."
    In line 16, column 1, leave out "30," and insert "40."
    In line 21, column 1, leave out "12½" and insert" 15."
    In line 30, column 1, leave out "25" and insert "40."
    Mr. Speaker: All the Amendments in this series deal more or less with the same subject and it would probably be convenient to discuss them together on the first Amendment.
    5.0 p.m.
    Captain Arthur Evans: I beg to move, in page 40, line 7, column 1, to leave out "15," and to insert "20."
    I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, that you have made that suggestion, because when discussing the renters' quota it is difficult to avoid introducing arguments which apply to the exhibitors' quota.
    Mr. Day: Is it not all a question of finance?
    Captain Evans: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity of saying that I have no financial or any material interest of any kind in the film industry or any section of it, and I am not a shareholder in any section of it. While congratulating myself on that fact, may I say that my only interest is that, in common with many other hon. Members, I am anxious to see as many pictures of British production as possible exhibited, not only in this country but in the United States as well. From the discussions which took place yesterday on Clauses 3 and 15, the House will have gathered that the First Schedule is really the heart of the Measure. Unless we can persuade my right hon. and gallant Friend and the Board of Trade to review their present proposals, I am apprehensive that when the Bill becomes an Act, it will not carry out the will of Parliament and of the people. I take it that the ultimate aim of the Bill is to stimulate the growth of the British film industry to a point at which it will be capable of holding its own in competition, without any statutory aid, but at present

    607
    I think the House clearly recognises the need for fostering the native art of the cinema under the protection of this Measure. Much, therefore, hangs upon the figure for percentage of the exhibitors' quota, to be decided by the House this afternoon. Hon. Members will recall that the quota figure determines the minimum number of British films that audiences must see, and, ultimately, the degree of security enjoyed by producers and the number of films which they will be called upon to make.
    The first two of these Amendments relate exclusively to renters' quota. Their purport is clear. The first proposes to raise the renters' quota to the 20 per cent. at which it has stood for the last two years. The second proposes to raise the top limit of the renters' quota from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. If this latter Amendment is accepted, it is assumed that consequential Amendments will also be accepted to grade up the quota, so that it will reach that figure by easy stages. With regard to the quota for the year beginning on 1st April next, the main point is that the renters' quota has stood at 20 per cent. for the last two years and under that figure, British producers have been enabled to produce 7½ per cent. in excess of the quota under the present Statute.
    I invite the House to remember that my right hon. and gallant Friend yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in Committee, said that the only reason for not increasing the quota, or, as against that, for lowering it from the present figure of 20 per cent. to 15 per cent., was that there would be certain "temporary difficulties" owing to new obligations imposed by the Bill. But the difficulties to which my right hon. Friends drew attention were not, I think, difficulties which could not be overcome. The only obligation of any consequence, as far as the renters' quota is concerned, is that the films will have to conform to a cost test. The merit of a cost test, as the President of the Board of Trade has reminded us, is that it makes certain that the renter will know where he stands. If he spends the necessary money on the film, it will qualify for quota. Under the Bill, if his labour costs are over £7,500, his film for the purposes of quota will
    608
    count once. If the labour costs of his film exceed £22,500, it will count double. Surely those conditions, it might well be argued, do not create difficulties but make it easier for the renter to fulfil his quota than ever before under the existing Act.
    In such circumstances, I seriously submit to my right hon. and gallant Friend that there is no justification for not starting the renters' quota at 20 per cent., the figure at which it has stood for the last two years. The capacity of British film producers is more than adequate to meet the requirements. I am informed on very good authority that there are no fewer than 60 stages in film studios on which no production is going on at the present time, and that there are some thousands of technicians, skilled artisans and artists out of work. It is common knowledge and commen opinion in the industry that it needs only a stiffening of the renters' quota to put many of those back into work. The President of the Board of Trade in Committee defended the reduction by saying that the original figure was largely made up of what are known in the trade as "quota quickies" which, under the cost test imposed by the Bill, will cease to be made. Therefore, he argues that the maintaining of the proportion at 20 per cent. would leave the exhibitors without a supply sufficient to enable them to fulfil the law.
    As I attempted to show yesterday, this is far from the case, but even if my right hon. Friend is right in his argument—and that is the important point which the House has to bear in mind—that the producers would not be in a position to supply the number of pictures required, he is in a position to excuse cinemas which cannot in certain circumstances carry out fully their quota obligations. Therefore, the danger, if it exists at all—and I submit that it does not—is adequately safeguarded in the Bill as drafted. I agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the industry is in a parlous state. Most of its studios are closed down, and the vast majority of its actors and technicians are out of employment. What is the reason? That is the fact which I am endeavouring to ascertain. I suggest that it is not, as my right hon. Friend suggested because worthless films called "quota quickies "

    609
    have been produced in the past, but because the springs of finance have dried up. I submit that it is mainly because the existing Act failed to offer the City adequate security for money invested in the British film trade that we are in the state in which we find ourselves to-day. It is obvious that whatever plans have already been perfected for expanding production, it is impossible for the producers to go ahead with that work unless they can command the necessary finance for their productions. The production of a film, particularly one of high quality and one calculated to appeal not only to English audiences but to audiences of an international character is a very expensive undertaking. To-day we have to satisfy the people who are called upon to put up the money that the conditions are favourable for that purpose.
    In Great Britain there is, I believe, sufficient organisation and equipment to produce 10 times as many films as are required by the present suggestion of an exhibitors' quota of 12½ per cent. We have to realise that before that equipment was established a vast amount of money had to be raised either by the City of London or directly from the public, to meet the cost of the erecting the necessary studios and providing the necessary machinery. It was possible to raise that money only because the existing Act which expires on 1st April next, raised hope in the minds of those who were optimistic as to the future of British pictures. But the supply has dried up because of the insecurity in the Bill which we are now considering. If we are really anxious to stimulate production, the vital need is to restore the necessary faith by giving a reasonable prospect of a substantial and permanently sheltered market for British films. It is common knowledge that those who are called upon to finance pictures to-day are not satisfied that an exhibitors' quota of less than 20 per cent. affords them the necessary protection. So much for the argument in favour of beginning the renters' quota at an adequate level of 20 per cent. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the arguments for raising it gradually over a period of 10 years up to 40 per cent. are equally strong. He knows that the Moyne Committee suggested that there was no reason why the ultimate figure should not be 50 per cent.
    610
    I come to my last two Amendments on the Schedule. The object of those Amendments is to raise the exhibitors' quota scale from 12½ per cent.—25 per cent., now proposed in the Bill, to a 15 per cent40 per cent. range. I have already pointed out that the 12½ per cent. at present in the Bill is insufficient. It will be little use my right hon. Friend antedating the discretionary powers of the Board of Trade, if the film production industry is to be maintained in its present doldrums by such an inadequate quota at the start. While the exhibitors' quota under the existing Act is 20 per cent., the average of British films shown has been 27½ per cent. during the past two years. This shows, I think conclusively, that there is no unnecessary hardship imposed on the exhibitors by a quota of that percentage. Last night I cited certain British films which, I think, the average picturegoer will agree were of a very high standard, and I submit that the record of the immediate past may thus be taken as a guarantee of quality in the future. The statistics of equipment and the number of people available for employment may be held to ensure that not only will quality be produced, but quantity as well. I think there is no doubt that that necessary life-blood of British films, the finance, will be forthcoming if my right hon. Friend accepts the Amendment. If it is suggested that there is a danger that, with the high quota, some exhibitors may default through lack of supply, the answer is that they may be excused under Clause 13; but if the low quota is retained, there is the greater danger that there will be no supply at all, and that the objects of this Bill and the will of Parliament will be defeated.
    5.17 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I propose to speak first in relation to the renters' quota, and afterwards in relation to the exhibitors' quota, as they are not altogether the same. This question of the height of both quotas is one of the most vital parts of this Bill, and, therefore, I think it should be discussed in considerable detail. It is very necessary at the beginning of this discussion to remind ourselves why the renters' quota is in the Bill at all. It was put into the 1927 Act, so that the exhibitors might have the assurance that there would be sufficient

    611
    British films produced for them to comply with their exhibitors' quota. It was through both of these quotas that we were to build up and establish on a firm basis the British film industry. Immediately this renters' quota was introduced, the renters looked upon it simply as a tax upon them, which they had to pay for the privilege of importing American films. The main object, therefore, is liable to be lost sight of. It was implicit in the 1927 Act that the films which they made or acquired, in order to fulfil their obligations, should be produced at a reasonable price—not bought at any price irrespective of quality. That would have been of no assistance whatever to the British film industry.
    It is obvious now, that the operation of the 1927 Act, as far as the renters' quota is concerned, has been a complete failure. The renters, while they have complied with their quota obligations in regard to number of films, have not complied with the intention of the Act. They have complied with the letter of the law, and not with the spirit. They have introduced what everyone knows by the name of "quota quickies," which have merely served to bring disgrace upon the name of the British film-producing industry. These "quota quickies," made to comply with the quota at a ridiculously low price, have given rise to the belief that the British film-producing industry can produce nothing better. During the Committee stage of this Bill, the President of the Board of Trade advanced arguments to show why it was necessary for him to reduce the renters' quota to 15 per cent., whereas to-day and for the last two years it has stood at 20 per cent. He said that, in view of the fact that we now compel the renter, by means of a cost test, to make or acquire films of a reasonable price, we cannot expect him to fulfil a quota of 20 per cent., and accordingly, in the Schedule, it is reduced to 15 per cent. I would point out that it was always the intention of the 1927 Act that the renter should be acquiring or making, during all the time of the operation of that Act, films at a reasonable price; but because we are now forcing the renter to do by law what he ought to have been doing during the whole of the last 10 years, by imposing a cost test upon him, we are told that we have to reduce the quota percentage.
    612
    The President of the Board of Trade also advanced the argument, in support of his intention to reduce this percentage, that a new set of conditions was to be imposed which necessitated a reduction of the renters' quota. I submit that it is only technically correct to speak of a new set of conditions. In principle, the conditions in this Bill are exactly the same as in the 1927 Act—that the renters should make or acquire films at a reasonable price. The fact that they have not done so—and they have only failed to do so because they did not choose to do so—is surely a very poor argument for reducing the quota. It may be argued that it would be unwise to increase the quota percentage if we were not in a position to supply the necessary films. My hon. and gallant Friend who spoke to-day and yesterday has made it quite clear that, so far as the capacity of production of this country is concerned, there is no reason why we should not more than fill a 15 per cent., 20 per cent., or even 25 per cent. quota. It is absurd to suggest that—taking the basis of 450 American films which the President of the Board of Trade estimates will be imported next year—we cannot make more than 50 films, with the equipment which we have.
    But there was another argument brought forward by the President of the Board of Trade. He said that, because the renters' quota year will start very shortly after the passage of the Bill, the reorganisation which they had to carry out entitles the renters to some remission of the quota for the first year, and that therefore we must reduce their quota percentage. To meet that argument, which was put forward in Committee, I would remind hon. Members that since the publication of the Government's White Paper last July the renter has been in no real uncertainty as to what his immediate obligations would be under the Act. The present Bill, for all practical purposes, is the White Paper, and, therefore, the renter has had ample time to make any reorganisation he may have considered necessary. But even supposing that he has made no arrangements for reorganisation, he is still in a position to make or acquire the films which will be required for a 15 per cent., 20 per cent., or even 25 per cent. renters' quota. Another consideration is that the double quota scheme makes it easier for him. There is yet another proposal in the Bill in regard to

    613
    this matter. In the first year of the operation of the Act the renter is being permitted, just because the renters' quota comes into force very shortly after the Bill becomes an Act, to have the whole of the first year in which to fulfil his quota obligations, instead of having to fulfil them in each of the six-months' periods. I suggest that the arguments put forward by the President of the Board of Trade upstairs for reducing the renters' quota have no substantial foundation.
    Into the question of whether we are capable of producing I will not go further, because that has been already dealt with. The question of finance also has been dealt with. But I would remind the House that whatever height you may fix the renters' quota at, the renter pays, therefore, there is no difficulty about it. Otherwise, he defaults in his quota obligations. It may be argued that that is a very unfair burden to place on the back of the renter. But why? He has, for the last two years, had the obligation placed upon him. He has not carried it out, I agree. In the year 1939, under this Bill, he will have to carry the same obligation of 20 per cent. I would like to know what facilities the renter will have in a year's time to complete his quota obligation. I suggest that if this Bill goes through as it is, the facilities for British production will be less, because during that time many of our best technicians will have left the film industry and they will not be attracted back to it. There are an enormous number of people out of work already. They cannot stay out of work and they must divert their interests to some other sphere. They will leave the film industry. I do not object at all to the double quota provided the percentage of the renters' quota is raised in proportion, but that is not the case. If all the films in the renters' quota were to count only one, we could amply fulfil the quota percentage of over 20 per cent., and, where we have the double quota scheme in operation which automatically reduces the number of films required by the renter to fulfil these obligations, it must be evident that the renters' quota should be raised. I will leave that point, and I am sorry to have to detain the House for so long, but to me the Films Bill is very important.
    I now propose to deal with the question of the exhibitors' quota. It is different. It is by means of the exhibitors' quota
    614
    that we can give real protection to British films. The voluntary film is the film that we wish to help, and it can receive protection through the exhibitors' quota. There was a separate quota scheme suggested in Committee, but that has been rejected. That would have been the means of giving protection to the British voluntary film, and it would only have been from 7½ per cent. to 5 per cent. Therefore, all that we can do now is to make the best of the exhibitors' and the renters' quotas as they are in the Bill. The way to do it is to make the exhibitors' quota higher, and in this connection, I would draw attention to the very en-light leading article in the "Times" and commend hon. Members to read it. They will find it very illuminating. As far as the exhibitors' quota, which is fixed at 12½ per cent. in the Bill, is concerned, it may be argued that because of the double quota scheme, the renters' quota could be reduced from 15 per cent. to 7½ per cent. Therefore there would be an excess margin in the exhibitors' quota, which is 12½ per cent., of 5 per cent. over the renters' quota, and automatically in this Bill there has been provided this sheltered market for the British film. I agree that that is a most excellent thing, but I suggest that, if the renters' quota was raised to 20 per cent. and the exhibitors' quota, in accordance with the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, was raised to 15 per cent., and we were to have exactly the same relative position, there would be a great increase in the volume of British film production. That is the object of the Bill. Unless we have volume in the production of films we shall not get quality, and you must have quantity if you are to get quality, and the way to get quantity is to increase the percentages of these quotas.
    I want to deal exclusively with the figures given by the President of the Board of Trade, and I am extremely sorry that he is not able to be present in the House to-day, particularly so because it is on account of illness. The right hon. Gentleman stated in Committee that the fixing of the exhibitors' quota was very largely a matter of mathematics. He insisted upon it, and mentioned it several times, and said that the greatest difficulty arises over the exhibitors' quota for the first year. I am sure, having said that it was largely—almost entirely—a question

    615
    of mathematics, the President of the Board of Trade will welcome an analysis of the figures which he used as an example and as a reason for lowering the exhibitor's quota. I will take the figures, and we will see. The President of the Board of Trade stated that 50 odd films would be made for the first year for the renters' quota and that 50 would be made outside—100 films altogether. He then stated that it was by no means abnormal to find five first-run theatres in direct competition with each other, with a programme of two features changed once a week, and that there were even worse cases than that in the country. As a practical illustration, this would mean, allowing for Sunday opening in some cases, for each cinema a showing of about 160 films in a year. He went on to say that a 10 per cent. exhibitors' quota, as it was then, would mean that each theatre during the year would have to show 16 British films—80 altogether.
    What is in fact the mathematical truth of the example given for the direct purpose of showing to the Members of the Committee upstairs that he was justified in lowering the exhibitors' quota? The example was given by him of five first-run cinemas in direct competition, each requiring 160 films a year. Five times 160 films is 800. There have never yet been 800 films in this country in any one year, and that was confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech yesterday, when he stated that the total number of films both British and foreign had been 618 in 1932, 643 in 1933, 679 in 1934 and 667 in 1935, rising to about 700 during the last two years. The figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary included the Colonial and the Indian films which are never shown, bought to fulfil the renters' quota, and also a number of films made abroad in foreign languages, German, French or whatever it is, and shown only in particular theatres in this country. Even if we include these films and the quota quickies, which have never been exhibited, there is nothing like 800 films available for exhibition in any one year. There is definite proof, and I challenge anybody to contradict it, that the example given by the President of the Board of Trade was mathematically impossible. There never can be five first-run
    616
    cinemas in direct competition requiring 160 films a year each, and, more over, the President of the Board of Trade told us in Committee that this was not an abnormal case and that there were even worse cases.
    There is another point in respect to which I wish to examine this question, and it is an important one. It is that of the choice of the exhibitor, the number of films an exhibitor requires and the number of films from which the exhibitor can choose. The President of the Board of Trade quoted the example of these five first-run cinemas. They would have an insufficient margin of choice if they had to take 80 British films and had only 100 to choose from. It would be a terrible position in which the exhibitors would be placed. How much better would they be in their choice of the American films at their disposal? Let us see.
    Captain Wallace: I do not want unnecessarily to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend but as we are going into mathematics, we might perhaps just as well keep together as far as we can. My hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt take into his calculations the fact that, since he made that speech in Committee upstairs, the Committee has raised the exhibitors' quota from 10 per cent. to 12½ per cent., and that, therefore, it would not be 80 but 100 that would be required.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am quite prepared to take a figure of 100. I do not mind at all. We will take it that they have a quota of 100 British films and that they require 100 British films. Is that the argument?
    Captain Wallace indicated assent.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: All right then. I take the case of the exhibitor. The exhibitor, as far as British films are concerned, requires 100, and he will have 100. He has no opportunity of choice, and it is a very bad position for him. Let me examine the margin of choice with regard to American films.
    Captain A. Evans: Before the hon. and gallant Member leaves the point, may I remind him that in the year ending 31st December, 1936, there were no fewer' than 222 British long-feature films registered as against 752 of foreign manufacture.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am basing my argument entirely on the figures of the President of the Board of Trade, and I am showing how absurd they are. As far as the American choice is concerned, in the case put forward by the President of the Board of Trade they will require, if they take 100 British films, 700 American films. They want 800 altogether, and if they get 100 British films then 700 must be American films. But the President of the Board of Trade said in Committee that only 450 films would be imported next year and, therefore, the exhibitors in this country, as far as American films are concerned, while requiring 700, will have only 450 from which to choose. Therefore the exhibitor has an infinitely better margin of choice with regard to British films than as regards American films. That shows the absurdity of the example given by the President of the Board of Trade in Committee in order to show how necessary it was to reduce the exhibitors' quota.
    The significant fact is that it is upon this entirely erroneous mathematical calculation that the exhibitors' quota is low in the Bill, and I think I have proved conclusively that these mathematical calculations are entirely wrong. Actually where there are five cinemas in competition requiring 160 films a year each, it is a mathematical impossibility that they can all be first-run cinemas, some will be second-run cinemas, and perhaps some will be even third-run cinemas. The President of the Board of Trade stated upstairs that the question of the exhibitors' quota is one of mathematics. I am quite content to leave it at that provided, in veiw of what I have pointed out, he will re-examine the figures he gave to the Committee, alter the conclusions he came to, and act upon the basis of correct figures.
    5.49 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: I desire to support the Amendment, but I do not propose to traverse the ground already covered by hon. Members who have spoken. I want to refer to some of the authorities in this matter. We have the Moyne Committee, who gave their view that there was no need to put the percentage quota as low as it is, and who said that in their opinion it should be higher. It is also reasonable to refer to the views expressed by the
    618
    hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) in Committee, for he knows perhaps more about the film industry from an independent point of view than any hon. Member in the House in view of his great experience on the Advisory Committee during the last 10 years. He expressed the view that there was a case for a higher quota, and that there was no risk in increasing it. Let me also call the attention of the House to a remarkable leading article in the "Times" of to-day. I may say that throughout the proceedings on this Bill the "Times" has shown a very close understanding of the problem, and a clear view of the right way in which it should be approached. I wish I could say that of all its opinions. In their leading article the "Times" say:
    "In existing studios there is equipment for producing ten times as many films as are required by Mr. Stanley's Bill as it stands—that is, with an exhibitors' quota of 12½ per cent. This equipment was built up with capital attracted by the hopes the old Act raised, and has become derelict largely owing to the success of the 'quickies' in evading that Act. The need now is to restore the optimism inspired ten years ago by the prospect of a substantial sheltered market for British films. The City is not likely to think that market substantial if the exhibitors' quota is less than 20 per cent. But, provided the statutory security for investment is made at least as good as it was in 1927, the other influences are much more favourable."
    That is in the direction of supporting the Amendment. It seems to me to be absolutely vital to the success of the Bill. I can find few people in the trade who think this is going to be of much, if any, advantage, but certainly if it is to do any good an increase in the quota is necessary.
    A good deal has been said about the potentialities in this country for further production. I am not going into that except to give details which have not so far been given regarding certain of the more important concerns. I said something yesterday about the possibilities of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Company, to show that under the new provisions there is going to be less necessity for them to produce films than there has been in the past. Then 20th Century Fox Films, who have a studio at Wembley, have produced in the last year some very striking films, like "Wings of the Morning," another called "Dinner at the Ritz," and another "He was her Man,"

    619
    featuring Gracie Fields and Victor McLaglan.
    Under these proposals the latter two films now available for production are going to be worth double owing to their cost, but hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that in these circumstances the Wembley studio of this company is closing down. I say that it would not close down if the quota were fixed higher, because then there would be a necessity for that company to go on. It has been said that a certain amount of time is required for future organisation. That does not apply in this case, because if they are told now that they have to produce more, all they will do is to slop closing down. Warner Bros. who have a studio at Teddington have closed down, but they could and would open if the quota were raised. Then there is the case of the Universal Films of America who in the years 1936–37 produced more than was necessary for the quota, and most of the films were of the double quota character. Obviously they could produce more if an incentive were provided. My contention is that we have in this country the studios waiting, the organisation waiting, the finance available, and also the personnel, the actors and actresses waiting. I say that if we pass the Amendment all these elements will not have to wait in vain.
    5.55 p.m.
    Sir William Wayland: The point I should like to put is how the Board of Trade arrived at these percentages. I presume they consulted the producers, but in the voluminous correspondence and circulars which the producers have sent out, their figures do not tally with those given by the Board of Trade. The question then arises how the Board of Trade arrived at these sterilising percentages for the first year. Surely they must have given serious consideration to it. I think the President of the Board of Trade in Committee was far too nervous of the possibilities of British production in the first year and for the nine years ahead, but now that we are going to be a little more elastic for the first year why should we not have a little more confidence for the year which is about to begin? I shall support the Amendment on the ground that not sufficient consideration or confidence has been given or felt in the possibilities
    620
    of British production, and I should certainly ask the Minister to explain how the percentages were arrived at.
    5.57 p.m.
    Mr. Duncan: We are all in a little difficulty in considering the right quota to put in for this year, because we have not sufficient information before us. We have no information except the information given us in Committee by the President of the Board of Trade. I am prepared to accept the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has given. We all want to give the utmost protection to British producers, and I am sure the Board of Trade are in the same line of thought. It is not so serious now as it was when the Bill was first introduced, because the Films Council have power, after the first year, to make recommendations for altering the quota, and if alterations are to be made, I want to put in a plea that the short film quota should be considered if the long film quota is going to be altered. In my opinion the short film has justified itself better than the British long film, and deserves sympathetic consideration from the Board of Trade even more than the long film.
    I think there is some explanation of the mathematics which the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) seemed to find difficult. For instance, there are some circuits in this country which show more than the quota, and that leaves less for the other four cinemas in standard towns. I am anxious that the rest of the cinemas in such a town shall not be placed in the difficulty of not being able to fulfil the quota. In spite of Clause 13, which gives the Board of Trade power to get over the difficulty of an exhibitor not being able to show his quota and not being prosecuted for not doing so, I am most anxious that the Board of Trade should not have to go above the law, as it were, more than is absolutely necessary. The Board of Trade I believe is in entire agreement with the sentiments of the House that the utmost protection should be given, and therefore in the interests of all sections of the trade I think we should keep to the figures for this year.
    6 p.m.
    Mr. Hall-Caine: I do not wish to be in the least ungrateful for the kind concession

    621
    which was given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in response to my plea for a rise in the quotas on the renters and exhibitors, which was referred to by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), but I am puzzled about how my right hon. Friend and his advisers arrived at the figures, both for the 10 per cent. exhibitors' quota and the 15 per cent. renters' quota, and later on, with the concession made in the Standing Committee, the 12½ per cent. quota. Not only the Moyne Committee, but the committee of which I was a member, which contained members of the trade, including several exhibitors, examined this matter very carefully in the light of the fact that the cost test would exist, and would undoubtedly bring down the number of films. They also considered it in the light of the fact that last year, 91 out of 225 films registered were quota "quickies," and the fact which was referred to by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan), which was perfectly well-known to us at the time, that the percentage of 27½ which has been referred to by hon. Members who support a rise in the quota, is largely accounted for by the consideration that the producer-exhibitor is able to bring the percentage up to 30, 35 or even 40. All those facts were put before us and we considered them carefully.
    I think my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the question of the quota is a fundamental one. In this matter we are safeguarded to a large extent by the fact that at the end of one year, the Films Council will be allowed to review the quota, but at the same time I think we should take a little risk in favour of the film producer in order to give him some confidence in the future and something which will enable the City of London to support him. If there is any bias to be shown by the Government, I would like to see it on the side of the film producers in this country. The Bill is intended to fulfil two functions. Its first and main function is to encourage the showing of British films on British screens, and its second function, if possible, is to increase an industry which we regard as important for the country. If there is any risk to be taken, if this is not to be an entirely "safety-first" Bill, let us take a little
    622
    bit of risk in the interests of the film producers.
    I should be the last to advocate a Bill which was based largely upon exemptions, for nothing could be more ridiculous than to pass a Bill and then appoint a Films Council which would give exemptions all over the country. I am conscious of the difficulty which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary must have in deciding this very intricate point, but I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to confer with his right hon. Friend with a view to their going into this question again between now and the time when the Bill goes from the House to another place for the purpose of seeing whether ample justice has been done to the film producing industry in this matter. My view is that the figure should be 15 per cent., and I think that the margin between the renters' and the exhibitors' quotas should be left the same as it was in the Bill as originally drafted. I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend will admit that in making this plea, I have every wish for the success of the Bill, and that I speak with some knowledge of the subject.
    6.6 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: My hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) has brought to the Debates on this Measure an almost unrivalled knowledge, born of 10 years' experience, and naturally it is difficult for anybody in my position to be deaf to the sort of appeal which he has made. In dealing with these Amendments, which are the last Amendments to this very complicated Measure—for you have agreed, Sir, that we should consider together these four Amendments to the Schedule—I wish once more to place before hon. Members as clearly as I can the mathematical facts of the case. When I have done so, I hope hon. Members will find that they are able to agree with me that my right hon. Friend, in the light of all the existing circumstances, as he knows them, has done the best he could for all sections of the industry.
    There are really two questions to be dealt with in this series of Amendments. In the first place, there are the proposed new upper limits, that is to say, 40 per cent. on both renters and exhibitors; and secondly, there are the starting figures—which it is proposed to raise in the case

    623
    of the renters' quota from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent., and in the case of the exhibitors' quota, from 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent. Having considered those two questions as a whole, we shall be obliged to go in more detail into certain aspects of both the renters' quota and the exhibitors' quota. The upper limits proposed in the Amendments are 40 per cent. for both the renters and exhibitors as against 30 per cent. for renters and 25 per cent. for exhibitors in the Bill. The upper limits were fully discussed by the House on a series of Amendments to Clause 15, and it was agreed that the power of the Cinematograph Films Council to recommend alterations should not extend above 30 per cent. for both renters and exhibitors. Therefore, to suggest now that there should be put into the Schedule the figure of 40 per cent., when the Films Council have been deprived of any power to raise the quota above 30 per cent., is to put the Council in an absurd position. If the situation were reached in which a quota of 40 per cent. for both renters and exhibitors was justified. I must repeat what the President said in Committee and what I said in the House last night, namely, that in the opinion of the Government an entirely new set of circumstances would have arisen. In that case, we should perhaps have got nearer to the position envisaged by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) where the British film industry was able to stand on its own merits without any form of statutory protection, and it would be necessary for the President to bring forward a new Bill to deal with the situation.
    Next I would like briefly to deal with the point that the Moyne Committee recommended a 50 per cent. quota, as that point has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and obviously it is one to which a great deal of importance is attached both in the House and in the industry. The Moyne Committee said:
    "The quota of British films exhibited should, in our view, ultimately reach a figure as high as 50 per cent. of all films shown on the screens in this country; and we have heard nothing in the evidence laid before us which suggests that a goal of that magnitude is impossible of attainment 10 years hence. On the contrary, we consider that given adequate finance, with all the advantages which ample financial resources bring in their train to a film production industry, the further measures we recommend should provide
    624
    sufficient personnel and ability to enable the requisite output of films of high quality to result. For this to be possible, however, it will also be necessary for the industry to accept whole-heartedly the opportunity which legislation on the lines we suggest would afford, of improving the organisation both of its production and of its finance."
    I think the last sentence is a fairly important caveat to the earlier part of the passage. With all respect to the Moyne Committee, I must say that, although they included that paragraph in their report, they did not produce in the report any evidence to support that view, and such a figure was certainly never suggested to them in any of the evidence which they took. For these reasons, I think the House may well dismiss the upper limits of 40 per cent., which are proposed in the Amendments, as being outside the bounds of practical possibility.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I interrupt my right hon. and gallant Friend, since this is an important point? He said that the Moyne Committee, in reporting that they considered that the industry should be able to provide 50 per cent., had no grounds for doing so. That is a very serious charge to make against the Moyne Committee.
    Captain Wallace: I did not wish to bring any charge against the Moyne Committee. I simply stated the facts. The committee did not produce any evidence in their report to support their view; and, what is more, that figure was not suggested to them in the evidence which they took.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: My right hon. and gallant Friend made the charge that the committee made this very important suggestion and that they had no right to make it because there was no evidence to support it. Obviously, they had a very good reason for suggesting that the industry could fulfil a 50 per cent. quota, or they would not have said so—at any rate, they would have been very wrong if they had done so.
    Captain Wallace: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to note my exact words. I said that the Moyne Committee did not give in their report any evidence in support of the conclusion which they reached, and that no evidence was given to them, as far as the evidence was published, to suggest that this figure would be attainable.

    625
    I suggest that the real question to which the House should address itself is, therefore, the lower and not the upper limits, that is, the question of what the initial quotas should be during the first year. In this connection, the Moyne Committee recommended initial quotas of 20 per cent. for renters and 15 per cent. for exhibitors for long films. The Government have, in fact, accepted this recommendation in principle, but they propose to delay its application until the second year of the operation of the new Act. Hon. Members will see that those quota figures would apply in the second year, except, of course, for a possible revision of the exhibitors' quota in the second year, which everybody hopes will be in an upward direction.
    Captain A. Evans: On what grounds did the Government come to the conclusion that the quota in the first year should be reduced?
    Captain Wallace: That was the point with which I was about to deal. The Government have accepted, in principle, the Moyne Committee's proposal regarding the initial quotas, but they have deferred the application of them until the second year. The reason they have done so is the new conditions which will prevail. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington suggested that the new proposals regarding the double quota will enable the quota to be satisfied very much more easily. He asked how the renting organisations will be in a better position next year to produce the necessary number of films for a 20 per cent. quota than they are now. The answer is that they will be in a better position regarding time. The production of the films which will count double for quota will require a great deal more organisation than the production of anything in the nature of quota quickies.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. and gallant Member forgets that we are not in Committee, and that he has exhausted his right to speak.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: This is an important point.
    Captain Wallace: I do not think the House would wish me to keep giving way. Hon. Members will recognise, on the
    626
    figures recommended by the Moyne Committee, that the renters' quota has simply been delayed in its application until the second year of the Bill for a reason which has been explained many times in Committee, that is, that renters will find themselves faced with an entirely different set of obligations on the 1st April this year. It has been contended that renters have seen this coming for a long time and that they ought to have gone on with production, but I think that the renters and everybody else may well have been in some doubt of what the outcome of this Bill was to be. Even the Government are not certain it will reach the Statute Book in the same form as that in which it was presented.
    It must also be emphasised in regard to the renters' quota that it is based, not on the number of imported films, but on the number of films acquired. The British quota must be added in and then a percentage taken of the total figure of films acquired. The renters' quota of 15 per cent. as it stands in the Bill is actually about 18 per cent. on imported films, or very nearly one British film for every five imported. I am glad to have the assent of my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset who knows that very well. A renters' quota of 20 per cent. is equal to 25 per cent. on imported films, that is, one British film for every four imported. This, as I think the House will recognise, is a substantial obligation which increases when we reach the limit of 30 per cent. quota in the Schedule to two British films for every five imported. In these circumstances we feel that it is wise to postpone in the first year putting upon the renters an obligation which would be somewhat unfair, and that it is essential to allow production to organise itself on the new basis.
    Another point which has been made during the Debates is that only 10 per cent. of the studio space in this country is now occupied. It was made by the Mover of these Amendments and by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). It is suggested, although extremely politely, that the Government is in some way to blame.
    Captain A. Evans: It is not right for my right hon. and gallant Friend to infer that. What I said was that it was in the power of my right hon. Friend and his Department to correct that state of affairs.
    Captain Wallace: I beg my hon. and gallant Friend's pardon. I was, perhaps, thinking of the leading article which has been referred to. The truth is that the boom in British production began in 1935–36, long before the Moyne Committee started work, and the bottom was already dropping out, owing to the withdrawal of city support, at the time when the Moyne Committee reported. The boom was a manifestation of what one might call sheer unmitigated optimism, and it was not anything to do with any guarantee, actual or implied, by the Government, which led to big studio expansions. The subsequent fall in production was due to the withdrawal of financial support from the city (except in cases where there were long standing commitments) because of extragavance and waste of money in many cases which led to losses.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is an unfair statement to make.
    Captain Wallace: The producers, basing themselves on the results of one or two films, thought in all good faith that the American market was open to them. No one regrets more than I do that they found it was not; and in the process of trying to capture the American market they spent more money than they could hope to get back here. That only reinforces the point which I made to the House last night when defending the proposal for a treble quota, that you cannot get into the American market unless you make films on a fairly big scale. We are trying to make a more modest approach to building up an American market through our reciprocity proposals and the double and treble quota, though the latter for the time being, as a result of my right hon. Friend's decision last night, is in abeyance.
    So far as the exhibitors' quota is concerned, the Moyne Committee put the initial figure at 15 per cent. It was recognised that some margin between the two quotas was necessary at the outset of this Bill. They added this sentence:
    "In view of the loyalty with which exhibitors have worked under the Act in the past we are anxious that future legislation should, while helping film production in this country to the utmost, not be unduly onerous on the exhibiting end of the industry."
    That is the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset referred tonight, and which was referred to often
    628
    in Committee. It is the general feeling in the House, and not only in regard to this Bill, that it is bad to pass legislation and then be obliged to keep giving exemptions to people because they cannot comply with it.
    In considering what material we have in order to find out what exhibitors' quota would be fair for the first year, we must take into account not only the films produced for renters' quota, but also the films produced not primarily for renters' quota at all, for a considerable number come in the latter category. The Board of Trade must be satisfied that there will be a sufficient number of British films available. If there are not, we shall have to face the position of a large number of defaults and the Cinematograph Films Council will have to spend time giving exemption certificates, on a scale which might almost result in a breakdown of the Act. Certain of the information on which my right hon. Friend attempted to assess the exhibitors' quota is somewhat scanty. We are told that American production is falling off and that during next year it would not be safe to calculate on more than 450 imported films, exclusive of those specialised films which under Clause 4, will not require renters' quota. These 450 films require a statutory quota against them of 80 films costing £15,000 each. If the reciprocity Clauses are taken advantage of to a reasonable extent, that 80 may perhaps be reduced to 50. The number of British films produced surplus to the renters' quota is problematic, and the agitation which has gone on during the passage of this Bill will not do anything to make finance easier. The Federation of British Industries who have at least as good a claim as any other body to represent the British producers, have suggested 50 as a working figure.
    This gives us the 100 films of fairly good quality, as my hon. and gallant Friend for South Paddington rightly said. I am prepared also to agree with him on the next stage of his calculations. Statistics which we have obtained of groups of first-run theatres show that, on an average, they want 160 films a year, that, taking two-feature programmes changed weekly in some cases and twice weekly in others. With a 12½ per cent. quota they will have to show 20 British films each. Exhibitors argue that legislation must take account of the position, not always the

    629
    worst, where five theatres are in competition for first-run films, thus requiring 100 British films between them.
    Sir A. Baillie: How many areas are there in the country with five first-run theatres?
    Captain Wallace: I cannot say offhand, but we are considering a position of which the Board of Trade ought to take account. It is a position which is not always the worst one from the exhibitors' point of view, but which occurs sufficiently frequently to be an essential factor in our calculations. Again, no one can guarantee that all these British films will be even reasonable booking propositions. It looks, therefore, on the assumptions I have made, as if a 12½ per cent. quota in the first year is putting on the exhibitors an obligation as high as is possible; but here I must enter an important caveat in regard to last night's proceedings. The calculation of the number of renters' quota films available, which I put at 50, and to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman agreed, was made on the assumption that the treble quota and double reciprocity proposals would be agreed to. The President mentioned the figures in Standing Committee, when he was in blissful ignorance of the fact that his treble quota proposal would find so much disfavour last night that it would have to be put into cold storage. As therefore, this proposal has been withdrawn, it is only fair to say that the Government, if they decide not to proceed with it in another place, must reserve the right to reconsider the exhibitors' quota in the light of this new development.
    The Government's view on treble quota was the long view. They felt that it would do two things, first, to induce the production here of the more expensive type of films which would blaze the trail for British films generally in overseas markets; and secondly, and perhaps more important to the question which we are now discussing, it did seem to us that to the extent to which this concession induced the renters of imported films to meet their obligations by taking advantage of it, it would free the market in this country for the more modest type of programme picture as regards which the British producer has been complaining, possibly with complete justice, that he
    630
    suffers from underselling by American renters.
    In trying to assess our initial quota figures we took into account that in some places certain theatres or groups of theatres have a very much greater booking power than others and take the best of the British films, leaving fro tanto a very much smaller choice to the others. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) rightly said, this figure of 28 per cent., which was actually the quota of British films shown by exhibitors in the year 1935–36, covered wide variations between the different parts of the country and also numerous variations as between circuits and independents; and I must remind the House that in spite of that high average of 28 per cent., which has frequently been quoted as a convincing argument in favour of raising the quota, there were in that year—the exhibitors' year ending 30th September, 1936–35a defaults. In addition to that we know that in many cases exhibitors, rather than face prosecution, only met their quotas by showing very poor films at a substantion loss to themselves. I am sure the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will corroborate that statement.
    Those calculations are all, to a certain extent, problematical, because no one can with any certainty foretell the future, and especially in the film industry. It is to-meet this situation that the Government have accepted the proposal that the exhibitors' quota should be reviewed by the Films Council early in 1939, and if they made a recommendation for a higher quota, which my right hon. Friend thought was justified and this House accepted, it would actually apply to the exhibitors' quota in the year beginning September, 1939. The amount of the exhibitors' quota during this first exhibitors' year must, therefore, be problematical to the extent that it depends upon the various factors which I have tried to set out. They are, in the view of the President, and in the view of the people who are best qualified to know, when taken in the aggregate, factors which make, with the caveat which I have entered about the treble quota, an exhibitors' quota of 12½ per cent., the highest which can safely be put forward to the House. After the first exhibitors' quota year the determination of that quota will depend not upon figures which of necessity must be slightly

    631
    conjectural but upon ascertained facts, and I hope the House will accept the figures in the Bill and reject this series of Amendments.
    6.35 p.m.
    Sir Adrian Baillie: After the very able exposition of the Government's case I do not wish at this stage to delay long the obsequies of this Bill. I would like to point out that in the opinion of some of us the case has been made primarily for the exhibitor, secondly for the renter, and finally only for the producer. Without repeating any arguments previously made, I should like to make one or two observations arising out of the Debate last night and this afternoon. Last night I was, I am afraid, rude enough to interrupt the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I asked:
    "Is it not a fact that the President of the Board of Trade and other speakers have pointed out that the main reason for reducing the quota was the onerous condition which he thought he was putting upon the foreign renter? "
    To that my hon. Friend replied:
    "I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was so gentle in his treatment of the foreign renter as the hon. Member suggests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1938; col. 479, Vol. 322.]
    I feel that the Government have been extremely gentle to the foreign renter, and that the foreign renter is extremely grateful to the Government for that kind treatment, because I do not see that there is anything onerous at all in a renters' quota at the percentage which is suggested. I can see ways in which, owing to the double quota, the conditions imposed upon the foreign renter will be less onerous. It might be possible that a renter of foreign pictures, in order to supply his British quota, might go to a British producer-renter-exhibitor—such do exist—and ask him to make his quota for him. He might say, "Make me a picture in the £45,000 category and if you do that I will buy that picture for distribution in America for £15,000." The moment that picture is completed he hands over to the producer £15,000, The £45,000 picture has only cost the producer, therefore, £30,000. And it has cost the foreign renter only £15,000 to obtain a double certificate, or, rather, to obtain a double quota; so instead of paying £15,000 for one quota he pays £15,000 for two quotas.
    632
    I have no doubt that the British producer-renter-distributor could also give the foreign renter a little consideration in return when he is distributing and exhibiting the foreign renters' pictures. He might say, "Instead of charging you 25 per cent. I will charge you only 15 per cent. and then everyone will be happy." I suggest that there is a possible means of evasion of the real spirit behind this proposal.
    Let me show, further, that this is not an increased burden on the foreign renters at all. Having reduced your exhibitors' quota from 20 to 12½ per cent. you automatically give the foreign renter 7½ per cent. more screen time in which to make money with his super-pictures. Therefore, I think that the foreign renter, so far from feeling that he has been badly treated, will feel a certain amount of relief so far as the exhibition side is concerned. On Second Reading I endeavoured to make the point that there was one cardinal error in the 1927 Act and that it had been committed again in this Bill. When the 1927 Measure was brought forward it was realised that the British production industry must be protected, and that protection was given. But then fears were expressed by the exhibitors, and in order to calm them a renters' quota was created. There was, therefore, no protection given to an independent producer, one who produces independently of the requirements of the quota.
    In this Bill we have got exactly the same cardinal error repeated, if anything in somewhat worse form. So long as the renters' quota is higher than the exhibitors' quota there can never be a protected market for independent production. Nevertheless—this is a point to which the Minister referred in his summing up—since 1927 and up to 1935–36 there has been an increasing amount of British production, a very large amount of which has been independent production, production which does not depend upon any form of quota for the selling of its products. Here is where the cardinal error comes in. My hon. Friend made a very good point about the limitless optimism of the City when they were approached by producers who thought they could get their money out of the American market, but that consideration does not account for all the losses which there have been in production. Obviously there have been

    633
    no losses in the production of pictures which have been guaranteed a market by the quota, but outside those few would-be super-productions there have been hundreds of other productions which have been made for this market only, but for the market unprotected, and I suggest that money has been lost largely in that unprotected market because of the cutthroat competition which exists there. The problem of under-selling was brought up in Committee, and it was recognised by the President, but it has never been tackled, except by the solution of the separate quota, and that was turned down by the Government.
    It has been said that it is ridiculous to ask for a quota of 40 or 50 per cent. at this stage when the industry is in the doldrums, but that should the industry settle down to business then, in two or three years' time, the Films Council can review the situation, and if those in the industry have been good boys, and make a lot of money for their backers, they could probably get a higher degree of protection. I suggest that this is a most unfair argument. Producers are not philanthropists, and do not make films merely because it amuses them to do so. Good films are expensive to make and cannot be made without financial backing, and financial backing will not be forthcoming for the production of an adequate number of expensive films unless there is a reasonable assurance that they can be sold in a properly-protected market.
    This Bill does not provide a properly-protected market, and the films will not be made, and then presumably it will be argued that as they have not been forthcoming further protection cannot be granted. I suggest, therefore, that the argument used against some of us who want a higher initial quota, and a quota guaranteed to be higher in a year or two's time, is a most unfair one. It is a case of putting the cart before the horse. In conclusion, I should like to refer, as some other hon. Members have done, to the leading article in the "Times" this morning where they have a good point:
    "There may be a slight danger that with the high quota some exhibitors may default because of a lack of supply. With the low quota there is a greater danger that there will be no supply at all."
    On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I would say that we do not desire to
    634
    carry this Amendment to a division, but to withdraw it, in the hope that some of the arguments which have been more recently adduced may receive further and more sympathetic consideration in another place, especially on one or two of the other points which I have made, and to which I would call the special attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend. We hope that the Bill will be considered in a more favourable light in another place and that the British film production industry will receive a larger measure of protection.
    Captain A. Evans: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.46 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    I am sorry to have to inflict upon hon. Members a further spate of oratory after I have done more continuous talking than, I think, ever before in this House; but in view of the importance of this Bill the Government spokesman, locum tenens though he be, could not let the Third Reading pass without making a few further observations. I must begin by paying a tribute of sincere gratitude on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself to the spirit of co-operation which has animated all parties during the passage of the Bill. We had a long time upon it in Committee, and nobody can say that the Bill was dealt with in any slapdash spirit. During the whole of those discussions and during the differences which my right hon. Friend and I had with hon. Gentlemen opposite and the possibly even more painful differences with friends who usually support us, the deliberations were always conducted on the assumption that the aim of every person in the House and the country was to do the best for the British film industry.
    The Bill is designed to produce good British films for public exhibition, and although some doubt has been thrown in high journalistic quarters to-day upon its ability to do so, my right hon. Friend and I believe that the Bill contains within it the seeds and possibilities of future expansion for the British film industry. It is based first of all upon the Act of

    635
    1927. A good many hard things have been said about that Act but, if I am not mistaken, a very important leading article this morning admitted that the 1927 Act had conferred great benefits upon the British film industry. The Bill is based also upon the report of the Moyne Committee, although it does not follow it in every detail. Since the Bill first appeared we have tried to meet the general wish of all parties to give it more flexibility. It is generally recognised that the film industry is not a static one, and although at the present moment it may be in the doldrums, it is in essence dynamic. We have sought, for instance, to give more flexibility by giving three revisions to the renters' quota during the 10-year period, and not three but four revisions of the exhibitors' quota. We have enacted that the exhibitors' quota may be raised up to 30 per cent. on the advice of the Films Council if this House agrees; and we have also decided that variations in the cost test and in the amount payable under the reciprocity Clause are no longer to be restricted to 25 per cent., provided that the Films Council recommend it, my right hon. Friend agrees and that this House approves.
    Another thing which we have tried to do was to put in safeguards against evasion. It is always difficult to say with certainty that any Act of Parliament is completely watertight. I can only say that we think this Act is a good deal more watertight than the last, and any effort which my right hon. Friend and I may have to put in, in the way of hard work and ingenuity, to prevent circumvention or evasion of the Act, we shall do not merely as a matter of duty but with considerable pleasure.
    As regards the general policy which we have pursued in relation to the British film industry, I claim that my right hon. Friend has taken the long and not the short view. It has been suggested in many quarters of the House that persons are unemployed in Elstree and elsewhere in large numbers because of the lack of adequate protection for the British film industry. Nobody in this House could listen with unconcern to stories of that kind or could see those unfortunate men come to the Committee Room or the outer Lobby. To have pursued certain courses
    636
    in this Bill might have created a situation where there would be what my right hon. Friend has described as another gold rush, in which finance would be forthcoming in large quantities and all those people might have secured immediate but temporary employment. But action on those lines would not have been in the interests of the British film industry or of those people themselves. We must face the fact that if the British film industry is to cater for a small, protected market alone, it cannot have a real future. It is one of those mathematical facts which you can prove by figures, that the market here is not big enough to provide a return to the producer of films which are on a large and ambitious scale.
    If we wish to compete with what I may call the top class of film production we can do it in only one way, and that is by making films of the necessary calibre and by making with our friends across the Atlantic arrangements of the necessary character to enable British films to be shown in America in the same way as American films are shown here. The American film industry obtained the advantage of our common language in the years which succeeded the War. It is up to the Government to do what they can to create the conditions and to the industry to do what it can to make the most of them in order that we may fully reciprocate. My right hon. Friend and the whole House have shaped this Bill with an eye not to another immediate and short-lived boom but to the development of the industry on lines which we should like to see it follow. Important as it is from the national point of view that our films should go to America and should, if they are good enough, secure the golden harvest that is presumably waiting for them there, it is right also that America should have a taste of our culture as we have had a taste of theirs. I am sure that they are willing to do it if our films are of the right kind.
    I acknowledge the co-operation of all sections of the House in making the Bill as fair as possible to the three sections of the industry. The House will appreciate the extreme difficulty which we have had in dealing with a situation in which the interests of one section were almost invariably diametrically opposite to the interests of the other two. The film industry was not able to produce a homogeneous policy and to respond to the

    637
    appeal made by my right hon. Friend that it should produce its own Bill, and His Majesty's Government have therefore had to present this Bill, under which the protection given by the 1927 Act for 10 years is widened and extended for another 10 years.
    When the Bill passes into law, as I hope it soon will, and when the quarrels, uncertainties and propaganda have died down, I believe we shall see the end of the period of stagnation which everybody has deplored. As I ventured to say in winding up the Debate on the Second Reading, no Measure which the Government can take can ensure for a certainty the success of the British film industry. All we can do is to try, so far as in us lies, to create the conditions in which that industry can thrive. We believe that we have done the best we can in a difficult situation, and it is up to the industry, in the ultimate resort, to take the best advantage of the conditions that we have established.
    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: When we come to the Third Reading of a first-class Government Measure we almost invariably speak in terms of selecting some person to give a last kick to the Bill. I do not intend to give this Bill a last kick; rather would I prefer to give it my blessing, although I am not sure that it will be an unmitigated blessing to the industry. I agree with the last observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. You may pass an Act of Parliament providing machinery and safeguards for an industry, but you cannot make the industry, unless those responsible for it help themselves, within the conditions and the safeguards which have been created. That is as far as Parliament can be expected to go.
    This is the fourth successive day on which we have discussed foreign affairs, but the foreign affairs of the first two days were slightly different from those of the last two days. On these last two occasions we have been non-party and have been contributing our mite to a difficult, complex industrial problem. I hope that the net result will be, at the commencement of the next 10-year period, a much greater measure of common agreement among the interests involved than has been the case during the last 10-year period. Many hon. Members have complained that there has been too
    638
    much shouting of stinking fish; that may be true, and the producers have not been blameless but, by the same rule, it might be argued that many producers have had very different experience over that period of time. They have all had their lesson, anyway, and employers and employés have had a very difficult time. The Bill provides a new lease of life.
    Fundamental changes have been made which may not go as deep and as broad as some hon. Members felt was desirable. Compared with the position under the Act of 1927, some of the changes should at least make it possible for the industry to help itself to a greater measure of success than has been the case during the last year or two. I opposed the establishment of the Cinematograph Films Council because I preferred a films commission, but the Films Council has been established. It provides a fair amount of flexibility, which was not apparent in the Act of 1927. Clause 13 enables exhibitors who fail through no fault of their own to fulfil all the conditions to be exonerated from police court prosecutions. Clause 15 enables the Cinematograph Films Council to recommend to the Board of Trade a variation of the quota, the variations presumably being consistent with the known production over the period preceding their calculations. Clause 26 enables the exhibitors to lodge a certain appeal against films which come within the category of quota quickies, should they emerge during the period of the next ten years. Clause 34 enables the Films Council to make a slight variation upwards or downwards with regard to labour costs, which is bound to be helpful over the period. The costs test has been applied and the viewing test has been applied, and between them, though they may not be 100 per cent. of a success, they ought to provide us with a better picture than some of those that have been produced during the last few years.
    It may be that the Bill will not give the industry the amount of protection that it wants, but that is understandable. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade, in issuing a warning for the first 12 months, have not only not injured the industry but have helped it to appreciate that they cannot have protection without fulfilling certain community obligations. If they appreciate that during the first 12

    639
    months, there is no doubt that in the subsequent periods they will get the full measure of protection that the Bill gives. With regard to the reciprocity Clauses and co-operation generally, it has been said that our films will not go to America even under the terms of this Measure. I do not suppose that America will accept films from this country, any more than we ought to accept American films, which do not contain an appropriate measure of entertainment value. The American has apparently studied our market very well. He has not always succeeded and I hope, when a bad film comes here and the public do not relish it, the exhibitor will do the right thing with regard to the renter if he comes along with a second edition.
    If our producers want to get into the American market they must go there and watch American audiences closely and ascertain what the American public are prepared to pay for them. If on top of that they do their best to enter into co-operative agreements with those who import films from America, they will not only create the proper talent in this country to meet the general needs of the exhibitor and the cinema goer, but establish a real industry in this country worthy of the name and the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he is helping the industry to help itself. I hope during the next 10 years we shall not only stabilise it and produce decent high-class British films but place ourselves really on the map.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: I support the Third Reading and wish the Bill every success. I am sure we are all very glad to have come to the end of the discussions on this highly complicated Measure. We have all learnt something on a subject about which a great many of us knew very little before. How much we have learnt, speaking for myself, is, I feel, rather doubtful. But I do not feel that the Bil is going to be very successful. I pin my faith to the Films Council. I have always felt that that was a vital part of the Measure because, while it is impossible for us to legislate for 10 years and to deal with every problem that may arise, if you have a body of independent experts who are concentrating their attention all that time, to
    640
    a great extent advising the Board of Trade, they will be able to make recommendations and to call the attention of the President from time to time to things that may be going wrong, enable him to make such alterations as he can, and, if necessary, stimulate him to come to Parliament to deal with exceptional circumstances that may arise. I am sure that attempts will be made, and are already being studied, to evade the Bill. The American interest will do everything it can, as it did under the last Act, to get round it, and that is why the Films Council has such an important task, to watch from day to day what is being done and recommend the necessary steps for preventing it. While the Films Council is not the kind of body that I should have liked, I think it will lead to something of that kind in the process of evolution.
    I hope the Bill is going to give a stimulus to the production of really good British films, but I appeal to the industry to pay careful attention and see that our national institutions are properly represented. May I give an example? I went the other day to see "Victoria the Great," a very remarkable film, in which there is a representation of certain proceedings in Parliament. They are quite unlike any proceedings that I have ever seen here. They certainly cannot represent what actually took place. I understand that in 1846, the old Houses of Parliament having been burnt down and the new Houses not having been erected, the House of Commons was sitting in the old House of Lords, but all the paraphernalia of our procedure was just the same as at the present time. In the film Disraeli rose from the Front Bench and made a violent attack upon Sir Robert Peel, who then got up from beside him, standing, not at the table, because there did not appear to be a table, but in the middle of the floor, and castigated Disraeli in the language that was actually used. He addressed the House as "Gentlemen," and, as far as I could gather, the Prince Consort paid his one and only visit to the House of Commons and sat somewhere in the Press Gallery. If the British film industry is going to produce Parliamentary scenes I hope they will take care to see that they represent what actually takes place in this, the greatest of our national institutions. I have great pleasure in

    641
    supporting the Third Reading and I wish the Bill more success than it seems likely to achieve.
    7.10 p.m.
    Mr. Hall-Caine: Having been associated with the Bill in all its stages, I should not like it to pass to another place without wishing it God speed. No one claims that it is perfect, but I think it is as near that amount of perfection which we can hope to get in dealing with an industry so diversified in opinion. Those who have been associated with it must pay a very high tribute to the manner in which the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary have handled this very technical and complicated question, and I must particularly pay a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for the manner in which he has handled the Report stage alone and almost unattended. He said I have some knowledge of the industry from 10 years' study. He cannot have had 10 years' study, but he shows a much greater knowledge of it than I can ever hope to possess. Although the Bill is not perfect, it is in my view a very substantial contribution and a tremendous improvement upon the present Act of Parliament. In my view it will go a long way towards stopping those inequalities which have been observed in the working of the present Act. I also believe it will effectually stop that abomination, the quota quicky, which gives a wrong representation of British mentality and morals. If it does nothing else than that it will do a tremendous job of work.
    I think the President of the Board of Trade has been ultra-careful. He has played a good deal for "safety first." That is why I appealed to him to reconsider the quota proposals so far as exhibitors are concerned, and I still hope he will do so before the Bill becomes law. One of the great features of the Bill is the elasticity which it gives in an industry which is constantly moving forward. I think it is a substantial contribution towards the film industry. It only remains for all sections of the trade to combine together in making it a workable Act of Parliament. If they will do that, as I believe they will once they get over the lobbyings and the pamphlets and the circulars that we have had pouring upon us, once they agree to join together to make the industry what it should be, one of the
    642
    finest in the country, I have no doubt that they will be materially assisted by the Bill.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. Bellenger: It seems almost like sacrilege on my part to disturb the harmony that has pervaded our discussion on Third Reading, but I propose to do so because I do not think the Bill of which the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken so charmingly, and which even my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) seemed to support, will achieve the main object that the President of the Board of Trade stated on the Second Reading, which was the foundation of a prosperous and considerable. British producing industry.
    We listened to-night, during the closing stages of the proceedings on Report, to the efforts of Government supporters to induce the Government to alter the quotas, because of the depression which has come over the British industry. I should have liked, had the President of the Board of Trade been here, to make some remarks more critical than those I am able to make to-night, but unfortunately he is absent owing to illness, and, therefore, I do not want to say anything about his conduct in the proceedings such as I should have said had he been here. I will only say, in view of the fact that the President has had to conduct the proceedings, both on this Bill and on another important Measure, the Coal Bill, concurrently, it seems to me quite possible that his illness may be due to the very hard work he has had to undertake throughout these discussions. That, perhaps, might be a reason for altering our procedure somewhat, although this is not the time to discuss that subject.
    The fact remains, whatever the Parliamentary Secretary may say, that 73 per cent. of the screen time in this country is taken by American renters, and I cannot see, in spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine), that the Bill which we are now about to send to another place will reduce that 73 per cent. to any considerable extent. It has been said by speakers from various quarters of the House that our main consideration should be to see that in this industry, which is quite different from all other native industries, a larger proportion of the screen time is reserved for British films, and for that

    643
    purpose I would advocate an entirely different Measure from this. British cinema audiences have now no alternative programmes, and no amount of words will alter the fact that in the next 10 years the American producers—Hollywood, in other words—will have a tight grip, not only of British audiences, but of British thought. I say that it is intolerable, either in peace or in war, that such an important educative and informative part of our life should be taken as it is by a foreign country.
    I appreciate the difficulties of the situation; I know they are immense; but, had I been asked what I would do, I would have dealt with the matter in an entirely different way; and probably the President of the Board of Trade could, in the trade negotiations which are going on at the present time, have informed the American Government that they cannot expect to have that large proportion of British screen time which they have been having for the past 20 years. The Government seem to have a peculiar fascination for foreign ideas and foreign domination in more respects than one. In conclusion, I would draw the attention of the House to these words, which were used by the President of the Board of Trade in the Second Reading Debate:
    "I do not want our defences to be made in Hollywood. I want the world to be able to see British films true to British life, accepting British standards and spreading British ideals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November 1937; col. 1173, Vol. 328.]
    We have been constantly reminded of that in the Committee upstairs. I ask the House, is this Bill going to achieve what the President said on the Second Reading? It is because I do not think that the Bill will achieve that purpose that I cannot agree even with the remarks which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has just made, or with the compliments that have been paid to the President of the Board of Trade and the Government for introducing a Bill of this nature. I understand that the House will not divide on the Third Reading, but I cannot let this opportunity go by without recording my protest.
    7.21 p.m.
    Mr. Day: I, too, like the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine), had the pleasure, if I may say so, of sitting
    644
    through the proceedings in Committee on the Bill upstairs, and I want to congratulate both the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary on the manner in which they have handled a very intricate Measure. People who are interested in any way in the film business will marvel at the fact that these two right hon. Gentlemen have been able to grasp such a difficult business at such short notice. I also had the pleasure, if I may say so, of being a member of the Committee which considered the Bill of 1927, the proceedings on which lasted considerably longer than in the case of the present Bill. They occupied practically 40 days, and, if hon. Members care to look up the OFFICIAL REPORT, they will see that what we predicted would happen to that Bill has happened during the last 10 years. I sincerely hope that the interest taken in this Bill by the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary will assure better working during the continuance of the Measure than was the case with the last Act.
    We have heard several times during this Debate that it was a question of reciprocity with America. But it is impossible for us to force our films on the American public; unless we give them something that they want to buy, they will not buy it. We cannot make the American public take British pictures, or pay their money to see them, even if we can by some means make the American renters take our films as a matter of reciprocity. We know in this country that, if we produce a good British film which is a box office attraction, it will capture the theatres. The exhibitors will tell you that a good British film will do practically 30 per cent. more business than an American film, provided that it is a good film, well produced. Our difficulty is that the majority of British films are not organised properly as regards their production. The public themselves are the judges, and we in the House of Commons, whatever we may do, cannot force the British public to see a British film if it is not one that is to their liking. I sincerely hope that the result of the effort that has been put into this Bill will be that the British producer will now set his hand to organising the industry in such a way that films can be produced which will have a drawing capacity for the public.

    645
    As to the question of finance, we know that the finance market in the City is frozen for British films at the present time. We have heard suggestions in the House that money is not forthcoming from the City. But that is only temporary. If the British producer will organise his business and arrange his production in such a way that the financiers who find the money can get a return, he will find that just as much money can be got in this country as can be got in America. I do not blame the financiers here for not continuing to provide large sums of money for an industry which is not run on a proper commercial basis, but if these people, who have found for British film production hundreds of thousands of pounds that they will never get back, can be shown that they will really get a return for their money, there will be no trouble in the City of London or elsewhere about getting the money.
    I have here a list of films introduced in England lately. I will not read the names, because it might be prejudicial to them, but they have cost between £57,000 and £120,000 each. Only one of these films has made money in this country, and they cannot be booked in America; America will not take them. How can it be expected, even with this Measure, that films produced at a cost of £35,000, £40,000 or £50,000 will be of any use in America when it is not possible even to book any of these films, because the American renters will not take them? How can we work a system of reciprocity? We cannot say to the American renter, "You must take our films in consideration of our taking yours," unless we give them an article that will suit their public. I sincerely hope that the British producers will now, after having lost hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions, which the financiers have invested in their work, will have learned their lesson, and will be able not only to show a return to their backers, but also to increase, with the aid of this Act, the prosperity of the industry as a whole.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.
  7.27 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment) Order, 1938, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  On previous occasions when the House has been dealing with these Orders, it has been agreed, with the permission of the Chair, that the Orders should be taken together, and I should like to ask whether, if no objection is raised to that course on the present occasion, the four Orders with which we now have to deal might be discussed together.
  Mr. Speaker: That method of dealing with these drafts has seemed to facilitate the Debate on former occasions, and, if the House so desires, I see no reason why it should not be done now.
  Earl Winterton: I think I shall be able to make my short explanation of the Orders before half-past seven, when I understand there is Private Business to be taken. The first Order, the Adaptation of Acts of Parliament (Amendment) Order, is merely due to the fact that, while Burma at the present time is separated from India and enjoys fiscal autonomy, there must be some fiscal arrangement in operation between this country and Burma. It is intended by this Order to continue that arrangement for a further period beyond that laid down in the existing Order, for the purpose of enabling a permanent agreement to be reached between the Government of Burma and the Government of this country.
  The second Order, the Governors' Allowances and Privileges (Amendment) Order, deals with certain alterations which are proposed in certain grants made to Governors in India, and also to their staffs. The cumulative effect is not considerable, and I may add that any particular application of these Orders made by the Secretary of State is subject to question and answer in this House. The third Order applies some similar provisions to Burma; and the fourth

  647
  Order relates to the financial settlement between Burma and India. There was a long discussion in the Joint Committee, followed by a discussion in the House in the course of the proceedings on the Bill, with regard to the terms of this financial settlement, and a committee was set up, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) was chairman, with two other members, to apply the financial settlement. The Order in question represents the recommendations of that committee, which have been accepted both by the Government of Burma and by the Government of India. I ought to explain, before I sit down, that, provided no objection is raised in this House, I shall, at the conclusion of the discussion, move that the Debate be adjourned, and, if that be agreed to, the Orders will go to the House of Lords. It will, however, be open, should any Amendments be made by the House of Lords, for this House to consider them when the Orders are returned here, the procedure being exactly the same as in the case of a Bill.
  Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Earl Winterton.]
  Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (By Order).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    7.30 p.m.
    Lord Apsley: A certain number of hon. Members opposite have been objecting to this Bill on the ground that there are differences of pensions in favour of this railway company as compared with others, and other hon. Members on this side, who are not present to-day, have been objecting to the Bill, not as a Bill, but have been objecting to it, and intend to object to all railway Bills, on the ground that the railways have not been affording facilities for booking for airways which are not connected with the railways. This matter has been raised in this House beforehand arising out of conversations which took place, certain
    648
    airway companies have been giving booking facilities—Imperial Airways, Railway Air Services—
    Mr. Speaker: According to a Ruling given by my predecessor in a similar case, I must rule that the hon. Member is not entitled to take advantage of the fact that there is an omnibus Bill of a particular railway company to raise a grievance which applies not to that particular railway company alone, but to all other railway companies. Therefore the reference which the hon. Member is making at the moment would not be in order on this Bill.
    Lord Apsley: I am aware that I would not be in order on this Bill, and I wish to take this opportunity to state that objections will therefore continue, both in this House and in another place.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935. praying that the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1938, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."— [Earl Winterton.]
  Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Earl Winterton.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma Governor's Salary, Allowances, and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1938, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Earl Winterton.]
  Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Earl Winterton.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma

  649
  (India-Burma Financial Settlement) Order, 1938, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Earl Winterton.]
  Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Earl Winterton.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ANCIENT COTTAGES, THERFIELD (DEMOLITION ORDER).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.".—[Captain Dugdale.]
  7.36 p.m.
  Sir Arnold Wilson: I beg to raise a question of which I have given previous notice to the Minister of Health, namely, the demolition of certain ancient cottages in my constituency at Therfield, near Royston, ordered to be demolished under a slum clearance order. They are six in number, three pairs, 200 yards apart, and could not by any extension of the word "slum" be regarded as such, whether individually or collectively. It is common ground that they were derelict and that the owner was not in a position to repair them, as the rents he received were barely sufficient to pay the rates and taxes. No question arises as to the fact that the slum clearance order was not opposed and was approved by the Minister on representations made to him by the local council. They later came into the possession of a new owner, after the period within which it is possible to appeal to the Ministry of Health. It was not really a case in which a slum clearance order should have been made. Slum clearance was designed to deal with an ill-planned district in which a large number of houses were unfit for human habitation.
  These cottages stand on three different sites in one of the most beautiful villages of Hertfordshire. On the strength of the slum clearance order the rural district council obtained a subsidy to build new
  650
  cottages. After the building of these new houses, these cottages, of real beauty, dating from the fifteenth or sixteenth century, came into the hands of a new owner, who is anxious to put them into such a state of repair as will make them in all respects suitable for human habitation. They are, I repeat, beautifully situated in some of the finest scenery of Hertfordshire, nearly 800 feet above sea level, on the chalk; the local inhabitants lament the idea of their demolition. The rural district council is anxious that they should not be demolished. There is no financial advantage whatever in their destruction. They are not at present habited and will not be occupied by wage-earners.
  The position is very simple. Under the existing Housing Act a demolition order may be reviewed by a county court, but a slum clearance order, once made and confirmed, cannot be reviewed. There is no appeal; the Minister says it is beyond his power to review or to vary a slum clearance order, once made. He says he has referred this matter to the Housing Advisory Council, who, to my surprise, recommend no change in the law, for it seems right that the Minister should have power in the public interest to revise an order, once made, if conditions have changed meanwhile. I cannot, on the Adjournment, suggest any alteration in the law, nor is it necessary. What I suggest is that the Minister should, in this case and in other cases, when cottages and other buildings of real beauty are, as only too often, demolished under slum clearance orders, intimate, in the exercise of his discretion, that once the cottages have been vacated by their inhabitants and other cottages built to house them, it is not his intention to press for the actual demolition of ancient buildings which are of real beauty, which are treasured locally and nationally as part of the ancient heritage of our race.
  When I was last on a Select Committee upstairs, dealing with another Department, we were examining the permanent officials of the Department, and we asked them what their practice was with regard to the actual administration of a statute. They replied, "The practice of the Department is not to press for so-and-so." The law was there, and they could enforce it, if need arose, in any case where it seemed to them that the public interest requires a strict adherence to the

  651
  letter of the law, but when the public interest would not be served, they did not press for the application of the strict letter of the law, the more so because in certain cases there was some dubiety as to the legal interpretation to be placed upon a particular enactment.
  I want to ask the Minister, in the case of these three pairs of cottages, to make it known, in whatever form he thinks fit, that although the rural district council is under the obligation, in terms of the Act, having received the subsidy for these three cottages, to require their forcible demolition by the owner, or failing that to demolish them themselves and to charge the cost against the owner, he will not press for their physical demolition, provided that the Department is satisfied that they are being reconditioned in such a manner as to improve the rateable value and amenities of the parish, and to ensure the health of those who will occupy them.
  These old thatched cottages are nothing much to look at, but competent architects who have visited them are satisfied that the structure is firm and solid, that the wooden framework is as good as when they were first put up. They are an asset to the parish and should be kept. We are fortunate in that they have come into the hands of a public-spirited owner, who is willing to recondition them, so that they may once more be fit for human habitation. I urge the Minister to consider whether he cannot be as liberal in the exercise of his discretion in this matter as he is habitually in every department of his innumerable activities. If we were to stand every day upon the letter of the law, the law would become unworkable in a very few months. An element of discretion is essential. These cottages—and this is only one out of many hundreds of instances in England—are part of the assets of the country. They are regarded with respect, indeed with veneration by innumerable tourists. They have a beauty of their own. They are as much part of the history of England as is Westminster Abbey, and to the inhabitants they mean more than Westminster Abbey, because they are part of the make-up of their daily lives.
  One of the greatest of the late Victorian poets, Thomas Edward Brown, a Manxman, wrote in 1887 these words:
  652
  "Dear Countrymen, what'er is left to us
  Of ancient heritage—
  Of manners, speech of humours, polity
  The limited horizon of our stage—
  Old love, hope, fear,
  All this I fain would fix upon the page;
  That so the coming age,
  Lost in the empire's mass,
  Yet haply longing for their fathers, here May see, as in a glass,
  What they held dear—
  May say, "Twas thus and thus
  They lived'; and, as the time-flood onward rolls,
  Secure an anchor for their Keltic souls."
  That, in poetical form, is what the villagers of Therfield desire—an anchor for their souls in the sight of these cottages upon their own soil.
  I have compared the electoral roll with the corresponding Elizabethan birth registers. There are no small number of families to be found on the electoral roll to-day who were there in Elizabethan times. They are the true aristocracy of the soil. They have as good a right to the monuments of their past upon their own soil, in their own parish, as has the nation to the Palace of Westminster or Westminster Abbey. I earnestly trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will feel able to give an undertaking that his Department will exercise a humane and wise discretion in this and in other instances, where a good case can be made out.
  7.50 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): There is one quality of which I envy my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), and that is his facility for quotation. If he had been in politics at the time these houses were built he would have been able to play a prominent part in a rather hectic time in quotations from one side of the House to the other. At the outset I may say that my right hon. Friend is most anxious to do everything in his power to preserve the beauty of the countryside and to preserve those old cottages that are part of our national heritage; but I must also point out that my right hon. Friend is as much a servant of the law as any other citizen of this country and he can only work within the framework of existing legislation.
  It is necessary to restate the facts of this case, so that we may know where we stand. If I am wrong in any particular, perhaps the hon. Members will correct me. I understand that a clearance order was made by the Hitchin Rural District

  653
  Council in respect of these cottages, and that a local public inquiry was held by one of the Ministry's inspectors. The hon. Member for Hitchin said that these cottages cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a slum. I am afraid that he cannot be the judge of that. The judge of that must be the Ministry's inspector.
  Sir A. Wilson: It is impossible by any extension of the English language to call three pairs of cottages, isolated from each other by a distance of 200 yards, standing in purely rural surroundings, a slum. It is an abuse of the English language and an abuse of an Act of Parliament to call them a slum.
  Mr. Simpson: Did not an earlier English poet say of certain cottages that they were picturesque without but fever dens within?
  Sir A. Wilson: The average age of the inhabitants of these cottages is 80.
  Mr. Bernays: The hon. Member is entitled to his view. If satisfactory reconstruction proposals had been made they would have been accepted, but my information is that no satisfactory reconstruction proposals were made. Some of the owners did make offers but the offers were not regarded by the inspector as capable of making the houses fit for human habitation, and in the light of his report the clearance orders were confirmed by the Minister, The local authority took a long time to find alternative accommodation, and a local resident, to whom the hon. Member referred, made an offer for the houses. In the meantime the order had been confirmed, and now that the tenants have been rehoused in accordance with the Act of Parliament the cottages have to be demolished. The hon. Member has raised the question of reconditioning after the clearance order has been confirmed. There must be some finality.
  Sir A. Wilson: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Bernays: As a business man, I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me upon that point. The Act gives ample opportunity for owners to submit reconditioning plans. What is the procedure? Before submitting a clearance order the housing authority give public notice of the Order in one or two of the local newspapers, giving a full account
  654
  of the houses that come under the Order and telling the place where other information can be obtained. The local authority also have to inform every owner that such an order is to be submitted and specify the time within which and the manner in which objections can be made. They are further required to serve on any objectors a notice in writing stating what facts they allege as their principal grounds for considering the houses are unfit for human habitation. So much for the local authority.
  When the Order reaches the Minister he has to hold a local inquiry, at which objections are heard. After that inquiry the Minister's inspector visits the houses personally, as was done in this case. The inspector from the Ministry of Health went down to visit these cottages and made his report on the relevant considerations, the condition of the cottages and the proposals that had been put forward for their reconditioning. These matters were all examined and taken into account before the Order was confirmed.
  The hon. Member raised the point that there is no appeal to the county court. The elaborate procedure that I have outlined is an alternative to the appeal to the county court laid down for demolition orders, and this procedure is regarded generally as being more satisfactory than procedure by appeal to the county court. Most of the complaints as to the irrevocability of Orders received by the Ministry of Health relate to Orders for demolition made under the county court procedure, and it was in regard to procedure under demolition orders that the Rural Housing Sub-Committee made their recommendation. Demolition Orders do not require public inquiry, but it is rightly realised that the persons who may be interested want to know what the procedure means, and therefore action must be taken in that regard.
  The hon. Member is asking that the Act of Parliament should not be enforced. That is what his request really amounts to. The situation is this, that the Minister having confirmed an Order has no further jurisdiction. The hon. Member asks that I should give an assurance that the-Minister will be willing to intimate that, whatever may be the law, in this particular case he will not press for demolition. I am afraid that I cannot give that undertaking. The hon. Member said that in many cases the Minister could use

  655
  his discretion. He can use his discretion only where the law gives him a discretion, and I am afraid that however carefully one reads the Act it is impossible to find that it gives to my right hon. Friend the discretion which the hon. Member asks him to exercise.

  BURNING PIT HEAPS.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Tinker: The Parliamentary Secretary said that his right hon. Friend would do everything in his power to preserve the amenities and beauties of the countryside. That brings me to a subject on which I should like to say a few words. For some time I have been pressing the Minister of Health to do something to preserve the amenities not merely of the countryside but of other parts of the country, the industrial areas, by removing the obnoxious pit heaps that exist. The Minister might do something in that direction. I have a Bill on the Order Paper, but every night when my Bill is reached, hon. Members opposite object. I suppose they have been told by the Minister that objection must be taken to the Bill. One has to wait for opportunities like this to have the matter ventilated.
  I hope the Minister will not seek to shelve this question indefinitely because there is a deep-seated feeling among Members on this side of the House and in many parts of the country that something ought to be done. I constantly receive letters from district and county councils expressing agreement with the action which I have taken and asking what help they can give me. I have told them to write to the Ministry and to let them know the feeling which exists upon this question. Recently I had a letter from a local authority in whose area a number of pit heaps are burning. They told me that they had done what they could to get the law put into operation but found it very difficult to accomplish anything, because these heaps were not termed nuisances in the ordinary sense.
  I understand that in order to establish the existence of a nuisance it is necessary to bring definite evidence of people being affected by it and that is almost impossible in these cases. The men and women affected depend for their livelihood on the very people who would have to be prosecuted. We know that many
  656
  people suffer in health from this sort of thing, but when we ask them to come forward and help us to establish the grievance, their answer is "Will you guarantee me employment afterwards?" They probably work for the colliery company which owns the pit heap and if we succeeded in what we are trying to do—well we know what the industrial position is and that there would be little chance of work for these people afterwards. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with me that something ought to be done and that there ought to be a move forward in this matter. Every Tuesday night I sit here, a lone figure on these Benches.
  Mr. Kellys: Not lone.
  Mr. Tinker: No not lone but one of very few. I sit here waiting for an opportunity to present my case, but I am met with nothing but futility and objections, and when I rise to make my protest you, Mr. Speaker, have to put me down in accordance with the Rules of the House. I want to warn the hon. Gentleman opposite. I ask him to use his influence with his right hon. Friend to see whether he will not receive a deputation from Members of the House. The chairman of the Amenities Committee is prepared to go with me and with other Members to meet the Minister of Health on this subject and if the Ministry can show me any way of getting over this difficulty without an Act of Parliament, I shall gladly follow their advice. But I promise the hon. Gentleman that he will have the life worried out of him as long as he is in that office if he does not do something to help me to deal with this great grievance. I shall sit here every time there is a Motion for the Adjournment prepared to state my case on this question and believing that by keeping at it I may yet secure that something will be done. I hope that to-night, however, the hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that his right hon. Friend is at least prepared to meet a deputation.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. George Griffiths: I join with my hon. Friend in asking the Government to do something to remedy the evil caused by these burning muck heaps all over the country. Every week-end I not only see them but feel them. The smell of one comes into my bedroom. I both smell them and taste them. We are desirous

  657
  that facilities should be given to enable us to ascertain whether or not the House is prepared to remedy this grievous evil. In the county in which I live there are 86 of these burning muck stacks. Altogether I understand there are something like 172, and some of these have been burning for over 25 years. I have lived in Yorkshire for 35 years and I know one that was burning before I went there and has never been put out since. A great many of the population in the mining areas are affected. Like the blind man in the Scripture, "One thing I know." One thing I know is that these burning stacks are a disgrace to civilisation and a detriment to the health of the community. Thousands of people are living within a few hundred yards of some of them. There are in the Normanton Division pit stacks which practically encircle three rows of houses. If it were not for a highway which passes there, the houses would be hemmed in all round by these stacks.
  I do not care what medical men may say. They are not always right. Some of them may say that these fumes are not injurious to health, but those who know the people compelled to live close to these stacks realise the effect on the general health of the people. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite me thinks that he can fob us off by saying that he will look into the matter. We want something done by the Ministry of Health. We do not want faith without works. We have had enough of that in the last week. Either these muck stacks should be cleared away, or legislation should be introduced to compel the colliery companies to put out the fires. The true solution is that no colliery company should be allowed to bring the muck up to the surface. It should be stowed down in the pit. That would serve two purposes—first, there would be no fire on top, and second, there would be no subsidence of houses, churches and public buildings. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to this question and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and myself to go home with an easier mind on this subject.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I wish to refer to both the questions which have been raised. I have drawn attention to the question of bings in Fifeshire and especially to the
  658
  bing at Buckhaven, which has destroyed the whole foreshore and left the harbour so that you can walk about in it dry-shod because of the rubbish swept into it from the bing. Nothing as far as I can gather is being done to remedy that state of affairs, and I wish to support the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) in their demand for definite action. The suggestion that the mine-owners should not be allowed to bring this rubbish to the surface is a practical solution. If it were stowed below, it would prevent a terrible disgrace to the countryside. In some of the most beautiful parts of Scotland at present one may be suddenly confronted with a big dirty heap of muck from a pit. That is a state of things which ought not to be tolerated.
  On the question of the cottages, I cannot understand how the Minister or anyone else can refer to a group of cottages, situated as this appears to be, as a slum. I agree with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) that there is a strong argument for retaining certain cottages of this kind in every rural area. They are, in a sense, history in stone. I speak possibly from a different point of view and with a different purpose from that of the hon. Member who raised this question. I understand the traditional value of these cottages and their associations, but I would use them for the purpose of showing to the people of to-day the conditions under which many of the poorer people had to live in a past age. It is desirable, from the point of view of carrying on tradition and keeping a sound association with the people who have gone before us, that we should preserve these buildings. We of the working class would like to see history presented in such forms as this in many areas, and I want to warn Ministers and especially the Secretary of State for Scotland of the difficulties which they may meet before very long, if their attitude to these questions is not changed.
  In the Empire Exhibition in Glasgow, they are reproducing or have reproduced a Highland village. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has seen the Highland village? He had better watch that the Minister of Health does not get his eyes on it, or he might condemn it as a slum and demand its demolition. Any number of these Highland cottages are slums. I am in favour of

  659
  maintaining these old-time houses, but not for dwelling purposes. I would have them renovated as far as possible, and try to keep their old appearance, so that they might be used as museums. There are many such places in many parts of the country, and even in towns. In many towns they have old oak buildings that are not used for dwelling purposes, and every care is taken to maintain them, because of their association with the past. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take this up with the Minister and to request him not to treat houses of this kind as slums, but to give them special consideration. It may be that demolition is the only thing for these three cottages that have been referred to, but it may be, on the other hand, that there is very good sense in the desire for keeping them in existence.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure Members on all sides will sympathise with the object of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I know he has introduced a Bill in connection with this under the Ten Minutes Rule, though I suppose the prospects of getting it through are remote. I want to make a suggestion. This problem is one that is growing in seriousness all over the country. I have had the privilege, as a miner, of visiting coalfields in other countries on the Continent, among them the German coalfields. This has nothing to do with Hitler or the new German regime. It is a legacy from the old regime in Germany. The first notable difference one sees between the German mining districts and our own is the absence there of these ugly pit heaps. They have developed something which we ought to cultivate: a sense of civic pride. The ordinary working man and woman have to spend all their lives in the same village. Their children grow up there. I think we ought to cultivate a feeling that the town or village in which we live is something that we ought to keep clean and beautiful. All over the country we have these heaps. In my own area they are not as offensive as in the area which the hon. Member for Leigh knows, because in his area they have an offensive smell as well; but in South Wales there has been a new device for handling what we call rubbish from the pit—the Mclaine tipper. We have always taken pride in our mountains in Wales, but I
  660
  say to my fellow-countrymen sometimes that in a few years' time our mountains will be completely obscured by these horrible tips.
  This is something that ought to be taken in hand. I do not believe it needs legislation, but only some really energetic administration. Why should we stand for a lower standard of civic pride and cleanliness than they have on the Continent? Why should we not aspire to the heights? I suggest that the Minister should receive a deputation from Members of the House who are interested in the matter: Members who represent mining areas and are keen on finding some solution. The proper solution is to keep this stuff underground. There is only reason why it is brought up and that it is because it is cheaper to do so than to stow it underground—cheaper in money, but not cheaper from the standpoint of human life and of safety. With machine mining, and all the changes it makes, more and more of this rubbish will be brought up unless some administrative action is taken to stop it. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should have a consultation with the Minister of Mines, and that they should jointly agree to receive a deputation. The Secretary for Mines could himself go a long way towards solving the problem. His own divisional inspector of mines at Cardiff, in his last four or five reports, has urged that there should be complete solid packing in the pits in South Wales. The problem could be stopped, at least from growing worse than it is now, if the Secretary for Mines adopted that suggestion. All he has to do is to tell the colliery companies that they have to carry out the recommendation of the inspector.
  There are other ways in which something can be done about these pits by administrative action. For some years before I came here I was associated with the work of the Miners' Welfare Fund in South Wales. We have converted some of these pits into football grounds. The Miners' Welfare Fund have done that with very limited resources—made still more limited by the Government's action in recent years. This is not a party matter, but one in which all parties might interest themselves. We are all concerned in keeping these villages clean if we can. Those who go to mining villages are often appalled by their ugliness. People who live in them ought to get some

  661
  fresh air and beauty. I would join in the appeal that is being made from this side, and which I am sure will be joined in by hon. Members on the other side, to the Minister to receive a deputation, so that this problem can be solved without new legislation and without any great expenditure of money. We can do it from two ends—first of all, by taking steps to keep it in, and then by trying to make a collective effort to do something outside. We might carry the matter still further by having a discussion with the Parliamentary Secretary.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Bernays: I feel that I must rise to reply, although hon. Members will know that I have had no notice that this question was to be raised.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I take it that the hon. Member has the leave of the House to speak a second time?
  Mr. Bernays: I apologise to the House for not having gone through that necessary procedure. As I was saying, I have had no notice that this question was to be raised, but I feel that I must say how interested I have been in the points raised to-night upon this very important question. I say this particularly because, when I paid a visit to South Wales the other day, when I learnt how to pronounce Pontypridd and Llanelly, I realised how the lovely valleys were being despoiled in the way the hon. Gentleman has told us to-night. I know how deeply hon. Gentlemen are concerned about the question, but I can only say to-night that the inspectors of the Ministry of Health are very active in their duties and are constantly inquiring, supervising and making suggestions, and if hon. Gentlemen who have raised the matter tonight have any particular spots in mind, I shall be glad if they will let me know, and I will see that special inquiries are made.
  Mr. A. Jenkins: I would like some explanation of what the Parliamentary Secretary means when he says that Ministry of Health inspectors are continually dealing with this matter. As a matter of fact, these tips have been built up continuously over a long period, and Ministry of Health inspectors have been there, and, as far as we know, have not been at all concerned about it.
  Mr. Bernays: The problem of burning tips is a serious one, and if the hon. Gentleman has any particular burning pit in mind in regard to which he is dissatisfied with the work of our inspectors, I shall be very glad if he will let me know and I will have an investigation made.
  Mr. Tinker: The Ministry would require an army of inspectors to deal with the tips in Lancashire.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: There are 86 burning tips in my division.
  Mr. Bernays: With regard to legislation and the Bill about what the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) spoke, I am, unfortunately, precluded by the Rules of the House from referring to any future legislation, but I would say, in reply to the request which he and other hon. Members made that a deputation of Members interested in this question should be received by my right hon. Friend, that I will convey the suggestion to my right hon. Friend, who is always anxious to see Members of this House on any question in which they are particularly interested. I am afraid that it is impossible for me to say more, but I hope that what I have said will enable the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) to sleep soundly.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Parkinson: I am very pleased to note the sympathetic reply of the Parliamentary Secretary and that he will convey the terms of this Debate to the Minister, but the matter should be taken further than that. Something must be done. The question has been before the House for a considerable number of years and we have not really been able to get anything done to ameliorate the state of affairs. I have in mind the conditions which prevailed at the colliery where I worked in 1891, where a tip was blazing furiously, and is still blazing. One has only to travel north at night-time, when, on leaving Warrington, it is possible to see tip heap after tip heap blazing over the countryside. Not only are they an eyesore but a positive danger to the health of the people. I remember that when I was a member of an urban district council there were one or two of these burning heaps in the midst of the town. We did all we possibly could within the law, and by appeals to the

  663
  management and others associated with the colliery, but we did not meet with success. People living in these particular areas are suffering from respiratory diseases, which, in our opinion, are directly or almost directly attributable to the fumes from these burning tips. If the Parliamentary Secretary desires the names of the collieries where slag heaps are burning we shall require one or two sheets of foolscap to deal with the Lancashire area alone.
  I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said. I have also been to Germany, where I made some inquiries concerning the absence of pit heaps, and I was told that the law would not permit collieries to bring up the rubbish and deposit it on the surface. They had to store it in their underground workings, and if they took any rubbish out of the colliery and there was a subsidence, they were liable for any damage that was done and to a fine under the law. I do not know how far that sort of thing applies, but it would seem to be a good augury for something being done in this country in view of the fact that the Government are taking over the mineral rights of the country. I do not see any reason why when the Government negotiate new leases they should not insert a clause to prevent collieries from creating burning slag heaps. Colliery companies are not only spoiling the countryside by this practice but are causing the breaking up of the cottage homes of a large number of people who cannot obtain any recompense at all. These burning pit heaps help to destroy the health of the villages, and they are making middle-aged people prematurely old through having to breath and live in the atmosphere which they create.
  I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to do all he can to get the Minister to do something in this connection. The practice to-day is to make huge slag heaps. There is a place in Lancashire where there are one or two very high heaps and they are called Mr. So-and-so's monument, meaning the colliery manager. I do not think that we ought to blame the colliery manager too much, but rather the mine-owner and the mineral owner. The manager is largely in the hands of the directors and has to do what they tell him to do. When they extract minerals from the earth
  664
  they ought not to be permitted to do something which is detrimental to the community as a whole and to create something which scars the natural landscape. I hope that if the Minister does meet a deputation something will be done as a result. In some cases colliery owners are allowing these burning pit heaps to continue because they think it might be a commercial proposition afterwards. After a slag heap has burnt for a sufficient number of years it leaves a red gravel which has some commercial value as gravel for paths, but I contend that we cannot afford to let our people be sacrificed or our countryside be sacrificed in the interests of a commercial proposition.
  We can bring all proof that is necessary before the Minister of Health but we want to know what is going to be done to stop this practice. No pressure so far has been brought to bear in any area, except one in Leigh, to compel colliery owners to stop these fires. They allow them to burn. We are here in this House to protect the well-being of the community as a whole, and while there may be a commercial proposition in this for colliery owners it is not a commercial proposition for people in the areas who as a consequence are prematurely old at 40 and 50 years of age. A large amount of this burning could be avoided. The refuse could be stored underground, but it is much cheaper to send it up to the surface and dump it there. I hope pressure will be brought to bear on colliery owners throughout all our mining areas to see that they put a stop to this practice for the future.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Jenkins: I want to say a word in support of my hon. Friends who have raised this question. It is one of considerable importance in mining districts. I was dismayed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that because he had had no notice of the question he was unable to reply.
  Mr. Bernays: I did reply.
  Mr. Jenkins: I must have misunderstood the hon. Member. In any case his reply was totally inadequate, and I certainly understood him to say that he had not had sufficient notice.
  Mr. Bernays: The hon. Member put to me a question and I was answering the question.
  Mr. Jenkins: I certainly expected a more definite reply. The suggestion of a deputation was not favourably received, but more important still is it that this matter has been raised on quite a number of occasions and that no action has been taken to bring about a cessation of this practice. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the inspectors of the Department were continually around the districts keeping a watch and taking all the action they have power to take. In my own division about a year and a-half ago there was an outbreak of fire in one of these tips. Not a large fire, but nobody took any action. There was a substantial amount of sulphur being exuded and people in the district had to live under the greatest of difficulties. In some houses privately-owned, paying very substantial rents, the people were unable at night time to open their windows because of the poison coming from these burning heaps. This went on until the fire burnt itself out. There are other places, however, where these tips have been burning continuously.
  In my judgment this nuisance could be avoided in almost every case. It is not difficult to put a fire out when it begins, but it is difficult to put it out after it has been burning for a considerable time. Moreover, there is the possibility of keeping a large amount of this rubbish in the pits. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has already called attention to the fact that the Divisional Mines Inspector for South Wales has for seven years in succession recommended that the rubbish should be kept underground. If it was it would improve the standard of safety considerably in the mine, but because there is no measure of control, no attempt to protect the amenities on the surface, industrialists are allowed to do precisely what they like. Not long since I was in a certain continental country and I saw some lignite mining. A substantial amount of earth was taken off the surface, but behind the mining the soil had to be left in as good a condition as it was before mining began. I inquired into the cost and I found that as a matter of fact it did not increase the cost per ton of lignite by more than £1. It is quite as easy to do this systematically as it is to throw the rubbish anywhere and everywhere, just as we see it at Corby. That is another instance of the destruction of amenities.
  666
  I say quite frankly that there has been no effort on the part of the Minister of Health to save the countryside. The Parliamentary Secretary's reply is totally inadequate. The matter has been raised a sufficient number of times to get a reply which is adequate to the problem; and I am disappointed, indeed I am dissatisfied, with the reply. I hope my hon. Friends will continue to press this matter until we get satisfaction. The Minister of Health must understand that some of us have some regard for the beauty of our hillsides and our valleys. I often think what delightful valleys they would have been had not industry come into them, if we could have seen them in their pristine beauty. I remember an old character in the Rhondda Valley telling me that his father could remember when it was possible for a squirrel to travel from Pontypridd to Treherbert without leaving the trees. There is to-day not a tree in the whole valley of 20 miles. All the trees have been felled. There is nothing but rubbish heaps, and there are no amenities.
  People are expected to live in such conditions, and yet, when we raise the matter, we get from the Parliamentary Secretary a reply such as we have had to-night. The Ministry of Health have not been doing their job as far as the protection of the beauty of this land is concerned. They are not doing their job at the present time. The Ministry are not prepared to interfere with the vested interests in the industry. To-night, we have heard the terrible story of these burning pit heaps in a densely populated county such as Lancashire. The Ministry of Health ought to take a much firmer stand in this matter. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will report this Debate to his right hon. Friend, and that some action will be taken soon.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: I wish to deal with this matter from two angles. I was astonished to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the officials of the Ministry of Health are going round—
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Round and round.
  Mr. Taylor: Evidently they are going right round and getting back to where they started, and when they write their report, probably they will do the same thing, because I cannot see that they are accomplishing anything. During the last

  667
  few years, even during the last' few months, new pit heaps have been created There is spontaneous combustion, and in some cases the burning pit heaps are hardly a hundred yards from houses in which people have to live. There is less need at the present time for this refuse to come to the surface than ever there was. If it were not for the speed and the need for these operations to dovetail into each other, and if it were not cheaper to bring the refuse to the surface, I am convinced that it could be stored or packed without being brought above ground. These pit heaps are having a deleterious effect both on the health and the amenities of the countryside. In some villages the tradespeople and the householders generally wage a continuous battle against the effects of the fumes that are given off by these heaps. That means expense, and it means that it is impossible for the tradespeople to keep their shops in the state in which they would like to keep them. Only the people who live in the areas concerned are able fully to appreciate what these pit heaps mean. A coat of paint in close proximity to one of them is eaten off in a week or two. The shops and houses get shabby and look miserable. People are often judged by the coats that they wear, and almost the same thing applies to a shop. If a person sees a shop front which has no paint on it, which has a "dead-and-done" look, he says that the tradesman is not up to date, and he does not give that tradesman his custom. In the districts where there are those burning pit heaps, that state of affairs is not due to the tradespeople, but to the Government's neglect.
  There is another point which has to be remembered. A few weeks ago there was a "blackout" in the town of Bedford. I believe that the object was to test some new lights on motor cars in order to see whether it would be possible to have vehicular traffic going normally and regularly during an air raid. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department went up in an aeroplane in order to have a bird's eye view and to see how the "blackout" worked in practice.
  Mr. Bernays: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but apparently I did not make myself plain to hon. Mem-
  668
  bers opposite. I said that I would convey their views to my right hon. Friend and that I was certain he would be willing to receive a deputation. I do not think I can do any more than that. If I may say so, I think that if my right hon. Friend reads all these speeches tomorrow, he will think there is no need for a deputation.
  Mr. Taylor: The point I am putting is a rather important one. In connection with air-raid precautions, people are being gathered into big and small committees to discuss what should be done, enormous expenditure is being incurred, and the time of very valuable men is being taken up night after night in deciding what should be done, in the event of war, to protect the civilian population. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department went up in an aeroplane. He sat in the nose of the machine—I do not know whether it makes any difference whether one sits in the tail or the nose—and when he spoke over the wireless, he said that as he approached the town, with all its blazing lights, it was a perfect target, surrounded by the darkness of the countryside; but that when the signal was given; there was absolute darkness. I want the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to appreciate what would be the position if there were an air raid in the North of England, in Lancashire or in Yorkshire. With armaments factories in different parts of the country, it is very difficult to say which places are vulnerable and which are not.
  I remember that during the War, the first Zeppelins that came to this country came over the town in which I lived, and they approached from the North Sea. In the event of another war, if aeroplanes approached from the North Sea, we should want to darken the town in which we live. Newcastle would get the signal to do so, and we should want all the country to be in total darkness, so that the aeroplanes would have to depend on some scientific instrument in order to be able to set their course. All that will be necessary will be to take a beeline for one of our burning pit heaps. I noticed one last week-end. I was five or six miles away from it and it took me some time to determine whether I was looking at the neon lights of a cinema, until I remembered the location and knew it was a blazing pit heap.

  669
  When the Parliamentary Secretary reports this to the right hon. Gentleman will he ask him to visualise the position of our people who are living in proximity to these pit heaps, and ask him what are his proposals for blanketing or damping them down when the sirens give warning of an air raid. Aeroplanes travel very quickly, and, even if there were two or three hours' warning, it would be a physical impossibility to put out these heaps, which are upwards of 100 feet high and a blazing mass of fire. In the plans for air raid precautions a larger contribution should be made to authorities within the proximity of these heaps because they have a much greater danger to contend with. We have Newcastle, with thousands of population, manufacturing armaments and a very important port. The Port of London may not be as accessible in time of war and we shall probably have to use some of the lesser ports. I am not an airman, but I do not find it difficult to see that in the darkness of night an airman would be able to shape his course by one of the pit heaps only 10 miles from Newcastle and find any place he wanted. If we could utilise the refuse in these heaps to pack up underground workings we could employ many more men doing just the work they used to do, and it would help considerably in the unemployment problem. We have not the money to put them out, and if the Government want the citizens of the country protected and do not want the armament factories blown up, they should provide money for this purpose or make the colliery managements keep the stuff underground.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ritson: I appreciate the point of the Parliamentary Secretary when he said the Minister would receive a deputation, but I think that a great volume of complaints from this side may serve to impress him. I see the senior Member for Sunderland (Mr. Furness) on the Front Bench. I am living in Sunderland, and he knows that I excuse him because he has to sit there as a Whip with an official muzzle on. My local council has complained bitterly about pit heaps that are not in the borough. We have to take our refuse out to sea beyond the three mile limit, and I sometimes wish that it were taken further out because it washes back with the tide and makes what would
  670
  be a beach of bright sand very dirty. When we see the effects of these heaps on the surroundings, we can only guess what the effect is on the lungs of the people living in the area. We are told that it is too expensive to put the heaps out and that the only way of dealing with them is to cover them with soil.
  The question of air raids is important. I remember during the air raids in the War, when I had some sort of an official position in trying to protect the community, that bombs were dropped on the pit heaps or near them. There is not only the fear that pit heaps may be a guide to towns like Newcastle and Blythe, but the fear that they will be a guide to mines. There are shafts over 1,500 feet deep in that area, and if a bomb were dropped in one of them it would mean a colliery being put out of action and disaster to the men down below, particularly if gas bombs are used. The heaps are beacons to an enemy; they are an invitation. I was in the air only once. I went to an aerodrome with other miners' members at the invitation of the present Home Secretary in view of some questions that had been raised in the House. We were highly satisfied with what we saw. Before I took a flight I was asked to sign a document that if I was killed or injured during the flight I would claim no damages from the State. I am a white, cadaverous looking fellow to start with, but when I signed I went very pale and they took my photograph. I had only that one flight, but I can well imagine the position of a raider in an aeroplane. I could see all over Northumberland and Durham, I could pick out my pit heaps, and I would have been a neglectful enemy if I did not take note of some marks in a vulnerable position.
  The amenities of the district are a consideration to be taken into account. Some of my hon. Friends were with me at Bournemouth for a recent event, and I heard from them that they had never seen anything so beautiful for years, and we did express the hope that some of our people could have a look at the beauties of that part of the country after living in surroundings where they smell the pit heap morning after morning and where their wives dare only do the washing on certain days, after having made sure that the wind does not come from the direction of the pit heap, because the clothes are destroyed by the fumes. But clothes

  671
  are only material things. Human beings, children as well, are living in that atmosphere. We are trying to make an A1 nation while letting them breathe C3 destruction from the day they are born. We are entitled to something better.
  I went to the pit at 12 years old, like so many of my friends, worked in the hot pit, naked as on the day I was born, and breathing an atmsophere that you would not let a dog live in. If you were to put daylight into the pits there would not be a pit working for another week. Sometimes we were working in conditions where the pony beside us used up all the oxygen and the lamp went out, and we had to put the pony a hundred yards or so away so that we could get on with our work. Men who have been in such an atmosphere all day ought not to have to encounter the atmosphere of burning pit heaps when they come to the surface, and if they have sent their sons to the war, why should we leave the burning pit heaps to act as beacons to the enemy who come to destroy those who have been left at home?
  You may look upon us sometimes as being rather rough and blunt, but never charge us with not loving the country which has given us birth. Some of us are artistically minded, blunt and ungrammatical as we are, and in these days of travel we have been about to see beautiful things and beautiful places. And seeing those beautiful places our people find it more difficult to come back to live in their old surroundings, amid the fumes from these pit heaps, which affect even their furniture and their ornaments. There are these pit heaps, with their misty, stinking, dark gases coming off them, and some of our people are living almost immediately under them.
  We have shown that this question is one which must concern the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, and I think that he ought to be here. Though he is responsible for armaments, it is more important that he should do away with these targets for airmen, which is what the burning pit heaps are. The safety of the main lines of our railways is involved, because a lot of these pit heaps are to been seen on the route between London and Edinburgh. I know of five or six between Darlington and Newcastle, and there are scores in other parts of the country. We have been told of the
  672
  arrangements made for a "black-out" in time of war, but those things would remain as a danger. I have a great regard for the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, apart from his politics—that is the only thing which is the matter with him—and I am convinced that he would have done a far more useful thing to go up in to the air above the pit heaps than to go to Germany to examine airraid precautions there. I cannot understand neighbours paying visits to show how they are going to kill one another—only keeping back the date.
  I understand we have a promise that the Minister of Health may receive a deputation on this subject. I am always afraid to meet the Minister of Health, not because he is not charming, but because he is too charming. When you are coming away you feel that you have got everything in the world—and when you get home you have not even got a shirt on. Do not be shocked when I am talking about underclothing, because we all wear it, and there are no ladies present. We want something done for the health and amenities of the people. I should like the Minister to be as sincere about this matter as I am. I have been brought up in a colliery area, and though I am four miles away from a pit heap I can smell it at any time when the wind is in that direction. Not only do we suffer from the fumes from the pit heap, but there is the air coming out of the colliery itself by the upcast shaft, coming from workings where there are hundreds of men and pit ponies, thousands of cockroaches and millions of mice—all breathing that air, which then comes up out of the pit by the upcast shaft. Whenever I smell it, it takes me back to the days when I had to go to the pit as a boy, and I think of the men who are still working below ground. It is bad enough to have to breathe the air from the upcast shaft without breathing the fumes of a pit heap—a mound of stuff which could be stowed below ground to the safety of the miner and to the saving of a good deal of expenditure on timber.
  On this side all here to-night are practical men and we are not putting forward our knowledge of the pits with any desire to boast of it, but only giving those who do not know the benefit of our experience. We are all members of the same great nation and we are proud of it. We are not condemning it, but only asking you

  673
  to purify it, asking you to give those who have sprung from our loins a chance of living under conditions which will give them better health.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Brown: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Health has left the House. Although he promised that the Minister of Health might receive a deputation of members on this subject, he intervened a little later, out of a desire, no doubt, to curtail the Debate, with the suggestion that if we went on making speeches it might not be necessary for the Minister to receive a deputation. In case that course should be adopted I think it advisable that we should make all the points we wish to make in our speeches here, because then the Minister will have the information if he does not receive the deputation, and if he does receive it he will have had time to consider our points before meeting us.
  9.14 p.m.
  Sir Edward Campbell: The Parliamentary Secretary was informed by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) that he wished to raise a question on the Adjournment this evening and the question was raised and replied to. Then the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) raised a question of which the Parliamentary Secretary had been given no notice whatever, and on which he was not in a position to reply either for his Department or for his chief. He has, however, promised to ask the Minister to receive a deputation, and no Under-Secretary could be expected to do more than that. I realise that hon. Members are very much interested in this subject, but the Parliamentary Secretary does need a meal sometimes, and he has not gone to bed, but only gone to get some very necessary food, and when hon. Members opposite stop talking I hope to do the same.
  Mr. Brown: I have no objection to the Parliamentary Secretary having a meal. I hope he will enjoy it, but it is no reason why we should not make our case against these disfigurements. We are much obliged to the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) for raising the matter of those cottages. A part of his case was that they destroyed the amenities of the neighbourhood where they were situated. My hon. Friend the
  674
  Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is raising this question which is closely associated with that of amenities. I come from a part of the country which is not unattractive, or was not. Aerial ropeways have now begun to be used by the collieries in the district and they are piling them up in my district. It is on the fringe of the Dukeries, and I rise because of that fact. I suppose most hon. Members know what the Dukeries are; they are part of the area of Sherwood Forest. Important country mansions in the Dukeries are Welbeck Abbey, Rufford Abbey, and Clumber House. The coal measures on the western side have been worked considerably and are now moving steadily east. They are depending more and more upon the Dukeries, in the heart of Sherwood Forest. One of my hon. Friends said that this was not a party question, and I agree with him, but in present conditions people who own coal in this country can protect themselves from disfigurements of the landscape because they have the power and influence to do so.
  On the fringe of the Welbeck estate is a colliery known as Thursby Colliery. It is an all-electric colliery, where they do not use steam even to raise the energy to generate the electricity, which is raised elsewhere and transferred to the colliery. When I was there last time there were no disfiguring pit heaps anywhere on that landscape. That shows that what my hon. Friends are advocating to-night could be done, and is done when it destroys the amenities of the great landlords of the country. I do not criticise them for wanting to preserve those amenities, but when they want to preserve amenities they can do it and no development impinges upon the amenities which they enjoy. That is all I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary. It will be on record, and the Minister of Health may consider it when he turns his attention to the question which has been raised by my hon. Friends.
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. Tomlinson: I, too, come from a colliery district, although the pit heaps in my immediate neighbourhood are not burning and are not quite so noxious as others that have been described to-night. Nevertheless, they are an eyesore. Some little time ago a friend was visiting our place for the first time, and brought with

  675
  him a young boy who had been brought up in the countryside. As they approached Farnworth they came across some slag heaps which were evidently the first that the boy had seen. Turning to his father in the railway compartment, he said: "Daddie, why did God make those hills without grass?" It is strange that a young boy who had been taught something of the beauty of the countryside should attribute to God the making of the slag heaps. I am not surprised that he did so because the only hills he had hitherto seen had been clothed with grass. His conception of hills was that they should be clothed with grass. I believe there is something in that child's remark. If it had not been for the cost of transforming those heaps into something of beauty we should not have them as they now are in the countryside.
  A little time ago I was appointed from the Farnworth district to the Lancashire County Council committee on the preservation of rural England, which question has already been raised upon the Adjournment to-night. My friends at Farnworth began to smile at the idea of somebody living in that town being interested in the preservation of the countryside. My excuse for sitting on that committee and doing my best to see that it carries out its work was that, as the industrial towns had been spoiled, I was concerned that what little was left in Lancashire of the countryside should be preserved. I would go further and say that those who have been responsible for the erection of these ugly heaps should have been compelled to remove them when they found it no longer necessary to work the colliery, having taken all out of it that they could. These things are an eyesore in front of other people. It may be said that when people are making their livings in the mine and are dependent upon the wages that they receive, they can put up with the ugliness associated with their work. There is an old saying in Lon-cashire: "Where there's muck, there's money." That saying developed from the fact that you cannot make money without making muck. My contention is that the people who have made the money by stirring up the muck should not be allowed to leave the district in which they made their money and go to live in places like Bournemouth, whilst the people who are left behind have to look at the ugliness the others created.
  676
  The Minister of Health has a definite responsibility in this matter. There are certain things which people are not allowed to do in the carrying on of their business. When permission is given to people to carry on an industry there ought to be a definite instruction as to what they may and may not do. It is no good talking about the preservation of the countryside if you give a man a blank cheque to make what money he wants irrespective of the countryside. The Lancashire County Council took it upon themselves some years ago to manufacture tar macadam in order to carry out their road-work, and for that purpose they purchased some slag heaps in Cumberland. When they started on the undertaking there was a Clause giving them permission to do all the work of taking the slag to make the tar macadam, but saying that they must make good the countryside when the heaps had been used up.
  I was on the County Council. Some machinery had been brought there and the countryside had certainly been badly disturbed in taking out what was required and leaving the remainder. The landlord was prepared to waive his right to the putting right of the countryside for a certain sum in compensation. The compensation was paid, and the district was left in anything but a reasonable condition. The damage that had been done had been paid for, but you cannot pay for the injury to the people who have to live in close proximity to it. If we are in earnest on this matter, we can do a good deal by insisting on regulations for the putting back of the rubbish underground. I do not know anything about underground working but, if it can be buried underground, it is a crime against the people who live on the top if you allow it to be brought up simply because it is cheaper to do so. We have sacrificed enough in the interests of cheapness. I hope the Minister of Health will be impressed with the necessity of taking note of what has been said with a view to doing something worth while in this direction.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. Sexton: I have a different point of view from that of some of my hon. Friends. Not that I object to what they say—I endorse every word—but I have had a double experience. I have lived beside one of these Vesuviuses pouring forth its smoke, fire and filth and I have

  677
  had the added experience of going into a rural part of the country as well, and I find exactly the same thing going on there as is going on in the industrial parts. I can well remember going with other boys to what we called the fiery heap, taking with us potatoes that we had scrounged and roasting them in the hot ashes. It was a common playground for boys and a very dangerous one, too. There was danger from burning and from noxious gases. I believe it must be possible to leave most of that rubbish underground, and it would contribute to the safety of the miners and to the health of their wives and families who have to live in the neighbourhood. It would contribute towards the safety of the whole of the public during air raids if they could have the heaps removed. Then there is the question of shoring up and preventing subsidence. I have friends in mining districts who have bought their houses, which are built over the cavities that have been left by the removal of the stone. Some of the houses have cost large sums of money to build and to keep in some sort of state of repair because of the constant falling of the ground. Local authorities and those responsible for places of worship have to bear added expense because of these unsightly and dangerous heaps.
  In one of the prettiest dales in this country, in Weardale, we have limestone quarries, with heaps of rubbish left outside. It is possible, and it ought to be made compulsory, for these heaps to be planted with trees to hide the scabs and scars that have been left there. We know the beauty of artificial parks, but there is no beauty like the natural beauty of the dales. In all parts of the House we are very jealous of the beauty of our countryside. We are not talking for talking sake. We are talking in the hope that the Ministry of Health will get busy and do something to remove these things which destroy the natural beauty of the country. The tragedy of it all is that industry has to leave behind it this legacy of unsightly litter. In the last few years we have had a campaign conducted in the Press against the littering of the countryside with paper, tins, cigarette cartons and bottles. Those are easily removed, but the litter that we are talking about leaves a permanent mark on the landscape and should be done away with altogether., The unemployed can be set to work. They have done it voluntarily
  678
  in some places. They have spread these heaps out and made playgrounds. If we set the unemployed to work on some of these jobs, it would be more worth while than sitting still and doing nothing. Industry goes to different parts of the country. I am afraid we shall have industries going into rural areas and spoiling the country. Before any industries are taken into these beautiful districts it should be laid down that the surface of the land should be left as they found it when they came, in all its virgin beauty. We will do all we can to help the Government in the preservation of the beauties of the country.
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. Lawson: It is a good thing that this House should at times forget ordinary topics and discuss matters of amenity. We are obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) for raising the matter, which is of very great importance to the mineworkers of the country. I was glad to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) had raised his voice about it, because he has been so insistent, particularly about the matter of burning pit heaps, that he is bound to have success ultimately—the success that comes to those who learn to hammer at one question until people get so tired of it that they have to do something about it. This question is more subtle than most people realise. I spent 20 years of my life in the neighbourhood of a huge colliery where the only things that you could see above the long streets were the pulleys. At the end of our street was a huge pit heap. It stretched as far as the eye could see. While one felt a sense of revolt and dissatisfaction as regards wages and matters of that kind, the conditions by which we were surrounded had a strange psychological effect. After being in the pit for 20 years, I went to the western side of the county, and there, although I saw pitheaps, I also saw the trees and the fields; and then I realised that during the first 10 years of my life, which were spent in Cumberland with the sea on one side and beautiful mountains on the other, those surroundings gave me really the best part of my education, much more fundamental than anything I got from books.
  Our trouble is that we do not know how to settle these things. A gentleman in my district settled them completely. It

  679
  was proposed to sink a pit near his house, but he would not have it. It happened that he owned the royalty on the coal underneath, and for some years there was a lot of trouble about it. He finally agreed to the sinking of a pit on condition that it was sunk at a certain distance from his house, which was a castle, that the whole of the plant must be electrified—this was 30 years ago—and that the pit must be surrounded with tall poplar trees. That was done. He also stipulated that all the outhouses must be built of a certain kind of, almost, tiles. When the trees grew, and one stood in the fields and looked at that pit, although it was working, one could hardly tell which was the pit and which was the castle. He arranged, too, that some chemical should be used to kill any smoke. It was done all right, and it can be done all right. I believe that if the Minister of Health had sufficient courage to deal with this matter firmly, no one would be more pleased than the kind of person who has had the benefit of such conditions as those of which I have been speaking.
  680
  There is a social sense about this matter which Ministers would do well to apprehend. If they only had the courage, they could, at very little cost, do something which would not only be beneficial to the country at large, but would bring psychological well-being to masses of people in this country. My hon. Friend's area is worse than Durham, and I believe it is worse than the Welsh coalfield. I could stand looking at one pit heap, though that is bad enough; but when you have them scattered for miles round, and burning, they make life, even to anybody like myself who is used to it, almost intolerable. This matter is not difficult to deal with. It can be done, because it has been done, and I hope that the Minister, when he meets the deputation, as I understand he is going to do, will take his courage in his hands and make an end of this question.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes before Ten o'Clock.

SCOTLAND.
  WOMEN TEACHERS (RESIGNATIONS).
  WOMEN TEACHERS (RESIGNATIONS).
  LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY ACT (SLAUGHTERHOUSES)
  LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY ACT (SLAUGHTERHOUSES)
  SPECIAL AREAS (DUNDEE).
  SPECIAL AREAS (DUNDEE).
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  JURY SERVICE.
  JURY SERVICE.
  UNATTESTED DAIRY HERDS.
  UNATTESTED DAIRY HERDS.
  MOTOR VEHICLES (FRAUDULENT SALE).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (FRAUDULENT SALE).
  CHEAP RAILWAY TICKETS (COMPANIES' LIABILITY).
  CHEAP RAILWAY TICKETS (COMPANIES' LIABILITY).
  STATUS OF REFUGEES.
  STATUS OF REFUGEES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  ARTIFICIAL SILK PRODUCTION.
  ARTIFICIAL SILK PRODUCTION.
  SUGAR EXPORTS.
  SUGAR EXPORTS.
  SHIPBUILDING (TONNAGE STATISTICS).
  SHIPBUILDING (TONNAGE STATISTICS).
  NORTHERN LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS (EMPLOYES).
  NORTHERN LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS (EMPLOYES).
  TRINITY HOUSE (EMPLOYES).
  TRINITY HOUSE (EMPLOYES).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LABOUR COSTS).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LABOUR COSTS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  TYPHOID, CROYDON (BOY'S DEATH).
  TYPHOID, CROYDON (BOY'S DEATH).
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
  VALUATION LISTS.
  VALUATION LISTS.
  EX-SERVICE MEN, ROCHDALE.
  EX-SERVICE MEN, ROCHDALE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  ROYAL NAVAL SCHOOL OF MUSIC (A. H. MEEK).
  ROYAL NAVAL SCHOOL OF MUSIC (A. H. MEEK).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (CHARGEMEN).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (CHARGEMEN).
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR LORRIES (DRIVERS' LOG SHEETS)
  MOTOR LORRIES (DRIVERS' LOG SHEETS)
  SIDE-PATHS AND BRIDLE-WAYS (SIGNPOSTS).
  SIDE-PATHS AND BRIDLE-WAYS (SIGNPOSTS).
  LICENSED MOTOR VEHICLES (STATISTICS).
  LICENSED MOTOR VEHICLES (STATISTICS).
  RAILWAYS (REVENUE).
  RAILWAYS (REVENUE).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  TANGANYIKA (GERMAN PROPAGANDA).
  TANGANYIKA (GERMAN PROPAGANDA).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, BRIDGEND.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, BRIDGEND.
  AGRICULTURE (FLOODING).
  AGRICULTURE (FLOODING).
  EDUCATION (BENEFICIAL EMPLOYMENT).
  EDUCATION (BENEFICIAL EMPLOYMENT).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  UNLAWFUL GAMING.
  UNLAWFUL GAMING.
  MOTOR VEHICLES (FRAUDULENT SALE).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (FRAUDULENT SALE).
  PETTY SESSIONS COURTS (FINES).
  PETTY SESSIONS COURTS (FINES).
METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  POLICEWOMEN.
  POLICEWOMEN.
  JUNIOR STATION INSPECTORS.
  JUNIOR STATION INSPECTORS.
  OFFICERS (STATISTICS).
  OFFICERS (STATISTICS).
  MOUNTED BRANCH AND MOTOR VEHICLES.
  MOUNTED BRANCH AND MOTOR VEHICLES.
  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS).
  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  LEIGH.
  LEIGH.
  TRANSFERENCE.
  TRANSFERENCE.
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
  ADMIRALTY DEPOT, CROMBIE.
  ADMIRALTY DEPOT, CROMBIE.
  GREENOCK.
  GREENOCK.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY, YORKSHIRE.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY, YORKSHIRE.
  SPECIAL AREAS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1937.
  SPECIAL AREAS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1937.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
  TRADE DISPUTES (DAYS LOST).
  TRADE DISPUTES (DAYS LOST).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE DEPOT, STIRLING.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE DEPOT, STIRLING.
  AFFORESTATION (NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK).
  AFFORESTATION (NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MAR RIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
"Effects of divorce on property rights.
2.—(1) A decree of divorce granted on any of the grounds specified in the foregoing section, except that specified in paragraph (b) thereof, shall have the like effect as regards the estates of the parties and their rights and interests in and to any property, whether under marriage contract or otherwise, as if the decree had been granted on the ground of the defender's adultery.
(2) Where a decree of divorce has been granted on the ground specified in paragraph (b) of the foregoing section, the Court may make such order, if any, as having regard to the respective means of the parties it shall think fit, either for the payment to the pursuer out of any estate belonging to the defender of an alimentary allowance for the maintenance of the pursuer and any children of the marriage or for the payment by the pursuer of a contribution towards the maintenance of the defender.
(3) Any order made under the last foregoing subsection may be varied or recalled by a subsequent order."
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
"(1) Where a decree of divorce has been granted on any of the grounds specified in the foregoing section or on the ground of the defender's adultery, the Court may make such order, if any, as, having regard to the respective means of the parties it shall think fit, as regards the estates of the parties and their rights and interests therein."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was left over from the Committee stage because the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill rather threw a bomb at me, in telling me that the Government were preparing a very much wider measure, which covered the matter. I know it seems a very bold thing to oppose a Bill conducted by the noble and learned Lord on a point which occurs in the practice of the Courts, but, if your Lordships will consider, there is no point arising on a Divorce Bill which does not
884
concern the practice of the Courts, and I am so conscious of having support in the country that I feel I must draw your Lordships' attention to this matter.
The arguments used in the last debate against me are three. It is said that I am changing by this Amendment what has been the law of Scotland for the last three or four hundred years. The noble Lord does not defend the law as it stands, but he says that a private member cannot venture on so drastic an alteration. The Bill, as a matter of fact, extends the range of what has always been a bad law, and the noble and learned Lord's argument, if pressed, would prove too much—that is, that no private member ought to bring in a Divorce Bill if he dare not produce the best Divorce Bill. The other points are that I am seeking to change the law of intestate succession in Scotland, and that the Government are preparing a Bill to change that ancient law, and the noble and learned Lord expressed the opinion that the proper place for my Amendment is when that Bill comes before your Lordships. It was that startling information which led me to ask if the Government could give any information with regard to their attitude towards this Bill, and to defer the Amendment now before your Lordships until to-day. In the first place, the Amendment before your Lordships does not alter the law of intestate succession one tittle. If the Amendment were carried the law of intestate succession in Scotland would be just the same as it was yesterday. In the second place, a Divorce Bill must be the proper place to decide what is to happen to the property of the parties after a decree of divorce is made. With what countenance could I come to your Lordships, when you have before you a complicated and highly contentious measure on intestate succession, and ask you to insert a digression on divorce?
The only way the law of intestate succession comes into this matter is that the law of Scotland says that when a man is divorced his property is to be treated as if he were dead. The truth is that the whole legal profession is divided on this question according to individual experience, and this, together with what the noble and learned Lord himself said, goes to show that this Bill is premature. Let us wait until the profession as a whole is agreed upon the matter and until the

885
law of intestate succession has emerged from the melting pot; we can then see what we are doing. I think that by that time the noble and learned Lord himself will have got so far forward with the Government that he feels himself able to produce, not a Bill but the best Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, my noble friend, just a week ago to-day, moved an Amendment on the Committee stage of this Bill in precisely the same terms as the Amendment which is on the Paper this afternoon, and then I gave him a very full and considered reply; and I feel that it would be quite improper, especially in view of the debate which is pending in your Lordships' House, that I should delay your Lordships by recapitulating in detail the arguments which I then ventured to present. In a sentence they are these, first, that the proposal, as my noble friend admits, is a revolutionary proposal, which is designed to alter the law of Scotland as it has existed for four centuries; in the second place, that so far as I know it is unsupported by any responsible organisation, legal or otherwise, or indeed by any responsible individual outside this House; and, thirdly, that its insertion in the Bill would endanger the passage of the Bill in another place. Therefore, apart altogether from what the Government attitude may be—and that is not for me to say—I cannot, for the same reasons as I stated a week ago, entertain the Amendment proposed, and I hope that my noble friend w ill see his way to withdraw it.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not wish to press the Amendment, but I should like to give a representative of the Government an opportunity of stating what is their attitude.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, as I pointed out on the Second Reading, this is not a Government Bill, and therefore I cannot express on behalf of the Government approval or disapproval of the principles which it embodies. I can only say, as I said then, that the Government will watch very closely the debates on the Bill in your Lordships' House, and will
886
have due regard to the views which are expressed here. The position remains the same now, and no views can be expressed on behalf of the Government either in regard to the noble Lord's Amendment or in regard to the Bill in general.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

FOREIGN POLICY: MR. EDEN'S RESIGNATION.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON rose to call attention to the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government and to the circumstances under which the Foreign Secretary resigned his office; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I express my regret that my right honourable friend Lord Snell is unable to be present to-day; it is on that account that my name is attached to this Motion. We have been exhorted in all quarters in connection with this matter to treat it in a realistic way. We were exhorted by the Prime Minister in another place to get away from the shams and pretences that in his opinion still cling to the Covenant of the League of Nations. We are told that we must deal with this great matter in a strictly businesslike way, and not allow ourselves to be led away by the influence of any ideals we may entertain. I think myself that no apology need be made for entertaining ideals, and that, as a matter of fact, it is not good business to abandon them. I am quite sure that as soon as humanity abandons its ideals it will be on the high road back to the jungle. But I will endeavour in the remarks which I have to make to your Lordships' House to adhere as closely as possible to the advice which was given to us and discuss this matter in terms of various realities that belong to it.
The first is that the Prime Minister has felt himself obliged to open conversations with a foreign Power, Italy, in a manner that is against the advice of two colleagues in the Foreign Office, who have in consequence resigned. Without a doubt the Prime Minister clearly is within his rights in so doing, but it is an inauspicious beginning. The second reality is of a more serious character. This happened at a time when the Foreign Secretary was being abused in a singularly virulent way, by broadcasts and otherwise, by the agencies of the very Power with which it is proposed to negotiate. The noble

887
Marquess, Lord Crewe, the other day recalled to us a somewhat similar incident, where a Foreign Secretary had been dispensed with at a time when he had been assailed by a foreign potentate. Well, the sequelæ of that event in 1905 are not at all encouraging for its repetition. I am sure that most of us, to whatever side we belong, when one of our prominent citizens in a position of this kind is attacked, are all disposed to sink our differences and rally together, and to refuse to be dictated to by outsiders. It is a deplorable event, I think. How far-reaching the consequences may be one cannot say, but at all events it is a fact, and it is a reality which attaches to this case which is of an exceedingly unfortunate character.
The third reality to which I will invite your attention is that, so far as we can tell, France is not to be a party to these conversations. France has been informed that they may take place, but it is clear that the French Government are not closely in touch with the agenda that is being prepared, nor, so far as is indicated, will it be kept in touch particularly with the negotiations, because we were informed in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber the day before yesterday, in reply to M. Flandin, that if Great Britain reached an agreement, France might consider negotiations in the same spirit, which clearly indicated a distinct separateness from these negotiations. France is clearly very closely concerned in any agreement that may be come to with Italy. It is true that the communications from east to west along the Mediterranean are vitally important to Great Britain, but from north to south they are not less vitally important to France. France, after all, is our close associate—perhaps the word "ally" is not proper—in the arrangements now prevailing in the Mediterranean. I would ask the noble Viscount who will reply whether it is proposed to conclude an agreement, if one can be concluded, without France being a party to it or without the concurrence of France in its main essentials. If he is not able to give a reply in the affirmative to that simple question, it raises a very dangerous situation. At all events, it is an unpleasing reality that these one-sided discussions on matters so closely concerning the life of our chief friends on the Continent are to be
888
separately conducted. It is, I suggest, an innovation of a risky kind.
The next reality which I would ask your Lordships to consider is the statement of the ex-Foreign Secretary in another place to the effect that the ground had not been prepared for these negotiations. Those were his words. As an experienced Minister, he very properly deplored negotiations being entered into unless the ground had been properly prepared. It might easily be the case that owing to lack of preparation the negotiators might find themselves in an impasse, in which case it would have been better if they had not been started. It is to be hoped that we shall not have a repetition of the farce of the World Economic Conference, which was called with great acclamation a few years ago and was a failure mainly because the ground had not been well prepared for it. The late Foreign Secretary, I see, went so far as to say that in his opinion, in these circumstances, with this lack of preparation, with this lack of surety as to the character of the agenda that was to be discussed, he was fearful it would undermine the foundations on which international confidence rests. He wanted to have some assurance better than mere words as to what would be likely to happen. He said, in effect, that we had had soft words and good promises before from Italy and had been very disappointed. I hope the noble Viscount will tell us why the Government have embarked on this series of negotiations without adequate preparation. I take it that the noble Viscount will not dispute the accuracy of the statement which Mr. Eden has made.
The ex-Foreign Secretary based his case for more detailed preparation upon another reality which I shall ask your Lordships to consider. We have had fifteen or eighteen months of the Non-Intervention Committee. It has been, I am sure, to the late Foreign Secretary and to the noble Viscount a disappointing experience. At all events, it has been a succession of evasions, delays, and subterfuges. All the time, while General Franco has continued to be supplied, the Government of Spain has been denied its right under International Law to supply itself. But Mr. Eden based his demand for something specific in advance by way of surety upon two other realities. He said there had been an Agreement in

889
January, 1937, between ourselves and Italy as to various matters relating to the Mediterranean and Spain, and he added that "within a very few days" of the signature of this Agreement, "indeed almost simultaneously, the first considerable consignment of Italians left for Spain." He said that this consignment was perhaps not actually out of accord with the letter of the Agreement, but it was with its spirit. "Almost simultaneously"—in other words, before the ink was dry on the document, a considerable consignment of Italians was sent to Spain!
Then Mr. Eden went on to say that, notwithstanding the promises of friendly behaviour, hostile propaganda against this country was "scarcely dimmed for an instant." When ordinary people conclude a friendly arrangement, it is, so far as I know, unusual for one of the parties to go about abusing the other, and it is something new in international behaviour —let us hope it will not last long—for one party, having concluded a friendly agreement, to try to make all the trouble it can for the other in every part of the world, not by subterfuge, but openly by broadcast in every language in which it can constitute itself a nuisance. However that is what Mr. Eden said happened "almost simultaneously." The second ground of the demand that some material guarantee should be forthcoming before these negotiations were entered upon related to what is described as the "gentleman's agreement" of the summer of 1937. This agreement seems to have been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It was called a "gentleman's agreement" because it does not appear to have been committed to writing like the other one was. At all events, there ensued the incidents in the Mediterranean with which the House is familiar—that is to say, the piracy, the attempted sinking of British ships; and everybody knows that the submarines with which General Franco was equipped had been supplied by Italy. This is the only occasion on which His Majesty's Government have called the "super bluff." They decided to act, and it is the simple and gratifying fact that piracy ceased as if by magic. But at all events, after these experiences, the Foreign Secretary, it seemed to me, very rightly demanded that we must have something better before
890
we entered upon negotiations for another agreement.
I now come to another reality of the situation—namely, the present position. I was never able to understand the policy of the Government in promoting the Non-Intervention Committee, except on one hypothesis, and continuing to allow it to drag its weary length along in this futile manner all these months. The hypothesis, I can imagine, would be, that always in the course of history every nation which started meddling in the internal affairs of Spain has sooner or later regretted it. I think that is historical truth. Therefore you might well say that His Majesty's Government may take the view: "Well, give them rope enough and they will regret it." There is some justification for that, and it is the only conceivable reason why this policy should have been allowed to be pursued, because nobody will accept and believe that His Majesty's Government want to hand over the Balearic Islands or the Straits of Gibraltar to anybody else. So it is a conceivable explanation and it has justification in the existing facts.
What are the existing facts? Affairs in Abyssinia are not going very well for the Dictator. You can poison these poor people with gas, but you cannot make them grow corn. It appears therefore that the produce of Abyssinia is lagging badly behind, and so far Abyssinia is a bad investment. The enterprise in Spain is apparently very unpopular, too, amongst the Italian people. Then, the other day, we had a later exhibition of difficulty in what has happened with regard to Austria. There is no talk now of men being sent to the Brenner Pass. There is, on the contrary, the fact that the Italian Dictator happened to be away on a ski-ing expedition when Dr. Schuschnigg tried to call him up on the telephone. And what has happened may conceivably happen in the South Tyrol later on. All this has had to be received with acquiescence. It betrays a very weak position. But one thing at all events is certain, and that is that Mussolini is very short of cash. He is evidently in serious difficulties with regard to cash. I understand it is very difficult even to discount some Italian commercial paper in the City, their credit is so poor. I am quite sure that if His Majesty's Government propose, as part of this agreement, to let them have some money, it will be received

891
with a storm of opposition in this country—by a sort of slogan: "We won't lend him a bob for guns instead of butter," or something of that sort. It is very extraordinary, in view of the difficulties in which this Dictator finds himself, that this moment should be chosen, when these are the circumstances that have caused all this upheaval and all this embarrassment, to come to the assistance of this embarrassed Dictator.
With regard to the conditions insisted on by the Foreign Secretary I would ask two questions. I do not presume to be a business man myself; I am just an ordinary sensible citizen; but here are two questions which are proper, I think, to this issue. Is it good business to open negotiations without any sort of effective guarantee of good faith with a party who has consistently violated his contracts in the past? It is an appropriate question. There can only be one reply to that—"No." The other question I would like to ask is this. Is it good business to lend money to one whose word is trusted by none and whose credit is nil, and who may use the money for providing armaments to fight against ourselves, or in any case for spreading misrepresentations about us all over the world? There can be only one answer to that, too. I expect it was considerations of this kind that very properly were in the mind of the Foreign Secretary, and he ought to have been supported. It might be magnanimous to lend money to a person under those circumstances. It might be described perhaps as a piece of sanguine idealism to hope that by that action you would help him to reform his character, but it could not by any conceivable stretch of words be described as good business.
However, there is a worse reality attaching to this case than the embarrassments of the Head of the Italian State, and that is what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons the other day as to his views on the condition of the League of Nations. I will quote the governing sentence to your Lordships:
"I believe that if the League would throw off shams and pretences which everyone sees through, if it would come out with the declaration of what it is prepared to do and can do as a moral force to focus public opinion throughout the world, it would justify itself."
NOBLE LORDS: Hear!hear!
LORD ADDISON: Well, has the Prime Minister made any effort? His Government is one of the chief Members of the League. He is in a position to make the effort. He is in a better position to make the effort than anybody else. Has he ever made an effort to create the League as a moral force to focus public opinion throughout the world so that it may justify itself? Have the Government made any proposals of any kind to this end? I myself believe, after the experience we had in this kind of organisation during the War, that it would be perfectly practicable and possible for nations like ourselves and France and some others to make arrangements which would make modern war at all events increasingly difficult. But have the Government ever made any suggestion? The Prime Minister deplores the impotency of the League, but it is an impotency which is largely created by the conduct of the British Government. He said later on that he wishes to retain the League, but he treats it with contemptuous disregard, and I think that if the view of the Government is that suggestions can be made to make the League an effective instrument we are entitled to ask that the Government should make them.
There is another reality. There are only two others to which, quite briefly, I will ask your Lordships' attention. Who is pleased about all this? There are only two Powers that are pleased about it, and they are the Dictator Powers. They are very pleased. The only two Powers that are pleased over this business are those that use the prison, the concentration camp and the bludgeon as the way of producing uniformity among their citizens. They are the only two Powers in the whole world, as far as I can see, that are pleased about this business. Who are dismayed? Our friends, evidently, all over the world, and the small nations particularly. They see Great Britain entering into these unilateral conversations likely to bolster up a Dictator, if they have any success at all. They see encouragement, to use the late Foreign Secretary's words, of those who practice the "successive violation of international agreements and attempts to secure political decisions by forcible means." They see the hopes of a better order and of some better safeguard which they had entertained by, if you like, a reformed Covenant shattered—shattered by the

893
leader of a great nation who is in a better position than anybody else to make suggestions hr making the League of Nations Covenant more effective.
I think there is only one conclusion to this matter, my Lords. However it may be stated in words, in practical effect the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter is to try to placate its enemies by abandoning its friends. That is what it comes to. Well, some of us have known that sort of procedure adopted by individuals, and happily it has usually had unfortunate consequences for its promoters. I have never known that policy to succeed if adopted by a nation. I suggest that this is not a policy of realism. It is not good business. It is short-sighted expediency, grasping at the advantage of a day, to the destruction of confidence amongst its friends and the destruction of hope for a better security for the future. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think on this occasion it is appropriate to express a personal view rather than to take what may be called a Party view. In what I propose to say I have not endeavoured in any way to consult my noble friends on these Benches. I think your Lordships will agree that the circumstances in which the resignation of the Foreign Secretary took place are almost wholly deplorable. It took place at a moment when Herr Hitler was about to make a very important utterance following on some dramatic and anxiety-raising incidents in connection with Austria. It is not yet time, I think, to assess the responsibility as to why this event which the last speaker described as deplorable took place at that particular moment. But I think your Lordships will agree that it could not have taken place at a more unfortunate moment or have produced more unfortunate effects, both on public opinion in England and on public opinion in the rest of the world.
But I do not share the view which has been expressed by the last speaker that the division of opinion was merely on what you might call the technique as to whether or not it was desirable to open conversations with Italy before receiving assurances. It seems to me that the division of opinion really went much deeper and that that is what is going to appear, more and more in the light of events. The fundamental conflict at issue was 'whether the Foreign Secretary's
894
approach to international affairs or the new approach now initiated by the Prime Minister is more likely to achieve the object which both have in aim, the peace of the world. The Foreign Secretary's approach, I think, may be described, not unjustly, as approximating to the orthodox League view of the situation. The Prime Minister's approach approximates to the view, which has increasingly won ground in this country, that the orthodox League view no longer corresponds to the realities of the world, that so far from promoting peace it is likely to promote war, and that therefore this country has got to face international politics with greater regard to realities and less regard to theories and clichés which once had a meaning when the League had something like universal membership but which have far less meaning to-day.
If I may judge, not so much from my noble friend's speech this afternoon as from the Manifesto which was issued this morning by the Party of which he is so distinguished as ornament, the Labour Party's policy goes a good deal beyond even the orthodox League view. May I just read one critical passage:
"The British Labour movement reaffirms its uncompromising opposition to any agreement with either Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany on the basis indicated by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament. This is not the time for concessions to the dictators. We need a clear declaration that Britain stands for the enforcement of treaties against lawless force and against aggressive interference in the internal affairs of independent States. Czechoslovakia in particular should be assured at once that Great Britain and the other League Powers will fulfil their obligations to maintain her integrity and independence."
That declaration, to my mind, is far more an anti-Fascist crusade than the traditional attitude of the League as an instrument for bringing the nations together and for minimising, instead of emphasising, differences. It leads inexorably to the arraying of the world into two great alliances, and it seems to me that it must result in the end in the triumph of either universal Fascism or universal Communism.
The Manifesto says that we, with other League Powers, should assure Czechoslovakia that we mean to stand by her. That seems to me to raise the very issue which, as I think, has humiliated this country so often in the last few years.

895
If we mean to fulfil that promise, are we prepared to take the only means by which it can be fulfilled? That is the question I should like to address to my noble friend. If we mean it, there is no possible way by which it can be fulfilled without the adoption of national service in this country, and a far more serious conscription of labour than has yet been attempted. We made these promises to China, we made them to Abyssinia; we are now, apparently, invited to make them to another nation. But is the Labour Party prepared to go to this country and invite the country to take the only measure by which it can possibly fulfil that promise? It is more than a question of opinion, because, as everybody knows, the Labour Party is the one Party which decides this issue. Nothing of this kind can be done against the opposition of the great trade unions and the Labour Party. Therefore the decision whether this proposed promise means anything or not rests mainly on the Labour Party. To that extent I think the Prime Minister was courageous and honest when he raised that issue about Article 16, and I want to know whether the Labour Party are willing and able to make effective not only these assurances which are slung about so freely on platforms, but the measures for fulfilling them, which are, as I see them, very far from being adequate to-day. The last thing I want to see is damage to Czechoslovakia, though I cannot help feeling that the present President of Czechoslovakia, by his unfaltering refusal during the critical years to make any concession to Republican Germany, is not wholly irresponsible for the dangerous condition in which his country stands to-day.
The real issue—though we shall presumably know better where the late Foreign Secretary really stands on these points after his speech on Friday—is whether we are to go on with what I might call the League orthodoxy, that is the orthodoxy as preached by the League of Nations Union. I ventured only last week to say that the fundamental reason why collective security has failed is that the League has been unable to do collective justice. My own view is that the failure of the League is in large measure a moral
896
failure. It has failed because it has put peace first and justice second, whereas in point of fact justice is the only condition upon which peace can rest. The fundamental reason for the trouble which we are in is the treatment which has been accorded to Germany in the years after the War, especially during the period when she was a Republic, especially since the day when any impartial reading of the evidence, which rapidly accumulated, as to the origins of the War, rendered quite untenable the thesis that Germany was alone responsible for the War.
Begin, if you like, with the Treaty of Versailles, the justification for which is that at any rate we did not know the facts, as we were living in an age of war-time propaganda. But the Treaty of Versailles has become the law, and when people have said that the function of the League has been to maintain the reign of law, they have meant in practice the maintenance of the Treaty of Versailles. I do not think that anybody supposes to-day that that Treaty can be made the base of the reign of law. Yet the League had no means of modifying, or at any rate was quite unable to modify, its essential feature: the unilateral discriminations against Germany in the matter of armaments and the fact that she was obliged to keep her Western frontier unprotected and unarmed. The invasion of the Ruhr was declared by this country to be a violation of the Treaty. We hear a great deal of the violation by Herr Hitler of the Treaty because he returned his own troops to his own frontier. You hear much less to-day of the violation by which the French Army, with the acquiescence of this country, crossed the frontier in order to annihilate German industry and in effect produced the present Nazi Party. I will not expand that thesis, because I have argued it before, and I do not think there are more than a very few people left in the world who do not deplore the failure to come to terms with Germany long ago.
The result is that you have to-day a Totalitarian Germany, very formidable, very dangerous, and it is the existence of that Germany which governs the whole international situation to-day, because without it neither the Far Eastern situation nor the Mediterranean situation would be difficult to handle. That, in my view, is largely due to what may be called the orthodox League view: that peace comes

897
by declaring that no change shall be made anywhere in the law—in the treaty system—except by consent, and that it is the duty of this country to uphold that view by economic sanctions or, in the last resort, by war all over the world. The reason why we failed in Abyssinia was that we were still engaged in trying to deny any measure of justice to Germany. At that time I was in favour of going further than most of your Lordships. I shared the view taken by the noble Viscount who speaks for the League of Nations in this country: I thought we ought to close the Suez Canal at that time, and said so publicly at the elections. But the reason why we were unable to do so was that Europe was more concerned with keeping Germany unilaterally disarmed and with preventing her from defending her own frontier than with anything else. That was what hamstrung the League at that time. Again, it is Totalitarian Germany, which we created, which presents us from dealing with the abominations now going on in the Far East.
Another result of that policy of saying that no change may be made anywhere except by the consent of everybody is that you have produced the Anti-Comintern Pact, which some people regard as directed against Russia and others regard as directed against the British Commonwealth. The final result of that policy is that we stand dedicated to the principle that Europe must remain in perpetuity an anarchy of twenty-six nations until they can agree to form a federation. I think personally that while the ideals of the League, about which the last speaker spoke so eloquently, are as true as ever they were, sooner or later mankind has got to get together in a world organisation; an organisation which is able to do justice as well as to give collective security; an organisation whose members in order to do that must be willing to part with some measure of their national sovereignty, without which it cannot do it. But the reason why we are in our present difficulties is that we have pursued this so-called League orthodoxy in defiance of the realities of the world as it exists to-day.
If there is criticism to be made of the policy of the late Foreign Secretary, it is, I think, that during the last two years he has not made a more serious effort to carry out the policy to which the
898
Prime Minister is now committed: of trying by every means in his power to explore the possibility of arriving at an all-round settlement of Europe and of preventing this alignment of the world into two great alliances which we see increasing every day as we read the newspapers. I therefore support the Prime Minister and the Government—though I have been no very friendly supporter of their policy of the last year or two—in their attempt to break through this miasma which has misled the nation, as I think, and in their endeavour to see whether by a serious attempt, without regard for minor technicalities, an arrangement cannot be made which will save Europe and the world from a repetition in a worse form of what befell it in 1914. That is the real justification. For the last two or three years we have been drifting steadily in the other direction. Let us at any rate try to-day, before it is too late, whether we cannot do better by a frank conversation, frankly facing the difficulties, with all the great Powers of Europe, instead of saying that there are certain untouchables with whom we will not discuss things at all.
But I confess that, because of the delay, I think the task which the Prime Minister and the new Foreign Secretary —whom I am glad to congratulate, as he sits on these Benches—is not going to be an easy one. I remember what was, I think, the dictum of the late Lord Salisbury, that foreign policy must be related to the strength which you can bring to bear in support of it. So long as nations are sovereign nations, policy which does not bear relation to the strength which you can bring in support of it must inevitably lead to humiliation and disaster. And I think that is equally true of the League. If the League is going to succeed, even in collective security, it is going to be because it can mobilise irresistible superiority at the point where it is prepared to act. From that point of view the League has never recovered from the withdrawal of the greatest single Power in the world, the United States, when it rejected the proposal to adhere to the League.
I think the principal difficulty in dealing both with Germany and Italy—and in my view you have to deal with both on an equality; any attempt to separate them will only lead to disaster—the real

899
difficulty is that when you have reached the present stage of relationships there is really no half-way house between friendship and hostility. If you consider the Mediterranean, Italy can do such damage to us, and we can do such damage to Italy, that unless we are agreed, unless we can get back, perhaps on new terms, to the old relationship between Italy and this country, confidence and permanently friendly relations are going to be very difficult. Everything that Italy does is a cause of suspicion to us, and everything that we do is a cause of suspicion to Italy. I do not believe there is a halfway house between genuine confidence and friendship and hostility. Therefore it is not mainly a question of detail, it is a question of the fundamental approach. And I think that is equally true about Germany also. I do not believe that you can solve this European question without taking some steps—I will not attempt to envisage what they are—towards the integration of Europe itself. The idea that Europe with twenty-six sovereignties, economic sovereignties and military sovereignties, can be kept long at peace is fantastic and absurd, and if there is to be integration, that integration, it seems to me, must be created by the main military Powers, the strongest Powers in Europe. It is a very difficult question, but I believe it goes to the root of the problem which confronts us.
There are, I know, two different ideas about the so-called dictatorships—though I notice that my right honourable friend never referred to the third dictatorship, which also practices some of the methods which he so much deplored. One view is that these dictatorships, at any rate the Fascist dictatorships, have in great measure arisen out of the pressure, economic and political, which has rested upon their people. They are the product rather than the cause, and you will not be able to deal with them without removing some of the causes which have produced them. The other view, I know, is that they are dominated by what you often hear referred to as "gangster Imperialists," only concerned with establishing their dominion over the world. Now I frankly take the first view. I believe that Herr Hitler, in particular, genuinely wants peace, but he is going to be a difficult person to deal with as to the terms upon which he is going to
900
agree to peace. I believe that if we can approach the problem in the right way it is not yet too late. We have postponed these discussions far too long, and we are, to-day, pretty nearly at the eleventh hour.
And now a last word. I do agree with the Foreign Secretary—but I do not think there is any difference on this point between him and the Prime Minister—where he said that in these negotiations you must proceed from strength and not from weakness. I do not see any evidence that Mr. Eden resigned for the same reason that M. Delcassé resigned. That is an inference which it was not perhaps wholly unnatural for the foreign Press to draw, because Herr Hitler's minatory speech was made on the same day, though the two events were quite unrelated. But I cannot see any evidence that it is true. The real difference, as I have ventured to point out, is a difference as to the approach to the problem of European pacification. But, having said that, I am convinced that unless we not only are prepared but are morally united and determined, the negotiations will go ill with us. It is negotiation from strength, and not from weakness, which alone will produce peace in Europe.
That is why I support the action of the Government in opening negotiations which, as it seems to me, is following the precedent of a great Foreign Secretary for whom I have great admiration—Sir Edward Grey, who never failed to enter into negotiations on every possible occasion, if only because he was certain that, unless he had explored every avenue, if disaster ensued he would not have a united country behind him. But I hope that this difference of opinion will not be driven too far so as to divide this country and to present the picture of a divided country to other countries, because in my view there is no fundamental division in this country. I think this country wants peace. It is willing to allow those in authority to explore any avenue towards getting it, but I think it is growingly determined that it will fight rather than yield to undue pressure, or give away things which it thinks it improper to give away. And if there is to be a division, it ought to be about the terms of the proposed agreement, and not merely on the technical way

901
in which the discussions take place. For that reason I am prepared to support the Government in the proposal that a new attempt should be made to explore the ground as to whether a basis of peace in Europe can be found, without thinking too much about the technical questions, important as I admit that they are, on which so much stress was laid by the noble Lord who moved this Motion to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, you have listened with satisfaction to the speech which has just been made by the noble Marquess. One feels that, with his knowledge of foreign affairs, he has given us a speech of great value, and one in distinct contrast to the gloomy forebodings of the noble Lord who proposed the Motion. I would ask your Lordships to grant me indulgence for a few moments while I make one or two observations on that Motion. I have not had the honour of addressing your Lordships for some considerable time, although there have been many debates on foreign affairs, but I have somehow felt that I was not altogether in sympathy with the actual position which the Government seemed to be adopting, and I felt it would be much better on those occasions to leave criticism to those who desired to criticise the Government for other reasons perhaps than the actual question of foreign affairs. I do feel, however, that in the speech which the Prime Minister delivered in the House of Commons earlier this week we are approaching to what I would call a realistic review of the whole of our foreign policy. That, I think, is what the country wants, and I am sure that if we go to a Division this evening your Lordships will support that point of view. If I may venture to say so, I have thought that cur foreign policy was rather standing still, if it was not drifting in a dangerous direction. In times past we have believed in this country that it was right and beneficial, one might say, to adopt a policy which had nations guessing, so that no one knew exactly what line Great Britain would take; but it is necessary to have a two-Power-standard Navy if we are to adopt a policy of that kind, and I believe that the sooner we can come down to practical international politics the sooner we shall make progress on the lines that we desire to follow.
I see very little difference in the Motion which the noble Lord has proposed
902
and the Motion which was moved in the House of Commons. An incident has been used for that Motion of Censure—an incident which has had very important consequences. It has had unfortunate consequences in my view, because I feel somehow—although my right honourable friend the late Foreign Secretary must know his own business best—that it was that incident which led him to think it was necessary to sever temporarily his connection with the Government. It is not for me to enter into that matter. We are all masters of our own consciences, and do what we believe to be right. I do not say that I have always found myself in agreement with the late Foreign Secretary, but he is an old personal friend of mine. Moreover, I was associated with him at Geneva on many occasions, and I know his remarkable ability and capacity, and I most sincerely hope that this temporary eclipse, this leaving of active life, will not be of long duration, and that soon he will be able once more to give his admirable talents to a service in which he has achieved so much, and in which I am sure he will achieve a great deal more. But misfortunes are not always solely misfortunes, and I feel that I may congratulate the noble Viscount who has become the Foreign Secretary. No one is more qualified than he to perform these arduous duties, and I can assure him, on my own behalf and also I believe on behalf of most of those sitting here, that he will receive the fullest support in the great task which lies in front of him.
The attack, if I may venture in this House so to call the Motion on the Paper, has been brought forward, if I may say so, by the same people who have attacked the Government on other matters. These attacks come in a different form. I hardly think the merits of the question are uppermost in the mind of the noble Lord. I think he believes that the Party to which he belongs could manage our foreign affairs better than the National Government manage them. No doubt there would be a wide measure of disagreement on that particular point in this House. That is the Party which has attacked us, and I say "us" because I was a colleague of the noble Lord a short time ago. That is the Party which is responsible for the state of unpreparedness in which we found ourselves. It was the continual task of members of that Party to attack the Government because they said the

903
Government were warmongers, and that their policy was war; but when we remember the position which this country had reached, so aptly described by Sir John Simon as the edge of risk, I think your Lordships will consider that the indictment put forward by the Party opposite came from the wrong place, and one feels that one can discount to a large extent the attacks from that quarter.
After all, what is the main object of our foreign policy? The main object is the establishment and the maintenance of peace, and in the speech which the noble Lord opposite delivered I did not hear him state very much about peace—I may have missed it at the beginning—hut he confined himself to matters which in my judgment are of the smallest importance compared with the great question with which we are confronted at the present moment. I feel that the policy in which I believe will be a change from the policy of drift which we may say we have embarked upon at different times, and that we shall go ahead and restore that confidence throughout the world which sometimes we have seemed to lack. I believe that now we may be standing on the threshold of an era in which we shall be able to establish peace throughout the world.
The main object of this Motion which has been brought forward is in connection with Italy and the difference of opinion that there seems to have been as to whether the time was or was not opportune for certain conversations to take place. Is it necessary that we should stand on what I might almost call small points of punctilio? Is it not necessary that we should understand Italy, and that Italy should understand us, if by that understanding we can make some contribution to the maintenance of the peace of the world? I wonder whether the noble Lord would like this simmering difference of opinion to go on. This country is great enough to take action to put an end to the differences of opinion between us. The rulers of other States are in a far more difficult position than the Prime Minister in this country, and I would venture to explain what I mean. After all, they are not resting on systems of government which have stood the test of time, and which will support them and carry them through. They cannot afford to be magnanimous,
904
as we can, as a great country. One therefore feels that if upon this small point of procedure we had refused to enter into conversations, we might be delaying that great movement towards bringing all the nations and peoples together, and particularly those great nations upon whom the peace of the world depends.
As your Lordships are aware, I have endeavoured in the same direction to get a closer and stronger understanding with Germany. This is not the time to go back into past history, although perhaps I may be allowed to say that there have been occasions on which that understanding could, with available contact, in my judgment have been brought about. I think that it could probably have been done some few years go when Germany was emerging from defeat and from privation, both of which we have never suffered, and was endeavouring to the best of her ability to regain her equilibrium. I always think it was due to an act of mistaken policy of this country that we never extended the hand of friendship to Germany. It was due to that European policy that the present Chancellor, Herr Hitler, came into being. He was determined to raise his country to the level which he believed it was right she should reach, and he began feverisly rearming. At that time very little notice was taken of rearmament. No assistance was given to Herr Hitler until we found ourselves confronted, as we do now, by a Germany to a large extent rearmed but probably not so powerful as many people think; faced with innumerable difficulties at this moment, but able to treat, if they desire to treat, on different terms to those on which they would gladly and willingly have treated with us a few years ago.
I am not a pessimist. I do not feel that the moment has been missed. I am quite sure we can come to an understanding with Germany and with all these countries in Europe if we go about it in the proper way, in a realistic way, determined to do what we can, and knowing what we want to do. I welcome the visit which the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, paid to Germany a short time ago. I am not one of those who desire to derogate from the authority of Ambassadors. Our Diplomatic Service is one of which we have every reason to be proud. In different parts of the world it is carrying

905
on the great task of maintaining the prestige and high traditions of this country, but I believe that at this time we want something more definite and more forcible than that. I know how difficult it is to understand other people's point of view, and I do not believe nations can understand the points of view of other nations unless they have these personal contacts by which so much can be clone, so many of the smaller prejudices swept on one side, and the great idea we have in mind can be enlarged upon and methods shown by which it can be arrived at. That is why I have always been in favour of what is called the Four-Power Pact, with Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany coming together with one term of reference—namely, the maintenance of peace. If these four countries could consent to give out to the world that they are in favour of no more war, there will be no more war. I am quite sure that the sooner we can approach the question from this realistic and actual point of view, the sooner will the nations of the world believe in its and realise that that is the moment in which their fears can be removed and their suspicious can disappear.
We had all hoped that this could be achieved by the League of Nations. I am one of those who strongly support the great conception which underlies the League of Nations. It came into being after the War when a lassitude existed throughout the world, when everybody felt that something must be done, that some organisation must be framed so that there would be no more war. One cannot blame the original authors of the Covenant because it was impossible for human capacity to understand and realise the difficulties which were bound to ensue after the War. The League of Nations was formed and, as the Prime Minister emphasised in his speech, it became a phrase, a cliché, and all those great Powers who were the League of Nations, or ought to have been the League of Nations, on whom the strength of the League of Nations depended, one by one left the League, and we still have a collection of phrases and clichés which mean nothing whatever. Out of this Four-Power understanding in Europe I want to see a greater and more powerful League of Nations develop, and I believe that is how it can develop. If we put all
906
our efforts forward and support the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in their policy, knowing these two men as we do, and their desire to maintain peace and their determination to establish it, I believe we can look forward to the future with confidence.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, I shall not occupy your attention for more than a very few moments, but I am most anxious to contribute to the discussion on this subject because I feel each one of us, whatever may be his normal associations, is under an obligation to speak frankly when a situation of this importance occurs. I realise perfectly well that the few words I shall address to your Lordships' House must inevitably cause distress to many of those with whom I normally associate in the discussion of foreign affairs in this House. I do not wish to make any substantial contribution to the wider issues of foreign policy which lie behind this Motion. I wish only to make direct reference to the resignation of Mr. Eden and also—which is more important—to the determination of the Prime Minister to break through the tangle of Europe at this moment with a courage which I should be false if I denied in this House. A great deal has been said with regard to Germany, both by my noble friend Lord Lothian and by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry. I listened to those observations with regard to Germany with the greatest possible interest, but, if I may venture to say so, though partially relevant, they seemed to me somewhat irrelevant to the question of Italy which we ought to be discussing in this House this evening.
When Mr. Eden announced his resignation, it came as a shattering blow to the nation. Mr. Eden had become a symbol to almost every section of opinion of fidelity to the principles of the League and of practical wisdom in putting those principles into operation. His passing from the position of Foreign Secretary at this moment is unquestionably a disaster of the first magnitude. None the less, I am bound to confess that, though I have read with the utmost care every word that has been spoken in the debates in another place, I do not fully appreciate the precise reason, so far as it has yet been expressed, which led to the resignation of Mr. Eden. It may be that within the course of the next few hours Mr. Eden, in addressing his constituents, will

907
make clearer than he has yet made the reasons which have led him to resign, but it does seem to me that the particular point which he has made as to whether we should impose conditions before we enter upon an attempt to reach an appeasement with Italy is an insufficient reason for so serious a step at so critical a moment.
I earnestly hope—and I submit this to the noble Viscount who will reply to this debate—that, as the discussion of this resignation reaches to the four corners of the country, we shall not find that what was given out as a resignation on the subject of British-Italian negotiations is going to turn out to be a resignation due to a decision on the part of His Majesty's Government to give up faith and confidence in the League of Nations. I raise that point with the utmost frankness in the presence of the noble Viscount so that he may reply to it in the debate to-night, because the Prime Minister, when speaking in another place, did make a speech which certainly contains sentences which have led to the greatest apprehension, so far as many sections of the country are concerned, as to whether this change of policy in relation to Italy is going to be followed by a cessation of the belief of His Majesty's Government in the League of Nations. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will use the opportunity to dispel what I am myself confident is not true.
Now may I make a reference to the position of the Prime Minister who, in my judgment, deserves the support of the whole nation. The Prime Minister looks at Europe, and what does he see? He sees an increasing growth of anger, ambition and danger. He sees an increasing deterioration. Many reasons can be given for that. We can go back, if we so desire, to the Treaty of Versailles itself, and we can point to that Treaty as the source of many of our present troubles. My noble friend Lord Lothian, with whom I always find myself tilting, says that the reason, or one of the reasons, why that Treaty of Versailles was as bad as it was, was that we had not all the evidence before us at the time when that Treaty was made. I venture respectfully to differ from the noble Marquess, as I have done before. It seems to me that the evidence was then available, and men like Mr. Keynes and many others at that
908
time and not twenty years afterwards saw the evidence as it then was and made their protest in the hope that that Treaty might not be made as bad as it became. If my noble friend was not perhaps as watchful as others at that time, and not perhaps able to see the evidence as it might have been seen, well he must take the responsibility for that and not place it upon the evidence itself which existed at that time.
But, quite apart from the Treaty of Versailles, there has since that moment developed deterioration. The League of Nations has failed to revise that Treaty through the various Governments which compose it, as those Governments could have revised it, and there has now come to Europe a neurotic disease of anger and ambition. And then we have had from Italy, not, if I may say so, exclusively from the vanquished Powers, but from Italy, one of the victorious Powers, a series of most disgraceful acts of aggression which we cannot overlook at this particular moment of time. Out of this tragic situation has come recrimination and accusations of bad faith; and into all this Russia has cast a new difficulty which arises from a technique of stirring up revolutionary propaganda across her frontiers inside countries which ought to be co-operating around the League table. That is the situation which the Prime Minister sees in Europe to-day. And what does he say?
He says, as I understand it: "You cannot deal with the situation by continuing stage by stage the long-drawn-out series of normal diplomatic manæuvres which would be suitable to a Europe where that state of tension had not been created." He, therefore, does not desire to stop the operations of the Non-intervention Committee; he does not desire to overturn any of the ordinary efforts that are being made to carry forward the work of the League. What he does say is: "I will try, under these exceptional circumstances, to break through the tangle by direct effort towards appeasement in the belief that if I bring an unconventional attitude to bear upon a condition which is chiefly temperamental I may perhaps secure more immediate results than would be achieved if I continued to work along the normal lines of diplomatic activity." That, as I understand it, is the position to which the Prime Minister has come, and I for my part believe, whatever

909
may be our differences of the past, that we owe it to the Prime Minister to give him our support in trying to discover whether that particular effort may not after all be successful.
May I now narrow this generalised discussion to the particular point at which it would appear the breach between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary occurred? If I understand the situation accurately, it was this. The Foreign Secretary said that, having regard to past experiences, having regard to bad faith in the past, knowing the point of view of the nation that we are dealing with, it was imperative that before we enter upon these new peace discussions there should be certain preliminary conditions agreed to. As I understand the Prime Minister's answer, it was this: not that he does not want any conditions, not that he is prepared to negotiate an agreement which shall have no form of guarantee when it is ultimately constructed, but simply that, having regard to the position of Europe to-day, he would rather enter upon those discussions with a completely free hand and bring in the conditions for guarantee of the agreement at the end rather than attempt to do it at the commencement. If I may venture to say so, I believe that the Prime Minister represents accurately the needs of Europe by taking that line at this present moment.
But that does not mean that there are not to be any conditions when agreement has been discovered. What, on the contrary, we may discover is this, that the mere process of the art of negotiation in a new spirit of friendliness may itself contribute to the concluding of that agreement which could not otherwise be arrived at. If you start upon a discussion of the kind that must now take place with a nation in the mood in which Italy is today, or with Germany in the mood in which she has been allowed to grow up, beginning by the insistence upon some kind of condition which implies from the first that you are in the mood of suspicion, you cannot create the conditions out of which good will may come, and which, if that good will could come, might make agreement possible and the details far more valuable for the ultimate welfare of Europe. Thus, as I understand it, the Prime Minster is under no delusions as to the difficulties of his task. He is under no delusions that it will be
910
necessary, when an agreement has been negotiated, that there shall be some form of guarantee whereby the bona fides both of this nation and Italy can be proved; but he is prepared at this moment to try to break through all these wearisome tangles of suspicion and recrimination and see whether the path to peace may not thereby be advanced. Europe at this moment needs the strength of the peacemaker every bit as much as the strength of the lawmaker, and I would bid the Prime Minister and the noble Viscount God-speed in the efforts they are now making towards that end.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the events of last week, which meant the resignation of a British Minister, have undoubtedly had repercussions all over the world far more than any event in recent years. I think the circumstances which led to that resignation are important, but it is quite clear that we have not got the whole story, and I do not suppose we shall ever have it. My noble friend on tile Cross Benches (Lord Allen of Hurtwood) just now gave his explanation of it. I do not think that his explanation, which I have seen elsewhere, is sufficient to explain why the Foreign Secretary took such a drastic step as resignation at the present moment. He did not do it lightly; he did not do it frivolously; he did it with great and deep conviction, as everybody realised who heard his speech in another place. He referred in his speech to a former occasion. Mr. Eden said:
"Within the last few weeks upon one most important decision on foreign policy, which did not concern Italy at all, the difference was fundamental."
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House approved a formula last week regarding people acting on parallel lines. He said that parallel lines do not meet and therefore do not clash. May I remind the noble Viscount that Euclid is out of date? In any case, Euclid could never be applied to human affairs. In this case parallel lines with the same object in view did meet and did clash.
It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that the Prime Minister, who ought to have been in the very closest possible contact with so important a colleague as the Foreign Secretary, should have been quite unaware that there was any difference of opinion, and that in his

911
own words he should have been completely taken by surprise. I do feel that that requires some further explanation, because it shows such an amazing relationship between two important Ministers, who should be, day in and day out, acting in the closest possible contact, so that the Prime Minister should have been aware not only of the convictions but of the methods, of the ideals, of the policy of his Foreign Secretary. It appears he was not. I do think that that gives us some idea of the bungling for which the present Government and Cabinet and Prime Minister are responsible, and I hope it will be a lesson for the future. As I listened to the Foreign Secretary making his speech I felt great sympathy with him because I have appreciated—and I have said so in your Lordships' House more than once—the persistent, patient endeavours he has made, the time he has spent in efforts with one object in view, and the great skill shown in his diplomacy. There are no such things as spectacular successes of diplomacy in these days. Let us get that out of our heads. He worked hard, and he deserved well of his country.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: But, my Lords, it was only last week that I ventured to address the members of the Government on the Front Bench opposite and to tell them that they were not in favour of collective security. I asked, why did they not say so? At last the Prime Minister has said so, and shown the views of his Cabinet. I was very glad to see in the Prime Minister's speech a passage of which I very strongly approve. He said:
"We must not try to delude ourselves, and still more we must not try to delude small, weak nations into thinking they will be protected by the League against aggression and acting accordingly when we know that nothing of the kind can be expected."
May I very humbly venture to remind your Lordships that only last week I said, emphasizing a point made by my noble friend Lord Arnold:
"I am very glad my noble friend emphasized the chief point about collective security … which is that it raises the hopes of the smaller nations. … It is very unfortunate and wrong that hopes of that description should be raised."
912
I find it embarrassing when I am right so often.
In embarking on this new approach I think the Prime Minister is absolutely right. It is no good going on cold-shouldering nations who have forms of government differing from ours. It is no good abusing those nations. I think on the whole it would be more correct and better if, in our language in politics over those two countries, we did not talk of Italy or Germany but talked of Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler, because there is a considerable difference. I myself hope very much that that difference will vanish in the future. But so long as we have got Signor Mussolini to deal with we must not be surprised or annoyed when certain actions or expressions are used by him. Only recently it is reported that he said: "Il leone Britannico a perduto i denti," which means that the British lion has lost his teeth. That is very offensive, but on the other hand I do not agree with a policy where the British lion is always snarling at Italy or Germany and showing his teeth. I think that the Prime Minister, by setting aside punctilio, by showing that he is going to initiate a new method, by trying to come to terms with what is at present the most difficult of the countries of Europe we have to deal with, is showing practical common sense.
I think he has driven the last nail into the coffin of collective security. Collective security is not a policy, as the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, said just now, but is a phrase, and it has been a very dangerous phrase. I am glad it is cleared out of the way. Even looking to the distant future, when the League may be reconstituted with all the nations included in it, I do not for a moment think that that will ever be done or that it will ever be effective if force is going to be the basis of the League, because I do not think you are going to maintain peace by war or correct international relationships by diabolical modern machinery of destruction. So long as the policy is cleared out of the way at the moment I am glad. I feel that there is a new hope and a desire for pacification. But we must not throw up our caps too soon. We must have patience. We cannot expect quick changes in the world to-day, and just as we are trying in one quarter to improve matters very often it happens that in another quarter our hopes

913
are shattered and we have to begin all over again. I do riot want to detain your Lordships. I only wanted to express my individual view, different from that of my noble friend who set down this Motion, and very, very different, I can assure your Lordships, from the Manifesto that has been published to-day.
May I in conclusion commit an indiscretion? No appointment has yet been made of a Foreign Secretary. I would say that in the troubled world of to-day I know of nobody who would be more likely to introduce into international intercourse a spirit of conciliation and good will, coupled with a jealous regard for his country's best interests; I know of no one with a more upright attitude, in defence of truth and justice based on his own conspicuous proved integrity, than the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, who leads your Lordships' House. I hope very much that that appointment will be made. The Prime Minister will make a wise move in doing it—and I, my Lords, shall again be right!
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has expressed his embarrassment at being so often right. May I express my embarrassment, not for the first time, that, having regard to our several antecedents, I am ninety per cent. in agreement with him!Happily he said something about the inutility of force which, if recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will enable me to dissociate myself from him in the future. I cannot say that I remember any occasion on which I ever supported the Government with greater conviction than today. That, I may say, is not from any affinity with Italy, nor from any admiration of the Italian Government. All my natural prejudices, if not exactly Nordic, are at any rate Cisalpine, and I am quite insensible to Italian art and the Italian climate which appear to affect so many. Also I think that in the years 1935 and 1936 it was not only our right but it was our absolute duty to try the policy of sanctions out until its failure became manifest.
But what is the issue to-day? It appears to me that the Opposition to the Government base themselves on the principle that you must not do business with the ungodly. That attitude strikes me as reminiscent of a Puritan mentality; though certainly it was not practised by Crom-
914
well, and if the Independent Clergy of that day had sought to press it upon him he would have given them very short shrift. But consider what, if the Opposition had had their way, the Foreign Office would have had to say to Italy. They would have said: "We wish to talk to you; we realise that we ought to talk to you; but we will not talk to you until we have put you under probation for a period." Such an attitude, such language, might be appropriate to instructions given by the Secretary of State for India to the Viceroy to pass on to some Pathan clan, but it is utterly and wholly inappropriate to use in dealing with any great Power. It is not only inappropriate as a matter of decorum, but perfectly hopeless as a matter of procedure.
I would ask this question also: What of Japan? The time may come when you will want to have talks with Japan. Are their sins less in the opinion of the Opposition than those of Italy? Are you going to use the same language to them? The case has only to he stated, the question has only to be asked, to be answered in the negative. The truth is that an attitude of this sort is impossible in human relations, whether personal or international. It is quite true that there are examples of circumstances in which a protest may be made—such, for instance, as our refusal years back to recognise for a time the regicide Government of Serbia. Sooner or later, however, if you have a Power in being, you must recognise the facts and deal with them in some way. I think that many of my stalwart Conservative friends would not shrink from sitting at the other side of a table with Mr. Stalin—at any rate if he would so far oblige them by coming as far as Warsaw, because it might be a little uncomfortable in the Kremlin!
I see two dangers in the present situation, and one of them is what I may call a Departmental autarchy. It is natural enough in all Departments, but perhaps it is especially to be found in Departments like the Admiralty and the Foreign Office, which by reason of the secrecy of their business or equipment are largely sheltered from the ordinary blasts of popular criticism to which other Departments are subject, that men who thoroughly know their subject should resent supervision by others outside. But it does not follow that the best and the

915
greatest knowledge implies the best judgment, and it may well be that on great issues, apart from detail, the judgment of the outside layman is far better than any other. And, of course, no Prime Minister can rely solely on Departmental advice, even if it is backed by one of his own colleagues. His responsibility cannot be taken away from him. It exists in war. If a Prime Minister sees patent failure by generals in the field, it is not only his right but it is also his duty to intervene. If he sees the ship of State being navigated into dangerous waters in time of peace, equally he cannot shake the responsibility off his own shoulders. I think it is a fine renewal of the ancient doctrine, which, of course, it is physically impossible to carry out fully in the present day, that a Prime Minister's supervision extends to all the Departments of his Government.
Now I think there is a second and a greater danger, and that is what I may call enthusiasm in blinkers. God forbid that ideals should be despised. But the idealist pursuing his ideal must not look only before him; he must also look to the right and to the left. Undoubtedly I agree that the policy, external and internal, employed by certain arbitrary Governments has aroused a great wave of indignation which, if often misdirected, is certainly genuine. But what does it all lead to? There is talk about the formation of a democratic bloc. But it is often said that that will include both America and Russia; America, which notoriously will not come in, and Russia, which is anything but a democracy. But in so far as that policy is pursued at all, we have some lessons from history as to what its results will be. In Greek history every State was divided at one period into oligarchs and democrats, and revolutions were fomented against whatever party was in power with a view to forming a wider alliance. The only consequence of that was the fatal weakening of Greece and the domination, first of Macedon and then of Rome.
I cannot help thinking that the present position has a great similarity to what I remember in 1898. Then Russia had given great and justifiable offence and there were many indignant with the line that Lord Salisbury took in not pressing those differences to a point where he would have risked war.
916
But he took a broader view than merely those differences with Russia. He knew that we were sooner or later to make the conquest of the Sudan, and the clouds were darkening in South Africa. He wisely withstood the turmoil, and he was justified by the strength of the country when it met with the dangers that followed in the years that came after. But at that time, as now, there was a large body of people in this country who, in vulgar terms, were simply spoiling for a war. The charge has been made of want of courage against the Government, and particularly in reference to the Prime Minister. To anybody who knows him a charge of personal want of courage is, of course, quite ridiculous. But it may be said that courage differeth from courage in glory. The risks that may be taken by the motor cyclist may not be taken by the driver of a coach or a train full of human beings, or by the captain of a great liner, still less by those who have to steer the ship of State in troubled waters. To risk life and career an individual is brave; for a ruler to incur great public hazards for a sufficient cause after weighing the cost is braver; but the highest courage is that of a man who does that which is right though it involve him in the charge of acting under fear, and that courage the Prime Minister has shown.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I, like all your Lordships, have listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down, and he will, I hope, forgive me if I do not attempt to follow him in the details of the argument which he has presented to your Lordships. The main question which has been raised in this discussion has been the resignation of Mr. Eden. I do not propose to say very much on that subject, because it has been discussed with great elaboration in another place, and a great deal has been said about it here. But I do agree with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby that I do not think we have yet realised the full case that has induced Mr. Eden to take the very decided step, and a step that quite clearly was very much against his own personal interest—though I do not suppose that would weigh with him—which he has taken. I am quite sure it is an entire misreading of the situation to suppose that, whatever may have been the actual dispute which immediately pre

917
ceded the resignation, that was the real underlying cause of what has taken place. I regret to say that I can now look back on more than half a century of acquaintance with public life, and during that period a great number of resignations have taken place. I believe it would not be an exaggeration to say that not one of them has been due to the actual cause that was at the moment assigned for them. I believe myself that an observation of the late Duke of Devonshire really sums up the whole psychology of resignation. You will remember that when there was some dispute over the Irish question, the then Lord Hartington said: "I came to the conclusion that Mr. Gladstone and I did not mean the same thing." That is always the cause of resignations.
What the actual differences were between Mr. Eden and his colleagues we shall perhaps know something more about to-morrow or after to-morrow. We do know that he has said in so many words that he was unfortunately conscious that the Prime Minister and he did not look at these problems from the same point of view. That is the real thing which produces resignations. I can only say that, having a very great admiration for Mr. Eden, though I have not always had the extreme honour of agreeing with him, having great confidence in his prudence as well as in his judgment, I am perfectly satisfied that the issue, when we come really to understand it, will be found to be something much larger and much more important than the actual question of the exact conditions under which a negotiation was going to be entered into with Italy.
May I say a word to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian? He thinks the issue was as to whether there should be negotiations with these Powers or not—an issue between the orthodox League view, as he put it, and the new view which he attributed to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether I could ever convince my noble friend that he wholly misapprehends the League of Nations. It is utterly untrue to say that the League of Nations is against negotiations. On the contrary, the whole conception is that there shall be full negotiations whenever there is a difference of opinion between Powers. That may take any form that is convenient. It may be a negotiation within the Council of the League, or it
918
may be negotiation outside it. It is only in the rare case, as we hope, of its being impossible to settle a difference by negotiation, and consequently of one side or the other resorting to war, that the Articles which occupy so much of the attention of my noble friend come into operation at all. I have no criticism to make on his view that it is desirable that there should be negotiations to settle outstanding differences between us and any Power. The question of whether they should be begun, and under what conditions they should be begun, is a very difficult matter to settle, and personally I should find it extremely difficult to differ on that point from a statesman of the experience and the judgment of the late Foreign Secretary and, I understand, his Under-Secretary also.
I venture to urge upon Lord Lothian that he is shutting his eyes to what is really going on in Germany. It is as plain as it can be. The issue is not at all as to whether you shall settle things by negotiation or not. Nobody disagrees on that point. The issue ultimately, and when you come to look at all Herr Hitler's speeches and Signor Mussolini's speeches, is—Are you to go in for international cooperation, or are you to go in for settlement by armed force by each nation according to what it thinks right? That is the issue. I was very much interested in a telegram to The Times this morning from its correspondent in Berlin. He says that at first the attitude of the Prime Minister was received with great enthusiasm—I have got other evidence about that which I will mention in a moment—but now there is a great deal of disappointment because the Prime Minister has made some kind of obeisance to the League idea, and this is the striking commentary:
"England deceives herself if she thinks that in German eyes the moral status of the League is any higher than its legal status."
That is the real attitude that prevails in Germany, and not only to the League. Herr Hitler has withdrawn not only from the League but from other international organisations in which Germany was engaged. He would not permit the clergy to attend the meetings that took place at Oxford and Edinburgh during the autumn because they were international. That is the attitude of mind, and it is a perfectly well worked out attitude. He says the

919
State is everything: you must not control the State, you must not even criticise the State. And to say that it should be put under any kind of international control or influence—that is the highest form of political heresy.
I think it is really very important to realise the facts of the case, because I agree with my noble friend that we ought to aim at the union of Europe. I think his conception that you have a prospect of anything like the physical or constitutional union of Europe in the near future is baseless. I wish it were true, and I would not cease to work for it, but I see no prospect of it. And particularly I see no approach to any doctrine of that kind from either Germany or Italy. That is not their conception at all. I noticed a rather ominous phrase in my noble friend's speech, in which he said that perhaps the right thing would be to get rid of all these small countries and absorb them in other great countries. I think that is a correct interpretation of what the noble Lord said.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: It is a correct interpretation of what I said on other matters, but not on this point.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am greatly relieved to hear it, because it filled me with the greatest anxiety. I will not say any more about it. I believe you will never get union in Europe except on the basis of peace and the supremacy of law, which can be the only basis of justice and therefore ultimately leading to union.
That is all I desire to say about the actual resignation. It would be impertinent for me to express in any detail my admiration for the late Foreign Secretary, or for his successor, which is certainly not less, but I trust your Lordships will not think, if I omit that duty, it is because I do not feel great admiration in both cases. Where I am really disturbed is over the speech of the Prime Minister. That is the thing which really does alarm me. I thought Lord Ponsonby was perfectly right when he claimed the Prime Minister as the latest of his converts—I think truly. The Prime Minister has adopted almost verbatim what Lord Ponsonby said the other night, although I do not think it is proof that he is right. I have known too many
920
Prime Ministers to think they are always right, but it is perfectly true that that has been done. I cannot be elaborate over this, but here I have his very precise statement:
"If I am right, as I am confident I am, in saying that the League as constituted to-day is unable to provide collective security for anybody, then I say we must not try to delude ourselves, and, still more, we must not try to delude small weak nations, into thinking that they will be protected by the League against aggression and acting accordingly, when we know that nothing of the kind can he expected."
I do think that—if I may be allowed to say so—from so distinguished an official, a most reckless thing to say. Even if I thought it I would not have said it if I had been Prime Minister—at least I hope I would not.
Here are these small nations now threatened. Austria is actually in the grip of her powerful neighbour. I met a gentleman just back from Austria, and he told me that you cannot exaggerate the deep depression which is felt in that country, and the deep indignation against us and France and other countries for having left them in the lurch, alone to face their powerful and aggressive neighbour. We know, for we have read the English translation, which was so very much expurgated, of the recent speech of Herr Hitler. There he speaks of ten million lost Germans, and of three millions in Czechoslovakia, and he made no secret of his intention to have them all in his grip. Yet here comes the Prime Minister and says: "You may make certain that you are not going to be protected by the League or by anything of the kind." It is almost equivalent to an invitation to Herr Hitler to go on, because he may be sure that he will not be interfered with by anybody.
I pass rapidly over the proposal which the Prime Minister makes. It is, in effect, to abandon Article 16, and all the other Articles that provide for coercive action. I know it is said that it is very different from abandoning the League, but that was not the view of Germany when the news first came. I am careful to quote from an absolutely impeccable source. I quote from the Daily Telegraph and Morning Post where it says:
"Germany's pleasure at Mr. Chamberlain's statement of British foreign policy is reflected in the German Press to-day by such headlines as 'Chamberlain strikes a hammer blow: Geneva is finally smashed,'"

921
That is the view which has been produced in foreign countries, and not only in Germany but in friendly countries also. I confess there is a smaller matter which I must mention but which rather disturbs me. If I understand the Prime Minister's proposal, it is to leave Article 16 as binding formally upon us, as it is now, but never in fact to act up to it. To ignore it. I think that is a dangerous doctrine and a dangerous way of dealing with treaties. If you are not going to carry out treaties the proper course is to take steps to get rid of them, or to get the assent of other parties to them before you take such action as this; but to say,, because you dislike one provision of a Treaty, that you will not carry it out, but will leave it as it is, is a very unfortunate and dangerous attitude.
There is another point. Here is this proposal to get rid of Article 16 and of the coercive action under the League—not in certain cases but always, and to rely upon moral force, which the Germans have already explained will mean nothing to them. I do venture to submit this to my noble friend. I hope he will not think I am unduly partisan in doing it. This is a complete change of the attitude which the Government adopted when they presented themselves at the last Election. I have here the Manifesto issued by Mr. Baldwin. Of course I remember it, but I have looked it up. He says:
"We shall therefore continue to do alb in our power to uphold the Covenant and to maintain and increase the efficiency of the League. In the present unhappy dispute between Italy and Abyssinia there will be no wavering in the policy we have hitherto pursued. We shall take no action in isolation, but vie shall be prepared faithfully to take our part in any collective action decided upon by the League and shared in by its Members."
That seems to me utterly and entirely inconsistent with the announcement of the policy which the Prime Minister has made on this occasion. If I am wrong, nothing will give me greater pleasure than to be assured that the plain and clear meaning of the Prime Minister is something quite different.
I have already said all I have to say, except to conclude. I am all for peace, of course. We all are. I do not believe you will get peace either by running away from the Dictators or by running after them. Your only hope of getting a peaceful settlement is to formulate what
922
you regard as a just and proper action in accordance with your treaties, whether they be the Covenant of the League of Nations or any other treaty, and press that to the utmost extent, always being ready of course to negotiate with anybody who thinks there are grievances which can be remedied in some other way. I cannot believe that a policy which even appears to be dictated, I will not say by fear, but by something very like fear, will ever succeed. We have this awful Austrian precedent before us. It is quite evident that that precedent, if it is carried, as I have no doubt it will be carried, to the full extent of the absorption of Austria, can be applied not only in Czechoslovakia but in several other countries. There are "lost Germans" in many other countries. Once you admit the doctrine that because a country is big and because it can threaten smaller countries, therefore there is no reason why it should not absorb those smaller countries, there is no limit to what may be done.
I know the suggestion is made by my noble friend [the Marquess of Lothian]—I have heard him make it over and over again—that we have ill-treated Germany in the years after the War. I know there were a great many things done both at Versailles and afterwards which were very unfortunate. I protested strongly against them at the time. To the utmost of my power, which was not much, I urged that they should not be insisted upon, but they were insisted upon. But I do utterly reject the view that Germany has had a number of grievances to which we have paid no attention. I cannot go into the details of that question; I leave that to Government speakers if they desire to do so; but over and over again we have made concessions to Germany. As for disarmament, I agree most fully that if we had pressed much more strongly for disarmament than we did something might have been done. It was not the fault of the League. So far as the League was an entity, it was ready to consider disarmament. Nor was it the fault of that bugbear of my noble friend, the League of Nations Union. It pressed for disarmament over and over again. It drew up a scheme for disarmament which was adopted by the International Assembly of League of Nations Societies, and they pressed it in the strongest way. I was

923
myself sent to Geneva, and was allowed to address the first meeting of the Conference. Some scheme of disarmament, I am confident, could have been adopted if we had not raised all sorts of nonsense about bombing and all the rest of it. That is the great achievement of my noble friend Lord Londonderry, which he described as keeping the British Air Force and all the rest of it. If we had not adopted that kind of attitude, the thing could have been done. I am confident we could have got some preliminary system of disarmament.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not know what the noble Viscount is referring to. Could he explain to what he is referring?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I would rather withdraw than explain it at this stage.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is a very important point.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I could not explain without going into considerable detail. But I thought it was generally accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the noble Viscount wishes to find the answer to his question, to what I know he is referring, he will find it in the News Chronicle to-day.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am very glad my noble friend reads the News Chronicle. It shows a sign of grace.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The News Chronicle.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, the News Chronicle—a very good paper. But whether that be so or not, I am convinced we could have done more. I am convinced it was not our fault, as far as I may speak for the League of Nations Union, that that was not done. I am most anxious that we should reach settlements on all these questions. I am quite sure that people are right in saying that some, at any rate, of them could be settled. But if it be true, as Mr. Eden has alleged—and I see no reason to doubt it—that without first asking the Italians to carry out existing promises, if, as I am afraid is perfectly plain, unintentionally though it may be, in the face of violent
924
newspaper attacks on Britain and on Mr. Eden personally, both in Italy and in Germany, we took action which involved his resignation, then I am quite sure it was not only the kind of thing I dislike any British Government doing, but it was not in the interests of peace or the settlement of disputes.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, I feel very diffident in following the experts who have spoken and saying very much about foreign affairs, but before I start to give a few of my humble views I would like to say a word or two about the noble Viscount who has just spoken. There is one small point I feel I must make, and that is that the noble Viscount seems to prefer the judgment of Mr. Eden and Lord Cranborne to the judgment of the whole of the rest of the members of the Cabinet. I have always thought the noble Viscount was a great democrat. Apparently he has gone over to the side of the dictators, because he prefers the judgment of one man to the judgment of nineteen or twenty others. That does not seem to me to be in conformity with his usual views.
Regarding his statement that you will not get peace if you run away from dictators, I do not know whether he believes we would get war by running into them, and probably quicker than by running into a country which is not governed by a dictator. He made one other remark about a union of nations in Europe. It is true to say that Herr Hitler's ideal is to a certain extent a union of nations composed of people who are of German stock. Therefore, one of these days, if we can get Herr Hitler and his proposed union of nations into the League of Nations, we shall have increased the number of Members far more considerably than it has been increased in the last few years. I do not want, especially being a very new and humble member, to appear facetious, but I would like to suggest that the League of Nation Union might have a new motto for the future which might be that great poem, "Half a League, half a League onward." It might be said that it is hopeless going on with only half a League, because you will probably end up with no force behind you and you may end up in war. I would like to express the view that half a League is better than no League because you can build up on that

925
half a League. It is, however, hopeless to disregard the unrealities of the moment and call them realities, as the noble Lord who introduced the Motion did.
I have spent, as many of your Lordships have done, considerable time during the last two clays in the rather cramped place permitted to us listening to speeches in the House of Commons, and I have never been so pleased to be a member of your Lordships' House as I was during those two days. Some of the speeches which were made there were not only foolish from the point of view of the makers, but highly dangerous from the point of view of Europe. I was very sorry indeed to hear the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Lord Cranborne, call the action of the Government not a contribution to peace but a surrender to blackmail. Coming from one who has recently been in a responsible position in the Foreign Office, if this action is described as a surrender to blackmail, it may be taken outside as knowledge which will be construed very badly all over Europe.
Then we had Mr. Churchill, who said that opportunities had always been missed by every Government, except perhaps the Governments which he was in himself, and he said, therefore, we must miss this present opportunity. I once heard Mr. Gandhi make a statement in a Committee room when I was in the other place. He said: "We want the British Army in India because it no good." This almost seems to me the reasoning of Mr. Churchill. Perhaps both of them have ulterior motives. Perhaps Mr. Churchill wants to remove some members of the present Cabinet, and perhaps Mr. Gandhi wanted to remove the British from India altogether, but their arguments do not seem to me sound. We then had the return of Mr. Lloyd George from the South of France. I am not going into his speech except to say that I think it was very dangerous. As one member of the House of Commons said, he was doing his well-known rogue elephant turn.
I am not going to say any more about the other place except to recall that the Minister for Agriculture said that foreign affairs would be all right if it were not for the foreigners. But I think we have to put ourselves in the position of foreigners I have said these things so
926
as to come to the point of Mr. Eden's resignation. It is absolutely certain that we in this country do not always realise what foreigners think, and during the last few months it has been apparent that there has been a tremendous lot of propaganda against the late Foreign Secretary from Italy. I think it is almost natural that that would be so. I am not going into the question of whether sanctions were right or wrong, but when you have the Foreign Minister of a great country initiating at Geneva all the sanctions and all the other motions against Italy it would be very surprising if Italy did not resent it. I cannot help feeling that the fact of the late Foreign Secretary having resigned will make Italy take an entirely different view of this country. I have heard it stated this afternoon that in order to do what one might call a business deal with Italy you must have conditions first. I have a certain slight experience for my age in business matters, and I find that you can never get good will in any one if you impose such conditions first that they will not talk business at all. I feel quite sure that the judgment of the vast majority of the Cabinet on that point is entirely right.
Reverting to the subject of Mr. Eden's resignation, he said that there was a divergence of outlook and approach. He also said that Italy was not an isolated issue. He said, as was quoted by one noble Lord opposite, that on another subject the difference was fundamental. Now ever since the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to Signor Mussolini last summer, and ever since the noble Viscount the Leader of this House went to Germany for his hunting expedition, I have felt, and a great many people in Great Britain have felt, that something was wrong, and that the views initiated by these two events were not being followed up. To take the quotation in regard to parallel lines, I think it is probably true that the present policy of the Prime Minister and the policy of the late Foreign Secretary were on parallel lines, but going in opposite directions, and having gone a good way in one direction the time had come when it was obviously impossible to carry on with these two divergent policies.
The second thing I would like to say, although I have no knowledge to this effect, is that I think it is probably true that if the Prime Minister and his colleagues

927
laid down a certain policy, that policy was perhaps not being carried out quite in the way that it should have been by the late Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office. I think if a man has a shoot and tells his gamekeeper to go and drive a certain wood a certain way, and that gamekeeper drives the wood so that he sends the pheasants back over the beaters instead of over the guns, he will riot be considered a very successful agent. I am quite certain that to have a policy carried out in this country you must have, as Mr. Eden himself said, a Foreign Secretary who has a similar outlook and wishes to pursue similar methods to those of the Prime Minister. I, therefore, say quite unreluctantly that I welcome, almost as much perhaps as the Stock Exchange did yesterday, this change. I think the unrealities of the League and the non-carrying out of the Prime Minister's policy have made it absolutely necessary to have a change.
From the point of view of Germany and Italy, it is quite true to say that they have welcomed the change. Even those in command of parishes in this country sometimes find that some of their parishioners will not go to the Church in the parish, and when they have been asked why, they have said: "Because we do not like the vicar." It seems to be quite possible that one of the reasons why these countries would not have an agreement was that they did not like our Foreign Secretary. I greatly welcome, therefore, the temporary appointment of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. I do not intend, after the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to make him blush, but I would like to say that Germans with whom I have conversed have told me that Germany as a whole was very honoured that he visited them. I am quite sure we will find that the relationships with Italy and Germany in the near future, and in the future, will be very different from what they have been in the past. I only wish to say one more thing, and that is that I believe implicitly in the policy of the Prime Minister and in the policy of the majority of the Cabinet, or, if I may say so, of all the Cabinet at present, and I am quite sure that we shall go ahead and get a satisfactory, reasonable and lasting peace in Europe. I believe that we shall look back to this last week with relief and
928
gratitude that the Prime Minister has taken the strong and very excellent and able line which he has taken.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, it is with some feeling of anxiety and apprehension that I intervene in the debate this evening, but as one who is engaged from day to day in international trade it is possible to feel a little of the pulse of foreign affairs, and I trust your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments. There is no doubt that the foreign policy of this country has been confused not only to ourselves but to the nations of Europe, and I welcome any attempt to consolidate our aims and steer a course that may ultimately lead to a peaceful solution of our difficulties. The Government in their Election Manifesto gave their full support to the League of Nations in its present form, and the Party which the noble Lords opposite support contend that the Government have no mandate from the country to make a new orientation of foreign policy. Surely, in the shifting sands of foreign policy, it is the duty of a Government to lead and make any alterations to their policy that they think fit.
No Foreign Secretary, I suppose, has ever in time of peace had such terrible responsibilities as our late Foreign Secretary, and he has borne them with courageous devotion and loyalty, but all of us realise that it is for the Prime Minister to decide policies on great issues. I am sure we all deplore the circumstances that have arisen to cause the resignation of Mr. Eden, but I cannot help feeling that if a postponement of this crisis had been possible we should in due course have received from Italy all the assurances we required by force of economic circumstances. I trust that we shall make a level deal with Italy, and that the present position will not cause Signor Mussolini to put his price up and perhaps even then default. The Prime Minister has taken a very courageous course, which will be beset by many difficulties, and it behoves all of us to support him to the utmost of our ability. There is no doubt that temporary damage has been done to our prestige abroad, but the ship of State is now set on a new course. Let us repair the breach in her bulwarks and make our policy so strong and direct that no nation can misunderstand us.

929
Already there are welcome signs; trade has been given a new fillip, as any one can see by reading the financial Press yesterday and to-day. I hope that our new policy may lead, as was mentioned by the noble Marquess, to the formation of a Four-Power Pact between the great nations of Europe which perhaps in turn may one day lead to a European Council of State. The old names and dogmas are dead—let us give them a decent burial. It will be remembered that a similar pact was signed in Rome on January 15, 1933, by Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy. The four Powers contracted within the framework of the League and it was owing to this that the juridical value of the pact was lost. Let us see if a new pact can be formed without the old limitations, and build up a new edifice of mutual understanding amongst the great Powers of Europe. I hope we may see the principles of the van Zeeland Report embodied in an economic agreement between the nations, and that Europe may return to its former sanity in trade and outlook. I would, however, make one reservation. The Prime Minister has said that a great and powerful country can afford to be magnanimous. Let us beware of a situation that may come upon us in which this country may be faced with demands that no country in our position could accept. I trust that if and when this situation does arise our policy will not be "Peace at any price" but "Peace with honour."
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I wish to offer a few remarks in an endeavour to put the point of view of the Party for whom I will speak as briefly as possible. I should like to be allowed in the first place to refer to something which fell just now from the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. The Party to which I belong do not want to see economic collapse in Italy. That will do no good at all. We have no quarrel with the Italian people, and we hope that means may be found to prevent economic collapse. We are so interlocked to-day in trade that disaster of any kind in any country must have wide repercussions. Italy is a good customer of this country, and it is not our wish to pursue any quarrel of that kind with her. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, if he will allow me to say so, shocked me very much indeed. He seemed to contradict the statement made by his friends
930
in another place that the late Foreign Secretary's resignation had no connection whatever with the fact that he was persona non grata in certain foreign countries. I would venture to remind him that the Roman legions were withdrawn from Britain—I have noted the date for greater accuracy—in the year 411 A.D. Since then we have not taken our orders from Rome, and we have no intention of taking orders from Rome.
LORD BROCKET: We have not taken our orders from Rome at all. We have taken our orders from this country, not from Rome. I think it is rather unfortunate, if I may say so, that the Foreign Secretary's resignation should take place at this time. I only said that we have to look at things from the point of view of foreigners occasionally to see what they think about these things.
LORD STRABOLGI: It was a deplorable thing for the noble Lord to say. We are not going to take orders from Rome, and if this or any other Government attempted to do so I believe people would censure them, whether the noble Viscount or any other of His Majesty's Ministers is Foreign Secretary. One other observation of the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, I think was very typical of the Party to which he belongs. He said that we could not enter negotiations with conditions, and he quoted his important business experience to support that view. But we refused to negotiate with Russia over a trade agreement—my noble friend Lord Ponsonby will remember it, because he was Under-Secretary at the time—until propaganda ceased. I think I am right.
LORD BROCKET: Has it ceased?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, of course it has. Certainly propaganda has ceased. The noble Viscount who leads the House is for the time being in charge of the Foreign Office, and I should like to offer my personal sympathy with him. It will be our duty here to assist him in every way—I speak for my noble friends on this side of the House—with suggestions and helpful criticism, although of course it will throw a greater responsibility upon the thin line of the Opposition than before. May I try to make clear what is our present quarrel with His Majesty's Government? The seriousness of the situation is not so much the resignation of Mr. Eden—I myself feel that he should

931
have resigned many months ago—but it is the change in policy outlined by the Prime Minister in his recent speech. The General Election of 1935, won by the Party opposite, was fought largely on support for the League of Nations. I do not wish to go over the ground so admirably covered by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I was at Ipswich in the recent by-election there, and my friends told me that the Conservatives were fighting largely on the cry of Eden. Mr. Eden was their man. He was the man they were quoting as showing that the Government were still faithful to the ideals of the League. If this resignation had occurred before the poll at Ipswich the Labour majority, instead of being over 3,000, would have been one of five figures. Noble Lords opposite occupy those Benches because the 1935 Election was fought on the policy of supporting the League of Nations. Now they have gone back on their pledges. They have made a radical change of direction in British policy, and we think that that is most serious.
Another cause of our quarrel with them is this. During the last year in particular, as no one knows better than the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, the Italian Government have promised again and again to do certain things, or to refrain from doing certain things, in Spain. The Italian Government have not done those things or have not refrained from doing those things. I am informed on good authority that munitions and aeroplanes are pouring into Spain from Italian ports. As the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, is now responsible, for the time being at any rate, for the conduct of foreign affairs, may I ask him if he will allow me to turn his attention to that fact? At this very time, when we are about to enter into negotiations which can only have a meaning if they mean certain concessions to Italy, financial loans or other help to Italy, or favours to Italy, against the promises of the Italian Government, munitions, aeroplanes and heavy artillery are pouring into Spain in support of the rebels. The propaganda has for the time being stopped, but there is no sort of guarantee that it will not begin again and, as has been said, become rife all over the world.
May I also be allowed to say this? It is only a very few days since British
932
merchant seamen in the Mediterranean were murdered on the high seas. By whom? Who supplied those aeroplanes? Who piloted those aeroplanes? They came from Italy. There is no secret about it. The submarine campaign in the Mediterranean which was stopped by Nyon was conducted by Italian submarines. I do not say they were manned by Italian crews; I do not know; but I do say Italian submarines, because the rebels had no submarines and they could only have got them from Italy. Whether they were commanded by Italian officers or manned by Italian crews I do not know, but the submarines responsible for these disgraceful murders on the high seas were Italian, and our complaint is that this breaking of pledges and this false faith have continued. That is what we feel so very strongly about.
We also feel very strongly, of course, on the whole circumstances of this resignation at a time when the Foreign Secretary who has just relinquished his office was being so bitterly and, as we thought, so unfairly attacked in the State-controlled Press of two dictator nations. For the time being the Leader of your Lordships' House holds the great office of Foreign Minister. I do not know if he is persona grata in Berlin and in Rome. I hope he is not. I do not want a Foreign Minister of England who is persona grata in foreign countries. I want a Foreign Minister who is persona grata with the great mass of the people of these islands. I want a Foreign Minister, if I may be allowed to say so with great respect to the noble Viscount opposite, who will not only work for peace but also prevent foreigners from fooling us. I only hope that if he is attacked he will be supported. I can promise him that if he stands up for this country—I can speak for my noble friends on this side of the House—we shall certainly not embarrass him, but we shall support him, and resent any such unfair attacks as have been levelled at his predecessor.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, as being in temporary charge of the Foreign Office, it falls to me to answer a debate that has ranged over a wide field, on the Motion of the noble Lord opposite, and in which fiction and fact have from time to time been blended. It would be less than human on my part if I did not at the outset express the

933
gratification of His Majesty's Government, at a time of sharp and rather painful controversy, at receiving from several different quarters of the House the valued support that has been made evident in the debate this afternoon in weighty and reasoned speeches from the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, my noble friend Lord Londonderry, the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Allen of Hurtwood) and my noble friend behind me, Lord Rankeillour; and last, but by no means least, the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ponsonby. One of the matters that must no doubt have left its mark upon your Lordships' minds has been the remarkable contrast that has been exhibited in this debate, as it was, I am told—though I believe it is not strictly in order to refer to them in detail in this House—in debates in another place, between the great veneration, almost, displayed now for the person and policy of my right honourable friend Mr. Eden, the late Foreign Secretary, by the noble Lord and those who agree with him, and the opinions that they held about him only a short week or ten days ago, to which they were giving expression on most platforms in the country. I have among my notes endless quotations of what leaders of the Labour Party were saying about Mr. Eden a week or ten days ago, pouring every contumely upon him. I have no doubt that Mr. Eden will have sufficient good sense, as most of your Lordships will, to appraise the value of the new commendations that have so generously come his way.
Although the debate has ranged fairly widely, I should be failing in my duty if I were not to say something in this House, as has been said in another place, about the actual facts of these unhappy events. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that as far as lies in my power he will be getting the whole story. It was, as your Lordships know, on the tenth of this month that the Italian Ambassador conveyed to His Majesty's Government the earnest desire of the Italian Government to inaugurate these conversations that had been suggested in July, 1937. The whole Government, including Mr. Eden, were agreed that the policy of an inauguration of conversations was in itself desirable. As I pass, may I answer a question addressed to me by the noble Lord who moved the Motion? He asked me whether we contemplated
934
the conclusion of an agreement without France being a party to it. I think, if I understood him correctly, that in asking that question he was perhaps under some misapprehension. It has never been in contemplation, either between ourselves and the Italian Government or between ourselves and the French Government, that this agreement with Italy, when we reached it, should be other than an Italo-British agreement. It has never been contemplated that it would be a tripartite agreement. The noble Lord will, of course, readily realise that the result of a real agreement relieving the tension in the Mediterranean would be welcome to no nation more than to France, with whom we have on several occasions freely discussed the policy of this matter and with whom, of course, we shall throughout all our conversations keep in the closest contact and work in the closest co-operation. That is, however, perhaps by way of parenthesis.
In the course of the exploratory conversations that the Foreign Secretary himself was holding, he made it plain that Spain and propaganda—two subjects to which allusion has been made this afternoon—were grave obstacles to the possibility of an agreement, as was, of course, Abyssinia. It was upon that basis that Mr. Eden saw the Italian Ambassador again, with the Prime Minister, on Friday morning last, and it was only after that interview that a sharp difference of view between the Prime Minister and Mr. Eden manifested itself. The difference, I think, has been quite fairly stated this afternoon. Perhaps I may shortly put it as I see it, as indeed I did try to do a day or two ago. Shortly put, what the Prime Minister considered should be vital conditions of any agreement that issued from the conversations, Mr. Eden considered should be conditions precedent to the inauguration of the conversations themselves; and it was, as Lord Allen, I think, said, on that immediate issue that Mr. Eden resigned his office.
Now let me make this observation, from which it will be clear how the matter presented and presents itself to myself and to my colleagues in the Cabinet. Once the policy of conversations had been accepted, as it had been by Mr. Eden, and once the acceptance of such a policy had been made known to the other party—namely, Italy—as it had

935
been made known by Mr. Eden, and provided that what are vital questions to us, such as Spain, were clearly pronounced at the outset to be integral and essential to any settlement, as they have been, then I am bound to say that the other questions arising, which Mr. Eden has declared to be the immediate issue between himself and the Prime Minister, seem to me now, as they have seemed to me throughout, to be secondary. Important, no doubt—and I make all allowance for what Mr. Eden said about the difficulty of deciding where method ends and principle begins—and questions on which persons may properly hold differing views, but not important enough, in my judgment, to outweigh the agreement existing on the larger questions of broad policy which was expressed by a willingness that conversations should in fact take place.
It is a perfectly intelligible argument that was employed by Mr. Eden in another place—and has been, I think employed again here this afternoon—that if previous undertakings have not been observed it is waste of time to include others. But I venture to think that in an atmosphere clouded by misunderstandings and suspicion, such simple logic as that is not necessarily conclusive. We have only to see what happens between individuals differing in outlook and tradition and intellectual processes to realise how easily misunderstandings between nations grow. And however good any of us might have felt those reasons to be, there was some reason to believe that the Italian Government on its side felt that on one pretext or another we were concerned to postpone the conversations. And I would ask your Lordships to mark this—placing yourselves, if you will, in the position of the Italian Government. It is the fact that in July last no conditions were attached to the opening of conversations in the Prime Minister's letter. Subsequently the late Foreign Secretary desired, perfectly reasonably from his point of view, to introduce as prerequisite conditions the cessation of propaganda and the liquidation of the Spanish problem. But may not the other side of the picture have been a disposition in Italy to feel that these were new conditions, that there were other people concerned in Spain besides themselves, and that this business of conditions was a
936
time-consuming device on the part of His Majesty's Government? Now if anything like that was right, whatever judgment you form of a foreign Government—and I must frankly admit that I am amazed at some of the irresponsible talk about foreign Governments by some persons who have held responsible positions—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX:—do you really believe that progress would have been probable if it was made dependent on the acceptance in advance of a period of probationary discipline? I do not. And the Prime Minister, rightly as I think, held that, if it could be achieved, the big thing to go for was to reach an agreement, and that if understanding could be reached and if confidence could be reestablished the conditions that Mr. Eden thought necessary to secure in advance would in fact follow. Indeed he made it perfectly plain that no agreement could be reached unless they did. But it is said—it has been repeated this afternoon with a slight gloss—"But you were not free agents, you were so shaken by fear that at a word from the Dictators you sacrificed the only man among you who had the courage to stand up to them." Two days ago the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) gently drew the parallel between Mr. Eden and M. Delcassé in 1905. He will forgive me if I say that, except that M. Delcassé was Foreign Secretary and Mr. Eden was Foreign Secretary, and except for the fact that people's nerves were severely strained in 1905, as they are severely strained in 1938, I have been unable to detect any other note of similarity between the two cases.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: What I said was that a certain number of papers in France, not by any means Socialist papers or those at all hostile to the views of His Majesty's Government, had drawn that parallel. I did not say that I drew it.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am extremely grateful to the noble Marquess for his interruption which, if he will believe me, I do not accept as a correction, because I was not misinterpreting him, but I was referring to the analogy which he said had been drawn elsewhere. And I am of course glad to have his association, as I take it, with myself, in the plain assertion that of course there is no kind of analogy to be found there.

937
The noble Lord opposite who spoke a moment or two ago said he thought it was quite plain that we should never be prepared to take our orders from Rome. I quite agree with him. The noble Viscount said he was anxious or concerned lest we had given an impression of fear. Does it never occur to noble Lords who use such language that there are other elements and qualities in the human mind besides fear? Have they never thought of hope, and have they never realised that it may have been the element of hope in our minds that led us to think that it was worth while trying to cut this vicious circle in which the policy of Europe is surrounded? We thought, as I did, that the present may well be the psychological moment in which action can be taken. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, as I said the other day, that the great purpose of our foreign policy must constantly be peace, and we were not prepared to allow an opportunity from which peace might spring to slip. We may be disappointed, but if we are disappointed that will not necessarily prove that we are wrong now, or that those who differ from us are right. What it will prove is that the forces of mistrust and misunderstanding have once again been too strong for our efforts. Certainly I have no kind of doubt that the attempt is right to make, and I am glad to have heard those of your Lordships who have concurred in that view say so in this House.
There are those who have said that the totalitarian States are on the edge of collapse, and that therefore it is unreasonable or unprofitable to reach agreement with them. I have no doubt that in some respects conditions in the totalitarian States may be difficult, but I know that I have heard that argument used almost weekly for the last two or three years. It is said that you cannot trust the word of the leaders of the totalitarian States, and that they will be encouraged by your weakness, and will use every concession, even an opportunity for conversations, to trap you. The conclusion of all that argument is really quite clear—namely, do not have conversations at all; but it cannot be an argument, I with great respect suggest, against having conversations at the time which seems, in the judgment of the majority of those on whom responsibility rests, to be the most appropriate.
938
I remember a few years ago when another issue in which I was unhappily, rather by ancient controversy, engaged—namely, the discussion of the Indian problem. Not a dissimilar problem, in one aspect, from that with which we are now occupied. It was asked, your Lordships will remember: Is riot India riddled by communal divisions? The answer was clearly "Yes." Then it was said: Is not that field, therefore, very unfavourable ground for representative institutions? The answer was clearly "Yes." Then one was asked, or one might ask: Have you any reason to suppose that that problem will be any less in ten, twelve or fifteen years? and the answer was obviously "No." Then one realised that the real question that one had to ask oneself was: Because of those unfavourable conditions are you prepared to see the political problem banking up against you for five, ten or twenty years, without making any effort to solve it, because it is going to be more difficult at the end? Exactly the same problem confronts us to-day. Can you go on for months and years refusing to face facts, watching your relations steadily deteriorate, until those who may perhaps be potential enemies become converted into real enemies, and until something happens which launches the whole world into irretrievable disaster?
Now I come to what is perhaps more serious. We are told that the resignation of Mr. Eden has a particular significance, in that it marks a complete change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government.
LORD STRABOLGI: Perhaps I might elucidate this. It was upon the statement of the Prime Minister in another place that we relied for our charge, and not the actual resignation.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am glad the noble Lord has limited the charge, but it has been stated as widely as I have stated it, and I certainly had on my notes a notice to deal with the speech of the Prime Minister to which the noble Lord alludes. In view of what has been said outside this House I must, however, say a word about the general charge of change of policy. My remarks will be short. It fell to me to make a speech on general policy in this House last Thursday, and every word of that speech was approved by the then Foreign Secretary, and I can

939
assure your Lordships—and Lord Allen particularly asked this question—that what was our policy last week remains our policy to-day, and foreign nations would be seriously mistaken who thought that recent events betokened any change. In the course of my speech, which was also approved by the then Foreign Secretary, and which, as I gather from what he said this afternoon, although I did not realise it at the time, also carried with it the approval of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, I said this:
"Let us not forget that, whatever be the place in our philosophy we give to the League of Nations, the League of Nations itself is only a great means to the greater end of international peace, and if it is possible to reach agreements which really offer international appeasement through machinery other than the League, I can hardly suppose there would be any Member of the League so short-sighted as to grudge their conclusion."
That was a plain indication that we desired conversations, and in no quarter was it regarded as disloyalty to the League. On Tuesday last, in another place, the Prime Minister addressed himself to rebut this charge of desertion of the League of Nations, and spoke with great frankness. Lord Cecil has attacked him very sharply for what he has said on that subject in that debate, and he quoted—I imagine as justifying his transgression of the spirit of the Standing Order by the fact that he was dealing with an important declaration of Government policy—he quoted some sentences from the Prime Minister, in which the Prime Minister stated his views very frankly on the question of collective security.
While Lord Cecil was arguing with great vigour and great force upon how terrible a thing it was for the Prime Minister to have used words suggesting to smaller nations that they could no longer rely upon collective security, the thought was constantly in and out of my mind whether he was quite oblivious and careless of the danger of the possibility of deceiving smaller nations into reliance upon support which would not be forthcoming. He quoted, and drew our attention to, the Election Manifesto of Mr. Baldwin, or Lord Baldwin as he now is, which was published, I suppose, in October, 1935. I recognised it as he read it, but I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my mind. Not a word in that Election Manifesto seems to me to
940
be discordant with my own thought as it exists to-day, but I have learned something since that Election. I have seen the history of Abyssinia. I believe that this country tried honestly to do its best, with other Members of the League of Nations, to deal with the case of Abyssinia, and I know that those Members of the League and this country failed. I know that the result of that failure was to deceive the Emperor of Abyssinia into expecting that he was going to get support greater than in fact he did receive, and I do not want to see that experience repeated.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Viscount has wholly misunderstood my argument. My argument was a simple one. Nobody disputes that the Prime Minister and my noble friend have a right to change the opinions which they held in 1935. They may be right to change them. But I do not see myself how, having obtained power by a statement of policy on a first-rate matter, they can change that policy without consulting the electorate again.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The noble Viscount begs the whole question. I would not admit for one moment that we had changed our policy in any particular. I would go on any platform in this country, and I would undertake to convince any audience not incapable of fair judgment that in the policy I was recommending to them, and which the Prime Minister recommended in another place about the League of Nations, there was nothing inconsistent between that and the statement of policy as submitted by Mr. Baldwin at the Election. But I should like to make it plain, as any honest man would have to make it plain, that the League of Nations could never do more than, in fact, it is capable of doing. The noble Viscount says we have changed our policy, and my reply to him would he to say that the League of Nations perhaps has appreciated the facts, and that he is doing no good service to the League of Nations, as the most reverend Primate pointed out the other night, if he insists on laying on the back of the League of Nations a burden greater than it can bear and which will break the League of Nations down.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That is not the point.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The Prime Minister made it perfectly plain the other night in another place—and, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, I must myself indulge in the transgression of the rule on the same excuse—the Prime Minister said expressly that he would not tear up a single Article of the Covenant, not even Article 16. The noble Viscount said the Prime Minister said he wished to abandon Article 16. He said no such thing.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I said that he proposed to preserve it in form, but abandon it in substance.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I took the noble Viscount's words down. I do not wish to get into controversy with him, but he said the Prime Minister would abandon Article 16.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: In substance.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The noble Viscount said nothing about substance. The Prime Minister in another place said he
"would not tear up a single Article of the Covenant, not even Article 16, in the hope that some day it might be reconstituted in such a term that we might be able to rely on being able to use these powers for the functions for which they were originally intended."
That position is exactly the position that was taken by the most reverend Primate in the debate last week, when he concluded a speech that I think impressed your Lordships by saying:
"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."
I do venture to repeat that those are not the best friends of the League who wish to blindfold it from the real dangers that beset it. The noble Viscount opposite, if he will allow me to say this with great respect and great admiration for everything he is and has done, seems to me somewhat like a doctor who is in charge of a patient and who knows, really knows, that great exertion would be dangerous for that patient and may permanently damage his health, yet out of mistaken kindness of heart has not the heart to tell him what the truth really is.
I do not know that I need say anything about another side of this matter which I had on notes, except perhaps
942
a word or two, and that is the matter that has loomed rather large elsewhere and outside—the charge of moral default for being willing to consider the question of Abyssinia at all. Your Lordships know that we have told the Italian Government that that is a matter that must be, if general agreement is reached, subject to the consent of the League, because that has always been a League matter and not an Italo-British affair and, provided the consent of the League were obtained, we should be willing to consider the recognition of the fact of the Italian conquest of Abyssinia as part, but only as part, of a general settlement of all the matters at issue between us. I have felt, myself, as strongly as anybody else about Italian action in Abyssinia, and nothing can ever make me think differently about what has happened there; but let us face the facts. We cannot ignore them, for that does not get rid of them, and the plain fact is, I suppose, this, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, made reference this afternoon, you could have stopped the conquest of Abyssinia by war. Of those who speak so loudly now, there are very few indeed with any sense of responsibility who were, or who are, prepared to face that hard fact.
I am not the least afraid of Italy or of any other Power I know of in the world. I am not afraid of war in the sense that I fear defeat, because I know the temper of this country. I know that this country would never embark on war unless it thought it both right and inevitable, and I also know that, having embarked on war, it would not let go until, as usual, it had won. All that I know. But I, with everybody else, detest war as any man of memory or imagination or natural affection or even ordinary common-sense must detest it, for the horrors that it brings and the havoc to human lives and human civilisation. I said a few days ago that the world seemed to me to be confused rather than dangerous, but confusion is next door to danger, and no one with any responsibility in these days can fail to see the plain choice that lies before us. In the present state of the world one thing is certain: things will either get better or worse. International relations are not going to re main stationary. Therefore, if you do not want to see them get worse, I agree whole-heartedly with my noble friend Lord Londonderry in feeling that you

943
must take active steps to try to make them better.
Therefore—and this is the end of what I have to say—we refuse to fold our hands and merely drift along on dangerous tides, making warlike noises to encourage the passengers. That is not enough. I ventured to tell your Lordships the other day that I believed time to be on the side of peace, provided the time is well employed. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said something about it being possible to negotiate from strength and not from weakness. I agree with him. It is just because this country, thanks to rearmament, is now strong that
944
it can, and more easily, do something active and something urgent for peace. I believe that this debate has shown that the preponderance of thinking opinion in many different quarters is, in fact, with the Government in the effort that they are making, and that in that effort we can count upon the best wishes of your Lordships' House.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

ROYAL SHEFFIELD INFIRMARY AND HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
  ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LEE CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Abingdon be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Ailwyn: Read, and agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

V. Bridgeman,

V. Plumer,

L. Erskine,

L. Monkswell,

L. Marks (Chairman):

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 22nd of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND TROLLEY VEHICLES BILL. [H.L.]

  GATESHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be pro-
  946
  posed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

  V. Mersey (Chairman),

  V. Chelmsford,

  L. Gifford,

  L. Londesborough,

  L. Holden:

  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 22nd of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to he heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

PLYMOUTH EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection. That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:

M. Bath (Chairman),

E. Liverpool,

V. Colville of Culross,

L. O' Hagan,

L. Annesley (V. Valentia):

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 29th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

DERBYSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1937.
Special Order in respect of part of the Borough of Derby, the parish of Radbourne in the rural district of Repton and the parish of Kirk Langley and part of the parish or township of Mackworth in the rural district of Belper, all in the County of Derby:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.