Sitting of 25 July 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Guildford Corporation Bill.
Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means (Captain Bourne): The Amendments consist of: (1), the deletion of a Clause enabling the promoters to transport cattle; (2), several protective provisions; (3), alterations of a drafting and consequential nature.
Lords Amendments agreed to.
Lancashire County Council (Rivers Board and General Powers) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Tatton Estate Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Warrington Corporation Water Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Private Bills,
Ordered, That Standing Order 265, relating to Private Bills, be suspended under the Summer Adjournment.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if Unopposed) shall be considered on the day following the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House
2678
of Lords with Amendments, the consideration of such Amendments (if Opposed) shall be postponed until some future day at the time at which Private Business is usually taken or until half-past Seven of the Clock on any day not being a Friday as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
Ordered, That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords.—[The Deputy Chairman.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  INDIA (OPIUM EXPORTS).
  Mr. Dayasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount of opium exported by the Government of India, and the total revenue received from the same for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, and to which countries the same was imported?
  The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The approximate quantity of opium exported from India during the year ended 31st March, 1938, was 19,227 kilogrammes, of which Burma took 18,478 kilos, Aden and Dependencies 56, French India 682, and Zanzibar and Pemba 11. It is not possible to state the revenue derived from these exports, but the estimated value of the exports was £30,000.
  Mr. Day: Is it customary to take the full charges from the gross revenue?
  Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not quite follow what is the point of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. Day: In computing the revenue, is the cost of the opium taken into consideration?
  Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have informed the hon. Member that it is not possible to state the revenue. I gave him only the estimated value of the exports.
  Mr. Robert Gibson: Which European country takes most of that opium?
  Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The exports were to Burma, Aden, French India, Zanzibar and Pemba. I think the exports to French India cannot be called exports to a European country.
  Mr. Gibson: Do European countries take any of it?
  Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No. The amount exported is the amount I have given, and the countries are those which I mentioned.

  STEAMSHIP "THERESE MOLLER."
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the treatment of the crew of the British steamer "Therese Moller" by the Soviet authorities in Sakhalin, and particularly whether this steamer, driven ashore in October, was prevented by the local authorities from leaving, its propeller being removed; whether the crew were supplied with scanty rations in spite of a large sum of money having been paid by the owner; and what action he proposes to take?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): As a result of the consideration which I promised to give to the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend on 13th July, His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai has been requested to furnish a report on this matter.
  Sir A. Knox: Will the hon. Member circulate the report when it is received?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, as soon as I receive it, but it will take some time.

  SPAIN.
  Commander Marsdenasked the Prime Minister whether any protest was made to the Spanish Government concerning the bombing by their aircraft of His Majesty's ships "Kempenfelt" and "Boreas" while engaged on humanitarian work in rescuing seamen in distress on 6th March last?
  Mr. Butler: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty state 1 on 7th March, the bombing attack
  2680
  in question was made on the Spanish cruiser "Canarias," to which vessel the survivors of the "Balcares" were being transferred by His Majesty's ship "Kempenfelt" and His Majesty's ship "Boreas." In the circumstances His Majesty's Government do not hold the Spanish Government responsible for the damage done to His Majesty's ships.
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that prior to the closing of the Pyrenees frontier in June the British Government had drawn the attention of the French Government to the passage of munitions over that frontier, the Government has now drawn the attention of the Governments of Germany and Italy to the shipments reaching the Spanish insurgents from those countries?
  Mr. Butler: The German and Italian Governments are doubtless well aware of the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the strict observance of the Non-Intervention Agreement by the participating Governments.
  Mr. Cocks: Do I understand that although during the last two years these munitions have been sent to Spain, the Government have made no protest against this breach of the agreement?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman as being strictly correct. There have, of course, been interchanges of views on the subject between the Governments concerned, and our view has been made clear. There have been no definite representations.
  Mr. Cocks: Why should the Government make their view clear to the French Government, and not to the Italian Government or the German Government?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the position as it is stated in the original question. No doubt the French Government are aware of our views, as are the other Governments concerned.
  Miss Rathbone: Would the Government consider addressing representations similar to those addressed by the Foreign Secretary to M. Bonnet on 5th June, saying that British public opinion would be greatly alienated if the passage of munitions over the frontier were not stopped?
  Mr. Butler: I would first have to investigate the claims the hon. Member has made.
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received from the Burgos authorities in reply to His Majesty's Government's communication concerning the bombing of British ships?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): A reply has been received, and is now under consideration.
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the specific allegations by the Spanish Government that there have been numerous breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement since the signing of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, and with what result?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The Spanish Government's Note has been carefully examined. Under the Non-Intervention Committee's rules of procedure, His Majesty's Government can only forward a complaint to the committee if they regard it as being founded on evidence of sufficient weight to afford a reasonable presumption that in fact some breach of the agreement has occurred. His Majesty's Government do not so regard the present complaints and they do not, therefore, feel justified in forwarding them to the committee.
  Mr. Strauss: Have His Majesty's Government inquired from the Spanish Government what evidence they have to support the very specific allegations they have put forward?
  Mr. Butler: I do not know what evidence the Spanish Government may have. We have done our best to investigate the allegations, and so far as we have investigated them we do not find them justified.
  Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not a fact that there has been a constant stream of munitions also on the other frontier, and if representations are to be made to one side, ought they not to be made to both, equally?
  Mr. Butler: I think that the stream to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred does not at the moment take place.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Have His Majesty's Government asked the Spanish Government what their evidence is; and, in considering the claims of the Spanish Government, have they taken into account the official statements of the Italian Government in the Italian Press?
  Mr. Butler: All we can do is to consider the Note to which the hon. Member refers, and we have found nothing on which to base a complaint to the Non-Intervention Committee.
  Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member says that he can do no more than examine the Note, and he says that they have no evidence. But if they have not looked further for this evidence, how does he know that what is in the Note is not correct?
  Mr. Butler: We have examined all the information in our possession.
  Mr. Attlee: Have not the Government notoriously for the last year and a half known nothing about anything?
  Miss Rathboneasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in regard to the bombing of the British ship "Stanland," in Valencia harbour, on Tuesday last; and what action he is taking with regard to it?
  Mr. Butler: According to a report received from His Majesty's Consul at Valencia, the steamship
  "Stanland" received slight damage, due to scorching by benzine burning on the quay, in a raid on Valencia on 19th July.
  Miss Rathboneasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fresh attack on a British ship last week, His Majesty's Government still adhere, so far as they can find practical means of carrying it out, to the policy laid down in the notes sent to the Burgos authorities in February by the then Foreign Secretary, in which His Majesty's Government reserved to themselves the right without further notice to take such retaliatory action in the event of the recurrence of such attack as may be required or appropriate in the particular case?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend cannot accept the hon. Lady's statement that the British ship most recently involved in a raid on the harbour of Valencia last week was the subject of a deliberate attack.

  2683
  The representations referred to in the second part of the question were made in connection with an attack by aircraft on a British ship on the high seas early in February. His Majesty's Government's attitude towards such cases remains unchanged.
  Miss Rathbone: Have not His Majesty's Government repudiated the attacks on British ships and said that they would destroy the friendly relations with the Burgos authorities? Would not these warnings be more effective if they were not accompanied by attacks on British ships engaged in lawful trade with Spain?
  Mr. Butler: I think the hon. Lady must differentiate between ships on the high seas, about which the representations in early February were made by the late Foreign Secretary, and ships in port.
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether any report has been given by Sir Robert Hodgson concerning the extent of German and Italian penetration of nationalist Spain, both in the industrial and administrative spheres; and whether he can give the House any information on the subject?
  Mr. Butler: Advantage has been taken of Sir R. Hodgson's presence in this country to discuss with him such matters as those to which the hon. Member refers, but these conversations must of necessity be confidential.
  Mr. Cocks: Does this information show that this penetration is extensive and is damaging to British interests?
  Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a further answer to that which I have given him.
  Mr. Cocks: Can we not draw our own conclusions?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member can always draw his own conclusions, and I can give my answers.
  Mr. Palingasked the Prime Minister whether he has requested or received any assurance from the French Government that they are entirely satisfied with the operation of the control on the Spanish-Portuguese frontier in connection
  2684
  with the Non-Intervention Agreement; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to ascertain the views of the French Government on this matter?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It is for the French Government to take the initiative in this matter, if they wish to do so.
  Mr. Paling: Is it possible for the British Government to take as much initiative in closing the Spanish-Portuguese frontier as they have done in closing the French-Pyrenees frontier?
  Mr. Butler: All our reports go to show that the Portuguese frontier is, in fact, closed.
  Mr. Palingasked the Prime Minister the number of protests sent by His Majesty's Government since the outbreak of hostilities in Spain to the insurgent Government before and since the Nyon Agreement respecting the loss of British lives and property caused by the action of rebel submarines and aircraft; the total number of British lives lost to date through such action; and the total sums claimed and paid as compensation in respect of such losses?
  Mr. Butler: Since the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 20th June, there have been protests in respect of three further incidents, in one of which I regret to state that two British subjects were killed. All protests in question were made since the Nyon arrangements. I made a statement on the subject of claims for compensation in the Debate on the Adjournment on 12th May.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any payments whatever in respect of claims for compensation have been received yet from the insurgent Government?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The reason I described in the Debate on the Adjournment on 12th May.
  Mr. Palingasked the Prime Minister the sums actually paid to date by the Governments participating in the Non-Intervention Agreement; and the sums, if any, still unpaid by the contracting parties?
  Mr. Butler: I am not in possession of the precise details asked for by the hon.

  2685
  Member, but the French, German, Italian and British Governments have contributed their share at the highest rate which falls to be paid by any individual Government. On the adoption of the observation plan in March last year, arrangements were made by which the total contributions to be paid by the Government parties to the Non-Intervention Agreement in a full year would amount to the sum of £834,000. I understand that by reason of economical administration it has so far been possible to operate the observation plan at a lower cost than was originally intended.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will propose to the Non-Intervention Committee that control over aerodromes in Spain should be established by the placing of neutral commissions of observers in such aerodromes?
  Mr. Butler: The possibility of establishing an air observation scheme has already been exhaustively examined by the Non-Intervention Committee, which has decided that the matter can best be dealt with in the manner set out in Part 6, Section 5, of the Committee's plan of 5th July. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that section of the plan provides for the appointment of two air staff officers to examine the practicability of establishing an effective system of observation over air traffic entering Spain over the land and sea frontiers.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that that means further study of a subject which it was agreed to study in July of last year, is it not now possible for the Government to propose that there should be observers put in aerodromes?
  Mr. Butler: I think the reason why this subject has been so long being studied is that it is extremely difficult and complicated to find a satisfactory solution. I do not think the hon. Member's suggestion would be a satisfactory solution.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not plain that putting observers into aerodromes is the easiest way of control?
  Mr. Butler: I am informed that the committee considered the hon. Member's suggestion and rejected it.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether he has now received the report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo as to the result of the personal examination by the new Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs of the matters raised in the protests made by His Majesty's Government on 31st December, 1937, and 5th, 6th, and 11th April, 1938, in connection with cases of assault by Japanese against British subjects in the International Settlement at Shanghai?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The Japanese Government so far have made no advance towards a settlement in these cases. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo is, however, continuing to press them in the matter.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Will the Government press this matter constantly during the Recess, and try to get some decision?
  Mr. Butler: The Government attach very special importance to an early settlement of these cases.
  Mr. Chorltonasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the declared intention of the Japanese authorities in Shanghai to place Chinese industrial establishments under temporary Japanese control; and what steps he is taking to secure that no British-owned factories are affected by this decision?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Reports have reached me that the Japanese authorities propose to take over all the existing Chinese-owned mills in the areas under their control. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has brought to the notice of the Japanese authorities that in many of these mills there is a substantial British interest. So far as I am aware, there has been no question of attempting to control factories which are wholly British-owned.
  Mr. Chorltonasked the Prime Minister whether he has received the expected report from His Majesty's Consul-General in Tientsin on the subject of interference by Japanese military authorities with British commercial cables at Tientsin; and what steps he is taking in the matter?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has received a report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Tientsin to the effect that frequent representations have been made to the Director of the Japanese telegraph office there regarding delays and mutilations in telegrams received. A certain improvement in the quality of the messages received has been noted, but the service is still erratic.
  Mr. Chorlton: Have the representations been continued?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Moreingasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is yet in a position to report the result of the discussions with the Japanese authorities in Shanghai and Tokyo as to the reopening of foreign-owned factories in the occupied areas inside and outside the international settlement in Shanghai;
  (2) whether he has yet received a satisfactory reply from the Japanese Government to the representations of His Majesty's Government that an opportunity should be afforded to the representatives of the British bondholders of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway to inspect the railway line and that the necessary measures should be taken to safeguard their financial interests in the line;
  (3) whether he has yet received a satisfactory reply to the representations made both in Shanghai and Tokyo that the restrictions which prevent Chinese workmen employed in British factories from travelling in tramcars to their work should be removed?
  Mr. Butler: These matters will form, among others, the subject of a conversation between His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, which has been arranged to be held during the course of the next day or two. Meanwhile my Noble Friend would stress the importance which he attaches to an early settlement of these questions.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister urge upon his Noble Friend that he should point out to the Japanese Government that they are violating almost every known rule of international law?
  Mr. Butler: I have no doubt that every relevant subject will come up for consideration.
  Mr. Chorltonasked the Prime Minister what information he has now obtained about the Japanese wool monopoly in North China and, in particular, if the Provisional Government in Peiping set up by the Japanese military authorities has now put a general embargo on the export of wool and hides; and what measures he is taking to protect British interests in respect of this trade?
  Mr. Butler: I have received a report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Tientsin, from which it appears that all wool stocks up-country have been registered by the Japanese and that a permit is required before these stocks can be removed, but there has as yet been no specific instance of a refusal to permit the export of wool. The export of hides and skins from Tientsin was temporarily prohibited as from 1st July. Representations were made to the Japanese Government by His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo, and I now understand that the embargo is being lifted except as regards certain skins of special quality which are stated to be required by the Japanese Army.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that a prohibition, in fact, exists because the Japanese prevent any railway freight being made available for British firms and thus put the wool into the hands of Japanese firms which hitherto had nothing to do with that trade?
  Mr. Butler: I will certainly investigate the point my hon. Friend has brought to my attention.
  Mr. R. Gibson: Is wool imported into this country from China, and to what extent?
  Mr. Butler: I should want notice of that question.
  Commander Marsdenasked the Prime Minister what is the present position with regard to the freedom of transit for British merchant shipping on the inland waterways of China; and what has been the result of the protests of His Majesty's Government to the Japanese Government with regard to the discrimination that is being practised against British shipping?
  Sir John Haslamasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the result of the negotiations between the

  2689
  consular body in Shanghai and the Japanese authorities for the resumption of dredging by the Whangpo Conservancy Board?
  Mr. Butler: These matters are among those to be reviewed in the course of a conversation between His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs within the next few days. I can, therefore, make no further statement at present.
  Commander Marsden: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a great extent of this great area of inland water transport is very remote from the scene of the fighting and has nothing to do with it?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Is it the fact that the Government cannot expect any better answer from the Japanese than they do from Franco at any time?
  Mr. Butler: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he cannot expect good answers from everybody. I am aware of the importance of the inland waterways.
  Mr. Hannahasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo on the extent to which British interests would be affected by the proposed reorganisation of the Pekin-Mukden Railway and other railway systems in North China by the Japanese; and what steps he is taking in the matter?
  Mr. Butler: As I informed the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) on 27th June, His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been in communication with the Japanese Government on this subject. A reply has now been received asserting that the reorganisation was carried out in order to secure maximum efficiency, in view of the damage done to the line and of the flight of many of the railway employés. The Note goes on to declare that there is no intention of infringing British rights and interests by this reorganisation. This reply is now being considered by His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Hannahasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any reply to his representations to the Japanese Government with regard to the embarrassment suffered by British trade
  2690
  in North China arising from the imposition of an inconvertible paper currency by the Japanese-controlled federated reserve bank with the consequent freezing of all credit facilities?
  Mr. Butler: No formal reply was requested in the representations made, but His Majesty's Government are relying on the Japanese Government to refrain from measures which would have the effect of freezing credit facilities.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND MEXICO.
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the official declaration by President Cardenas that diplomatic relations between Mexico and this country could be resumed at Britain's request, he is now prepared to take the first step in this direction?
  The Prime Minister: President Cardenas is reported to have said that he would have "no objection" to renewing diplomatic relations with Great Britain if an unconditional proposal to that effect were to be made by the British Government. His Majesty's Government are not prepared under present circumstances to make such an "unconditional proposal."
  Mr. Strauss: Would it not be desirable to take what steps are possible in order to see whether some arrangement could be come to with the Mexican Government which might lead to a resumption of diplomatic relations, rather than standing on one's dignity?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know what steps are proposed by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Prime Minister not too much concerned about those who are out for big profits?

  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the conversations which have taken place between the Egyptian Prime Minister and members of His Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: As conversations are still in progress with the Egyptian Prime Minister, I am not in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. Henderson: Does the Prime Minister expect to be in a position to make a statement before the House rises?
  The Prime Minister: I would not like to commit myself.

  ANGLO-FRENCH CONVERSATIONS.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the recent conversations between the Foreign Secretary and the French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister?
  Mr. R. Aclandasked the Prime Minister whether, in the course of last week's conversations between the Foreign Secretary and French Ministers in Paris, any views were exchanged in relation to the policy of maintaining control over the Franco-Spanish frontier?
  The Prime Minister: The official communique issued at the end of these talks concluded by saying:
  "The Ministers, marking once more their common determination to pursue their action of appeasement and conciliation, found that the complete harmony of views established during the visit of the French Ministers on 28th and 29th April has been entirely maintained."
  I am circulating the communique in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and have nothing to add to this statement.
  Mr. Acland: Did not the French representatives express any regret that the policy pressed upon them by the Note which, with respect to the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was sent on 5th June, produced such meagre results on the behaviour of the Italians?
  The Prime Minister: I was not present at the conversations myself, and I would not like to answer that question.
  Mr. Acland: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the conversations, and if I cannot raise this matter to-morrow, I shall raise it on the Adjournment.
  Following is the communique:
  "The visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen of England to Paris has given Lord Halifax, M. Daladier and M. Georges Bonnet
  2692
  an opportunity to examine the international situation as a whole, as well as questions especially interesting to the two countries.
  In the course of these conversations, which took place in the spirit of mutual confidence that animates Franco-British relations, the Ministers, marking once more their common determination to pursue their action of appeasement and conciliation, found that the complete harmony of views established during the visit of the French Ministers on 28th and 29th April has been entirely maintained."

  GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement as to the reply he is making to the message brought to him by Herr Wiedemann from the head of the German Government?
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether the assurances which Captain Wiedemann recently renewed on behalf of the German Government of their desire to achieve a peaceful settlement of outstanding questions, included the Czechslovakian problem on the basis of the maintenance of the territorial integrity and political independence of that country?
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on this subject on 21st July.
  Mr. Henderson: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what are the outstanding questions which are referred to in the communiqué? Are we not entitled to know what the outstanding questions are?
  The Prime Minister: I think that they refer to outstanding questions in connection with Czechoslovakia.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether he will name the countries eligible for membership who have never joined the League of Nations; the countries who joined and have since left; and the countries now in membership who have stipulated that they are not prepared to apply sanctions at the request of the League?
  Mr. Butler: As the answer is somewhat long, I will with the hon. Member's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Davies: Will the list to be published include the Scandinavian countries who have just decided against sanctions?
  Mr. Butler: I do not think that that is covered by the hon. Member's question as I read it.
  Following is the answer:
  The following States have never been Members of the League of Nations:

  United States of America.

  Saudi Arabia.

  Iceland.

  The Yemen.

  The following States have been Members but have now left:

  Brazil.

  Costa Rica.

  Germany (including Austria).

  Guatemala.

  Honduras.

  Japan.

  Nicaragua.

  Paraguay.

  The following States have given of withdrawal:

  Chile.

  Italy.

  Salvador.

  Venezuela.

  By decision of the League Council on 14th May last Switzerland, in view of her special position, was released from any obligation to participate in sanctions.

  ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether, during the conversations which resulted in the Anglo-Italian Agreement, the British and Italian representatives came to an understanding as to what is implied by the phrase "a settlement in Spain"?
  The Prime Minister: The answer is in the negative.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does that mean that negotiations of this importance were started and brought to a conclusion without the two parties to them ever arriving at any agreement as to the premises which formed the basis of the agreement?
  The Prime Minister: That would appear to be the effect of my answer.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is there any precedent for negotiations of this nature and an agreement being concluded without any agreement between the two parties on such a matter?
  The Prime Minister: I have not made a search.
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether any information has been given to the Italian Government as to the meaning His Majesty's Government attaches to the phrase relating to a settlement in Spain?
  The Prime Minister: Since the conclusion of the Anglo-Italian Agreement there have been confidential exchanges of views between the two Governments on the subject. But, as I stated in answer to a supplementary question by the Leader of the Opposition on 20th July, I have never committed myself to a complete, or even a partial, definition of this phrase.
  Mr. Cocks: Does that mean that the Italian Government is just as much in the dark as to His Majesty's Government's intentions as the House of Commons?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know whether that is so or not. I do not know their state of mind.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Does it mean that in the Recess the Prime Minister will be at liberty to implement the agreement by putting his own interpretation on what is meant by the term "a settlement"?
  The Prime Minister: There is no change in the situation.
  Mr. Benn: That is not an answer to my question. I asked whether the Prime Minister considers himself at liberty to put his own interpretation on the phrase
  "a settlement"?
  The Prime Minister: The Government are entitled to put their interpretation upon it.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: What about the House of Commons?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Do the Government consider themselves at liberty to bring into force an agreement of this importance without informing the House of Commons as to the meaning of an essential clause in it?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will remember that, in answer to a supplementary question a few days ago, I said that I did not exclude the possibility that the House of Commons might have to be called together to consider the matter.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Major Milnerasked the Minister of Pensions whether instructions are issued to investigating officers by the Ministry or the Special Grants Committee in connection with cases of alleged unworthy conduct on the part of widows?
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Ministry's inquiry officers, who are also at the disposal of the Special Grants Committee if specially required, are employed to investigate the facts in a variety of cases where local inquiry is necessary for the purpose, and in so doing they act under such general instructions as have been found desirable.
  Major Milner: Are we to understand that in these cases the Ministry and not the Special Grants Committee have the conduct, under statutory authority, to issue instructions, and have these instructions to receive the approval of the Special Grants Committee?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: The instructions are confidential. The Ministry places the inquiry agent at the disposal of the Special Grants Committee when requested to do so.
  Mr. Paling: Is it not a fact that many of the conclusions of these officers are based not on fact but on rumour?
  Major Milner: Having regard to the number of complaints about these investigating officers, will the Minister be good enough to let me have a sight of the instructions which are issued?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: I cannot do that, as the instructions are confidential.
  Major Milnerasked the Minister of Pensions whether widows accused of unworthy conduct are now being informed that they are entitled to appear before the Special Grants Committee in person; and how many widows have so appeared to date?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: I understand that the Special Grants Committee have, as I
  2696
  informed the hon. and gallant Member on 31st May last, agreed to adopt this procedure when the widow disputes the main points alleged against her. No such case has yet arisen.
  Major Milner: My question is, and I ask it again, whether widows are informed of the rights which they are now presumed to have? If they are not informed of these rights, how can they know of them and take advantage of them?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: If the main points are in dispute, they would be informed, but no such cases have arisen.
  Mr. Paling: Does that mean that no cases previous to 31st May can have this privilege, or does it mean that any cases can have this privilege?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: If the hon. Member has any cases which he thinks the Special Grants Committee would like to see, he can bring them to the attention of the committee.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not a fact that widows who have been deprived of their pensions upon a procedure which is now recognised to be unsatisfactory will be entitled to have their cases reopened? Is the Minister further aware that there is a widespread feeling that this rule is being exercised most unfairly and unjustly?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: The rule has been in force since the commencement of the Special Grants Committee in 1919. There has been no material change. I have replied to the point put by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) in my reply to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling).
  Mr. Garro Jones: Is it to be retrospective? On a point of Order. Is the Minister entitled to evade a negative or affirmative reply by stating that he has answered the question, when, in fact, he has not done so and has made no attempt to do so?
  Mr. Speaker: It is no use putting the same question over and over again.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MILK MARKETING.
    Colonel Sandeman Allenasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give an assurance that he will not permit

    2697
    the Milk Marketing Board to use their monopolistic position this buying period to divert, as was done last year, supplies from private creameries to their own factories which are in direct trading competition; and whether he will also direct that, in the event of shortage next winter, any calls for emergency supplies shall be made equitably upon all creameries, including those of the board, in view of the fact that failure to do this enables those who are left with supplies to capture the trade of those who, because of such calls, are forced to curtail production?
    Mr. Macquistenasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Milk Marketing Board's proposed scheme of allocation of contracts will not increase the sales of liquid milk nor add to the pooled producers' returns, but will put a number of smaller creameries out of existence for the benefit of the board's own factories and the large combines, he will arrange for it to be the subject of special inquiry?
    Mr. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the maintenance of privately-operated creameries on an economic basis is dependent upon their being able to enter into sufficient contracts with producers, and that if the Milk Marketing Board are permitted to allocate further contracts away from some of these creameries to their competitors they will be obliged to close down; and whether he can take steps to prevent such action?
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Milk Marketing Board are proposing to divert compulsorily the supplies of producers, which for years have been bought by some creameries, to other crameries owned by their competitors; and whether, in view of the fact that safeguards for the liquid milk market were included in the last contracts, under which creameries must release, if required, any milk they might be manufacturing, he will take steps to prevent this discrimination between buyers of milk and the allocation of contracts from one competitive concern to another?
    Mr. Butcherasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Milk Marketing Board is preparing a plan of allocation of milk producers' contracts to reduce the milk supplies of some
    2698
    wholesaling creameries and to hand over their supplies to the Co-operative Wholesale Society and other firms which are conducting the same type of business; and whether he will convey to the Milk Marketing Board that it would be contrary to the public interest for them to exercise their powers in this discriminating manner as between one buyer and another?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Plans for allocating supplies of milk during the next contract period, which will begin on 1st October, are being discussed between the Milk Marketing Board and representatives of wholesale purchasers of milk. I have no power to intervene in these discussions, but the board have informed me that it is their desire to put into operation a plan that has the general agreement of the trade. As to the other points raised in the questions, I would refer my hon. Friends to the replies given on 21st July to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry).
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: What steps are taken by the board to get general agreement?
    Mr. Morrison: It is left to negotiations. As I have informed the House, they are at the moment in negotiation with a committee representing the trade as a whole.
    Sir A. Knox: Is not this policy naked Socialism, and have not the Government stolen the clothes of the Opposition while they have been bathing in Spanish waters?
    Mr. Denvilleasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that when last year some creameries had, under compulsion, given up milk supply contracts to the Milk Marketing Board's own factories and big competitors, they suffered further losses of contracts to direct buyers acting with the consent of the board, and through producers ceasing to send because they decided to make their milk into cheese on the farms with the aid of the board's bonus and that, notwithstanding this, the board took no steps to replace the contracts thus lost to the creameries but registered them with buyers who had procured them contrary to the agreed plan of allocation; and whether he will take steps to ensure fairer treatment for these creameries henceforward?
    Mr. Morrison: I have no knowledge of contracts being registered contrary to the agreed plan of allocation, and I may mention that a committee, consisting of representatives of the board and of the trade, exists to consider cases of alleged hardship arising under the plan. As to the remainder of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the previous answers given on this subject and I would add that the question whether a producer sells milk or manufactures it into cheese on his farm is one entirely for the producer himself.
    Mr. Morganasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that many producers, because of their long-standing connection with the creameries who buy their milk, enjoy premiums in excess of standard contract terms, and that if the Milk Marketing Board is permitted to remove their freedom of allocation many of these producers will lose the individual price advantages which they now enjoy; and whether he will see that they receive compensation for this loss?
    Mr. Morrison: I have no precise information about the premiums referred to, which I assume are those arranged between buyer and seller and paid in respect of some special service rendered by the latter. It is, however, inherent in schemes of a co-operative nature, such as is the Milk Marketing scheme, that individual advantages may have to be subordinated to the general interest. No question of compensation can arise other than in accordance with the scheme. I have no power to intervene.
    Major Procterasked the Minister of Agriculture what percentage of the permissive quota of butter and cheese was reached by the Milk Marketing Board's creameries last winter; and to what extent the board contributed to the requirements of the liquid milk market as compared with the private manufacturers of butter and cheese with whom they are in competition?
    Mr. Morrison: The information which my hon. and gallant Friend desires is not in my possession.

    FUEL FOR TRACTORS.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Minister of Agriculture whether an adequate supply of fuel for tractors and other agricultural machinery has been set aside for the event of war?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government fully appreciate the need for securing that an adequate supply of fuel is available for tractors and other agricultural machinery in time of war.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has undertaken any detailed survey of agricultural land with a view to seeing how much of it is in a poor state of cultivation and is capable of greatly increased production; and by how much the national food output could be increased if every available acre was brought up to the maximum economic production?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave on 4th July last, to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd). Any estimate of the kind suggested in the second part of the question could only be made on the basis of a large number of arbitrary assumptions which would make the results of no practical significance.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave me no reply to my question on the date mentioned. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly why he is not prepared to have a survey to ascertain to what extent the land is being used?
    Mr. Morrison: I thought I gave the hon. Member a full reply to his question. As regards the question of a survey, the answer I have just given indicates that we should have to make a number of assumptions as to what is the best and most productive use of the land, and that in itself is a matter of opinion; it varies from time to time. One result might be that if we had a survey now it would be out of date and useless at the time when it was called upon.
    Mr. Williams: Is it not the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that if the land of this country were surveyed by thoroughly practical inspectors, it would provide him with much information as regards the usefulness of many thousands of acres?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, if we had no information about the state of the land I would agree, but, as I told the hon. Member and the House on a previous occasion, we have a large amount of useful information on this subject and have sources of information which we can call upon at any time.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures as to how much it would cost per acre to bring second-class land into full production?
    Mr. Morrison: That is a matter which varies between land and land.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since his previous reply figures have been issued indicating that land under production has decreased by thousands of acres?
    Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the figures which are frequently issued in regard to agricultural production, and I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks I made on the agricultural Estimates the other day.

    MUTTON AND LAMB (IMPORTS).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state by what extent it will be possible to reduce the imports of mutton from the Dominions in the current year?
    Mr. Ivor Guestasked the Minister of Agriculture the nature of the negotiations which have, within the last six months, taken place with the Governments of the Dominions importing lamb and mutton to this country for a reduction of their normal supplies?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: As in previous years, discussions have been taking place during the current year with representatives of the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand as to their estimated shipments of mutton and lamb to the United Kingdom. With regard to the progress of these discussions, I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement I made during the Debate on 13th July. I would add that landings in the third quarter of this year are expected to include an appreciably larger proportion than usual of ewe mutton, which does not compete with the home product, and that arrivals of lamb are likely to be lower than in the corresponding quarter of 1937.
    Sir A. Knox: Has the Minister of Agriculture considered the possibility of making an announcement on this subject soon in view of the disastrous straits of the industry and the impending sheep sales? Will he also take into account that a mere reduction of 8 per cent. on imports will not be sufficient to restore prosperity to the industry?
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the Minister also take into account that a lot of people cannot buy British meat at all and that if you prevent the other coming in they will be starved to death?
    Mr. Morrison: I will consider whether there is a statement I can usefully make on the matter.

    SHEEP AND BARLEY PRODUCERS.
    Mr. Henry Haslamasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that upland farmers, mainly dependent on sheep and barley, are facing a very serious position; that much of the land in question is already suffering deterioration in different parts of the country; and whether he is taking this into account in framing his agricultural policy for the improvement of those lands?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am fully aware of the position of sheep and barley producers in the upland areas, and of the desirability of maintaining soil fertility. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made during the Debate on 13th July, and in particular would remind him that the Agriculture Act, 1937, made provision for a subsidy to barley growers and to purchasers of lime and basic slag.
    Mr. Haslam: Is the Minister not aware that the heavy and disastrous fall in the price of sheep makes this question very urgent?
    Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the situation with regard to sheep, and the hon. Member will also appreciate that many of the factors which produce these depressed prices are entirely outside the control of the Government.

    MINISTRY'S OPERATIONS.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any of the agricultural stations or farms belonging to His Majesty's Government have realised a net profit since 1931 in those branches of

    2703
    their activities which operate under normal competitive conditions; and whether their accounts are published?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Apart from certain farming operations conducted at the National Stud, Tully, which are subsidiary to the main undertaking and in respect of which separate figures are not available, the only farming operations conducted by my Department since 1931 have been those at the Amesbury Farm Settlement under the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916–18. These operations ceased at Michaelmas, 1934. During the intervening period the farm trading and profit and loss accounts showed annual losses; these accounts were published in the annual volumes of Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets issued by the Stationery Office as command papers.
    Mr. De Chair: Would it not be a good thing for the Government to purchase one or two farms and run them under normal conditions?
    Mr. Morrison: We have a good deal of information without adopting that suggestion.
    Mr. De Chair: Is that information quite as accurate as information which affects one's own pocket?
    Mr. T. Williams: Has not the right hon. Gentleman full authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1931, to buy large demonstration farms? Does he not think he should do this for the benefit of the State?
    Mr. Morrison: I am aware that there are many powers under the Agricultural Land Utilisation Act, 1931, which His Majesty's Government have not thought proper to exercise. In regard to the question of costings, we have useful research work going on into that matter at the moment, and it is not, therefore, necessary to purchase farms in order to obtain information.
    Mr. Davidson: Would the right hon. Gentleman come to Glasgow and see what a Socialist majority can do with farms?

    LIVESTOCK (LORRIES).
    Mr. Aclandasked the Minister of Agriculture under what statutory provision drivers of lorries carrying livestock to and from markets are required to wash
    2704
    their lorries with water and disinfectant between each separate journey; and what procedure should lorry-drivers adopt when they are called upon to make several journeys carrying livestock to and from markets at places where there is no water supply?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Acland: Is not the total effect of the answer that these people are being asked to do by law what is very nearly impossible?
    Mr. Morrison: That is not the effect of the answer. It is a complicated matter, and I would ask the hon. Member to consider carefully the answer.
    Following is the answer:
    The cleansing and disinfection of vehicles used for the conveyance of animals by road is required by the Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order, 1932, made under Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease. The process has to be carried out by the owner, or person using or in charge of the vehicle, as soon as practicable after each load of animals has been entirely discharged and before any other animal or fodder or litter intended for animals is placed in the vehicle. Where a vehicle makes consecutive journeys between the same two points on the same day, for example, between a railway station and a market, the process may be carried out after the last of such consecutive journeys instead of between each journey. The Order does not make it compulsory to cleanse a vehicle at a market unless arrangements have been made by the local authority for the provision of the necessary facilities, including a water supply. If, however, no facilities are provided at a market at which animals are being discharged, the person owning or using the vehicle must make his own arrangements for cleansing it elsewhere. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the relevant Order.

    COMPENSATION OF EXPORTS WITH IMPORTS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for a

    2705
    discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to Compensation of Exports with Imports?
    [That this House, whilst fully realising the importance of exports to an industrial nation, is concerned lest these exports be exploited to the disadvantage of the largest industry in the country, that of agriculture; is of opinion that a great deal more foodstuffs could be grown at home than at present, even though this country would not be able to produce sufficient foodstuffs to enable it entirely to do without imported food; and urges on the Government the necessity of insuring that supplies from the Dominions and foreign countries should only be admitted on condition that the countries concerned were prepared to purchase from this country to the extent of 75 per cent. of the value of the foodstuffs which are imported by them instead of the 30 per cent., which is the average amount purchased in exchange by many countries to-day, with a view to benefiting the manufacturers of this country by compelling importers to purchase more goods from this country and less from competitors, and by enhancing the purchasing power of the farming community by the production of several hundred million pounds' worth more food, thus building up a prosperous countryside, creating a healthier and finer race of people, with a better standard of living and an increased spending capacity, to the advantage of all communities throughout the country.]
    The Prime Minister: In view of the statement on Business which I made on Thursday last, my hon. Friend will realise that there will be no opportunity for the discussion of this Motion.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the Prime Minister aware of the alarming difference between the value of what is imported into this country and the value of the manufactured goods which we export; and, further, are not certain foreign countries defaulting on the interest on their loans which they obtain in order to provide for the manufactured goods, and also on the capital as well? Is not this one of the most important things that can be considered to-day?
    The Prime Minister: While fully recognising these things, that does not enable me to find more time.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend bear this matter in mind during the Recess?

    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (BRANCH OFFICE, MANCHESTER).
    Mr. Flemingasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is now able to make any further statement with reference to the removal from Manchester of the branch office of the Geological Survey?
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): Yes, Sir. The original decision to close the Manchester office was taken in the interests of the most economic operation of the Geological Survey as a whole. I am glad, however, to be able to say that, after a careful review of all the circumstances, an arrangement has been possible whereby, without serious disturbance of the work of the Survey, the office can be retained. This arrangement may need to be reviewed at a later date in the light of experience but, in any such review, local interests will be carefully and sympathetically considered.

  POST OFFICE.

    POSTMEN, EASTBOURNE (WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY).
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to institute the shift system in Eastbourne so that the postmen may have an opportunity of having a half-holiday a week without disorganising the postal delivery on any one day during the week?
    The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The grant of a half-holiday to postmen in Eastbourne could be arranged by suspending the Wednesday afternoon delivery, but I understand that there would be considerable public opposition to this arrangement. I am not prepared to make an exception in the case of Eastbourne to the conditions applied generally in this connection.
    Mr. Taylor: Is it impossible to introduce the shift system throughout the whole of the country?
    Major Tryon: That is a much wider question than the one on the Order Paper. It would involve considerable difficulties both of administration and expense.
    Mr. Taylor: Owing to the nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    LIFE ASSURANCE POLICIES.
    Mr. Dayasked the Postmaster-General how many life assurance policies issued by the Post Office Savings Bank department are still in existence; how many are either endowment or whole-life policies; and how many life policies have lapsed or been surrendered during the last 10 years?
    Major Tryon: 5,743 life assurance policies issued by the Post Office Savings Bank were in existence on 30th June, 1938. Of these 1,674 were endowment policies and 4,069 whole-life. During the 10 years ended 30th June, 1938, 80 policies lapsed and 1,245 were surrendered for a cash payment.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether any effort is made to collect the premiums before the policies lapse?
    Major Tryon: Not without notice.
    Mr. Day: Do these undergo the same strict examination by the Board of Trade as in the case of ordinary life insurances?
    Major Tryon: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman realises that no Post Office insurance contracts have been entered into since 31st December, 1928.

    OFFICE OF WORKS LAND (LICENSED PREMISES).
    Mr. Dayasked the First Commissioner of Works the number of licensed premises located on land connected with his Department apart from those in the Royal Parks and the Tower of London; what is the total amount of rental derived therefrom; and will he give particulars of the leases or agreements upon which the same are held?
    The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): At the Law Courts in London and Edinburgh and in a number of museum buildings, where refreshment
    2708
    rooms are maintained for the convenience of the public, licences are held by the caterers employed by the occupying authorities; a number of staff refreshment clubs in Government buildings hold club licences. No rental is derived from these arrangements. In one case licensed premises are located on land surplus to requirements and awaiting disposal from which a rent of £225 per annum is received. In another a rental of £5 per annum is received for a piece of land adjoining licensed premises.
    Mr. Day: Do these tenants have the option to renew their tenancies?
    Sir P. Sassoon: There are only two cases in which we receive the rent.
    Mr. Marcus Samuel: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting a milk bar in the Bloody Tower?

    AUDIT HOUSE, VICTORIA EMBANKMENT (SKYLIGHT).
    Mr. Kellyasked the First Commissioner of Works what has been the cost during the last 10 years of the centre skylight at Audit House, Victoria Embankment; and whether he will reconstruct the skylight on modern lines with a view to saving money?
    Sir P. Sassoon: These premises were hired in 1902 for a term of 42 years expiring in 1944. Apart from the normal work of replacing broken glass and repairing defective bars as necessary, the cost of which has not been separately recorded, an expenditure of £35 was defrayed in 1931 and of £50 in 1936 in renewing portions of the skylight. It is not considered that the expenditure involved in reconstructing the skylight would be justified in view of the short period of the lease remaining unexpired.
    Mr. Kelly: Are the figures given in the reply the total charges that have fallen upon the Department, and in view of the many alterations and replacements, will the right hon. Gentleman consider some better method than the one now in operation?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The lease will expire in six years' time, and it would cost about £400 to replace the skylight.

    TYNESIDE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
    Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the Minister of Health whether any decision has yet been reached as to the legislative action to be taken in the interest of public economy to remedy the unsatisfactory state of affairs disclosed by the Royal Commission on Tyneside local government?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I regret that up to the present date there is no evidence of any substantial agreement in this matter between the various local authorities concerned, and in the absence of this I do not think that any legislative action can usefully be taken. I understand that the question of coordinating the public health medical services is still under the consideration of the Northumberland County Council and the Newcastle City Council.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MENTAL DEFECTIVE COLONY.
    Mr. Kellyasked the Minister of Health the number of patients in mental defective colonies who were illegally detained in such institutions during the last three months?
    Mr. Elliot: If the hon. Member refers to the number of patients in whose case the validity of the Order for detention was affected by a recent Judgment in the Court of Appeal, it would not be practicable to furnish the information without the examination of a very large number of cases, and I doubt whether the considerable work involved would be justified, in view of the fact that the Orders in question have been validated by the Mental Deficiency Bill which has just received the Royal Assent. If, however, the hon. Member has something else in mind, I shall be very glad to give him such information as is in my power if he will communicate with me.
    Mr. Kelly: Seeing that the question refers to those Orders the validity of which was questioned, and as these figures must be known to the Board of Control, can we not be furnished with figures of those who were illegally detained during that period?
    Mr. Elliot: I have already said that I doubt whether that considerable amount of work would be justified, but if the hon.
    2710
    Member desires to have those figures, I will look into the matter again and see if they can be easily obtained.

    ABORTION.
    Mr. Magnayasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to bring in a regulation requiring all members of the medical and nursing professions to certify and notify to the medical officers of health all operations for abortion, in view of the fact that such operations differ from others in that the life of another is involved?
    Mr. Elliot: This is among the matters which are under consideration by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Abortion, and I am unable to make any statement at the present time.
    Mr. Magnay: In view of the grave concern throughout the country on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take care to make representations to the committee to show clearly that this sort of thing is not a private misdemeanour, but a deadly national crime?
    Mr. Elliot: A very influential committee has been considering this matter for some time, and no doubt it will take all these matters into consideration.
    Mr. Logan: I take it that no recommendation of the committee will alter the law of England with regard to murder and the taking of life?
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the recent acquittal at the hands of the jury of Mr. Aleck William Bourne, who was charged, at the Old Bailey, with unlawfully using an instrument with intent to procure the miscarriage of a girl of 14 years of age; and whether, as this was a test case, he intends introducing legislation to clarify or amend the law dealing with such offences?
    Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. My attention has been drawn to this case. In reply to the second part of the question, I am not in a position to make any statement pending the issue of a report by the Inter-Departmental Committee which is investigating this and other matters concerning abortion.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the hearing of

    2711
    this case, the defendant stated in evidence before the court that if the subject of the operation had been a mental defective, he would not have operated, and is not defective mentality a state of extreme ill-health also?

    VACCINATION.
    Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many vaccination officers refuse to accept any signature other than that of a child's father as a conscientious objector to vaccination; and whether he will issue instructions to courts and vaccination officers that the signature of either parent should be accepted as sufficient?
    Mr. Elliot: Under the Vaccination Acts the obligation to cause a child to be vaccinated is placed on the "parent or person having the custody of" the child, and I am advised that a declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination made by the mother would not relieve the father of this obligation if he has the legal custody of the child.
    Mrs. Tate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in cases where the father and mother are separated and the mother goes to the court with the order signed, the vaccination officer very often returns it to the magistrates and insists upon the father's signature? Will my right hon. Friend notify to the courts that that should not be necessary?
    Mr. Elliot: I should not like to take the responsibility of stating what should or should not be done in regard to the courts without getting the advice of important and responsible people.
    Mr. Muff: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the cases enumerated by the hon. Lady, certain courts exercise that reasonable discretion?
    Mrs. Tate: And the vaccination officer returns the form.

    HACKNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (STAFF ADMINISTRATION).
    Sir George Jonesasked the Minister of Health whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the administration of the Hackney Borough Council and, in
    2712
    particular, into the case of Mr. L. J. Ellis, general foreman of the works department of that council, whose application to be placed on the permanent establishment has been refused although recommended by the borough surveyor and pressed by the man's trade union; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made as to the truth of the allegation that the holding of a certain political opinion rather than efficiency is necessary for promotion under that body?
    Mr. Elliot: I understand that the council have issued to Mr. Ellis the statutory notice defining his position in relation to the Superannuation Act, 1937, and he has already been informed that if he is dissatisfied with the decision conveyed by that notice he has a right of appeal to me.

    HOUSING (STATISTICS).
    Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Health how many houses were built in the six months ended 31st March last; and how this compares with the number built in any previous six months?
    Mr. Elliot: The number of houses built in the six months ended 31st March last was 181,944—a record for any half-year.

    KENYA (INDIANS).
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government are now in a position to consider the economic grievances of Indians in Kenya; and whether, in the near future, these British subjects shall have an opportunity of owning or renting agricultural land in any part of Kenya?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): It is difficult for me to give an adequate reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question without some indication of the particular grievances which he has in mind, but I am, of course, always ready to consider any legitimate grievances. As regards the second part of the question, the matter is still governed by the decisions set out in Command Paper No. 1922 of 1923.
    Mr. Taylor: Is there any plan in hand now to alter the present legislation?
    Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir.
    Mr. Paling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only Indians, but the natives, are not allowed to work land in certain cases in their own country?

    JAMAICA (SUGAR INDUSTRY).
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the basic export quota for Jamaican sugar under the arrangements made to implement the International Sugar Agreement; what was the actual export quota for that island in 1937–38; by what amount actual production will exceed that quota; how it is proposed to deal with this surplus; and whether arrangements can be made to avoid the necessity of compelling Jamaica to reduce her sugar crop for the coming year and so accentuate the unemployment which already exists in the island?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The International Sugar Agreement lays down a basic quota for the Colonial Empire as a whole. The distribution of this total between the various Colonies is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government. The export quota allotted to Jamaica in 1937–38 was 86,000 tons and a further quota of 16,600 tons has since been allotted to the colony. It is estimated that only a very small quantity of sugar will remain to be carried forward to next year. As regards the last part of the question, I am not yet able to say what quota it will be possible finally to allot to Jamaica for the coming year, but I am keeping in mind the consideration to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Is it not the case, in connection with sugar-growing in Jamaica, that a great many acres are going out of cultivation?
    Mr. MacDonald: A great many have gone out of cultivation compared with some periods in the past, but at present we are maintaining the acreage, and I hope we shall be able to continue to do so in the forthcoming year.

    PALESTINE (TERRORISM).
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he can give any information in connection with the throwing of incendiary bombs at three huts near Haifa, Palestine, where father, mother
    2714
    and child were burned alive, and in another hut a woman and child were killed; and can he say whether anyone was arrested;
    (2) whether he can give any information in connection with the murder of five people in the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Haroshet, Palestine; and what were the ages of the people murdered?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: With the hon. Member's permission I will answer these questions together, as they refer to the same incident.
    Kiryat Haroshet is a straggling settlement lying at the extremity of a group of nine Jewish Settlements at the foot of the Carmel Hills. It was guarded by armed Jewish Supernumerary Police, when an Arab gang attacked it late on the night of 20th July. The attackers succeeded in setting fire to two huts; I have no information as to whether incendiary bombs were used for this purpose. In one of the huts a family of three was burnt and in the other a woman and child were shot. The ages of the persons killed were as follows: A man aged 33, two women 33 and 31, and two children 11 and 2. It is believed that casualties were inflicted upon the attackers before they retired.

    BRITISH SOMALILAND.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present daily unloading capacity, measured in tons, of the port of Berbera, in British Somaliland?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The present daily unloading capacity is 200 tons.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there any intention of increasing it in view of the recent agreement?
    Mr. MacDonald: The agreement which was made this year provides for the increase of the capacity on certain conditions, but the work is not being proceeded with at present, and I cannot make any statement as to the future.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    SAFETY CLASSES.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary for Mines how many boys under

    2715
    the age of 18 employed at coal mines attended safety classes during the past year; what proportion this is of the total number of such boys employed at coal mines, whether he is aware that a number of classes have either failed to begin or fallen through owing to insufficient attendance during the past year; and whether he will consider the advisability of making attendance a necessary condition of future mining employment?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I have no statistical information as to the ages of boys attending safety classes, but the total number during the 1937–38 session was approximately 14,000, and nearly all these would be under 18 and the majority under 16 years of age. The number of boys under 18 employed in the industry is 73,000, but it must be remembered that very many of these have attended classes and gained their certificates during previous sessions. As regards the third part of the question, I am aware and regret that there have been such setbacks but, over the country as a whole, the number of classes in the 1937–38 session was 532 as compared with 484 in the previous session. As regards the suggestion made in the last part of the question, this is one of the matters to be considered when the report of the Royal Commission is received.
    Mr. T. Smith: Can the Minister say in which districts these classes have gone out of existence?
    Captain Crookshank: No, Sir; not without notice.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the reason why these classes are going out of existence is because the lads are too tired to attend them when they come out of the pits?

    ACCIDENTS (BOYS).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary for Mines what are the death rates and serious accident rates for boys under 18 working at coal mines during the past year; how he accounts for the serious accident rate among boys being higher than that among all other persons working in or about mines; and whether he can take special steps, by education and otherwise, to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the heavy rate of serious accidents to boys under 18 years of age employed in coal mines; and whether any steps are being taken to reduce the number of such accidents?
    Captain Crookshank: In 1937 the fatal accident rate to persons under 18 years of age was 0.89 per 1,000 employed, and the reportable injury rate was 5.86 per 1,000. The comparable rates in respect of persons of 18 years of age and over are, for fatal accidents 1.09 per 1,000, and for reportable injuries 4.02 per 1,000. The higher injury rate in the case of boys is probably due to the very qualities of their youth and their relative lack of experience of mining conditions. I have already stated in the House the steps which are being taken to try to counteract this, and I shall continue to impress on all concerned the value of safety classes and the need for training, supervision and discipline at the pits themselves.
    Mr. Adams: Will the Minister consider the desirability of making attendance at safety classes obligatory?
    Captain Crookshank: That matter is dealt with in Question 85, which I have answered.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that in South Yorkshire where they have had these classes the number of accidents to boys is lower than in any other area?
    Mr. Collindridge: Will the Secretary for Mines make representations to the coal-owners to the effect that these lads should be relieved during working hours in order to attend these classes, and should be compensated for any loss of remunerative time?
    Captain Crookshank: We are to have a Debate covering all these questions later in the day.

    ELECTRICALLY-DRIVEN AUXILIARY FANS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary for Mines whether the number of mechanically-driven auxiliary fans in coal mines in Great Britain has increased during the past year; and whether, in view of the dangers attending the use of these fans, he will take special steps to ensure that ventilation surveys are carried out wherever possible before such a fan is installed and also to ensure that the motor

    2717
    and switchgear of the fan, when installed, are covered by a Buxton certificate?
    Captain Crookshank: The number of electrically-driven auxiliary fans showed an increase of 67 during the year ended 3oth June, 1937, as compared with the previous year. Electrically-driven auxiliary fans are mainly used in Scotland, and the divisional inspector has dealt fully with the subject in his recently published annual report for 1937, and made recommendations, including those made by the hon. Member. The question of strengthening the existing law will be a matter for consideration when the report of the Royal Commission is received.

    MINE TEMPERATURES.
    Mr. Caryasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has again been directed to conditions in certain pits where men at the coal face work in an excessively high temperature; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to restrict working hours in such pits?
    Captain Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the
    hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on 5th July, a copy of which I will send to him.

BILL PRESENTED.
  LAW OF LIBEL (AMENDMENT) BILL,
  "to amend the law relating to libel and slander," presented by Mr. Alan Herbert; supported by Mr. Beverley Baxter, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Mr. Lyons, Mr. MacLaren, Captain Peter Macdonald, and Mr. Harold Nicolson; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply, and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 111.

  Division No. 322.]

  AYES.

  [3.46 p.m.

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

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Gluokstein, L. H.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Colvilie, Rt. Hon. John

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

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

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Grimston, R. V.

  Assheton, R.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Barclay-Harvey Sir C. M.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Barrie Sir C. C.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Baxter A. Beverley

  De la Bere, R.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

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

  Denville, Alfred

  Hepworth, J.

  Bennett Sir E. N

  Doland, G. F.

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Blair Sir R.

  Donner, P. W.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Brass Sir W.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Brown Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Duncan J. A. L.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

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

  Dunglass, Lord

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

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

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Bull B. B.

  Eckersley P. T.

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Hunter, T.

  Bulcher, H. W.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Butler R. A.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Caine, G. R. Hall-

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Campbell Sir E. T.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Cary R. A.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

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

  Everard, W. L.

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

  Channon, H.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)

  Fleming, E. L.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Chorlton, A. E. L.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Liddall, W. S.

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

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Sueter, Rear Admiral Sir M. F.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  McKie, J. H.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Magnay, T.

  Remer, J. R.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Touche, G. C.

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

  Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Markham, S. F.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Turton, R. H.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

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

  Moreing, A. C.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Morgan, R. H.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Warrender, Sir V.

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

  Sandys, E. D.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

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

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Scott, Lord William

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Sellay, H. R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Shakespeare, G. H.

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

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Patrick, C. M.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Peake, O.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Parker, J.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Pearson, A.

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

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

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

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Pritt, D. N.

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

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Ridley, G.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Ritson, J.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hayday, A.

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Batey, J.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Benson G.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hopkin, D.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jagger, J.

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

  Cape, T.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Cluse, W. S.

  John, W.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Cocks. F. S.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

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

  Collindridge, F.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Cove, W. G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Daggar, G.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Stephen, C.

  Dalton, H.

  Kirby, B. V.

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

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lathan, G.

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

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lee, F.

  Thorne W.

  Day, H.

  Logan, D. G.

  Thurtle, E.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Lunn, W.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Ede, J. C.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Tomlinson, G.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Walkden, A. G.

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

  Maclean, N.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Foot, D. M.

  Marshall, F.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Gallacher, W.

  Maxton, J.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Messer, F.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Milner, Major J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Montague, F.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Muff, G.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Paling, W.

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

  Ordered,
  "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.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—

  Finance Bill,

  Anglo-Turkish (Armaments Credit) Agreement Bill,

  2721

  Milk (Extension and Amendment) Bill,

  Local Government (Hours of Poll) Bill, without Amendment.

  Bacon Industry Bill,

  Fire Brigades Bill,

  Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Bill,

  Canterbury Gas and Water Bill,

  Workington Corporation Bill,

  Brighton Corporation (Transport) Bill,

  Middlesex County Council (Sewerage) Bill,

  Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Bill,

  London Passenger Transport Board Bill,

  Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Bill, with Amendments.

  Amendment to—

  British Museum Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

  Amendments to—

  Chichester Corporation Bill [Lords],

  Gateshead and District Tramways and Trolley Vehicles Bill [Lords],

  Stanmore Unused Burial Ground Bill [Lords],

  Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill [Lords],

  Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Island of Arran Piers." [Island of Arran Piers Order Confirmation [Lords.]

  BACON INDUSTRY BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]
  FIRE BRIGADES BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]
  NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]
  ISLAND OF ARRAN PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1938.

CLASS II.

  FOREIGN OFFICE.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £71,143, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—[NOTE.—£35,000 has been voted on account.]

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £837,138 (including a Supplementary sum of £35,I95), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry services arising out of the War."—[NOTE.—£72,000 has been voted on account.]

CLASS VI.

  MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £143,804, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."—[NOTE.—£120,000 has been voted on account.]
  3.58 p.m.
  The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): This is the fourth time that I have had to present the Estimates for the Mines Department to the Committee, which is for a longer consecutive period than that of any of my predecessors. It is also being done in a Session in which, I think, more time has been devoted to
  2744
  the problems of coal than, perhaps, in any previous year. This House has had some aspect of the coal problem before it on 22 previous Parliamentary days, and it is, therefore, not easy to be very new in anything that I have to say. For that reason, I do not propose to keep the Committee very long, because the object of the Debate is rather to permit hon. Members to place before the Committee and the country their views, which I can assure them in advance will be carefully scrutinised and sifted by myself and my Department in order that we may all contribute something to the common pool.
  It is unusual in a Debate of this kind to make any personal references, but I do not think I should let the occasion go by without saying with what very great regret His Majesty's Government have accepted the resignation of Lord Hyndley, who for over 20 years was the honorary commercial adviser of my Department. He served successive Governments, successive Presidents of the Board of Trade, successive Secretarys of Mines of all political parties, and he was during all that time of great assistance to myself and my predecessors. Pressure of other business has led to his resignation, and His Majesty's Government would like to place on record their appreciation of his services rendered for so long. The year has also seen in my Department the resignation of the Chief Inspector of Mines, Sir Henry Walker, who for many years served the industry well, and I am sure we all wish him health and happiness in his retirement. So much for those in official circles; but, again, I think the Committee would like me to make a passing reference to the death of one who was a great figure in the mining world, Mr. Herbert Smith. It is futile for me to pretend that on all occasions I agreed with everything that he said or did, but we have to recognise that he struggled hard in what he himself thought were the best interests of the men that he represented for so long. Like so many of them, he died in harness, in the middle of a shift, at his own desk in his own office, and I am sure that all of us hope that the dust will lie quietly on his grave.
  My Department has two chief functions. It is an administrative Department and it is in many ways an advisory Department. We do not run the coal industry or the export trade, but we have constant

  2745
  contact with the industry, we are concerned in many negotiations on many different occasions, and it is, therefore, customary to make a general review of the trade situation on this Vote. Hon. Members will recollect that I have already done that on one of the two previous occasions on which coal has been before the House. I have really nothing to add to the statement I made on the Board of Trade Estimates on 24th May last, except to say that I can bring up to the date some of the figures I then gave, so as to include the first six months of the year.
  In case it may be of interest to hon. Members I may say that during the first six months of this year, as compared with last, the output has increased in only two districts, and there to a very small extent, namely, in Durham and South Wales, but that over the whole coalfield there has been a decrease in output of the nature of something like 3,500,000 tons, which, of course, is a considerable drop from the very high figures of last year, but is nothing like the figure of output, say, in 1933. In fact, for six months of this year we have been producing over 2,000,000 tons a month more than in that year. Coal shipped as cargo has dropped in the six months by 1,000,000 tons; we exported 17,500,000 tons instead of 18,500,000 tons. The biggest drop has been in exports to France, a drop of about 1,000,000 tons. On the other hand there has been an increase in the case of Italy, Germany and Spain. Employment for the first six months averaged a considerably higher figure than for the same period last year; it was up by 17,500. Coal was won on an average of seven fewer days. On the other hand, for the first three months the average cash earnings per shift were over 11s., and at that figure 5½d. more than the average for the whole year 1937.
  It is difficult, of course, to give any accurate reason for this drop in exports, but I am advised that the probability lies in one of several directions. We have to recollect that over the whole of Europe the winter was a mild one, and there was probably a good deal of over-stocking last year owing to the difficulty then of getting supplies; in certain countries there has been a decline in industrial activity, and as regards France, of course, there was the problem in connection with the franc. But if we have dropped in our export
  2746
  trade, other countries have also done so. The decline of German coal exports in the first five months of this year was nearly 2,000,000 tons, or 13 per cent., a higher percentage and quantity than ours. Certainly at the moment there is a weak situation as regards exports, and I can assure hon. Members that the Government are very carefully watching the situation and are in the closest touch with those most concerned.
  There is one further point on which I would like to say a word, because it may have some importance for the future. I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) is not here, because what I am going to say anticipates a question that he has on the Paper for to-morrow. Hon. Members may know that in February, 1937, I convened a conference of all the technical interests and people directly concerned to see whether some considerations could not now be given to the use of coal in the Mercantile Marine in order to try and check the onslaught that oil is making. I was asked to nominate a chairman, which I did, in the Under-Secretary for Mines. As a result of that Conference, representative bodies sent delegates, a committee was formed, the matter was investigated very carefully, and a unanimous report was arrived at, and will be available very shortly—it is now in the printers' hands. While on this occasion I do not want naturally to detail all that they have to say on the subject, it is of interest to know that they found there was some possibility of a return from oil to coal in certain classes of shipping, more particularly large tramps, cargo liners and intermediate passenger liners of shaft horse powers ranging from 1,500 to 8,000, and they recommended that further steps should be taken in the way of experiments in that direction.
  I pass to the more directly administrative responsibilities of my Department. First of all we had a good deal of work in connection with the Coal (Registration of Ownership) Act which we passed last year, to provide for the registration of ownership of coal properties as a preliminary to the Coal Bill. I shall merely indicate the volume of the work which has to be done by saying that up to the middle of this month 19,000 applications for registration have been received, that up to that date draft particulars

  2747
  despatched were over 7,000, that 5,310 were settled, and 3,053 holdings had been registered. There was some misunderstanding during some part of the Debates on the Coal Bill, when these figures, or smaller figures, were quoted as indicating that we were wrong in our estimates of the probable number of royalty owners. It should be remembered that this is a registration of properties, and that some persons or corporations, for example, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, have hundreds, if not thousands, of separate properties to be registered. But the work is well forward.
  Another department deals with oil, and the granting of prospecting licences is, of course, an arduous and complicated piece of work, defining the areas over which licences are to be granted and the like. Since the Vote was taken last year 20 more such licences have been issued, which makes the total 89 since November, 1935, when I signed the first licence. They cover at present nearly 13,000 square miles of our island, and the holders of the licences are firms and companies which have great, and, indeed, worldwide experience in exploration and development work, and not only geological surveys but most up-to-date geophysical methods for this purpose.
  Five shallow borings have been put down, making 18 in all, and there have been 14 test wells drilled. Drilling is now going on at these wells in various parts of the country, and from one in Midlothian a small production of oil has recently been recovered. It is quite impossible to say now whether there will be any good results from that or not, but one can say that those who have undertaken this prospecting work are anxious to get the experience and to decide whether there is any likelihood of oil or not. There is another problem connected with oil, the oil from coal question. We have already had some discussion on the subject during the passage of the Finance Bill. All I can say now is that I think the Committee and the country have a much better appreciation of the problem both as a result of the report of the Falmouth Committee and the report which some hon. Members opposite were concerned in drawing up—not that I agree with all of the latter, but there was a great deal of common ground between it and the report of the Falmouth Committee,
  2748
  to whom we are all very much obliged for the work they did.
  Then, curiously enough, the Factories Act has brought a tremendous amount of work to the Department, because when it came into operation quarries which were 20 feet or less had to be taken over and come under the general quarry law. That has meant that something like 2,000 more quarries have come within the scope of mining legislation, and we have had to draw up and get approval for new general regulations dealing with these quarries, laying down all sorts of requirements with regard to safety, health, sanitation and so on. Again, the coming into force of the Factories Acts affect metalliferous mines, because factory law no longer applies to pit banks in so far as such places are engaged in any processes such as dressing and preparation for sale of these minerals. That, of course, required an immense amount of labour, but with the help and co-operation of representative bodies of all kinds concerned both with quarries and metalliferous mines these have now been brought into effect. There is one group of regulations still not completed and that is the group of electricity regulations dealing with quarries. There was some objection taken and we are awaiting the award of the arbitrator.
  The work of scientific research, of course, is never ended. I know it is disappointing to hon. Members opposite, as it must be to everyone who considers these subjects, how often in many cases there is a time lag between some discovery by research and its practical application afterwards. It is one thing to discover that certain events bring about certain results, but it requires a great deal more work than that to be able to make practical or immediate use of that discovery, whether from the point of view of health or safety. But I particularly commend to everyone who is interested in these problems the Annual Report of the Safety in Mines Research Board. It is quite true that the appendices are pretty technical and probably are above the heads of many who read them, but the body of the report and the illustrations are perfectly simple and easy to understand. This year there are some very interesting photographs as well as discussions on some experiments made in the Yorkshire coalfields with regard to double packing. For this work both Buxton and Sheffield as research stations are very fully occupied.

  2749
  I would like to repeat what 1 have said before, that if any hon. Member cares to go and see what is being done at Buxton, I shall be glad if he will let me know and I will arrange for a visit. But I warn hon. Members that most of the demonstrations are on Sundays and they may not be able to go on that day for one reason or another. During the year more than 6,000 workmen and boys go there and see the demonstrations. They are well worth seeing, and every facility will be put at the disposal of hon. Gentlemen in order to see them. Unfortunately, because the men who go there are in work, the demonstrations must take place on Sundays. Sometimes something can be arranged on Saturdays, though not so easily.
  In all this research work a great deal of co-operation goes on with research workers in foreign countries. Last summer there was an international conference of directors of research at Brussels where it was possible to exchange views on many common problems. Hon Members may recollect that, largely as a result of a suggestion thrown out in the House, I sought, through the kindness of the French Government, permission to investigate certain problems in the French coalfields with regard to explosions. While it is difficult to comment on the report of the deputation because the conditions in different coalfields are not the same, it was obviously very valuable information for us to secure, particularly as the Royal Commission is considering these problems; and I have no doubt that they will take into their consideration what was reported by this deputation.
  This work is largely financed through the Miners' Welfare Fund, and the report of the Welfare Committee is certainly one which everybody can be recommended to read, because I do not think there can be many fields of work of such enormous importance to the community which it sets out to serve. That, of course, is particularly true when it comes to pithead baths, the programme of which is going rapidly forward. At the same time, we ought not to forget that, apart from official research a great deal of work is done by all sorts of technical bodies, such as the Institute of Mining Engineers and others, who are constantly making investigations and discussing them at their meetings. I was interested when at Manchester last
  2750
  week to hear that at the annual conference two papers dealt with nystagmus and noise. Noise seems to me to-day to be one of the urgent problems that have to be considered. I know from speaking to them that a great many miners feel that with the coming of the machine they do not hear the natural noises which in the past acted as warnings to them. A lot of research can, therefore, be done into this problem.
  I mention this because, when all is said and done, we are in the midst of a technical revolution in mining with the coming of the machine, and I do not think that even the mining community itself appreciates how big a revolution it is. With industry as a whole the machine came a hundred or so years ago, but in mining it has really not come for more than about 20 years. Whether the maximum has yet been reached I do not know, nor does anybody else, but I will give a few figures to show the extent of the increase. Last year, 137,000,000 tons of coal, or 57 per cent. of the output, were cut by machine, as compared with 80,000 000 tons or 38 per cent. of the output, five years before. That is a big increase, but nothing like as big as the increase in conveying by machinery. A total of 123,000,000 tons, or 51 per cent. of the output, were conveyed by mechanical means, whereas five years ago it was 53,000,000 tons or 25 per cent. That is to say, it has more than doubled in five years. The production from pneumatic picks was trebled over the five-year period, that is to say, it has gone up from 4,000,000 tons to 13,000,000 tons.
  That involves vast changes and all sorts of complications on the purely technical side. It has, too, some other reactions. One of these, which is obvious, is that it has led to a reduction of the horse and pony population of the mines. I would like to say how gratified everybody connected with the industry must have been at the wonderful display which was shown at the Royal Show at Cardiff. I have heard from all sorts of quarters nothing but admiration and praise of the conditions of fitness of the horses which were shown there. Of course, the horse inspectors have a great deal to do and we get a certain number of complaints, which are investigated, as all complaints sent to us are. One of the most recent, which was found to be groundless, was

  2751
  sent with a covering letter which said that a thousand more cases could be produced as bad as that one. If anybody has a thousand cases, or ten, or even one where investigation should take place, I appeal to them to let me have the details, because no one wants any possibility of malpractice or cruelty to take place, but vague statements of that kind really carry us nowhere. From all the reports I have I am satisfied that the contrary is the case and that those who look after the horses and ponies in the pits are their best friends and do the best they can for them.
  As regards the inspectorate, I have already said that the Chief Inspector has retired during the year. Last year I announced my intention of appointing 16 more junior inspectors. Only 10 of these posts have been filled so far. The object of the increase was largely to increase the inspection of afternoon and night shifts. I am sorry it has not been found possible to appoint the full number yet. The reason is that the number of candidates who had the necessary qualifications and experience was disappointingly small. That may be a surprise to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is so. The selection committee nominated only 13 to go forward for the examination. That has led me to consider the question of examinations a little further and see whether it might not be that men who were qualified by having first or second-class certificates of competency had perhaps left their scholastic experience so far behind that a written examination was more difficult for them than it should be. Therefore, the experiment is being made of appointing sub-inspectors by selection. The selection committee is one which, I am sure, has the confidence of everybody. It consists of representatives of the Civil Service Commission, my Department, workmen and employers. Perhaps in that way we may be able to fill the gap. The whole question of the inspectorate, its powers, duties, and numbers, is one of the most important which are now before the Royal Commission, and I am not in anything I am saying cutting the ground from under their feet. It was in order to try and get more inspections on the afternoon and night shift that I suggested this emergency increase. In spite of the difficulties, those inspections have gone up during the year by over 90 per cent.
  2752
  They are being made at the rate of 345 a month as compared with 175, so that we have succeeded in getting something of what we wanted done.
  I would like once again to try and persuade hon. Members opposite and those in the mining areas that the inspectors' visits to pits are made without notice.
  Mr. T. Smith: Nobody believes that.
  Captain Crookshank: I will try again to give reasons why they should. Inspectors have the strictest instructions that their visits should be made without notice, but there are two conceivable sets of circumstances in which notice is given. The first is when an inspector wishes to see a particular person in a pit. The inspector is a busy man with big responsibilities, and he cannot go a long distance on the off chance of seeing Mr. A or Mr. B. He has, therefore, to make an appointment, and that is only reasonable. The second case is where, perhaps, the inspector has been invited to go to a pit either by the management or by representative workers. They would then know when he was coming. It is conceivable, too, that in order to answer some question in the House I have to call for a report on a particular subject, and the inspectors go to five or six pits to ask a specific question about this point, and it may be that some of the other pits in the neighbourhood would hear he had been about and would think that he would soon come to them. I think it is really because of factors of that sort that this idea has developed, but hon. Gentlemen can take it from me that the inspections are made entirely without notice. I am sorry that I do not seem to have convinced some hon. Members, but they will later be able to explain why they think I am wrong. These are the facts. It is also true that if an inspector turns up at a pit the news may be telephoned round the place, but I do not think hon. Gentlemen will suggest that all telephones should be cut off as soon as the inspector arrives. If everything could be put in perfectly good condition before the inspector got round there would not be very much wrong. I hope hon. Members will themselves dispel this impression, because it is very hard on the inspectorate.
  I turn to the accident record of last year, and I am sorry to say that the number of those killed has gone up as

  2753
  compared with the previous year. I always dislike using any adjectives in this matter. I merely note that in 1936 the number of persons killed underground and on the surface was 790, which was at the rate of 3.36 per million tons of mineral raised. That was the lowest figure which has been recorded. In 1937 the number killed rose to 859, and the rate per million tons of mineral raised rose to 3.47, which, as I have said, is higher than that of the year before, but apart from that year was the lowest figure on that basis.
  When dealing with accidents we must recollect that there is, perhaps, a divided responsibility. In the first place, there is the responsibility of the Government for those who draw up the regulations and for the inspectors whose work it is to see that the law is carried out. That is one set of responsibilities. Then there are the responsibilities of the management of the colliery undertakings, and there are, further, the responsibilities of the workman himself. They are varying responsibilities, and I do not say that they are the same in degree and kind, but failure on the part of any one of the three groups may involve an increase in the accident list. I am sure that hon. Members opposite, who have great experience, will agree that it is no use for me to pass and to publish a regulation if afterwards it is not observed. Some regulations have to be kept by the management and some more kept by the workmen, and I think that if everybody connected with the industry went through the reports of the divisional inspectors and marked the facts, the figures and the information which struck him he would be amazed at what a lot there is which needs to be carefully heeded.
  The inspectors give much advice, for example, as I said in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) just now, the divisional inspector for Scotland has made certain proposals in his report which I hope those in that area will carefully consider and put into practice. Those are what I may call extra-statutory recommendations, but they do help good mining practice. On the other hand, if anybody were to read the report of the inspector for the North Midland area he would be distressed to find him stating definitely with regard to a very large category of accidents that no
  2754
  fewer than 16 of those accidents would not have resulted if the men concerned had fully carried out Clause 2 of the Explosives in Coal Mines Order, which deals with the precautions to be taken to shelter oneself and to see that men in the neighbourhood have taken shelter. It is very tragic that he should have to record that, because the regulation is clear and, one would have thought, fairly easy to carry out. Therefore, I say there is joint responsibility on all in the mining industry to try to reduce the number of accidents.
  Though the figures for last year show an increase on the year before, I have to say, with the deepest sorrow and regret, that for the first six months of this year the figures are worse than for the same period last year. Whereas up to 16th July last year there had been 471 deaths from accidents this year the figure was 535. Of course, one has to bear in mind the terrible Markham disaster, which helped to swell this year's figures, although in the early part of last year there was the Holditch disaster which to some extent, though not to the same extent, helped to swell last year's figures; but the fact does remain that during the last year the record of accidents has been very bad, and I think I am not going too far in saying that the industry must be prepared for a drastic strengthening of the precautions. I am not prepared to say here and now what they will be. We are awaiting the advice of those who have studied the matter intensively during the past 2½ years, but I cannot help thinking that as a result of those figures it will be necessary to take a great many steps which are probably not foreseen at the moment. One is in a difficulty in discussing this matter by reason of the fact that the Royal Commission has been set up to advise upon it and has taken every kind of evidence from all the interested parties.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: It has taken a long time, too.
  Captain Crookshank: Not in view of the questions they have to consider. If the hon. Member refreshes his memory he will find that a previous Royal Commission dealing with the same sort of problem took two or three times as long as this particular Commission is likely to take, if my information is correct. One curious thing I would merely mention

  2755
  in passing. Six months is too short a period for a trend to show itself, but it is remarkable that this year the figures of accidents in Scotland, Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire—the northerly coalfields—show the considerable increase of 63 deaths, whereas in the same period the southerly coalfields—South Wales, the Midland and Southern area—show a reduction of 40. One can say that from the fact that these are accidents there is in them that element of uncertainty for which one cannot account, but it is really remarkable that there should have been this great increase in the North and a satisfactory, if I may be allowed to use the word, reduction in the South.
  While speaking about accidents I should like to say a word about boys. In their case the figures still remain deplorable, in spite of everything that has been done, and let us not minimise that aspect of the matter. The Yorkshire coalfield was the first, I think, to launch into a great campaign of safety classes, and that movement has been taken up practically everywhere else, though I must admit that there are one or two districts which are not as far forward as I should like to see, notably South Wales and Northumberland and some of the smaller coalfields. Great impetus has been given to classes for boys on safety subjects. Last year we had a record of 28 boys under 16 killed, compared with 29 the year before. The number of those injured is very high. The rate per 1,000 employed—for injuries lasting more than three days—worked out last year at 204, which was actually one point under the previous year, but above the 1930–35 average. I have said before on many occasions and I repeat it that figures of this kind for accidents in general, and also for accidents to boys—which make a different kind of appeal—are a challenge to everyone concerned to see what can be done. Interest in the safety classes shows no general falling off. At 358 centres something like 14,000 boys were enrolled in safety classes, and more than half of them received badges. The number of boys under 18 employed is about 73,000.
  Mr. David Grenfell: Then only about 20 per cent. attend classes?
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member must not overlook the point that some
  2756
  of the elder boys have been to classes last year perhaps and have got their badges, or went the year before, so that the actual number of 14,000 in the classes in one year does not represent the total of those who have attended classes. Here I have some information which I think will interest hon. Members. I have had an investigation made in Yorkshire—and we are going to extend it further—to try to find out whether there was any diminution in the number of accidents among boys who had attended the classes and had got badges as compared with those who had not attended. This sample investigation, which covered about 5o per cent. of the boys in Yorkshire, showed that it has certainly been of great advantage to the boys to attend classes and gain badges. We found that the rate of injury last year per thousand of those employed below ground was 207 among badge holders under 16 and among non-badge holders 319. Among those working on the surface the rate for badge holders was 38 and for non-badge holders 78. If that is representative of the general position all over the country it does show the very definite value of going to the classes and acquiring sufficient information to qualify for a badge.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Did you take into consideration the grade of work which the lads were doing?
  Captain Crookshank: No. As far as I know, it was a general inquiry among 50 per cent. of those working above ground and underground. I am not claiming anything remarkable for this investigation. It was only a test to see whether there had been any effect at all, and it looks from those figures as though there had been beneficial results. But whether that be so or not it does not alter my opinion that the greater the number of boys who go to these classes the better. Again, I think we must always remember that attendance at the classes is not the end of the whole story. That is only a preliminary. Knowledge, skill and ability to avoid danger can come only with practical training, and the boys have got to be looked after when they go into the pits. Attendance at these classes is only a preliminary; after that there still remains a great deal to be done. Training, supervision and discipline all have to play their part when

  2757
  they go to work, but these classes, as far as they go, are an important preliminary.
  There is one final aspect of mining conditions which always interests hon. Members and that is the use of protective equipment. Its use has gone ahead very considerably in the last year, I am glad to say. All who have seen some of the hard hats which have been dented, where the dent has meant a man's life saved, will recognise their value. Last year 147,000 hard hats were supplied to miners, making a total of 435,000 in three years. Of course I do not take into account, because I do not know, what proportion of these may have been replacements, but I do know that there are some mines in which every workman wears one. Safety boots are also increasing in numbers. One firm alone supplied 100,000 pairs last year. In one area 47,000 pairs of gloves were issued. Goggles are gradually being used, but not in the numbers which I think they will ultimately attain. The use of shin-guards has not gone very far. No doubt hon. Members were amused by a remark in one of the reports that while a professional footballer would not think of going on to the field without shinguards a great many miners whose risks are far greater do not use them. We have tried to ensure, with the experience we are now getting, that the hats come up to some proper standard of safety. An official test has now been formulated and there is certification, and a trade mark has been registered under the Trade Marks Act. As soon as sufficient experience has been gained similar action will be taken in the case of other protective articles. In this matter one has to keep in touch with the British Standards Institution, and I am glad to say that the National Safety First Association have helped the mining industry very greatly by their services of posters and special bulletins dealing with particular difficulties. I think that under this heading some satisfactory progress has been made.
  My speech has been largely a statistical and factual report of a number of topics which I know hon. Members opposite will want to elaborate. I purposely cannot give any estimate or guess regarding what the developments may have to be in regard to safety and health until we know what is recommended by the Royal Commission. No doubt it will show that great progress has been made. I finish to-day
  2758
  almost back where I started, by referring to the marketing, the preparation and the cleaning of coal. Last year about 44 per cent. of the coal mined was cleaned. If anybody has any doubt about this matter, let him see exhibits in the Glasgow Exhibition of the remarkable work which is being done by the industry in this direction. In the session of Parliament which is now coming to an end the coal mining industry is being given a great deal of power on its organisation side, and great opportunities; all that remains now is for it to go forward in an efficient manner for the benefit of everybody concerned in it.
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. Grenfell: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in moving this Amendment I have no lack of recognition of the strenuous work which he and his Department have done during the last 12 months, and I join with him in expressing regret, and appreciation of their services, respecting the gentlemen who are resigning from the Mines Department. I think it is not out of place that I should also mention Mr. Herbert Smith, who came up from the pit, socially, to live a life of great usefulness and service in his native country, and who has passed away, leaving memories of great work done. A great debt is owed to him by the mine workers of this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the frequency with which he had appeared before this House in the last 12 months. He told us that his Department had occupied 22 days in the last Session. As I looked at him I thought that he must be approaching his Parliamentary century this Session, and I noticed how gracefully he carried his bat and took up his position before the wicket. If, in the course of the day, he is caught out, it will not be because he is wanting in lightness and deftness of touch, but because on this side of the Committee we should like a little more enterprise on his part sometimes, and bolder strokes, aimed at the boundary.
  He has raised many points which, I think, are highly important, and I shall endeavour to refer to them as I go along. I am glad that he has opened out a very wide range, as Secretaries for Mines do on this occasion. This opportunity is given to us once a year to consider the relationship of the Secretary for Mines and

  2759
  his Department to the very important industry with which he is associated, and for which he is responsible in a very direct way, regarding the day-by-day conduct and manifold operations of this fundamental industry. We are glad that he made a comprehensive speech following the example of last year, when he referred to the search for oil in addition to the production of coal, and gave details of employment, working conditions, research, accidents and health.
  Since we last discussed the Estimates, the House has given, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman truly said, much attention to the mining situation. The Coal Mines Bill, to which I will make a passing reference, takes note of the fundamental changes now being carried out, and which have been referred to as an industrial or technical revolution. This revolution has required a new organisation of the coal industry, and the Coal Mines Bill, taking account of the changes in the structure of mining organisation, provides legislative changes for the future operation of the industry. None of the changes will be independent of the Department. The more we legislate for the mining industry the more intimate and vital will the connection be between the industry and this House. When the Coal Mines Bill passes into law and puts forth its full effect, it will be seen that the responsibility of the Government in relation to coal will be considerably increased.
  The Secretary for Mines has given us almost a surfeit of statistical detail. He was very well pleased on the whole with the figures, and took far more comfort from those carefully selected statistics than we take. I cannot share his satisfaction and his optimism. We do not find that encouragement, because there is much cause for disquiet in all quarters of the industry, whether in production or distribution. Only the most purblind would fail to realise that the form of mining organisation has changed in every direction. I might summarise the main direction of those changes by saying that while aggregate production has increased slightly, the number of mines in operation has declined in 18 years by 35 per cent. There is a concentration upon the number of units in production. There have been few new sinkings of shafts and no new developments in the industry in
  2760
  this respect. Many old mines have been permanently closed, with the result that the average output from each mine is far higher than it formerly was. The output per man has gone up by 20 per cent. The individual output has been rising year by year in recent years, and is now 10 per cent. per man per annum and 15 per cent. per man per shift higher than in 1913. The Secretary for Mines may take much consolation from the figures which tend to show that increase of production, but we are not so happy about it. In the period since 1920, more than 500,000 men have been driven out of the industry, and there is a fall of 40 per cent. in the aggregate number of employés. Against this the individual output has risen, and the gross output has thus been maintained.
  The depression has been far more severe in some quarters than in others. The areas which have suffered most heavily are South Wales, the North and the North-East. Only half the number who were employed in South Wales in 1920 are now in employment; the total of 273,000 in 1920 has declined to the present total of 132,000. Like old soldiers, many old colliers have ceased to exist officially because they do not appear on the lists of the colliery offices or of the Employment Exchanges. They are neither among the living nor among the dead. They are existing on meagre pensions and upon public assistance. Others are not old enough to get old age pensions and have to be maintained by their sons, daughters or other relatives. Even the Unemployment Assistance Board looks upon them with disdain. Men in the fifties who are too old to get work and too young to get pensions have been turned out to make way for the machines which are invading the mines. Here is a revolution, as the Minister truly said. The machines have been taken down into the pit with the sole object of increasing production and lowering wages costs. There is no social purpose in their use. The process of machine mining has been successful in regard to output, because fewer men are necessary to produce a given output and less wages are paid per ton produced.
  Unemployment is the result of technological progress in all coal mining industries throughout the world. More than 20 per cent. of the former number of coal workers of the world have been displaced

  2761
  in this way. More machines mean less men, and lower industrial costs mean more destitution. In 1936, which is the last year for which we have complete figures, 55 per cent. of the coal mined in this country was cut by machine. In the United States, 79 per cent. of coal was machine mined; in France, 92 per cent.; in Germany, 97 per cent.; and in Belgium, 98.5 per cent. Greater production has not raised the standard of miners' wages.
  In regard to wages and the standard of living, the Secretary for Mines gave us the figure of 5½d. per day as the improvement in wages during the last six months over the corresponding period of last year. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see at once that the cost of living has increased to a greater extent than that small addition to the nominal wages. We have the audited figures, which tell us the simple, subtle and plausible story of the ascertained prices and ascertained costs. Year by year we have been told in those ascertainments of colossal losses. These mechanised statistics and ascertainments appear to confirm the suspicion which all miners have that coalowners are the most hardy people on earth, because they thrive on losses. Although wages have been slightly more in the last few years, the miner's proportion of his production is less than it was in 1934, because his output has been increasing. We are not satisfied with the system of marketing. A committee is investigating the disparity between the prices at the pithead and those paid by consumers. We are not satisfied that those prices are correctly reflected in the audited accounts. The statement of costs covers a multitude of sins. There is no check or disclosure of the enormous hidden sums which are shared in the profits of distribution.
  The Minister is responsible to the extent that he has approved of a selling scheme, and his Department has far more responsibility in regard to export prices than is apparent. The world export markets for coal are no longer free. Governments play their part, and this Government has played its part in negotiating particular agreements with one country and another. I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he winds up the Debate, to explain why the Board of Trade has not been able to maintain our share in foreign markets. He said that we have not suffered as great a decline in these last six months as Germany has,
  2762
  but, if he went back three or four years, he would find that Germany has vastly improved her share of the world markets. It is difficult to understand why prices have been allowed to rise—and in saying this I make no complaint against fair prices—even in the export trade, when the competition of foreign producers is so keen.
  We hear much of subsidies, with regard to which fantastic figures have been mentioned, as an explanation of the large German and Polish exports. I have always distrusted those figures, but it has been urged that subsidies should be granted in this country in order that we may find a level ground of competition with the German and Polish merchants. I have looked at the figures, and I would like the Minister to give us some explanation of the immense increase in the prices of export coal. I find that in 1934 we exported 39,600,000 tons of coal, of a value of £31,800,000, or a price per ton of 16s. rd. In 1935, the quantity exported was 38,700,000 tons and the value £31,500,000, the price per ton being 16s. 4d. In 1936, we exported 34,500,000 tons, of a value of £29,200,000, the price per ton being 17s. In 1937 our export was 43,300,000 tons, its value £37,600,000, and the price per ton 18s. 8d.; while in 1938 the price per ton has stood at an average of 21s. 6d. Why has there been an increase of 5s. 6d. per ton in the price of export coal if competition from foreign countries is as keen as it is said to be? The volume of exports has been maintained for four years, during which we have raised our prices steadily to a level which is 5s. 6d. per ton higher than it was at the beginning of that period. We should like to be told why subsidies are necessary, and whether they are to be given to the British producer regardless of profits or world prices, or whether they are to be given to the manufacturing consumers abroad, who will be competitors with our manufacturers in the markets of the world.
  I have here the ascertainments for the March quarter of this year, which show that in that quarter 11,000,000 tons of coal were exported, at greatly improved prices, and every producing district in this country, every single coalfield in the country, showed a profit, ranging from 3s. 2d. per ton in one of the Midland districts to is. id. per ton in South Wales

  2763
  and Monmouthshire, or an average of 2S. a ton on all coal commercially disposable. Have these high profits been necessary or justified, in face of the assertion that foreign competition in the markets abroad is as keen as it is said to be?
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the miners' organisations in this country and abroad have no desire to carry on this cut-throat competition between the mineworkers of the various coal-producing countries of the world. We are tired of all this competition, which has brought down the miners of all countries to a level of starvation and destitution. The Secretary for Mines knows the great concern of the Miners' Federation and of the workers' organisations in all countries, and their desire to prevent a return to the cut-throat competition which has inflicted so much hurt upon the workers all round. He has tremendous influence in this connection, and can do much to promote international confidence and raise the material conditions of the workers by comprehensive measures of agreement. He knows that, unless some international agreement is brought about soon, unless there is some understanding, there will be a fresh outburst of competition. The French miners and the Belgian miners, working less hours than we are working in this country at the present time, will be pressed to give up their short hours and extend their working day, and so the cycle of competition will be revived once again, to the detriment of each and all of the countries. Why does not the Minister take the mine-workers' representatives into consultation, and work with them and with the mineowners in an endeavour to build up a sane system of price regulation which will be fair and equitable all round, without discrimination for or against any class of consumers, so that prices shall be based always on the primary principle that all the workers in all the producing countries have decent, healthy and honourable conditions of work and living?
  I do not want to criticise the coal agreements. The figures for the first five months of 1936, 1937 and 1938 indicate clearly that the exports to the countries with which we have agreements have been maintained in more than full volume, and that prices have more than correspondingly advanced. The one exception to this is in the anthracite trade, which has
  2764
  suffered a loss of demand from Canada amounting to 150,000 tons as compared with 1936, and a loss of nearly £187,000 in revenue from this source. Would the Secretary for Mines try his hand at bringing about a satisfactory settlement with Canada—a coal and bacon agreement or a coal and wheat agreement, exchanging coal for wheat, exchanging coal for bread and meat, and cutting out all those who play with prices and lose markets at their will?
  I come now to the domestic responsibilities of the Secretary for Mines at home. He is in charge of a large system of administration which deals intimately with the conditions under which the work of mining is carried on. He has regard to the lay-out and the number of shafts, the provision of suitable machinery for winding, lowering and raising men, the condition of the mine atmosphere, the enforcement of the law and the supervision which the law requires from the owners and managers of mines. Virtually he has the power and authority almost of a dictator in many respects in the conduct of this industry. The owners have their responsibility; they invest their money in the mines; but generations of workpeople have lived on the coalfields and have invested their lives in the hardy enterprise of mining. For more than 100 years the House of Commons has laid obligations on the mineowners in the interests of safety. Managers, deputies and other officials are appointed to fulfil various duties laid down by law, and there are His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines. It has been said that the inspectors have no contact with the colliery companies until they arrive on the spot, but some of us know differently. If such contact has ceased entirely, there has been much change. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that the preparations which are made the day before, and the week before, indicate that it is known that the inspector is to visit the colliery. If all that is changed, it is all for the better. He asked us whether we would like the telephone to be stopped once the inspector appears at the pit-top, so that nobody below could obtain information about his visit. But we had a wireless system in the coal mines which worked infallibly long before there was any wireless on the surface, and I do not think it is possible to prevent the sending of these communications round the mine.

  2765
  His Majesty's inspectors are being sent to all mines to inspect and advise on methods of maintaining health and safety, but nevertheless it is a disturbing fact that we have not been successful in making the mines safer from the dangers which are incidental to work below ground—work carried on in conditions of utter darkness, broken only by artificial light of limited range, where all the travelling ways and working spaces are excavated beneath a roof weighed down with enormous pressure over the space where the work is carried on. The methods of work vary according to many factors and elements that are present in the mines—the nature of the roof, the thickness of the coal seam, its inclination; all these things play a part in determining the method of exploitation of the coal. Methods have undergone a general change following the introduction of machinery into the inmost workings of the mines. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said quite truly that the coal-mining industry was late in its application of mechanisation to the actual work at the coal face, but, now that we have the machines there, he will find that the horse power of machinery in proportion to the number of men employed is almost the highest of all industries in this country, and there is this astounding fact, that, for every man who works in the mines of this country at the present time, there is the equivalent of more than 5o men's labour in the machines which accompany him in his work. More than 5o times the manual labour is employed in the machines driven by electricity, compressed air, and steam. Electricity and compressed air now do all the underground pumping and hauling, and more than 50 per cent. of the cutting and conveying is done by power-driven machines.
  These changes have altered materially the lay-out of the working places. There is immense concentration of men and mechanical power, which results in much noise, dust and smoke; and, with greater specialisation and co-ordination of labour in the various shifts into which the men are divided, new disturbing factors have neutralised or negatived whatever advantages might have ensued from a more symmetrical plan of operations for coal getting. Those who are most familiar with the new conditions are highly apprehensive of the effect upon general safety. Machines have been introduced into the
  2766
  working face, with miles of electric cables and all kinds of appurtenances for insulating the high-potential energy which is sent through them to work the machines. There is no absolute guaranteee of safety; new sources of ignition of gas have been placed in close proximity to the places where gas has been drained off as the mine workings proceed. I am not exaggerating the dangers; they are brought to notice elsewhere. It is clear that we are courting too greatly the risk of explosion and fire unless we are adequately equipped with technical safeguards and a highly trained supervisory staff, and, above all, with the highest possible standard of air supply—air free from inflammable gas or dust—in addition to the most perfect machines and accessories for use below ground.
  The Secretary for Mines has much responsibility for and much authority over all these things. He is in charge of the vast task of administering and regulating all these various conditions. He himself has referred to his power under official regulations—power to make the law, power to initiate regulations making changes in the law, and to impose new conditions after consultation with the industry, without the detailed authority even of the House of Commons. His success in these matters is not all that we should desire. We have reports of accidents which echo within this Chamber. From time to time the terrible blast of explosions of gas or coal dust comes to us, sitting in this Chamber, as a startling reminder of the dangers of the mines and the responsibilities of Ministers and of Members of the House. No one here is free from responsibility; each and every one of us, in whatever part of the House he sits, shares in the responsibility.
  We regret to note that we have fallen behind other countries in this matter. More lives are lost from explosions in this country than in any European country. France has had a clean record for seven years; no ignition of gas has been reported there, and not one single life has been lost. In this time we have lost 700 lives. Holland, Belgium and Germany have made more headway against this risk than Britain, yet all these have more mechanised coal getting than we have here. Mechanisation is not solely responsible for this added danger. This is what

  2767
  Major Hudspeth, who went to France, said of the inquiries he made in Paris:
  "Whilst not in a position to make a full comparison between mines in France and Britain as regards either the liability to gas or the standards of ventilation in practice as judged by the percentage of firedamp in the returns, I am satisfied (a) that there are mines in France where the liability to gas is high—as high as in some of the more gassy mines in this country; and (b) that while at the large majority of the mines in Great Britain the ventilation is up to, or better than, a 1 per cent. return standard, at some (and not all of them with exceptionally high rates of gas emission) it is not. In the absence of more detailed information the evidence is not, and perhaps cannot be, conclusive, but it would appear that the comparative freedom from explosion in France is not unconnected with the high statutory standards of ventilation."
  Forty-five years ago I began working underground. From the very first day I took an intense interest in the question of safety and working conditions. I obtained my manager's certificate more than 31 years ago. I have held publicly on every appropriate occasion that it is not necessary that an explosion should take place in any mine in this country. I have said it is possible to avoid explosions. France has shown us the way, and what France has done we ought to be able to do. In the past we have prided ourselves on our progress. Speeches made in this House may be quoted to show the pride taken in our superior record in this regard, but we are now behind other countries. We are sacrificing far too many men. Accidents are declining in Germany, in Czechoslovakia, in Belgium and in France; and it is a shameful thing that we should sacrifice so many young lives as are being sacrificed for the toll of accidents about which the hon. and gallant Member has spoken. Several Members can speak of conditions in their own districts. I would be happier not to have to say that the total of men injured has increased. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that more than one person in five is injured through being struck by a fall of stone or in some other way and has to remain away from work and to receive compensation.
  The increase in the number of men killed in explosions is still more disturbing, and we ought to pay it the most immediate attention indeed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to certain explosions reported recently. I am not
  2768
  at all happy about the explanations which have been given, which may become the official explanation of the occurrences in those cases. I feel some difficulty in speaking on this matter, because the Secretary for Mines was good enough in 1936 to appoint me to serve on the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines. The Royal Commission has been investigating the circumstances in which accidents occur. It is not my intention to speak on the progress we have made. I sincerely trust that we shall make our report before the Recess ends. I believe the House will be convinced of the urgency of the recommendations we make. It is not possible for me to suggest legislation to-day, but the situation calls for effective measures. The Secretary for Mines is at the head of this administrative system. Neither the Secretary for Mines nor the House can afford to make the mistake of thinking that nothing can be done. Something must be done. The administration must be tightened up. There is an immense field for administrative action without delay. The mines can be made far safer and more conducive to health under the existing law. There are 750,000 men at work in our mining industry. Eighty per cent. of these are employed underground. They are doing work which is vital and essential to the general life and industrial prosperity of this country. These mines are being mechanised. Temperatures are high, and becoming increasingly so as the work is carried to greater depths.
  There was a question on the Order Paper to-day, that was not reached, in the name of one of my hon. Friends from Lancashire, which shows the concern of my Lancashire colleagues with this question of temperature. Men descend 3,000 or 3,500 feet—and I believe that in one part of one mine they have burrowed below the 4,000 feet limit—with a temperature of 100 degrees. These are industrial conditions, which produce ill-health. There is the question of accommodation which the body has to make, not only to this increasing temperature and increasing flow of perspiration, but to the increased atmospheric pressure. Each day's descent means four inches additional barometric pressure. Immense pathological changes are involved each day. We do not know what injury is caused to these men. Years ago in this

  2769
  House I pleaded for more attention to be given to silicosis. I said that thousands of men were likely to be affected by this disease. That was an under-estimate, and not an over-estimate. Let us see that we do not cripple our men further by this compulsion to work in high temperatures. Conditions are becoming more onerous all round. The record of explosions, with heavy loss of life, is a reproach to all of us. There is a greater strain on the nerves and bodies of the men. Dust plays havoc on the men exposed to deep mining. I trust that to-day's Debate will quicken the interest and the practical sympathy, so that our responsibilities can be discharged and the utmost amelioration in mining conditions can be achieved.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Macdonald: One is tempted to follow the rather wide survey of the Secretary for Mines every time he speaks, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has done it so well in some directions, I shall resist the temptation to follow on the same lines. I was pleased that the Secretary for Mines told the Committee that he did not intend to allow the fact that there was a Royal Commission sitting on the questions of health and safety to prevent his doing certain things. I have had some fears for over two years that he was sheltering behind this Commission on every occasion possible. I remember in 1935 three colleagues of mine, at Question time, put certain questions to the Secretary for Mines. Those three colleagues have now passed away. They were Mr. D. L. Davies, Mr. John Potts and Mr. George Hardie. The Secretary for Mines readily sheltered himself by saying that he was sorry, but since the questions they asked were being considered by the Royal Commission, he had better leave it there. He has done that on many occasions since. He has never failed to take full advantage of the setting up of the Royal Commission. I appreciate the fact that setting up a Royal Commission does put him in a special position, but he has taken too much advantage of the fact. I always understood that Royal Commissions were set up in many cases for the shelving of difficult problems, and I suspect that that is so in this case.
  We were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower that this Commission
  2770
  will make its recommendations some time before November, and I am told that it will take 12 months for the report to be considered before anybody can make specific suggestions on it. I ask the Secretary for Mines to realise that there is a lot he can do in the meantime, and I hope he is not going to continue to shelter behind the Commission. He possesses immense power—sufficient power, I think, to remove many of these evils. There are many questions I could raise in this Debate, but I shall confine myself in particular to three, and I shall deal with them mainly from the Lancashire point of view. My hon. Friends who are mining Members from Lancashire have decided to abstain from the Debate in order to allow all districts to have a voice. I hope that you, Colonel Clifton Brown, will see that so far as possible every district will have a voice in the Debate.
  The first question to which I want to refer is that which my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has, with a persistence that this House always expects from him, dealt with on many occasions—the question of hot and deep mines. I resented very much the hint that the Minister gave on 5th July, in replying to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, when he said that this matter would have to stay over until the Royal Commission reported, since it was one of those that the Commission had dealt with. If he appreciated the conditions in these mines, he might not suggest waiting another 12 or 18 months before this matter is dealt with. I have here a report by some of my colleagues on conditions in two mines in Lancashire. These facts and figures ought to be put on record. It deals with an inspection of the Patsonage Pit, Arley Colliery, Leigh, Lancashire, on 29th July, 1937. The shaft is nearly 1,000 yards down. The east brow is nearly 3,000 yards in. The depth of the coal face from the surface is over 3,500 feet. The temperature is 102 degrees Fahrenheit dry, and 81.5 wet. The section—the thickness of the coal worked—is 3 feet. The noise at the coal face is deafening. You cannot hear anything. The men work naked. These three colleagues of mine were down this mine for less than four hours. One of them lost 7 lbs. in weight in that time, the other 4 lbs., and the third 3 lbs. The men who

  2771
  work in this mine average 11 lbs. loss of weight every day they go down.
  I was astounded that the late Divisional Inspector of Mines for our district, in his evidence before the Commission, should give a hint that because the men were acclimatised it did not matter if they lost 11 lbs. in weight per day and regained it over night, and experienced the same thing the next day. Does anyone suggest that men can work in these conditions without suffering injury later. Is the health not bound to be undermined sooner or later? The Secretary for Mines must realise that he cannot afford to wait for 18 months before this is dealt with. As regards the other pit—the Pendleton Pit—things, if possible, are even worse. It is a deep, and a hotter mine. Speaking on 4th December, 1935, Professor K. Neville Moss referred to these conditions. He said:
  "If you want to slim take a tip from the miner, who slims as he works. He can lose as much as 18½ lbs. a day.
  Tests I carried out on 53 men in a Pendleton (Lancashire) Colliery showed that the loss of weight from perspiration varied from 18½ to 9 lbs. a day."
  He goes on in humorous vein—I do not know why he was humorous on this issue. The report says:
  "And if you want to be bright and active after the day's toil here is another miner's secret Professor Moss has discovered:
  "Drink 12 pints of salted water a day. The salt cures cramp, removes any acute fatigue, and banishes inertia,"
  I hope that the Minister will realise that this question ought not to have to wait to be dealt with. He has power to deal with it now. I ask him to request one of his junior inspectors—I realise that the senior or divisional inspector is rather busy—to visit these mines and to submit a report to him. I realise that reports from the workmen's side and even from the employers' side may be looked upon as prejudiced and biased, but he should obtain a full and detailed report from a member of the inspectorate. I was rather surprised that the divisional inspector himself made no reference to this matter. His predecessor Mr. Chorlton made rather a brief reference to it, but the present divisional inspector, Mr. Fraser, apparently sees no reason to make any reference to it. I looked anxiously through his report to find a
  2772
  reference, but the matter was not mentioned. Conditions like these ought not to prevail in any coalfield without the divisional inspector knowing about them and making some reference to them in his report so that the Minister may have official information about it. It should not be left to Members of this House to bring the matter to his notice.
  I know that it is difficult to deal with the question of hours in this Debate, but I think that something could be done by agreement. I am not sure that output would suffer by reduced hours. Last Saturday a miner's agent responsible for one of these collieries said that he had to meet the management on this issue because some men had left their working place a little earlier than they ought to have done. He had to plead with the management not to deal harshly with the men. These men had become exhausted and felt they must leave their work. Men who have to work under such conditions ought not to be chastised, and the Minister ought to take some action on the lines I have indicated. Mr. Fraser mentions the question of overtime in a sentence in his report. He said that five complaints referred solely to overtime, and that is all he had to say. The Minister may ask us not to be suspicious as regards the inspectors and not to think for a moment that they are sympathetic to the point of view of the owners. Suspicion has never entered my nature, and I do not desire that it ever should, but the Minister must realise that the actions of some of the inspectors of necessity create suspicion.
  Overtime is a very serious matter in Lancashire. We called a special conference of the county in February in order to deal with it, and yet when we received the report of the Inspector we found only the reference that five complaints had been made, and no more. I wish to give to the Committee some facts which were produced at the conference called to deal with this matter, and if the Minister can rebut them in any shape or form, I hope he will. The men who made these statements are not in the habit of making wild statements. I will not mention the name of the colliery, otherwise there might be victimisation. One statement says: "On Monday there were 170 men down after 3.30 p.m.; on Tuesday, 183 men down after 3.30, the last man being down until

  2773
  5.50 p.m.; on Wednesday, 146, and on Thursday 184." That is the record for the week. It is no use the Minister saying that we must bring specific cases forward and give the times and the work the men were employed on, and that he could not take proceedings without these particulars.
  I know that it is difficult for the Minister to take legal proceedings without specific information, but there is much he can do to prevent this sort of thing continuing. When I find that his inspector dismisses this in one sentence in his report, I am myself compelled to be somewhat suspicious as to where he stands with regard to overtime. I am not sure that the inspectorate are trying to prevent overtime, or whether they are not allowing a certain amount of work to come inside the Clause which was never intended by this House. I am not certain that he was correct when he said five complaints. I sometimes think that he may have overlooked one or two. A colleague of mine at that same conference—he is a very reliable man, who in the days to come will probably find himself on the Floor of this House to voice his grievances here—said:
  "During the last six months we—"
  one of the biggest branches in Lancashire—
  "have actually dealt direct with Inspector Fraser, sent him dates, times, shifts, etc., and the men concerned are objecting to being made the scapegoats. When a new face is opened out those men are missing, because it is suspected that their names, together with times and dates, have been sent on to the colliery company."
  I do not suspect Mr. Fraser of doing that sort of thing. I put him far above using names submitted to him in the colliery office. I do not think he would do it; I sincerely hope not. Whatever confidence he may have in colliery managers, I have not much. Those men spoke with some experience and knowledge of the conditions there, and seemed to suspect that men who made reports were not getting the same treatment as men who did not make reports.
  I ask the Secretary for Mines to send an inspector to some of these collieries. If he would like the names of the collieries, I will give them to him later. He should send an inspector frequently towards the end of the shift so as to see what is happening and find out for himself. This sort of thing is occurring everyday,
  2774
  and I hope that the Minister will have it investigated. I have no doubt that other hon. Members who will follow me may have further evidence of overtime being worked in other pits. This inspectorate are far too lax on this matter, which is not dealt with as it ought to be.
  Another question which seriously concerns Lancashire is that of flooding. I have already put a question down to the Minister who will have a chance of replying to it on Friday, though if he can reply to me on this question to-night, I shall be glad to withdraw my question for Friday. The question relates to the closing of Lancashire pits because of flooding. At the moment there is a case in the court where two colliery companies are engaged in litigation on this very issue. If the amount of money they are spending on litigation had been spent previously on adequate pumping machinery there would have been no difficulty between the two companies. We were told by the Minister a few days ago that this matter is being closely watched. I often wonder what this term means, as it is used so often by Ministers at that Box. The Minister must realise that colliery companies are out for financial gain and no other purpose. There are times when they come in contact with water, which is a tremendous menace in the coal mines. They often say: "It is no use, we cannot deal with this difficulty of water that has now arisen. It will be far better to close the mine, withdraw and dismantle the plant, as we cannot continue." I can understand that point of view. I do not suggest that a colliery company ought to continue working at a loss. If I did, they would not do it.
  One of the colliery companies involved in litigation does not confine its operations to Lancashire. It owns great tracts of country in Nottinghamshire. It is exploiting the coal mines of Nottingham on a large scale, and I can imagine this colliery company saying, "It is no use continuing here. We have to meet the difficulty of water. It is a tremendous job, and we cannot continue operating in Lancashire at a loss. We will transfer to Nottinghamshire, where we do not have to meet the same difficulty." It is all right for a colliery company to say that sort of thing, but the nation has an asset there, in some cases millions of tons of coal. The Minister should be in a position to take some action in order to enable

  2775
  these collieries to continue. It may not matter to the colliery company, but it does matter to the nation. We cannot afford to close a single colliery. Central pumping machinery would have kept thousands of miners at work in Lancashire. In the absence of central pumping machinery, we have lost many mines in Lancashire, and we shall lose other mines. Something must be done along these lines. I implore the Minister to take some action to call together the colliery companies in Lancashire as well as in other districts in order to take steps to deal with flooded mines, which involve great loss not only to the collieries, but to the nation at large.
  Having been rather suspicious of our divisional inspector, it is only fair to him to refer to a painful question which he has obviously in mind, namely, the prevalence of accidents among boys. The death rate among boys is almost as high as that for all other persons working in and about the mines, while the serious accident rate is considerably higher, a most undesirable state of affairs. I listened to the suggestions as regards classes. I do not undervalue their importance; in fact, I think they are very important. I have worked in the mines, as have many of my colleagues, and I am beginning to think that there are many difficulties, and whether all our boys are put to the safest jobs. The question is whether many of our boys are not put to work under difficult and dangerous conditions simply because it happens to be cheaper to have them than to put on somebody who is a little older. A boy of 16 or 17 will cost less than a young man of 20 or 21, or an older man. We know how anxious managers of collieries are to keep costs down. I should be glad if the Minister would look into this matter along with his inspectors.
  How many of these accidents are due to the fact that the jobs are done by boys when they could be done more safely by men of 20 or 21? After all, a boy is only a boy and subject to boyish pranks. There are certainly some jobs that could be better done by older men, with consequent saving of life and limo. Perhaps the Minister would consider the question from that standpoint. It is not necessary to lose so many boys' lives in the mining industry, and the House ought to see that all possible safeguards are provided. I
  2776
  am sure that the consumers of coal would have no hesitation in paying the little extra price that might be necessary if these dangerous jobs were done by men instead of boys. The increased cost on the coal would not be much.
  We have spent a considerable amount of time this Session in discussing foreign affairs, not too much time, because they are vitally important, but we are to-day dealing with a subject equally as important as any foreign affair. The future of this nation very largely depends upon the mining industry, and I would ask the Minister to see that mining affairs are administered in such a way as to safeguard life and limb among those who toil under very difficult circumstances in the interests of the country.
  5.48 p.m.
  Miss Ward: I should like to preface my remarks by congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend on the work of his Department during the past year. I do not necessarily always agree with him, but I think the majority of the Committee feel that the Department is administered in the best interests of the men and the owners, without fear or favour. That is what we desire in any Government Department. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and I should like to say, from the small amount of personal experience I have had, that on any occasion when I have called the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to certain aspects of work in the mines I have always found his Department very ready to examine any question which I thought required attention. I find almost greater alacrity on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Department than in any other Government Department.
  It is of great interest to know that anonymous complaints with regard to safety, overtime and other matters in the mines are examined by the Department. Men who are dependent for their livelihood on work in certain collieries and who give information, naturally do not want their names to be known, and it is not in the best interests of the mines that they should be known. Therefore, it is a very good thing that anonymous complaints, whether in regard to illegal overtime, disregard of safety regulations, or the condition of ponies working in the pits, are followed up immediately by the

  2777
  Mines Department, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking and congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend on the steps that he always takes so readily in regard to any complaints that may be put before him.
  I am, however, bound to say that sometimes I wish that general questions of administration underground could be dealt with a little more quickly. I am speaking only from my inadequate experience, but going back over a period of years I am surprised that certain key men who work underground have not been subject to periodical medical examination. The human machine is a very difficult thing, and one knows sometimes what a tremendous amount of effort we have to take to keep ourselves as fit as possible, and that it is not an easy thing. Therefore, I am the more surprised that key-men who are responsible perhaps for the lives of hundreds and thousands of men underground have not been medically examined periodically in order to see that they are absolutely in first-class condition for carrying out the very important work which they have to do.
  There are two points that I wish specially to mention. I apologise for not having heard the whole of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech, but I gather that he did not mention in his survey the question of the voluntary agreements which have been entered into in regard to holidays with pay. I do not think there is anybody who has not appreciated the steps which have been taken for putting into operation these voluntary agreements. I should be interested to know whether my hon. and gallant Friend could say what the voluntary agreements are as between one district and another. It is very difficult for the ordinary backbench Member to know the different agreements made, say, in the Midlands, South Wales and Durham. It is essential in the interests of the men that we should get, if possible, a comprehensive voluntary agreement.
  I want to stress the point that I think it would be worth while discussing with the owners and the miners' leaders how far it is possible to give the man who has a low wage an adequate wage in order to encourage him to take a holiday. The whole point of the holidays with pay system is to try to ensure that people
  2778
  should leave home and take a holiday; but if a man is on a low wage, even if he gets a full week's wage, it would be inadequate for him to take his wife or family away for a holiday. A very interesting experiment was carried out before we developed the voluntary agreements in the mining industry by a colliery company in the Midlands, the Bolsover Company, which initiated a scheme that gave to every man and boy employed a week's holiday with pay. Their system was, irrespective of the wages that were drawn by the individuals, to give one wage to a married man, a single man and a boy, and try to make the bonus such that they would be encouraged to go away. Statistics for this year were examined and it was found that 75 to 79 per cent. of those who drew the bonus had taken advantage of it and gone away for a holiday. I am sure that that scheme would receive the support and approval of hon. Members in all quarters of the House. When these voluntary agreements are being negotiated it would be helpful to know exactly the terms of the agreements. Perhaps they might be embodied in an official report or in a White Paper. We ought to try and encourage the development of these agreements in such a way that there will be an adequate holiday allowance that will enable all those concerned to get away and have a real holiday.
  There is another point to which I should like to refer, but I must be careful in regard to it because I am not allowed to discuss legislation. A very interesting Departmental report was issued recently on certain questions arising out of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Some very important recommendations were made in the report in regard to the payment of compensation for men injured and to the dependants of men who are killed, and also in regard to compensation for miners' nystagmus. As that is a Home Office report I should like to know whether discussions are going on behind the scenes, between the Mines Department and the owners and the miners' leaders, to see how far the proposals are acceptable, and to ensure that all the preparatory work is being done so that when Government time is available the proposals will be given legislative effect. When the report was issued I rang up the Home Office and they said there had not been sufficient time to consult with all the

  2779
  interests, so that they could not say what the Government's attitude would be towards the report. After the Recess, if I put down a question perhaps all the preparatory work will have been done so that we shall not have to waste any more time before legislation is brought in. I cannot imagine that it would be a controversial Bill. Certainly it ought to be dealt with as quickly as possible.
  I should like to know whether the Mines Department has been in contact with the Ministry of Health over the condition of miners' houses. In going round my part of the country I have noticed—
  The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): There is nothing about miners' houses in this Vote.
  Miss Ward: Perhaps a note may be made of the matter, seeing that I have mentioned the word houses. We have had lots of discussion on the Ministry of Labour Votes and also on the Ministry of Mines Votes in regard to men who have been skilled workers in the pits and who have been out of work such a long time that, although they have a certain amount of skill left, they are not given the opportunity of getting back into work. You cannot send a man down a pit to-day to do hard, skilled, manual work if he is not in first-class physical condition. Representations have been made to the owners asking whether they would consider starting the men on lighter work with a view to getting them physically fit, so that they would be able to take up their occupation again. To deal with a matter of this kind becomes more difficult in bad times, when there is not a demand for skilled workers, but it ought to be easier when skilled workers are required. I do not think the coalowners have been nearly as progressive as they might have been over this matter. It is a question on which my hon. and gallant Friend might very well stimulate the Mining Association, in order to see whether they cannot really tackle the problem. These men have done yeoman service in the past and they are prepared to do yeoman service in the future. It is a matter of administration and being able to look at the problem in its widest and broadest aspect. If my hon. and gallant Friend could stimulate them as well as he did over the Coal Mines Bill we should get good results.
  2780
  I have said everything that I want to say, and I conclude by congratulating the Secretary for Mines on the year's work. I am glad that the Royal Commission has been set up, and although my hon. Friends opposite rather regret that so much time has been lost—we all regret that—the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If we get the proposals contained in the Royal Commission's report on to the Statute Book we shall have achieved more in the time than did hon. Members opposite when they were in office.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. T. Smith: I hope the Secretary for Mines will be able to satisfy the hon. Lady on the various questions she has raised. In regard to workmen's compensation, we shall be pleased if the Minister will give her a definite answer. We have put questions to the Home Secretary and to the Prime Minister but so far have received no reply, and we know how serious is the position in the mining industry with regard to nystagmus cases. We fully appreciate the agreements which have been made in regard to holidays with pay, but if the Committee is under the impression that they are regarded as being perfect I must disabuse their minds of that idea. On Friday morning I saw in an hon. Member's possession a letter saying that a man had received a postcard from his employers stating that as he had lost two days work the previous week one-sixth of his holiday money was being deducted. That kind of agreement is not entirely satisfactory. We have been trying to make the best of the situation, and while we appreciate the agreements which have been made we still think the men are entitled to something better. While the hon. Lady went round all the Government Departments with the exception of the Foreign Office, we on this side of the Committee are more directly concerned with matters appertaining to the mining industry, and I propose to follow the excellent example of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). He refused to give any general survey of the economic position of the industry.
  The predecessor of the hon. and gallant Gentleman a year or two ago said that at long last the output of coal was beginning to go up, and he compared the output of that year with the lowest output for many years, 1933, when it was 207,000,000 tons. We have heard a melancholy story to-day from the

  2781
  Secretary for Mines. He has told us that the output for 1937 was 241,000,000 tons and that for the first six months of this year it was 3,500,000 ton less than for the first six months of last year. It would appear, therefore, that by the end of the year instead of getting 241,000,000 tons e are likely to be back at an output of 230,000,000 tons to 235,000,000 tons. That is very unsatisfactory. I think it is necessary to make real comparisons. I agree that no Government is entirely responsible for the decline in the demand for coal, but we are entitled to make real comparisons to show how serious is the situation. In 1913 287,500,000 tons were produced, in 1933 it had dropped to 207,000,000 tons, a decline of 80,000,000 tons. Last year the production was 240,000,000 tons, a decline of 47,000,000 tons compared with 1913. That has had its effect, and a very damaging effect, on the number of people employed. We have to-day 500,000 fewer people employed in coal mining than 16 years ago, and the tragic part of it is that the Government are not facing the problem of the men who have been displaced. Many of them are eating their hearts out in our various districts believing that they will never get another job, whatever happens. They have spent all their lives in the pit and have given the best of their lives to the industry. Now they are derelict; nobody wants them.
  I want to deal with several matters of importance with regard to safety. It is no excuse to say that certain things cannot be done because there is a Royal Commission sitting. If the present mining Acts were carried out as they were intended to be carried out some of our pits would be safer than they are now. I quite agree that there is a responsibility on the men as well as on the management, and I notice that in recent reports of divisional inspectors the opinion is expressed that certain accidents could have been prevented if the men had only done so-and-so. It is easy to be wise after the event. I want to call special attention to one or two aspects of these accidents in mines. By far the larger number killed and seriously injured are by falls of ground at the working face and on the roads. The figures for the past half-year, January to June, show that there have been 488 killed below and above ground and 1,588 seriously injured. Out of the 488, 157 were killed
  2782
  by falls of ground at the working face, 49 were killed by falls on the roads, 102 by haulage accidents and eight by explosives. I make one comment on the haulage accidents. In the annual report of the chief inspector of mines it says:
  "The fact is there has been very little variation in the death rate per 1,000 persons employed from haulage accidents since 1873; the figure for that year was 0.35 and for 1936 0.27. £ There can be little hope of improvement unless the conditions under which haulage operations are carried on are improved; unless stop-blocks and other similar apparatus are provided and maintained in working order."
  I have no respect for a colliery manager who allows his haulage roads to be short of stop-blocks. Take accidents from falls of ground. We have been told, and quite rightly, that there has been a revolution in mining practice. I agree. In every report you will find a reference to this revolution. The Divisional Inspector for Yorkshire says:
  "The mechanisation of the working face continues apace. The new problems connected with it still call for anxious consideration, for side by side with the emission of larger volumes of firedamp per yard of face one finds an increase in the potential sources of ignition. Intensive mining needs intensive regulation, a subject which is discussed in more detail elsewhere."
  Mechanisation has to-day increased by leaps and bounds. I do not know whether the Secretary for Mines has been underground. I remember one Secretary for Mines who went down a pit and said that it was worth £1,000 a year to work down there. He was quite right. Is the Secretary for Mines aware of the constant bustle that goes on; men have hardly time to get a snack, it is all rush and push. I want to suggest to the hon. and gallant Member and to the coalowners that we would have far less accidents at the working face if the prices per tonnage rates were better than they are. In Durham, Northumberland and Yorkshire you find 10d., 11d. and 1s. per ton for getting coal. That means that seven, eight, nine and 10 tons per man per shift have to be got before a man earns a decent wage. If we had better rates of pay there would not be so much need for the men to hurry and bustle as there is at the present time. I wonder whether the Secretary for Mines has ever thought of the responsible position which a deputy and fireman occupy in the pit. When he talks about divided responsibility I wonder whether he would make it possible

  2783
  for the deputies to be better able to carry out their duties. Nobody can deny that all men are not withdrawn from the working face when there is 2½ per cent. gas, many of the deputies are afraid to do it. The deputies and firemen in their annual conference passed a resolution saying that they should have freedom to organise in a trade union. There are in some districts organisations of which firemen and deputies have to be members, but some of them have told me quite plainly that they are afraid to carry out their duties as they would like because of what might happen.
  I suggest that the Secretary for Mines should look into this matter. It does not require legislation. It may be that the Royal Commission will suggest that these policemen of the pits should be paid by the State, but it does not need legislation to find out how far the restrictions on deputies and firemen joining a trade union are the cause of accidents. It came rather as a shock to some of us to find that there was a dearth of applicants for junior inspectorships. It would be interesting to know what is the age limit, the salary which is offered, and the kind of examination which applicants have to face. On the question of inspectors, the Secretary for Mines wanted us to believe that inspectors went to a colliery without anybody knowing they were going. Some of us smiled, because we do not quite believe that. There are some cases where they are compelled to go, but in my time it was remarkable how easily we got to know that an inspector was coming. When I saw a man at the pithead brushing and cleaning up the place, I said, "Is he coming?" and he replied,
  "Yes, he will be here at 11 o'clock." As a rule the inspector turned up. I will say this of the inspectors, that they have an almost impossible task. The pits cannot be adequately inspected with the present number of inspectors. The inspectors have a large amount of work of one sort and another, attending inquests and so on, and they cannot adequately inspect all the pits. I would like more workmen's inspections to take place under Section 16 of the Act, and I notice that in the Annual Report, the Chief Inspector of Mines rather agrees with that statement, for he says:
  "During the year 4,739 inspections were made at 486 mines by persons appointed by the workmen employed in those mines, in
  2784
  exercise of their powers under Section 16 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911. Sixty-eight per cent. of these inspections were made in the Northern Division and 19 per cent. in the Cardiff and Forest of Dean Division. I regret that more use is not made of this section of the Act in the other Divisions."
  Hon. Members opposite may say that the miners have power to appoint two of their number, or other persons not being mining engineers, to inspect the pit at least once a month. Why do they not do that? A good many do it, but let it not be forgotten that the miners have so many stoppages and deductions, and so many contributions to make, from their wages that in some pits, particularly where there is not a large number employed and sometimes even where there is a large number, much as the miners would like to have more inspections under Section 16 of the Act, they cannot afford them. I wish to make a suggestion in that connection. Is it not possible for the Department to do something on the lines of giving some financial assistance to collieries to enable them to have more inspections under Section 16? As my hon. Friends know, the very fact that the miners decide to have a pit inspection causes the manholes to be cleaned out with astonishing rapidity. It would be worth having more of these inspections from the point of view of safety.
  I want now to turn to the question of explosions, and to put one or two questions to the Secretary for Mines. In 1934, a week before the Gresford disaster, the then Secretary for Mines wrote an article in which he said that the day of big explosions was over. A week afterwards there occurred the explosion at Gresford, where a large number of men were killed. That explosion was a tragic reminder that the day of big explosions is not over, and that something still needs to be done. A question that I want to put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is what is the attitude of the Department towards stone-dusting regulations in view of the experience of the last two years? There was the Wharncliffe Woodmoor explosion in the division of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and if anybody reads the report of the inquiry that was held, I think he will see immediately that the question of stone-dusting needs thinking out afresh. If I remember rightly, a sub-inspector at that inquiry brought forward a report in

  2785
  which, after making reference to the possible caking of stone dust and coal dust, he said:
  "There must be other factors, and the chief of them is the change in mining methods during recent years."
  He went on to say that years ago stone-dusting had created the opinion that the day of big explosions was over, and he then made one or two excellent suggestions. He said:
  "We realise that ventilation comes first. Safety lamps come second. Stone dusting must not be looked upon as the means of preventing an explosion of coal dust, and coal dust looked at in the same light as fire-damp, and every effort made to prevent it being formed."
  I am not speaking without knowledge on this matter. I know one or two mining engineers and divisional inspectors who are very much concerned about this subject. On Saturday I read in the Press a statement by a well-known mining engineer that he was going to press for a committee of practical men and experts. I wonder whether the Secretary for Mines can give us a definite reply as to what is the opinion of the Department. Do they feel that the present regulations are all that they should be, or do they think that, in the light of what happened at Wharncliffe Woodmoor, the time has come when a fresh committee should be set up to deal with the question of stone dust and the regulations with regard to it? Sir William Garforth did a good deal of experimental work at a colliery in my constituency, and they are still very proud of what he did there; but it is unwise to dogmatise and to say that any method is the perfect one. I should like to have a definite answer as to whether it is the intention of the Department to set up a committee to consider the whole matter.
  On the question of explosions, it must be remembered, as Major Hudspeth said in the excellent report in which he made a comparison between Great Britain and France in the matter of explosions in coal mines, that to get an explosion there have to be two factors at work simultaneously. There must be an explosive mixture and there must be a means of ignition. The Mines Act states that the men must be withdrawn from the pit when there is 2½ per cent. of gas content, and in France they are withdrawn when there is 2 per cent. There cannot be an explosion at 2½ per cent.; there has to be a higher
  2786
  gas content than that. What has been said by my hon. Friends about electricity in pits is not too strong, and some of us hope that when the Royal Commission make their recommendations, we shall see the elimination of electricity from pits and a greater use of compressed air. There are many ways of igniting the gasous mixture. Ventilation is the first line of defence, and the standards of ventilation ought to be higher than they are at the present time.
  Major Hudspeth has left the Mines Department now, and is back in the industry again. He rendered excellent service as a divisional inspector and in research work, and in the report to which I have referred he not only gives some interesting and useful information, but he makes some comparisons. He says that in the 10 years from 1925 to 1934 there were 58 deaths from explosions in France and 753 deaths in this country. Even allowing for the fact that the French production is only one-fifth of the British production, the report shows that far less people lost their lives in explosions in France. Yet it is sometimes said that we have the safest pits in the world. The interesting and useful information given in that report is worthy of careful study. I conclude by expressing the hope that the Secretary for Mines, when he replies, will tell the Committee exactly what the Department think on the question of stone dusting and what they intend to do in the light of what has happened during the last two years.
  6.25 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I wish to intervene only for a short time. The detailed points which are being put to the Secretary for Mines by hon. Gentlemen opposite are perhaps the most important detailed points that could be put in any Debate. They affect the safety of a great industry, the safety of the miners, and the economic position of the country as a whole. I regret that I did not hear the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, who opened the Debate, but I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who followed him. The figures which the hon. Member for Gower gave about the reduction in the export trade, which mainly affects South Wales, will, I hope, receive careful consideration from the Government. Practically two-thirds of the output of South Wales goes

  2787
  into the export trade, and it is not only a question of the success of colliery companies, but of the mining industry in South Wales as a whole and the labour which is employed in it. Unless something is done to help the export trade, we may have a recurrence of the bad conditions which he had a few years ago in the coal districts in South Wales. It is well known that we have lost the Italian market and the French market to a considerable extent, and that the Spanish market is closed to us. Foreign countries are selling coal at four or five shillings below the price of South Wales coal, and unless something is done to counterbalance that difference in prices, the South Wales trade has not a very hopeful outlook.
  I want to draw attention to one small point, that of minor accidents. Since the introduction of boots and helmets for miners, there has been a very great reduction in the number of minor accidents. I should like to see boots and helmets made compulsory throughout the whole industry, and if the men are not able to equip themselves with that protection, it should be the duty of the colliery company to provide it. The problem of silicosis is one which must have further investigation if we are to defeat that most unfortunate disease. Silicosis is bad enough in itself, but when we know that it is the first step towards tuberculosis, we cannot allow it to go on without the very greatest examination and investigation. I hope that it will receive the most urgent attention of the Government, because not only is it of serious importance—
  The Deputy - Chairman (Captain Bourne): Is not silicosis a matter for the Home Office?
  Lieut.-Colonel Guest: I am sorry, but as the matter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) I wanted to press the point that it should receive urgent consideration from the Government. With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wall-send (Miss Ward) about the men who have been out of work for some years, I assure her that in the case of many mines in South Wales, men who have been out of work for a long time have been taken back again, and it has been found that, by giving them a few weeks on lighter duties, they were then able to take on
  2788
  the heavier work. I think that a very hopeful view may be taken with regard to the men who have been out of work for a long time. I do not propose to detain the Committee any longer, and I conclude by saying that the points that have been mentioned by hon. Members opposite are practical points to which the Minister should give attention.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: Before I proceed to deal with the two or three matters which I wish to raise on this Vote, I would make one observation concerning a statement in the speech of the Secretary for Mines. That is the statement, which we heard with great regret, that he has recently found a great deal of difficulty in filling places in the inspectorate. It is a matter of grave concern to the industry if we should fail to attract the most suitable and best qualified men to this very important work. I ask the Minister to give the most serious consideration to the salary, conditions of employment and prospects of promotion of this very deserving class of civil servants and to see whether it is not possible to improve the conditions in such a way as to attract the best type of men.
  There has occurred recently something which has created a little apprehension in the minds of the men engaged in the industry. I understand that two members of the inspectorate recently resigned in order to take up managerial positions in the industry. I do not wish to say more about it than that if a man has spent some years in the inspectorate, and is eventually induced by the colliery companies to take a position on the managerial side in the industry, some very pertinent comments are made by the men engaged in the work in the coalfields. I know that it is a very difficult problem. I realise the difficulty of asking for an undertaking or a guarantee from inspectors when they are appointed that they will not give up their positions to go into the industry. But the fact that any do leave the inspectorate to take positions in the industry creates a certain impression in the minds of the men and comment is being made on the fact that the relationships between the inspectors and the managements just before these changes take place must be more cordial than they should be.
  I wish now to deal with some of the problems of the industry which we believe

  2789
  can be dealt with by administration. The Minister said that in recent years the mining industry had passed through a technical revolution. That is correct. Mining has changed completely in the last few years. Those of us who have left the industry for 10 or 12 years, scarcely know it when we go back to it. I propose to deal with some of the safety and health problems which have been created by this technical revolution. That term "technical revolution" sounds very well but if we ask the ordinary miner to sum up in ordinary language what it has meant to him I am sure he would do it in this way. "For me, the technical revolution and the increased mechanisation of the mines has had this result. First, I work at greater speed than ever before; second, I work in greater noise than ever before; third, I work in greater clouds of dust than ever before." That is what it has meant to the miner—intensification of labour, greater speed of working, greater noise and greater accumulations of dust. Those factors create very serious problems affecting the safety and health of the miners.
  Not only has machinery been brought into the mines. The electric spark has also been brought into the mines. Take the case of the latest explosion, which is now being inquired into—and the report on which we look forward to with interest, because it will probably prove to be the most important of all the inquiries that have been held. Here is a pit where, we are told, no explosion should take place but where three explosions have taken place in 18 months. That creates a problem and a challenge for all of us. On a layman's view I am satisfied that if what is stated be true, there is only one adequate reason and that is the introduction of machinery and the electric spark on the coal face. The Minister said he was puzzled by the fact that an analysis of the accident rate showed that the accidents in the northern division had increased in recent years whereas in the southern part of the country the rate had been reduced.
  Captain Crookshank: Only this year.
  Mr. Griffiths: I suggest one line of investigation which might lead to administrative action in connection with that matter. I would point out that the northern division where the accident rate increased is the most highly mechanised area, and that the southern area where
  2790
  the rate is being reduced, is the least mechanised. A circumstance of even greater importance is that the northern area where most machinery is driven by electricity, shows an increase in accidents and the southern area where there is less machinery and where comparatively little electricity is used shows a reduction. Take the case of South Wales. Look at the record of explosions before the War. My hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) and Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards), who had practical experience of mining in pre-war days, know that explosions used to occur in South Wales with monotonous regularity, year after year. But in recent years South Wales has been the best district in this respect. That is not because they have any better arrangements or because they observe the regulations more carefully. There is only one explanation. Mining there has been very little mechanised and among the biggest companies the machinery is not driven by electricity but by compressed air.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) has referred to the two factors in explosions, namely, the presence of firedamp, and the existence of some cause of ignition. What we are doing when we introduce electrically-driven machinery to the coal face is to introduce a cause of ignition. We come down on the poor fellow who takes in a match or even a cigarette without a match, but what about the man who takes an electric cable right down into the pit and introduces an electric machine with the tiny electric spark? I know that this is a very big subject and the Minister may reply that we ought not to try to deal with such a major question until the Commission reports. But I think that administratively much could be done now and that the Minister ought to be much more stringent in regard to this matter. The Commission cannot report for a few months, and after that it will be another few months before anything can be done. Even if the Commission reports speedily we could not have a new Coal Bill for two years—and I think that is taking a very hopeful view. But in the meantime are we to go on having Gresfords and Markhams in this country? Surely not, if we can prevent them by administrative action. I invite the Secretary for Mines to take real effective administrative action

  2791
  now, and if the existing regulations are not stringent enough, to issue new regulations which will prevent the introduction of the electric spark into the mines.
  There is another significant fact to which I would direct attention. Reading the Press reports and the official reports of recent explosions, I find that in the cases of all those pits where explosions took place, and where electricity was used to drive the machinery, the force of the explosions was greater and more damage was done than in other cases. The last case has been the worst of all. I was interested to find confirmation of this conclusion from the United States in what appears to be a very interesting document. I have not yet read it in full, but extracts from it have been published in the "Colliery Guardian." It is a report of the Bureau of Mines in the United States, containing an analysis of all recorded explosions in the coal mines of the United States since 1839. They have worked out the average number of deaths per explosion, and I think it is safe to make the deduction that the larger the number of deaths in any particular case, the greater the force of the explosion. It is very interesting to relate the number of deaths per explosion to the causes of the explosion. In the case of explosions caused by open lights and smoking, the average number of deaths per explosion was 7.7. In the case of explosions resulting from the use of explosives the average number of deaths per explosion was 6.2. In the case of explosions the causes of which were miscellaneous or unknown, the average number of deaths per explosion was 1.8. But in the case of explosions caused by electricity the average number of deaths per explosion was 15.1. That is a matter which calls for serious consideration. I hope that the Minister will do what he can, administratively, to deal with this problem, and we look forward hopefully to having it dealt with comprehensively in the report of the Commission.
  It has not merely been a question of bringing in machinery. The whole method of mining has been changed. I read very closely the reports of the inspector for the division with which I am concerned, and I read year by year the reports of the Chief Inspector. I find that haulage accidents and accidents due to falls of side
  2792
  and roof, both fatal and non-fatal, are increasing. I suggest one cause for this increase, though there may be others. The kind of roof support which you have in a mine depends upon the kind of packing which is used. It is not only a question of the kind of roof itself. The safety of the roof and sides depends upon the packing. Also the number of haulage accidents is related to the kind of roads which are in the mines. If you have bad roads and if the trams jump up and down as they go along, it is because the gobs are not tightly packed and therefore the roof may give way easily and the floor pokes up more easily with the result that falls of roof and side are more frequent. I have seen some modern collieries which look marvellous with steel girders but when you go along the main roadway which seems so good and safe and come to the coal face, there you find empty spaces in which you could play football. There is no packing. On the Minister's own figures in the last seven years 48 accidents have taken place in which there was stripped packing or no packing.
  This is a matter which does not need any regulation. For five years in succession the divisional inspector for the Cardiff and Forest of Dean Division has in his reports urged the necessity for tight packing and I submit it is time that the Department paid more attention to this matter. Here we find the divisional inspector, the man on the job, reporting to this effect every year for five years. What is the use of appointing an inspector if you do not pay attention to his reports on a matter of this kind? I, therefore, ask the Secretary for Mines to look into this very important question of tight packing.
  I would like to see an investigation made into the problems of noise and dust. I spent an interesting weekend in the Kent coalfield recently, and my host, a Derbyshire miner, who has been in Kent for several years and who is one of the most active men in connection with the Kent Miners' Association, told me that from the pit where he himself works—I will not mention the name, though I will give it to the Secretary for Mines if he desires it—from that pit alone two men in the early forties have, in the last couple of years, broken down in health. They have been in the local hospital, and they were sent to London to see a nerve specialist. They are men whom he knew, men who, like

  2793
  him, migrated to Kent and men who, like him, were strong, but who now, having been examined by a specialist, have been found suffering from nervous exhaustion. These are typical cases of men who have broken down from nervous exhaustion, a condition which is due to the conditions under which they work. They have been working in mechanised pits, in hot pits, in Kent, and these men are virtually dead; they are finished. I know these are two extreme cases, but there are such cases all over the country. We can see them getting old owing to the pace, the speed, the noise, the expenditure of nervous energy. It is true that the machine in some ways lightens the physical toil, but it increases the output of nervous energy enormously, and every layman knows, without going to a doctor, that it is easier to replace physical energy than it is to replace nervous energy.
  I would like to see the Minister of Mines going into the problem of noise, which is one of the serious problems, in order to see what can be done to abate the noise, to see, if machines are to be used, what can be done. Let me put it to non-mining Members who have done us the honour of being here to listen to this Debate, that when we pass a man working a drill in the streets, we turn the other way. Think of men working machines like that in the pit, with one eye on the roof and the other on the machine, and working a thing like that all the time. After some 20 years of that, they have been sucked bone dry, and they have been thrown on the scrap-heap. The last speaker said, and it is true, that in recent months some owners in Wales have taken over these old men, but other owners leave them, without an atom of sympathy, on the roadside.
  With regard to the problem of dust, I come from the anthracite coalfield, which is only one-fortieth of the British coalfield in output and in personnel, but it has 50 per cent. of these silicosis cases. I know that there is an inquiry into the question of silicosis, and, therefore, I will not say anything more on that point, but I believe it is in order to discuss the question of the prevention of silicosis, though the medical aspect of the matter, I know, is one for the Home Office. I was in Ammanford on Saturday, where an investigation into the question is taking place. I worked there as boy and man. There are 60 certified total disablements of men there, men with whom I went to
  2794
  school, and having been there on Saturday, I could not refrain from saying something about it here. I have seen those men going, and their lives being sacrificed, to produce wealth for this nation. These men, when they are totally disabled, are thrown on the scrap heap. I saw one man the other day whose total compensation was 23s. 1d. a week, and that man has nothing to look forward to. He knows there is nothing more for him to do, nothing but the release of death in the end. When is this inquiry going to report? Why should these commissions last so long? Let them be given all the time that is required, but here is this investigation, in Ammanford, into silicosis and I appeal to the Minister and urge him to let us get a quick report, and in the meantime to let his inspectors in the Swansea Division devote more time to this problem and to set about doing what can be done with the existing regulations.
  Because of our interest in this problem of silicosis our attention was called the other day—mine has been at several meetings—to what is happening, not in mines, but in the slate quarries of North Wales, and I want to make this short appeal to the Minister, that he should pay some attention to them. They come under his Department, but we hardly ever hear a word about them here. The men who work in them are a splendid body of men, and I say, as a Welshman, that they are the cream of the Welsh working class, a very fine body of men. I have here a report by Dr. Morris, Medical Officer of Health for the Urban District Council of Festiniog, which refers to the quarries in his own district, and his report is so appalling that I crave the indulgence of the Committee to read some quotations from it. Here is one extract:
  "In 1936 the Welsh National Association erected a new clinic at Blaenau Festiniog. The tuberculosis physician, Dr. Matthew Davies, was amazed at the high incidence of silicosis. It is interesting to note that 80 per cent. of the quarrymen examined of 40 years of age and over had definite silicosis. A high percentage had tuberculosis and silicosis. There is no doubt in my mind that the unhealthy conditions prevailing in the slate quarry industry is the cause of the high incidence of the death rate from tuberculosis in the urban district of Festiniog.
  Here is a description from the same report of the conditions in which these men work:
  "The underground chambers are stuffy, and the quarrymen have to breathe the same foul air day after day. Add to this the smell of

  2795
  gunpowder, gelignite, and smoke, and slate dust saturating the already foul air. This does more to undermine the health of the quarrymen than anything else. Silicosis is prevalent among these underground quarrymen."
  Then there is the last quotation, to which I wish to call the special attention of the Minister. It is a statement which has been widely published in the district. The Minister probably has not seen it, and I think I shall be doing well to bring it to his attention. This Dr. Morris says:
  "In 1932 I called the attention of the Inspector of Mines to the appalling conditions in two quarries. I suggested to him that they should immediately bore a shaft right down so as to provide proper ventilation, but nothing has been done."
  That was in 1932, six years ago, and here is this village in Wales, with its 2,000 quarrymen, in regard to which there is a report that 80 per cent. of them over 40 years of age have silicosis, where the attention of the inspector was called to the bad conditions in 1932, and where the medical officer of health reports that nothing has been done.
  These are the problems—the problems of the machine, of speed, of noise, of dust, the modern menaces to the miner. There were dangers and menaces with the old type of mining, in the old days, but these are new menaces—the electric spark, the speed with which men have to work, the noise and the dust in which they have to work. All these are the new problems of safety and health in mines. We look with confidence to the report of the Commission to deal with them in a fundamental way, but in the meantime let the Minister take immediate administrative action. I once heard an eloquent speech by one of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessors in office, Mr. Isaac Foot, and I shall never forget what he said. He said that after he had been in the Mines Department for a few weeks, he began fully to appreciate what these lists were that came in—so many killed and so many injured—and then he wrote in his own hand something to remind him every morning of his responsibility. I hope the Minister of Mines will do it also. His predecessor wrote on a tablet on his desk, so that when he came to his office in the morning it would be the first thing that he saw, and this is what he wrote:
  "Since I came here yesterday four men have been killed in the pits of this country,
  2796
  four breadwinners have been lost, four families bereaved. why? And what am I doing to stop it?"
  It is our business to stop it, and I hope this Debate will add its own contribution to the stopping of this terrible accident rate in the mines of this country.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: The special points to which I want to draw attention are overtime and accidents in the mines, especially to boys. I agree with what the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said, and I think he has put his finger on the spot, in relation to the high rate of accidents in the Northern counties. We in Northumberland are so mechanised that we are now producing 88 per cent. of our coal by machinery, and as a result of that high rate of production by machinery, we are getting all the concomitants of that high rate. The three cycles of operation entail such dovetailing that it is not to be wondered at that we get the accidents that we do get. We have a very large number of accidents on the haulage ways, and that, in my view, is because we are placing a burden on the boys, on the youngsters, in the mines that ought to be borne by adults. Take the conveyor belt. Everything is dependent on the smooth working at the loading end. If the trams are to be brought speedily away the slightest hitch, a stoppage at the delivery end, the prevention of the free handling of the empties, means the stoppage of the conveyor belt, and that means that the face is not cleared within the prescribed period, and that again means one or two things of great importance.
  I want to deal with the first of them, which I believe is very important, and that is the question of overtime. We are having an agitation, and we are going to make it a very strong agitation, for the shortening of miners' hours of work. We have been to Geneva to endeavour to get the hours reduced, but we have not had much support from the Government. As a matter of fact, I believe we have had determined opposition. Why? Because Germany is not attending at Geneva, and they are working longer hours than we are, but I believe we are working among the longest hours in Europe. The actual statutory hours of work in this country, however, are not the whole story, and the

  2797
  whole story, if it is to be fully appreciated, is in the overtime that is being worked.
  We find in Northumberland that on account of mechanisation the overtime, entirely due to the necessity for working a cycle of operations, has been of such dimensions that it gets completely out of the control of trade union officials. Managements encourage it and mine inspectors wink at it—no question about that. We have cases in Northumberland of beer and sandwiches being taken into a pit because some particular work had to be done—it was mentioned the other day by the secretary of our association. There was no prosecution there. We endeavoured—and I think we have succeeded to a great extent—to reduce overtime in Northumberland, and I want to give the same advice here as has been given by our general secretary. We pleaded and argued with the mineowners to reduce overtime in Northumberland, but we could do nothing until as an association we issued advice to our workmen on no consideration whatever to stay in the mines after the statutory time. Then the management came along asking us if we were aware of the blow we were striking at the coal trade: we should handicap it altogether, and restrict output. The mines are like the railways in that respect; it is very difficult unless there is a certain amount of give and take. But until we as an association issued that advice to our men we could get no consideration. I believe that overtime is a very pronounced contributory factor in the high accident rate in the mines.
  The Secretary for Mines said that Northumberland was rather lagging behind in the matter of classes for boys. I am sorry to say that I know of one or two companies in Northumberland which are very backward indeed in that respect. As a matter of fact, we have one company in particular which, I believe, is a credit to the mining industry in the whole country, so I hope that those that are lagging behind will be gingered up. I have taken a good deal of interest in these classes for boys. Boys will continue to be boys, but one of the saddest things that we have to go through, we who have been in the mines, is the accidents to boys. Personally, I do not believe that if all the near things which happen in a pit came off any of us would
  2798
  see 21. There is a Providence that evidently sits over us, and we seem to escape. But to those who have been there and witnessed the accidents to these boys of 14, just going into the pit and in the next year or two, it is a terrible thing to see the way they are maimed and wounded—the breaking of their bodies and the breaking of their spirit when they are brought up at that early age against the stark realism of the thing.
  There is only one way, I think, of reducing these accidents. We should have not only classes on the surface, but provision should be made underground, and the boys should graduate from there. They should move on from those classes as they become efficient in the underground conditions. I notice that in Northumberland in the year 1937 we had 1,553 young persons aged from 14 to 20, or just under 21, injured in our mines. Those are not all the injuries, because that figure does not include those who are incapacitated for less than three days. There is one thing to be done, and the Secretary for Mines has to play his part in it, and that is that the speed at which the boys have to work should be slowed down. What I have already said about the conveyor, the loading and so forth, applies all along the roadway, and that is the reason why we are having so many accidents on the roadways.
  I want to mention another point, about helping our export trade. We have been going through a boom period in the mines. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) mentioned the wage increase—5½d. a shift for last year. There were profits of £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 for the owners. There is something wrong in the division there. But that is not the worst of it. Miners' wages follow prices, but instead of miners getting the advantage of the prices when they go up, we find the pits lie idle and men work half-time, or miss a day or two days a week, as they are doing in Northumberland to-day. Unfortunately—and I regret to have to say it—one of the companies in Northumberland, and a company that is very highly thought of so far as the conditions of its workers are concerned, has up to the moment been unable so to arrange its trade that when the men are working four shifts a week they might be able to get unemployment benefit. It means that the men are working roughly four days a

  2799
  week and get four days' pay, and it seems a pity, when they have made their contributions for the unemployment benefit, that the work cannot be so arranged that they should get their unemployment benefit.
  I noticed in regard to the Argentine the enormous increase in the purchases we have been making from that country—probably food for storing; but I do not find any corresponding increase in our coal trade. Our exports generally are falling, there can be no question about that. But, apart from trade agreements, which have undoubtedly been of benefit to us owing to the purchase of coal by those countries which have made the trade agreements with us, surely when we are making these enormous purchases from other parts of the world it would be a reasonable thing to expect that the part of our export trade that has been adversely affected might be kept in mind by the Government. When we were dealing with the Coal Bill the other day we had the President of the Board of Trade sitting there, working matters with the Secretary for Mines. I think they might do the same thing here, and work out a plan to assist the miners by encouraging the sale of coal to those countries.
  There has been something said about the inspectors, and I have the greatest possible admiration for them as a rule. But with regard to the inspectors' visits to collieries I do not think that the management ought to know that the inspectors are coming. They ought to drop in without the management knowing. I think the point made by the Secretary for Mines about the inspectors wanting to see a particular person who might be a very busy man was very weak indeed. I remember working at a colliery about three miles away from the station, and they always knew when they had to send a trap to bring the inspector to the colliery, which meant that notice had been given a few days before. Nevertheless, I think that inspectors are doing a very good work and keeping our mines up to date. I do hope that, as the result of this Debate, the Secretary for Mines will try to get our accident rate down very substantially.
  7.13 p.m.
  Mr. Collindridge: I am a fairly new Member of this House and I wanted if
  2800
  I could to say a few words in this discussion. I want to support the Amendment moved from this side of the Committee, because of the attitude adopted by the Mines Department through their representatives at the recent discussions that took place at Geneva at a technical conference on the reduction of hours of work in mines. This question has now been discussed for nine or 10 years at the International Labour Office, and we were accustomed in the early stages to have the attendance of the Secretary for Mines. Of recent years, and in this very vital year 1938, the Secretary for Mines has not been present, but only a representative of his Department. Surely when this question was so dominant and important he should have been there. So important was it that in 1937, when the representatives of the Mineworkers' Federation met the Secretary for Mines, the whole argument of the Secretary for Mines was that, as the hours' question was to be discussed in the early future by the International Labour Office, we in Britain should wait until those discussions had taken place in Geneva. Particularly in view of that the Secretary for Mines should have been there to put the point of view of his Department.
  Now what was the case of the Mines Department at this International Labour Office discussion? There were 25 pages of a speech made by the representative of the Ministry of Mines. It contained a very lengthy survey, not of the hours question, but of matters in which it was stated the Government have taken part to improve the condition of the industry, and the workers' lot. The representative of the Mines Department said they had secured machinery for an increased revenue to be shared between wages and profits in agreed ascertained proportions. The second point he made was that they were bringing forward measures to unify mining royalties. The third point, in his own words, was:
  "We have concerned ourselves actively with the question of the grant of holidays with pay and have by legislation provided since 1920 for a Mines Welfare Fund amounting to many millions of pounds. During the period that I am reviewing the wages per shift have increased by 1s. 4d., and annual earnings have increased by £31 in 1937 as compared with 1930, while the average cost of living figure has fallen by four points during that period."
  He concluded that because of this attitude of the Mines Department in supporting the coalowners to improve the position in the

  2801
  industry, there was a limit to what could be done in the industry. That meant that as a consequence of this progress there could not be any improvement in the hours position. With regard to the first point, may I give the actual facts with regard to that improvement? I quote as my authority the President of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, Mr. Joseph Jones, in his speech at the annual conference of the federation a week ago. He showed that the 2S. per ton advance in the price of coal and in the increased revenue to the industry had been shared as follows: to wages, there had been given 5d. a ton, or 20.66 per cent.; to owners there had gone 8d. or 33·33 per cent.; and to distributors 11d., or over 46 per cent. Our contention anent that is that the Government must not preen themselves unduly about a position which has not redounded to the advantage of the workmen as the consumers who have paid this increased price intended. The general public gladly stood the first increase, because they were under the impression that the greater proportion of the money would go to miners' wages. We now find that has not been the case. With regard to the miners' welfare levy, the Department representative at the International Labour Office did not say that the levy is really, as the result of the ascertainment system, "withheld wages" as to at least a good portion of it. Nor did he say that the Government were responsible for cutting that levy by half, nor that appeals that have been made from these benches that the sums accruing from the levy should be devoted to purposes which would work more to the advantage of the miners, such as cottages for aged miners, pensions for miners at an earlier age, and an increase in the meagre amount which the State is paying to miners generally who are out of work.
  With regard to the plea of the Government at the International Labour Office that they had actively assisted in the question of holidays with pay, I, as one who came from the mine only a few weeks ago, have seen no activity in that direction. Some of us are rather doubtful about the amounts that are likely to come to our people being described as holidays with pay. Under the ascertainment system we find that if a sum of money is taken for a given object 85 per cent. of it is generally at the expense of the miners' wages. The miners are thus meeting
  2802
  a good portion of their holidays with pay payments. Further, in my county and most other counties, holidays with pay are accompanied with the condition that a man must attend his work regularly. In a 24-day month in Yorkshire the miner is allowed only one day off. If he has more he has to submit to a stoppage from his holidays with pay payment. The miner who is on the first shift has to descend at ten minutes past five in the morning. I can well picture if hon. Members had regularly to arrive at such an early hour, after the lengthy journeys that our people have to make to the mines, there would be some of us who, in the course of a month, would occasionally be lax, and we would be lucky if we did not lose more than one shift in 24. If a miner does not attend at that particular time he is precluded from taking part in his ordinary avocation. Also I feel that in their stand on the hours question at the International Labour Office the Government took a stand against a set of people in the industry who ought to have all the assistance possible. I refer to unemployed miners.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) gave the numbers of men who are becoming unemployed through the new systems of work in the mines. In my county the men whom the industry does not require have become known as "the legion of the lost." They are men without any hope for the future, and who, if mechanisation goes on at the present pace, will be accompanied by many more men. The only sensible solution for dealing with this problem of men whom the industry no longer needs is by a reduction of the hours of labour. A few weeks ago I came from Yorkshire where I had worked at a pit for nearly 33 years. During that time I have seen this changed position. When I stood there as a young boy descending the pit for the first time, there were many grey bearded people among the men. You cannot see a grey beard now among the men who descend the pits, not because of any change in how the barber trims his beard, but simply because there is a definite contraction of the working life of the average miner. My father started at 12 years of age at this mine and worked until he was 73. The present-day sons of these miners cannot look forward to a working life of that length.

  2803
  They start at 14 and are very lucky if they can go on until they are 50. Fifty-five is an exceptional age. We ought to have regard for the problem created by this contraction of the working life. May I illustrate it this way? If one had a car worth £400 and used it for 10 years, the capital cost would be £40 a year. If one used the car for only five years, the capital cost would be £80 a year. The miners labour power used speedier is not being better compensated by greatly increased wages. We ask whether the improvement in the wage standard of 5½d. per day, which the Secretary for Mines mentioned, is commensurate with the loss of actual working time which the average miner has suffered.
  Questions have been asked in the House about attendance at the safety classes for young boy miners and I asked a supplementary question whether the Secretary for Mines had made representations to the coalowners to release these boys to attend these classes, not after working time, but during working hours without loss of wages. When a boy has ascended from his bed in the wee small hours of the morning, say 4 o'clock, and has descended the pit at 5, ascended again in the afternoon at 2, and has divested himself of all the dirt that pit work brings and has had a meal to replace the energy that he has lost, he is not much in form for attending any type of class which means mental effort. We suggest on that account that the Secretary for Mines might make representations to the coalowners to allow their lads to be released on a workday. There would then be better attendance at the classes and a reduction in the heavy toll of accidents. Just picture the position with regard to these boys. The accident figures reveal that out of every thousand miners injured boys under 16 years of age who were employed numbered 229; boys over 16 and under 18, numbered 213; young men over 25 and under 35, 188; men between 45 and 55, 184; and those between 6o and 65, 130. The average over-all accidents per thousand employed was 188. Those figures reveal that the younger you are the greater risk there is of your being carried out of the pit on a stretcher. We hope that the Mines Department will accept these well-meaning suggestions of ours, which have been put forward not with any desire to embarrass but to help, and we ask the
  2804
  Secretary for Mines to make representations on the lines we have indicated.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. Ritson: I am sure that the practical knowledge contained in the earnest speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) ought to prove informative to hon. Members opposite, and I wish more of them were present. My hon. Friend spoke of the classes for the training of boys and I want the Secretary for Mines to see that these boys are trained both in their own interests and that of the other workers in he pits. After all, these boys play a very important part in a great machine. If one of them forgets to shut a door he may smother his father and brothers, for lack of oxygen. In the pits all have to work as a team. I was only 12 when I first went into a pit and I remember that the first accident that happened so terrorised me that if I had had my way I should not have gone back any more. It was an unusual accident. The cage was overwound and came hurtling down to the very bottom of the shaft, and in my terror at hearing it crash into the sump I ran right into some machinery. We are anxious that the boys be acquainted with the dangers of accidents arising, and to that extent steeled against the danger. As I said I did not want to go back to the pit any more, but poverty drove me back the next day.
  I should like the Minister to understand that some encouragement ought to be given to these boys for gaining certificates. Certificates look nice hanging on the wall at home, but when we were boys we felt we would rather have something of more value. I go to agricultural shows, dog shows, horse shows, even women's beauty shows—I know that I have no need to go there, because I am already surrounded here with so much beauty—and find that a great deal of money has been spent on a well-groomed horse or a well-developed cow or bull. How much more necessary is it to have active, strong, vigorous, healthy boys? We ought to give them some encouragement, but at present these boys who attend the classes do not get even half-an-hour off from work. I remember what a big thing it was to me as a young fellow, when we were working 12 hours, if I was told that because I had been "working wet" I was to have

  2805
  six hours off. Of course, it was really wet work. When I knew that six hours would be taken off the 12 you can imagine how well I worked in the six hours that I was occupied. More practical encouragement ought to be given to these boys. If people are being trained to save life nothing will be lost by the expenditure of a little money on that training. If there is an accident, somebody has to stand the loss in compensation, or suffer the grief, and believe me it is the miner who pays in the end. The money may come through the insurance company, but it started with the fellow who gets the coal.
  I was rather struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) said about the prices of coal abroad. I went up to the north with my hon. Friend on Friday night, and when I left him at Newcastle I joined, as usual, a lot of shipowners making their way home. I generally ask how business is, and of course I heard that it was not prosperous; it never has been—but I believe that just now it really is bad. We spoke of the price of coal abroad and a man in charge of a very big firm told me, "We ran a trial trip with one of our boats the other day, running her from Sunderland to Flushing. At Flushing we had to re-bunker, and the coal there was 5s. a ton cheaper than it was at the place where the boat started from." I want to know whether that coal in Flushing had not come from the Darlington neighbourhood. Hon. Members may think it strange that coal shipped from this country should be sold cheaper abroad than here, but some years ago I was a member of a deputation—the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) was another Member—which went to Germany and we found they were selling Durham coal in Hamburg at 3s. a ton cheaper than we could buy it here. In view of that state of affairs I think we are entitled to know what is happening.
  With reference to inspectors' visits to pits, we have been told that they go unnotified, and I believe they do on some occasions. I was once in charge of a very large colliery and the boys complained to me that their lamps were going out nearly half a mile from the face, which was a very dangerous situation. I sent at once to one of the ablest inspectors we ever had in the north of England, Mr. Atkinson—one of the most fearless inspectors the country ever had. I did not make any
  2806
  bones about it. I wired to Newcastle and though he was an old man he came out to the colliery immediately. The manager was astounded when he arrived. On that occasion the manager had had no opportunity to get rid of the gas or to clean things up or to do anything. The manager was very annoyed that the inspector had come, and said to him, "Do you think it is right to go down on a Saturday?" The inspector said, "Do you think it is right for all those boys to be in danger half a mile away from the face? I am going down whether you go down or not. I will take action"—and he stopped the pit.
  Inspectors can be made useful and helpful, and they ought to be given all the encouragement possible, and made as independent of the owners as possible. To have good inspectors will keep the owners right, and if they had any common sense they would understand it. When I was the financial secretary of a lodge I always asked for the best auditor, and he always kept me honest. I was always anxious to keep right. There would be far fewer thieves if there were more gamekeepers of that type looking after things. In the interest of the owners themselves there ought to be unnotified visits from inspectors, because in that case every manager and under-manager is kept on his toes, and when a pit is right it costs less in accidents and worry and the output is the greater.
  I sometimes wish there were better regulations governing the conditions under which accident cases are removed from the mines. I have helped to move many men with broken ribs, broken collar bones, twisted here and twisted there, suffering terribly. Brave men as they were, they could not restrain themselves from shouting in their pain. I asked one of the inspectors whether better facilities could not be provided for taking the wounded men away and his reply was, "That does not come within my province. After they have left the shaft I have done with them." I believe that in the interests of humanity they ought to be the responsibility of the mine inspector until they are delivered to a place where surgical and medical aid are available. I have helped to take home a boy's body, wrapt not in a beautiful shroud, but in a covering of dirty tarry canvas. I have helped to take him home to his mother, dead, the boy whom she had

  2807
  kissed just before he started work. These things stir us, and if you believe that we are sentimental, remember that these people are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. We are appealing only for justice for these children in asking that the mine inspectors should have to take every care of them.
  Another point is that miners suffer from bad air more than anything else. Gandhi is a giant compared with me when I am stripped, but I can assure you that I have been in very deep pits, right under the sea, where the heat was terrific and where the air could not circulate. The perspiration and the heat and the exhaustion before ever we could get to where the work was, was something to be considered. The remedy is to get fresh oxygen to the men. In many of these pits the ponies sometimes use up so much oxygen from the air as to cause the lamps to go out. That is no exaggeration. Many a time a pony has had to be removed until the air once more became pure enough to allow the lamps to bum. Then the bad lighting in the pits has an effect upon the eyes, producing that most terrible of all diseases, nystagmus. If we stopped here all night and all to-morrow night and all the other nights of this Session, and by that means succeeded in relieving the men of that horrible disease, we should have done work worthy of the name of the country. There is no one for whom I have greater sympathy than a miner stricken with nystagmus. It is not only his eyes that go, his spirit goes. He goes struggling on year after year, trying to see with blind eyes, trying to keep himself steady when everything swims round and round before him.
  I had a "marrow." That is a north-country word meaning a comrade. You call your wife a marrow if she behaves decently, and when she does not you call her something else. "Marrow" is a term of endearment and is often used in family life. In the pit you often find men who are in this relationship ready to face death together, like statues. In this case he was a strong fellow who came from the Midlands. He was built like a horse, and was the keenest man I ever saw for work. You could not stop him working. This example of a fine type of man got nystagmus. He could not understand it and he pleaded and wept
  2808
  to me. I remember when he recovered sufficiently to be able to go down a pit after about three years. It was the fresh air and the open sunlight, the breath of God, that brought him back to something like his former self. They put a broom in his hand for him to sweep up. He was all right as long as it was daylight, but he was like an owl later on, and in the artificial light he was done. I shall never forget this strong and vigorous fellow, no slacker, with the tears running down his manly cheeks. "Good God, whoever dreamt that I should have to handle a broom," he said; he would rather have handled a pick, but the panels and railings were swimming in front of his eyes in such a way that he could hardly stand up. Is there not something that we can do for such men in the way of giving them more oxygen and more light? When these men go down the pit it is not as lords and ladies go, who are put on a cushion, pushed in and pushed out again.
  The tragedy of the miner in this condition is that he is signed off and he gets a miserable little pension or compensation, of a kind which is sometimes worse than a pension. When he goes to have his eyes examined he finds all the doctors swarming there. They test him and they say: "We think you have got rid of it, but there is only light work for you, and you must go where you can get light work." There was a man who felt he was getting better from nystagmus, and he went to another colliery and declared that he was fit and well. He did not tell them that he had had nystagmus but as soon as they found that he was suffering from it and had been declared cured by the doctor who represented the money interests of the other mine, they discharged him. The law says that you cannot claim compensation, because you have desired to work. That man cannot get work because he has been inflicted with that disease in the place where he worked. What are these men to do? We ask whether this ailment cannot be stopped at the source by the provision of more fresh air and light. I see that the mines inspector has just come into the House, and I am very glad he has.
  Captain Crookshank Captain Crookshank indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ritson: I meant, of course, the Secretary for Mines, but he is the chief

  2809
  inspector, because he can order any inspector to go clown any pit. I put a question to him the other day about the owners of a colliery in my division who would not let inspectors go down. The men are not in the union, so the pits are not examined. I got through to the Department and we have had the pits inspected. We are very thankful to the Secretary for Mines for that.
  Mr. Lawson: What about the workmen's inspector?
  Mr. Ritson: The men are not in the union, and there is no workmen's inspector. The inspectors have to do as they are told. We asked the Government that they should go down and examine the pit.
  With regard to the new cleaning plants for the grading of coal, marketing has become better because the coal is more useful, as it is now graded and cleaned, but I wish we could get some other form of cleaning than the dry cleaning. I live half a mile away from the dry-cleaning plant in our town. You may be eating what you like during the time that dry cleaning is going on, but you will not be dry cleaned; you get filled up. Your food becomes covered with very fine dust. The co-operative society's carts selling their meat in the streets have to carry covers over the food because of the coal dust that settles on everything. Men working in the pit get plenty of coal dust inside them without taking it on their food. I emitted coal dust for about three years after I got out of the pit. You would hardly believe it possible. I spoke to medical men about it and they said: "It is a wonderful thing for the lungs. It is nice and light. It cleans the lungs." I have no objection to the doctors trying it on their lungs, but I do not like it in mine. Local authorities are complaining about this matter and the miners' wives are now getting dust that only the men used to get, in the pit. While we are pleased that grading has been effective in promoting sales, we hope that something may be done about this. Many local authorities in Durham are complaining about the dust that results from dry cleaning.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) always makes a most knowledgeable speech, and we are very proud of his knowledge of these things.
  2810
  We are proud that he can take his stand against anybody. It is not true that miners have no brains, and my hon. Friend is an example—specialised, perhaps. I remember being told again and again that we were a lot of ignorant people who knew nothing but bad grammar, bad language and bad preaching. I never back horses, but I remember that my father had a horse, and one day when I was trying to get it to go it went backwards. A man who was watching me said, "I know what's the matter with that horse. His head is at the wrong end." A man who backs horses has his head at the wrong end. The Minister can do a great deal by seeing that these regulations are carried out. He need not wait for the Royal Commission, because he has power over the inspectors and they have power over managers and colliery companies. If they will apply their knowledge, experience and honesty to the work, justice will be done to all concerned.
  Let me make a last appeal. We are having a recrudescence of explosions, and they are bad enough. We are having trouble with water, and that is another serious thing. We are having a bad year, and we are having to live in atmospheres affected by coal dusting. Our homes are hardly better than the pit itself. Because of all those things, I appeal to the Minister to do what he can by way of administration, until there is a new law, to apply the regulations as he should. That will make us much happier and better in health. The first consideration is the health and vigour of the men who have to produce this mighty wealth of our country.
  7.57 P.m.
  Mr. Dunn: The Committee has listened to-day to one of the most moving stories connected with the coal-mining industry to which I have listened for a long time. We are sometimes asked why the miners are so strongly represented in this House by representatives from the mining areas. The answer can be found very largely in the speeches to which we have listened. The miners have told their story in impressive language conveying an intimate knowledge of the mining situation. We know from experience what the toll has been upon the mining communities in life and limb. I would remind the Committee that from 1921, 18,000 miners had been killed in the pits of this country and that

  2811
  from the same date, on the authority of the accounts and the reports that we receive from time to time, it is estimated—and I am quoting the President of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain—2,500,000 of our men have been injured in the mines in this country.
  I put a question in this House on 5th July, to the Secretary for Mines, asking him:
  "The number of colliery explosions which have occurred in England, Scotland and Wales, giving the names of the collieries, and the numbers of men killed or injured in each case during the last 10 years; whether in each case electricity has or has not been used, and for what purpose; and whether he will give the same information with regard to shot-firing?"
  I am not concerned with the nature of the question but with the answer of the Minister, which was:
  "During the last 10 years 477 explosions involving death or injury have occurred at mines under the Coal Mines Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1938; col. 173, Vol. 338.]
  The Secretary for Mines has told us this afternoon that in 1937 no fewer than 120,000 men and boys were injured in the mines of this country, and, when we bear in mind the additional fact that 859 men and boys were killed during that year, and also the fact that since 1921 the number of men and boys killed has been 18,000 and the number injured 2,500,000, we have a very sad cumulative picture of the mining industry of this country; and that, very largely, is the reason why so many of us have found our way on to these benches. When one thinks of this appalling loss of life, and when one remembers that more people have been injured in the mines of this country since 1921 than were maimed in the War years 1914–18, one wonders whether that is the reason why at the present moment, apart from the Ministers and Under-Secretaries on the Front Bench, there are only three Members on the opposite benches and there is not a single Liberal on their benches at all. I not only deplore it, but say quite frankly that in my view it is a perfect disgrace and scandal.
  The Minister said this afternoon, and the point was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), that the mining industry is passing through a technical revolution. That is true. I think I should be correct in saying that, if any of the older men who have
  2812
  left the pits within the last 10 years went into some of the modern collieries, they would be absolutely astounded and amazed, and, indeed, would scarcely know that they were in a pit at all. As regards the scientific research side of this very big industry, I see that the provision for purposes of research and testing last year was £9,401, and that for the year 1938 the figure has been increased by £10,396. In view of the appalling waste of life and limb that is occurring and of the revolution that is taking place in the coalmining industry, and in view of the figure of less than £10,000 provided for research in 1937—though I agree it has been increased to £19,000 in 1938—it is not sufficient for the Minister to ride off and say, "We are doing something for the mining industry; we are providing hats for the men to work in, gloves to protect their hands, boots to protect their feet, and also shin guards. "The real question with regard to this research work is the question of stopping accidents or explosions or any untoward incidents which may occur in the pits and making mining safer in the future than it has been in the past. I also submitted to the Minister on 5th July a question with regard to the research station at Buxton. The Minister called attention to it this afternoon, and pointed out that, if any hon. Member desired to see the station and would communicate with him, he would be glad to make arrangements, preferably for a Sunday visit. I asked, in the last part of my question:
  "Whether he will now recommend the construction of another gallery for the purpose of demonstrating, not only how mine explosions occur, but how mine explosions can be prevented?''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1938; col. 173, Vol. 338.]
  I have had the opportunity of seeing the demonstrations at the Buxton Research Station, and I have seen their methods of scientific packing. My only difficulty about that was that there is no provision in the price list for paying the men for the additional work it entails, but I leave that on one side. The explosions staged at Buxton are certainly terrifying. They are a frightful demonstration, and everyone who knows anything at all about mining knows what that kind of thing really means. We all know of these explosions; the Minister told us that there were 477 in this country in the last 10 years; but what we want to be shown at

  2813
  Buxton or somewhere else, is how to stop explosions. It is all very well to take the boys, to take the men, to take colliery officials to see these spectacular demonstrations. I think the Minister will agree that in Yorkshire we have made a very great effort to train our boys, and, indeed, our men; we have at least 200 men attending these classes, in addition to boys. I asked the demonstrators at Buxton whether they would make some recommendation that a second tunnel should be built, so that, after showing on the one side the terrific and devastating result of a coal-dust explosion, they could show us on the other side how they would prevent it? We have now reached a stage in the coal-mining industry when something definite must be done. The miner in this county is no longer made safe by stone-dusting. One cannot go into the case that is under review at the present time, but the fact is that our experiences in Derbyshire show that not a single pit in this country is safe and can rely on stone-dusting— —
  Mr. Wragg: Would the hon. Member say that no non-gaseous, naked-light pit in Lancashire or Derbyshire is safe?
  Mr. Dunn: As regards safety measures and everything else my statement covers, not merely stone-dusting and gas, but also the general round of mines at the present time. The Minister this afternoon has shown that the accident rate, both fatal and non-fatal, is increasing—
  Mr. Wragg: Surely the hon. Member is wrong there. If he goes back 15 or 20 years, or even before the War, he will find that the general accident rate in collieries, and certainly the death rate, is much less than it used to be.
  Mr. Dunn: Not per person employed. At that time there were 400,000 more men in the industry, and the percentage now is just as great as it was then—in fact, greater. I hope the suggestion I have made with regard to the revolution that is taking place in coal-mining and with regard to the Buxton Research Station will have the Minister's consideration at the earliest possible moment. He went out of his way to tell us this afternoon—many of us could hardly believe it, though no doubt he was speaking the truth as far as he knew it—about the visits of inspectors to collieries. I thought that the two explanations he gave
  2814
  in proof of good faith took a good deal of swallowing, if I may say so. I should like to ask him this question, to which I hope he will reply: If the inspector of mines is not called upon to give notice to the colliery manager when he proposes to visit a colliery, what is the position with regard to the workmen's inspector? Is he in the same position as regards notifying the colliery company as the inspector of mines appointed by the Government?
  I am asking whether the workmen's inspector stands in the same relationship to an inspection of a colliery as the Government inspector does. If the answer is "No," we shall be in no worse position than we are in now; but there are many parts of this country where workmen's inspectors have been anxious, not only on the morning shift but on the afternoon and night shifts, to have the same facilities and responsibilities to the colliery people, with the same notification, as the general inspector has. The workmen's inspector, if he is called upon to give notice to the colliery people that he proposes to make an inspection, having been generally appointed by the lodge for that particular purpose, is decidedly at a disadvantage as compared with the general inspector, who is inspecting on behalf of the Government. If that were made clear there are thousands of men who would be more satisfied.
  I hope the Minister will give his very serious attention to the question of coal dust in mines. We now find that a revolution has taken place in the methods of producing coal. As a result of the new methods, where you have 50 to 55 per cent. of the coal in this country produced by machinery, mainly cut by electricity, you have that uncertain element of electricity on the coal face and in the mines, and you have large volumes of coal dust, highly explosive, as dangerous when ignited as gas itself, and as devastating to life and limb. I hope the Minister will do something with regard to these questions of coal dust, of Buxton, and of the inspectors, because there is a very nasty feeling in the country at present over this appalling wastage of life and limb.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Batey: I listened to the Minister's speech very carefully, and the impression it made on my mind was that he was

  2815
  abundantly satisfied with the administration of the Mines Department. I never listened to a more complacent speech from that bench. For some time there have been doubts in my mind as to whether the administration of the Department was a success or a failure. Years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was Chancellor of the Exchequer and he proposed to scrap the Mines Department, I, with other Members of the House and officials of the Mineworkers' Federation, met the then Prime Minister and urged him to keep the Mines Department. We succeeded. But we had in our minds that if the Mines Department were kept, it would be for something more than the mere recording of statistics: that it would be a live Department, acting in the interests of the people concerned with the industry. Of late, doubts have been arising in my mind as to whether the administration of the Department, on all important questions affecting the lives of our people, has not been a complete failure.
  I consider that the Minister of Mines is open to criticism for having failed to produce the annual report, which we ought to have had for this Debate. Here we are at the end of July, and the Minister has not produced his report for last year. What is to be the use of the report when we have no longer an opportunity of considering it, or debating it? Last year this Vote was taken on 26th July; here we are, this year, considering it on 25th July, and the Minister has not thought it worth while to make an effort to get out his report in time for the Debate. These Debates, in my opinion, are absolutely essential for the welfare of the mining industry and the men engaged in it. We cannot have these reports kept back until after the Debates are over. We are bound to take some steps to force the Minister to produce his annual report, at latest, by the end of June. The Minister will say probably, "That is a thing with which I have nothing whatever to do." But the Commission was dealing with safety, and safety is one of the most urgent questions with which any commission could have to deal. In the collieries of this country nothing is so urgent as the need for safety legislation. What has the Minister done to hurry up the Commission, to make it produce the report? We were told that
  2816
  we are likely to get the report before next Session; but I ask the Minister, when he replies to the Debate, to tell us what is the next step. Is the report to be pigeonholed for another 12 months, or is it to be turned into legislation next Session? Now that this report, after three years, is likely to be produced, the Minister should tell us what he proposes to do next.
  The Department have failed to reduce—I was going to say, abolish—the number of explosions in this country. That should be one of the primary duties of the Ministry of Mines. One of the most terrible things in this country has been these explosions, shocking the whole country, yet the Ministry have been content to sit with folded arms and let these explosions take place and carry scores and hundreds of men into eternity. Only last Sunday I heard a speaker in whom I have every confidence say that from 1930 to 1937 there had been in this country an average of one explosion every four weeks. We have a right to ask what the Ministry of Mines have been doing in trying to stop these terrible explosions. What is the Ministry's policy for decreasing these accidents, saving some of those lives, and preventing the maiming of some of those men in our coalfields today? The Ministry of Mines ought to have a policy; they ought not to be just sitting quietly waiting until the report of the Royal Commission comes. If they had had any interest in this question, they would have formulated a policy and tried to carry it into effect in order that there might be a decrease in the number of accidents in connection with the coal mines.
  I now want to deal with the question of the inspection of the mines. I was astounded to-day to hear the Secretary for Mines say that it had not been possible to get sufficient Government inspectors. I wonder whether the cure for the inspection of the mines lies along the lines of more Government inspectors. When Labour was in office we thought that we had solved the question by appointing more Government inspectors, and yet, in spite of that, explosions and accidents have continued to occur. What is the policy of the Mines Department in regard to mines inspection? There are three systems of mines inspection in this country. There are the Government inspectors, and I do not say a word against

  2817
  Government inspectors, as I believe they do their best. There are at some collieries a system of workmen's inspectors, and there is another system in operation at some collieries where the collieries have united to form a committee or board and pay a man to act as workmen's inspector. such a man goes round the group of pits as often as he can, inspecting the mines. Those are the three systems in existence in this country to-day, but the Government inspector went to France and made a report in regard to workmen's inspectors in the French coal mines. The Mines Department ought before now, as they have had this matter before them for so long, to have taken it up and dealt with it. In France they have a system that is enormously superior to the inspection in this country. They form what are called constituencies in which there is a workmen's representative and a deputy-workmen's representative. There might be more than one constituency in one group of collieries. The report says:
  "The workmen's inspector is required by law to inspect his district throughout twice in every month. He is usually accompanied on these inspections by another workman. He must also inspect the scene of any fatal or serious accident, and the owner is required to give him immediate notice of such accidents. He also has the duty of inspecting the hours register"—
  and this is important—
  "at the mine. The Government Inspector may invite the workmen's inspector to accompanying him in any of his inspections. The workmen's inspector may make supplementary inspections in any part of his constituency where he has reason to believe that the safety or health of the workmen are in any way jeopardised. The owner must at all times give the workmen's inspector facilities for descending and inspecting the mine.
  Workmen's inspectors are paid monthly by the Civil Authorities, who collect the money (in practice in advance annually) from the colliery owners. The law lays down an elaborate system of calculation of their payment."
  There is the system of inspection. One of the difficulties that face our collieries today is the payment of the men who act as workmen's inspectors. Many of our smaller collieries cannot have workmen's inspectors because they cannot afford to pay them. Here we have a lesson from France where they have not the number of explosions and accidents that we experience.
  Mr. Wragg: Have they the same kind of seams to work?
  Mr. Batey: They have worse.
  Mr. Wragg: No.
  Mr. Batey: I would advise the hon. Gentleman to read this report. He will find that these seams are immensely worse to work than ours, being far more on the incline.
  Mr. Wragg: Does the hon. Member really assert that the coal mines in France are more gaseous than the coal mines in England?
  Mr. Batey: The report is published as Command Paper 5566. The hon. Member should read it. He will find that it is no use suggesting that our collieries are worse to work than those in France. He will learn from this report that the collieries in France are worse than ours. An hon. Friend has asked me to read the following, which appears on page 9 of the report, in which the Government inspector says:
  "Whilst not in a position to make a full comparison between mines in France and Great Britain as regards either the liability to gas, or the standards of ventilation in practice as judged by the percentage of firedamp in the returns, I am satisfied

  (a) that there are mines in France where the liability to gas is high—as high as at some of the more gassy mines in this country; and

  (b) that while at the large majority of the mines in Great Britain the ventilation is up to, or better than, a 1 per cent. return standard, at some (and not all of them with exceptionally high rates of gas emission) it is not."

  That is an important matter. I believe that because of the huge number, both of fatal and non-fatal accidents, something needs to be done with regard to inspection. What seems to be in the mind of the Secretary for Mines is to increase the number of inspectors, but in my opinion the better way is to make it possible for every colliery to have its workmen's inspector, and the owners should pay the workmen's inspector.
  There is another matter upon which I consider the Ministry of Mines, in their administration, have completely failed and, that is on the question of overtime. One remembers how the Department of Mines had an investigation into overtime in Lancashire, which was followed by an investigation into overtime in Scotland. When they made investigations in Scotland it seems that they were so disgusted with the huge amount of overtime there

  2819
  that they made no more investigations. Scotland settled them. Overtime was so bad in Scotland that they never dared to go any further with the question. Since the present Minister has been at the Mines Department he has done nothing to reduce overtime. The investigation took place before he went to the Department, and since then he has done nothing. I was amazed to read in a northern newspaper last Friday that the Secretary of the Northumberland Miners' Association said to the miners' conference:
  "After securing lists of overtime worked we had meetings with the inspectors of the Northumberland area and placed the facts before them. I was able to secure information that in order that the men might continue to work beyond the statutory hours, the management of one pit sent in beer and pies. I was still unable to get a prosecution."
  The overtime that is worked in pits like that ought to command the attention of the Secretary for Mines and the Mines Department. So far, Government inspectors have steadfastly refused to take action where owners have been working excessive overtime. I would ask the Secretary for Mines what he is going to do about this question. If there is an urgent question that ought to receive the attention of the Department it is that of overtime.
  There is a whole list of failures on the part of the Ministry of Mines, and there is one further failure with which I should like to deal. In his speech to-day the Minister dealt with the question of export coal, and I expected some statement as to what the Department propose to do in regard to the levy for export coal. It is no use concealing facts. We are told in the Press that there is a proposal for a 3d. levy on inland coal for the purpose of helping the exporting districts. We ought to know from the Secretary for Mines how far they have gone in that matter, what consideration they have given to it and what prospect there is of a levy for export coal. In the exporting districts the position is very acute. I talked with two men last Saturday who work at a big colliery in Durham, and they told me that last week they worked only two days.
  The bottom has gone out of the export trade. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the export trade in coal has fallen by a million tons or so in the first six months of this year compared with
  2820
  the first six months of last year. That cannot be an answer to the question. There has been a reduction in the sale of coal to France and there has also been a substantial reduction in the sale of coal to Belgium. There has been a reduction of 1,000,000 tons in the sale of coal to France, and we want to know what action the Ministry has taken to deal with the matter. He ought to say to France: "You have dropped your import of British coal by 1,000,000 tons." To Belgium he ought to say: "You have dropped your import of British coal by 250,000 tons." He ought to say to both countries: "If you possibly can we want you to purchase more coal from this country." The strange thing is that we have sold more coal in the first six months of this year compared with the first six months of last year to countries that are supposed to be enemy countries—Italy and Germany. Those countries are buying our coal, otherwise we should have been much further down than we are. The Secretary for Mines should not be content with this state of affairs.
  A few weeks ago we had the Anglo-Turkish Agreement before us. We ought to know what part the Ministry of Mines has played in that Agreement. The Agreement contains this Clause:
  "There shall be a company incorporated in England, under the Companies Act, 1929, with its principal place of business in London, for the sale in the British Empire and in foreign countries of the following commodities which are the products of Turkey, and for the disposal of the proceeds of the sale thereof in accordance with the provisions of this agreement."
  The said products include metals, mineral ores, concentrates and coal. Why should the Mines Department sanction the establishment of a company to sell Turkish coal in the British Empire or in any foreign country? They can do that only by displacing British coal. It means that Turkish coal will displace British coal. How the Mines Department can be so careless of the interests of the people of this country in this matter, beats me. We could not discuss that agreement, otherwise we should have taken the Committee to a Division on the stealing of markets in order that Turkish coal can displace British coal.
  I want the Minister of Mines to get a move on, to be far more active than he has been and not to be satisfied to wait. The coal industry needs different treatment, something needs to he done in the

  2821
  interests of the men engaged in the coal trade. I want the Minister of Mines to awaken and do something. If I were head of a department which failed so completely as the Ministry of Mines is failing, I would put on my coat and walk out of the Department, even if I had to sell mechanical toys in Regent Street. The hon. and gallant Member ought not to be satisfied just to sit in his Department, with week following week and month following month and things not being made any better for the people engaged in the industry. He ought to keep clear in his mind the fact that one of his chief duties is to further the interests of the men. The coalowners can look after themselves. Someone is required to look after the men, and we have a right to expect that the Ministry of Mines will do everything possible to better the conditions of the miners.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Wragg: I do not think hon. Members opposite do themselves any justice by exaggerating the case they have to put forward. I have not been in the Committee long but during the time I have been here the argument that I have heard seems to be entirely fallacious and shows a serious lack of the knowledge of arithmetic. I am connected with the coal trade, I represent a mining constituency, and I have had the experience of being heckled by miners on many occasions. In spite of differences with them I think they generally agree that I try to give them a fair deal, although I am a producer of coal. It is no good exaggerating the case. Hon. Members opposite have said that the accident rate is increasing. That is entirely wrong. I have here the figures given by the Department of Mines—I suppose they are correct. Take the total accidents in the coal mines of this country. While the number of men killed and injured is deplorably high, we must be fair. From 1922 to 1926 the average accident rate per 100,000 man-shifts worked was 24.7, but in 1936, the latest figures available, it had dropped to 21.6 per 100,000 man-shifts worked. Admittedly it is a drop which one would like to see more marked.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Is not the accident rate for 1936 for men working in the pits 26.2, which is the highest for 10 years?
  Mr. Wragg: The figures I have are the accidents per 100,000 man-shifts worked, which I think is a fairer basis to take than the number of men employed, and, according to this estimate, the rate from 1922 to 1926 was 24.7 and in 1936, 21.6, which shows a considerable reduction. Again, the number seriously injured in 1911 for every 1,000 persons employed—I am eliminating the fact that there are fewer people employed to-day by taking the percentage per 1,000 men employed—was 5.6, but in 1937 the rate was 4.2, admittedly not a very great drop but still a figure which shows considerable progress. If we come to the number of people killed in the pits, in 1914 1,243 miners were killed—a very large number. Mining is admittedly a dangerous trade, but I hope it will be made less dangerous as time goes on. In 1923, when incidentally I entered Parliament for the first time and the Labour party came into office for the first time, the number of fatal accidents was 1,308. Since that time, with a long period of National and Conservative administration, with all the care which has been taken to prevent accidents in mines, the figure has dropped very considerably indeed, and the number of fatal accidents in 1937 was 865.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: What about the number of men employed?
  Mr. Wragg: I expected that. In 1923 there were round about 1,000,000 men employed in coal mines and in 1937 about 750,000, a drop of 25 per cent. But the accident rate has dropped by nearly 30 per cent. The drop in the rate of accidents has been greater than the drop in the number of men employed. Anyone can see, on analysing the figures given by the Department, that there has been a reduction per 1,000 men employed in the number of fatal accidents and in the number of those seriously injured, and also a considerable reduction in the number of those killed and injured taken together. But that does not say that we ought to be satisfied. We are not satisfied on this side any more than are hon. Members opposite.
  We are very much concerned that these accidents continue, and while it may not be right to go into the question of the Markham disaster, still it does appear, and everybody realises it, that electricity without very strict precautions

  2823
  is a danger in the mines. But there are mines and mines. There are some mines where you can go down and smoke quite comfortably without any fear of an accident; they are naked light pits, which are perfectly safe and have never known an explosion. They have never known and are not likely to know an explosion because they are not in the slightest sense gaseous, and you need not apply electricity regulations there so strictly as in other pits where the tendency is to be gaseous. It is a question of the district and the mine. It is quite possible that in certain districts which are gaseous restrictions will have to be put upon the use of electricity underground and more attention paid to compressed air. That almost goes without saying.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: Whilst I agree with the hon. Member in what he is saying I think he will agree that house coal pits are usually very damp and that electricity would not be a good thing to put in.
  Mr. Wragg: There may be a certain amount of truth in that, but I can only speak from my experience of the colliery districts of Leicestershire and South Derbyshire. I do not think they have known an explosion during the century.
  Mr. Williams: I am not speaking of explosions, but of shocks.
  Mr. Wragg: The accident rate in these districts, whether from shock or explosions, is comparativelp small compared with some pits. In my colliery in Leicestershire—I will touch wood—we have had only eight fatal accidents during the last 20 years, and during that time we must have raised 500,000 tons of coal per annum. That is, we have raised 10,000,000 tons of coal and have had only eight fatal accidents. That is a safe pit. I do not say that it is because we have done anything more than other colliery owners, but it happens to be a very safe pit, and perhaps we have been lucky. But my point is that there are districts and districts, and that in some districts you would be obliged to have stricter regulations regarding electricity than in others. I come now to another point which is continually harped upon by hon. Members opposite, and that is the wages which are paid to the miners and the statement continually made that the mine-owners
  2824
  are doing very well and taking a lot of money out of the industry.
  Mr. Buchanan: Doing much better than the miners.
  Mr. Wragg: If you compare the earnings of the miners in this year in this country with any other country in Europe you will find that the wages in any European country per man-shift are not equal to those paid in this country. I could show that in the Eldorado of Socialism and Bolshevism, Russia, according to the figures of the International Labour Office the earnings of the miners are not much more than, if as much as, the amounts received by miners who are unemployed in this country. I will give the figures for the district of Notts and Derbyshire. Naturally I speak of that district, because I represent a Derbyshire constituency. I remember that in 1935, the miners were banded together against me, demanding an increase of 2s. a shift. They voted against me because definite promises were given by the trade union and Labour people that if they came into power, there would be an immediate increase of 2s. I could not give any definite promise because, knowing that the National Government were bound to be returned, I felt that I might be called upon to implement that promise. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to promise anything, because they know that they will never be called upon to implement the promises. Knowing that I should be called upon to fulfil my promises, I said, "We will do the best we can, as the National Government always do, in the interests of the miners."
  Looking at the figures, I find that in the first quarter of 1930, in Notts and Derbyshire—the same thing applies to the whole country, although perhaps not to such a great degree—for every shift worked the man got 10s. 3¾d., plus about 4d. in allowances. In 1930, the Labour party were in office; one would have supposed that the mining industry would have been made very prosperous, but wages were at a very low ebb at that time. What was the position in 1935? There was a slight increase to 10s. 5¼d. Since the present selling schemes have been in operation—
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Whose selling schemes?
  Mr. Wragg: The coal selling schemes are of much more importance to the

  2825
  miners than to the coalowners, having regard to the fact that of the proceeds from coal, 85 per cent., generally speaking, foes to the miners and 15 per cent. to the coalowners. Therefore, anything which can bring prices up to a reasonable level must redound in increased wages to the miners. That has been the case. Let it be remembered that by miners we mean not only the men who work underground, but the men who work on the surface, and the boys who are employed—in fact, all those who are employed at the pit, no matter what their age.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: The directors?
  Mr. Wragg: It does not include the directors.
  Mr. Griffiths: The managers?
  Mr. Wragg: No, although it may include the under-managers. The basis is the same whether we take 1930, 1935 or 1938. In 1930, during the period when the Labour party were in power, the wages per man-shift were 10s. 3¾d.; in 1935, they were 10s. 5¼d.; and in 1938, after a few years of beneficent National Government, the wages in my constituency per shift, for men, boys, underground or above-ground, amount to 13s. 3·54d., plus 3·9d. for other allowances, making about 13s. 7d. a shift. Therefore, one may deduce from those figures that in Notts and Derbyshire for every man of 21 or over, the average earnings are 15s. per shift. It seems rather strange that after the miners proposed to strike for an increase of 2S. a shift, they are still not satisfied when they have got an increase of 3s. a shift. The point which comes to mind is, when would they be satisfied? I do not think they would ever be satisfied. Indeed, nobody in this country ever is satisfied, and if everybody was satisfied, we should all go to sleep and do nothing.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody that the present selling schemes are due to the 1930 Act, which was really put on the Statute Book by the Labour Government. Why does not the hon. Gentleman admit that?
  Mr. Wragg: I am prepared to admit that the formula for the preparation of the selling scheme was included in the 1930 Act, which was passed by the Labour Government, but during the period of the
  2826
  Labour Government, it was allowed to lie dormant. Active selling schemes have been put into operation since the National Government came into power. Hon. Members have made comparisons between the mining industry of this country and that of France. They have said that the accident rate in this country is greater than it is in France. But there can be no comparison between the mines of France and those of this country, any more than a comparison is possible between the mines in Kent and those in certain gaseous districts of the country. What the divisional inspector said in his report was that a full comparison is not possible. There are not full statistics in regard to the French mines. The divisional inspector said that some mines in France are as gaseous as the mines in England—some, but few; and he did not say how many. Anybody who knows the mines in France and the mines in England knows that the French mines are particularly safe from the point of view of accumulations of gas.
  I have tried briefly to make one or two points. I rose to speak mainly because it seemed to me that the Debate was going by default. Hon. Members were making the most extreme statements with regard to the coalowners and the Government, and I wanted to point out that there are coalowners who are just an anxious as the miners to have an improvement in the conditions in the pits. I think I have shown that the accident rate and the death rate, instead of being as high as hon. Members have stated, are lower than they were, and that they are improving. I think I have shown that the miners' wages have been very considerably improved by the methods of the Government, and I feel sure that if only we have another five years of National Government, the miners will be more satisfied, although I am sure that they will never be completely satisfied.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. T. Williams: I wish first to comment on the wonderful enthusiasm which has been displayed throughout the day by the members of the Liberal party, Apparently, although 750,000 mine workers and their wives and families are concerned in this Debate, the Liberal party are totally indifferent. One cannot say that about the Conservatives and National Liberals, because for many hours during the day there have been as many as two

  2827
  or three Members, and on other occasions one Member, besides the Secretary for Mines, on the benches opposite. Before dealing with the statement of the Secretary for Mines I should like to have the attention of the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg), to whose figures I wish to reply. It is perfectly true that conditions in the mining industry as well as in many other industries were infinitely worse in 1933 than in 1930 and that, coinciding with the term of office of the National Government, there has been some improvement in the receipts of the industry between 1933, when we were at the bottom of the pit, and 1938. But when the hon. Member for Belper tries to persuade the Committee that all the efforts of the National Government have been designed to help the mine workers he is attempting deliberately to mislead the Committee.
  He referred to the increase in the wages of the miners between 1930 and 1937, but he made no reference to the increase in the profits of the mineowners. I am not sure whether the hon. Member was referring to mines in North Derbyshire and Nottingham, or to mines in South Derbyshire, but if he was referring to North Derbyshire and Nottingham then we can see exactly what his figures mean. I think he quoted a wage of 13s. 3d. per shift for North Derbyshire and Nottingham. Is that the district to which he referred?
  Mr. Wragg: I referred to that area because I was speaking as Member for a constituency in North Derbyshire.
  Mr. Williams: Now that it is clear that the hon. Member was referring to North Derbyshire and Nottingham we know exactly how to qualify the figures which he has given. It is true that the wages in that part of the mining area were somewhere about 10s. 7d. when we were at the bottom of the trough and that at the highest point the wages increased to 13s. 3½d. per shift. What he did not tell us was that while the wages, no doubt, had increased by about 20 per cent., profits had increased by over 50 per cent. during the same period. The hon. Member ought to tell the Committee the full story and not only a part of it. He ought not to quote the alleged improvement in the miners wages without referring also to the improvement in the
  2828
  profits in that and other areas. I do not know exactly what the profits of the colliery companies in North Derbyshire and Nottingham were in 1930, but I do know that for every ton of coal produced in that area—and for every shift worked by man or boy, above or below ground, the average output is nearly one and a half tons—the coalowner received 2s. 7.82d. or nearly 2s. 8d. per ton profit. For every shift worked, above or below ground, by man or boy, the coalowners drew out of that man or boy in profit, about 3s. 10d. per shift and that is not too bad from the coalowners point of view. When the hon. Member again expresses sympathy with the mineworkers and talks about what the National Government have done to help them, I hope he will not forget to tell the whole truth and state exactly what profit the mineowners have made.
  Mr. Wragg: On a point of Order. I have been accused of not stating the whole truth. I think that is a matter on which I am entitled to reply to the hon. Member.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Gordon Macdonald): That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member for Belper is entirely wrong. He did not tell the Committee the whole truth, because he never referred to the profits of the mineowners, and I am quite justified in referring to the omission which he deliberately made.
  Sir Reginald Clarry: But it is discourteous not to listen to his reply.
  Mr. Fleming: On a point of Order. If an hon. Member accuses another hon. Member of deliberately misleading the Committee, is it not a matter of procedure that the accused Member should be given the opportunity of explaining his statement?
  Sir R. Clarry: It would at least be courteous.
  The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Williams.
  Mr. T. Williams: If the hon. Member for Belper wants to fill in the breach which he left, I shall be glad to give way to him.
  Mr. Wragg: I will fill in the breach by saying that during the last eight years the profits in the mining industry have not risen in the same ratio as wages have risen.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must know, that is a terminological inexactitude. Further, in reference to the hon. Member's statement about wages, I have a pay sheet here of a colliery in Yorkshire which shows that during the last month seven coal-face men, four of them ex-service men, who were at work on all the days that the pit was open, received, for the lot, £11 15s. or an average of 33s. 6d. per person. One of these men has a wife and seven children all under 14. He was working in the mine in 1926 and had to receive an allowance from the Poor Law guardians during a period when he was unable to work. He still has deductions made from his wages in respect of that loan and a shilling was deducted from his 33s. 6d., in repayment of the loan secured from the guardians in 1926. I have other pay sheets of very recent origin the authenticity of which even the hon. Member for Belper cannot deny, in spite of his comprehensive knowledge of the mining industry.
  Mr. Wragg: How many days were worked?
  Mr. Williams: Here are three pay dockets for one person for the three weeks ended 9th July, 16th July, and 23rd July, respectively.
  Mr. Wragg: How many days?
  Mr. Williams: This person worked on every day that the colliery was open during this period.
  Mr. Wragg: How many days were there?
  Mr. Williams: He worked every day that the colliery company permitted him to work. I will tell the hon. Member the number of days and the money too. In the week ended on 9th July the colliery company in their generosity allowed him to work 1⅙ days. In the week ended 16th July they allowed him to work 2 1/3 days.
  Mr. Wragg: That is the whole point.
  Mr. Williams: In the week ended 23rd July the colliery company, again very generously, allowed him to work 2 1/3 days.
  Mr. Wragg: What is the good of talking like that.
  Mr. Williams: Here is the case of an ex-service man with a wife and three children, and these are the figures. Of course
  2830
  the hon. Member for Belper does not want to listen to anybody else. He has only been here about half an hour and he has made a speech in which there is a very serious omission, and then he does not want to listen to others, but he will have to listen to this. Here is the case of a miner who worked on every day that the pit was open and, after deductions, he drew on 9th July from the colliery company 2s. 1d., with which to maintain a wife and three children; on 16th July he went to the colliery office and picked up 4s. 6d., and on 23rd July he went to the colliery office and picked up 13s. 5d.; in other words, for three weeks from the colliery office he received £1 to maintain himself, his wife, and three children, and that is what the mining industry has done for lots of miners in various parts of the coal-mining areas of the country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member can snort as much as he likes, but he cannot get away from these facts, and why any miner in the Belper Division should cast a vote in his direction, no one knows.
  Mr. Wragg: What you have said is perfectly untrue.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Member declares that I have made an untrue statement. Will he correct it?
  Mr. Wragg: I will state that your statement is entirely untrue, or at any rate not the whole truth. You have given certain figures of the earnings of a miner on the days when the colliery was open, and you have shown that the colliery was open during one week for 1⅙ days, but you have not actually stated that the man drew any unemployment pay, and you have led the Committee to believe that the man had to keep his wife and children on 2s. 1d. a week.
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member has not got a better retort than that, he had better sit still. I said that the man worked 2⅓ days in one week, and the hon. Member asks the Committee to believe that I said he worked only one day. I will now give the hon. Member an opportunity to cool down. Last year the Secretary for Mines was very delighted with the opportunity presented to him to speak on this Vote, but this year he has not been at all so happy, for two very obvious reasons. Twenty-two Parliamentary days are more than any Minister

  2831
  can bear and my sympathy goes out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having to sit here a twenty-third day. But there was another reason why he did not welcome this further day for the mining industry. Last year I remember that his speech was one long record of progress. Not only had output increased, but the export trade had increased, wages had increased, and the tendency was generally upwards. Today, however, I can understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's dismay, for what he had to tell us was one long chapter of travail—output down, exports down, more fatal accidents, more minor accidents, and more young persons killed or injured.
  In fact, the hon. and gallant Gentleman created an atmosphere of almost utter despair throughout the Committee, and in apologetic tones he told us that his Department was merely administrative and advisory and that in fact it did not run the industry. It may be true that the Department does not run the industry, but it has a tremendous responsibility for three-quarters of a million men engaged in the industry and for their wives and families. I do not know how many times the Mines Department Vote has been called for in the last 16 years. I must have heard all of those Debates, and it has always been the same old story, with very few redeeming features in it. Unfortunately, nothing of a serious nature has ever happened after the Vote has been taken, and we have had one long lamentation. To-day we have had the same lamentable toll of deaths, more fatal accidents, despite the hon. Member for Belper, more serious accidents, more minor accidents, and the tragedy of those under 16 years of age is the biggest tragedy of all.
  The hon. Member for Belper did not hear what the Secretary for Mines tried to tell the Committee, so that if he will listen for a moment, I will tell him what it was. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that in 1936 there were 790 fatal accidents and in 1937 859 fatal accidents, and that, on the basis of the first 28 weeks of this year, the fatal accidents looked like reaching 1,000, so that instead of the fatal accidents diminishing, they are actually increasing, from 1936 to 1938, under the guidance of the National Government. Those are the facts, given to the Committee by the Secretary for Mines, and
  2832
  if the hon. Member for Belper will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning, perhaps the next time that he speaks on coal mines and accidents he will get nearer the truth.
  Mr. Wragg: Give the figures for 1923.
  Mr. Williams: With regard to accidents on haulage roads, a very authentic report states that from 1873 the number of such accidents has scarcely diminished at all; that is to say, that for 70 years, despite scientific research, despite all the supposed good will on the part of the coal-owners and the rest, there has been little or no diminution in the number of accirents on our haulage roads. What is the explanation? Every hon. Member on these benches who has had personal, practical experience in the mines knows that accidents on haulage roads are largely due to either narrow roads, faulty timbering, or inconvenient haulage roads. In other words, the simple explanation is that these accidents have not diminished because of the cost that would be involved in diminishing them. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member cannot legislate the industry into safety, but at least he has the power, if it is a question of narrow roads, if it is bad timbering, or if it is inconvenient haulage roads, to produce improved regulations that will widen out the roads and give the boys who are meeting with death so frequently better opportunities to do their job in safety.
  The same remark almost applies to falls of roof, which unfortunately take place very largely at the coal face. Again, any practical miner could tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman the real cause of these accidents. It is cheap timbering at the face, plus the incidence of so many machines and props. It is a long time since I worked down a coal mine, but I can well remember that we had not only serious debates with the owners, but stoppages of the mine, when the miners for their own safety wanted to set bars along the coal face and the colliery company insisted upon the colliers setting only props, for which they had not to pay; in other words, falls of roof at the coal face are largely due to cheap timbering, or again, reduced to its lowest financial common denominator, it is a question of cost.
  To-day there are just as many explosions as there were 30 years ago, and

  2833
  while it is true to say that stone dust has had some effect in avoiding the spread of some explosions, the fact is that the same number of explosions are taking place in 1938 as took place in 1908. All hon. Members who have had experience in mines and those who have listened to mining Debates must know that there can be no explosion unless two factors are present at the same time. There must be 5½ per cent. of gas, and if there is 5½ per cent. of gas, every miner ought to be on his way to the pit bottom; and there must not only be 5½ per cent. of gas, but there must also be a light or a spark. If there is 5½ per cent, of gas there is something seriously wrong with the ventilation. There must be some very bad airways or there has been failure on the part of those responsible to direct ventilation where it ought to go. In other words, again reduced to its lowest common denominator, despite the scientific shortcomings of this industry, it is a question of cost again, because if the airways were the size they ought to be, and the volume of ventilation was what it ought to be, and the doors and the other things that direct ventilation were as good as they ought to be, there would be few or no accumulations of gas, the 5½ per cent. would not be there, and there would not be so many explosions.
  It is true stone dust over a period of time has had some value. We are all very willing to recognise that, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that we have had Whitehaven, we have had Wharncliffe Woodmoor, and we have had Duckmanton, at a cost of approximately 200 human lives, and the old theory of stone dust, unless it is the right kind of stone dust seems to be in some doubt. There is grave apprehension in the minds of many miners to-day as to whether the stone dust regulations ought not to be completely revised, or at least whether there ought not to be further investigation with a view to the revision of those regulations. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) raised the question of limestone scattered over the roadways solidifying and being of no practical value for the purpose of minimising the explosions. We want the hon. and gallant Gnetleman to take advantage of these three grave misfortuntes to have that question of stone dust investigated at the earliest possible moment.
  2834
  Then I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what the Mines Department intends to do about automatic gas detectors. There has been a report issued for several months. The members of the committee investigated the whole problem, they went down mine after mine, and I am convinced that they did not make this report until they had made a very thorough investigation of the whole subject. I do not intend to quote the report. It is sufficient for me to say that the majority report recommends that a compulsory order ought to be made for the use of automatic gas detectors in mines in certain proportions in mines, especially where electricity is used. I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in some doubt at the moment, and fully appreciate his hesitancy in making a statement. But this particular automatic gas detector, which was approved by the Mines Department in 1927 as being fit for use in mines, has been improved out of all recognition during the past 11 years. Now that the majority recommendation signed by His Majesty's Chief Inspector has been made in favour of a compulsory order for the use of gas detectors, I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to tell the Committee just what he going to do about it. I do not suggest that any one specific will avoid all explosions in mines, but if the use of automatic gas detectors would reduce explosions by 10, by 50 per cent., by any percentage, then surely that machine ought to be used at the earliest possible moment.
  Some reference has been made to His Majesty's Inspectors and workmen's inspections. I want to say only this. I have no doubt that the inspectors do their best in the time at their disposal, but unless and until more workmen's inspections take place, the mines will never be as safe as they really ought to be. And since the number of inspections made by the workpeople is at a minimum because of sheer poverty, I think it is the duty of the Government by one means or another to find a way so that all miners' branches which want to have inspections may have them without further robbing their wives and families.
  Then I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take note of this. In the past I have sent to his Department cases where a deputy, doing his duty and reporting the presence of gas when gas was a danger to the mine workers, has been

  2835
  dismissed by the colliery company. When such a case is sent to the Mines Department they have no power. It is true they invite an inspector for that area to make an investigation at a colliery, but the moment the colliery deputy dares to report either a shortage of timber or the presence of gas, and he happens to be dismissed, his name is circulated round every colliery in the county in which he works, and he is victimised for all time and loses all that he has striven for. A colliery deputy has no trade union. He would be sacked if he dared to join a trade union. He has got no appeal court. He has not a chance in life. He dare not do justice to himself or to his qualifications or to the mine workers. Is it not time now, when a deputy is dismissed for having done his duty at the mines, that the Government saw to it that some opportunity is given to that man to put his case before an impartial tribunal? The colliery company if it is found to be at fault should be compelled to pay that deputy full compensation, because he had only been doing his duty.
  With regard to the scientific research work of the Mines Department, that is all to the good. We welcome their suggestion for international co-operation for safety purposes, and we would invite them to go further. Instead of our trying to compete with other countries, we would welcome a move on the part of this Government to go to Geneva not only to co-operate for the purposes of safety, but to co-operate for the purpose of all-round reduction in miners' hours, since so many miners in all countries have been dismissed because our capacity for output is infinitely larger than our capacity for consumption.
  I have only one final word to say, and that is with regard to the Royal Commission. We know that the Commission undertook a very big job two and a half years since. We have waited a long time for their report. Daily, monthly, annually the death roll goes on. I do not believe that the Minister is entirely powerless. I think he could inspire the Commission to expedite their report, and I hope that he will inspire them. We have one vesting date to look forward to in 1942. We do not want a second vesting date in the shape of the result of the Government examination of the report of the Royal Commission, and I hope we are not going
  2836
  to have to wait for Government action. 1942 is not early enough. If that report is forthcoming this autumn, as my hon. Friend suggested, the Government ought to take action as quickly as they possibly can, in 1938 or 1939. Human life in the mining industry has been regarded too cheaply for far too long, and we want to reduce this appalling slaughter, and we call upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman to invite the Commission to expedite their report, and for his part to get the Government to expedite what action they are going to take upon it.
  9.35 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I am afraid that as unfortunately this Debate has to end, not at Eleven but at Ten oclock, there is no hope of my answering all the questions which have been put, but I will guarantee to hon. Members that I and my staff will look carefully at all that they have said, and if there is anything that calls for a reply they can take it from me that an answer will be sent. We welcome very much this Debate, because when the Debate is carried on as it has been today on a more or less geographical basis, it provides a general review of what hon. Members who are specially interested in this subject are thinking. It is clear that each district has not exactly the same problems and that those who speak with full knowledge of their own districts are not necessarily in a position to make the same sort of statements about other districts. I assure hon. Members that all the points will be carefully looked into. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) has not been able to take part in this Debate through illness, because one generally expects to have a speech from one's predecessor on the other side of the House. I hope that he will soon be well again.
  We have had a most interesting discussion on what is one of the most anxious problems with which any Minister has to deal. I do not mind the uncomplimentary references which hon. Members opposite have made about me in this connection, because, whatever they may think, neither I nor anyone connected with the Mines Department is in the least complacent about the problems of safety, accidents or health. I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) did not quite mean all that he said. The hon. Member who opened

  2837
  the Debate gave us a wide review of his opinions on a number of subjects, and I must say that when during the Debate speech after speech has been directed at me to see whether I could use my influence to get the Royal Commission to hurry with their report, I wondered whether hon. Members had already pressed in vain the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), or had omitted to remember that there are two members of the Royal Commission in the hon. Member and Mr. E. Edwards who are closely connected with them personally. I have no doubt—in fact the hon. Member for Gower said so—that the Commissioners are anxious as soon as possible to conclude their drafting and present their report. There is no doubt about that because anybody who has worked hard for two and a half years or more on any subject probably looks with hope to its conclusion, and I am certain there will be no avoidable delay in this matter.
  Mr. Batey Mr. Batey rose—
  Captain Crookshank: I know what the hon. Member is going to ask me, namely, what I am going to do when I get the report? My answer must be that that is a hypothetical question. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) asked about deep mines in Lancashire and took some exception to the fact that no particular reference was made to this subject in the divisional inspector's report. I am sure that the hon. Member will be the first to realise that divisional inspectors report to me and to the chief inspector a great many things which are not necessarily found in their reports. It is certainly the case, however, that these deep mines in Lancashire have been receiving constant attention. The last time I was in Manchester I had some conversations on the subject with various people, and the situation is being watched very carefully, but at the moment there does not appear to be any new matter to be investigated. If the hon. Member has some new point which has not been under consideration before, it might be another matter.
  We have had a good many questions about overtime and the hon. Member for Spennymoor alleged that I took no interest in this matter at all. I have considered it very carefully on many occasions and answered many questions in the House on the subject. It is true
  2838
  that we have not recently had formal district investigations as was done in the past, but, on the other hand, there is an inspector who devotes the whole of his time to investigating questions of overtime. He does not make reports on any particular districts, but he visits collieries and if he finds anything wrong he takes up the matter or reports to me accordingly. I should be glad to receive any specific cases which hon. Members like to put to me to investigate, but it does not carry us very far to have general statements. In my opening speech I mentioned a letter which I received only last week on the subject of pit ponies, in which the writer said he could produce thousands of cases. One wants to know where the cases are; and similarly, in this instance, any general statement about overtime does not carry us very far. Hon. Gentlemen know as well as I do that there is permission in certain cases under the emergency provision which is always causing them anxiety. They also know that there have been in prosecutions in the past dealing with this point many interpretations of it by the courts. I am not responsible for what the courts may say in interpreting the law, but one has to be guided by that when one is considering the question of prosecutions.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: You can alter the law.
  Captain Crookshank: That is quite right, but that is part of what I meant when I said that the last few years had seen in mining a great technical revolution which had brought many new problems. The question of repairing machinery as an emergency and so on is bound up with that problem, which is one of the most important which the Commission have to consider. Altering the law is impracticable at the moment, but I am only too anxious to go into any particular cases. I am the last person in the world who wants to see illegal overtime, having done a lot of it myself this Session.
  The other point raised by the hon. Member was in regard to water difficulties in Lancashire, and he said he hoped it would be closely watched. It is being closely watched from the point of view of safety. I replied to his hon. Friend sitting next to him to that effect the other day, when I said that inspectors were watching these particular pits very carefully. He will recognise, however, that

  2839
  my only interest in that matter is one of safety. The problem which he raised as to the possibility of millions of tons of coal being wasted has nothing to do with me as a problem of safety and health. It is the economic question and quite a different one. I can assure the hon. Member that from the point of view of safety the problem which he raised is being carefully watched.
  Mr. G. Macdonald: Will the Minister be able to call together the coalowners who are affected to consider a central pumping station?
  Captain Crookshank: I have no power to make any body come to a conference. The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) asked a lot of questions which should be dealt with by other Departments, and I need not go into what is going on behind the scenes about which she showed such curiosity. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) was the first of several Members to ask what I had meant about the difficulty of getting junior inspectors. What I said was that I had wanted to appoint 16 additional junior inspectors, but that only 10 posts had been filled because the number of applications had been disappointingly small. Only 13 candidates have been nominated by the selection committee to sit for the examination. I am not surprised that that amazed hon. Members opposite, because it does seem remarkable. In reply to the actual questions I was asked, the salary of a junior inspector is £450, rising by increments of £25 to £650, with, of course, the possibility of promotion to a higher rank. The age limits for applicants are 27 to 35, and the qualifications that they should have a first-class certificate, two years' good experience as manager or under-manager or in a really responsible capacity. I do not think that is asking too little for those who have to undertake this important work.
  Mr. A. Bevan: What does the last phrase mean, about a really responsible capacity?
  Captain Crookshank: I think it is generally understood. It is not a limiting factor but a widening factor, and in spite of that we have had this difficulty in getting applicants. Something over 70 applications were received and they were
  2840
  scrutinised by the selection committee. The selection committee is a sub-committee of the Board of Mining Examinations, and it consists of representatives of my Department, of the mineowners, a professor of mining and a representative of the mineworkers, who at the present moment is Mr. Lawther and in his absence Mr. Oliver Harris acts. That sub-committee interviews all the applicants who might be suitable, and they nominated only 13 for the examination. I admit that I do not think we can leave things there. The matter may have to be considered further by the selection committee and by myself. The examination is held by the Civil Service Commission. The subjects are English, Science—that is geology, or physics or chemistry—coalmining, electricity in mines, the law relating to mines and quarries, stone ore and mining. In the case of examination for sub-inspectors the experiment is being tried of omitting the written examination and doing rather more on a selection basis.
  Mr. Bevan: What does that phrase mean about having had experience in a really responsible capacity? [Interruption.] Very well, if you do not want to answer we can carry on the Debate. Do not be impatient. In what way is that phrase interpreted? Must he have been a member of the staff of a colliery?
  Captain Crookshank: I am not impatient with the hon. Member, but the "guillotine" falls at 10 o'clock. He has not taken part in the Debate, and many questions have been asked by hon. Members who, I feel, want answers to them. Actually I do not know the particular definition of "a really responsible capacity." I do not know how it is interpreted without asking the committee, and the hon. Member can ask that of the representative of the mineworkers as well as I can. The selection committee may say of a man "He has really had a responsible position" and in another case they might not feel that his position did fall within the definition. They may very well not have a strict list of the qualifications.
  The next point was raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. A. Hills) and it has run right through the Debate, and that is the question of explosions. He and the hon. Member who spoke last said that very serious thought must now be

  2841
  given to the question of stone dusting. I can assure him that very serious thought was given to it long before this last fatality. It was in my mind and in the minds of my advisers long before that. It arose soon after the Gresford case and we have been considering it in very way. Obviously one cannot say anything about the Markham explosion until one has had the report. One cannot even make a guess at this stage, but I think from all that has appeared in the Press that one might say that certain doubts have arisen about the stone dusting having been effective, and as soon as that report is received if it is not possible to do something forthwith hon. Members can still rest assured that it will receive the most earnest attention, because that was a most disastrous explosion, and it is the doubts which have arisen out of it which are the source of our greatest anxiety at the moment.
  The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked when the report upon the investigations into silicosis was likely to be produced. I am not able to give a reply to that, and of course he will know that in medical and clinical research of that kind a good deal of investigation has to take place. A large number of men were inspected, and a great many things have to be analysed and a great deal of information has to be collated. That particular work is not directly under my responsibility, but I have heard my Noble Friend say at Question Time in this House that the inquiry is being pressed on and I will ask him to take note of what the hon. Member has said. He spoke of a rather technical question when referring to the views of the divisional inspector for South Wales upon packing. I think my answer would be that the divisional inspector for South Wales is convinced that the methods which he advocates are right, at any rate in his own district, but it does not necessarily follow that they are right in the opinion of other inspectors or experts in other districts; anyhow, that is the impression one would get from reading other reports.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. E. Dunn) asked about research and rather scoffed at the small amount of money appearing under subhead E in the Estimates. I congratulate him upon being the first Member to refer to the Estimates in an Estimates Debate. The explanation is that the small sum is for
  2842
  the actual staff at the research station, and that a great deal more is spent on research itself, which is financed by the Miners' Welfare Fund. The amount in the Estimates is £7,000 or £8,000, and the Miners' Welfare Fund finds something in the region of £60,000. He also asked whether workmen's inspectors have to give notice before making an inspection. I was rather surprised that he should ask me that, because I remember hearing him say on one occasion that he had himself been a workmen's inspector, and I should have thought he could have supplied that information. Under the Act of 1911 the management have the right at present to accompany a workmen's inspector, or to send someone else in their place, and if the management have that right it is impossible for them to exercise it unless they know when the inspection is going to take place. As far as inspectors of mines are concerned, the management have no right to accompany the inspector, and therefore it may be deemed that there is no necessity for giving notice in such cases, apart from the fact that I have already said that notice is not given. The manager may accompany the inspector as a matter of courtesy or to facilitate the inspection, but that was not the point which the hon. Member was talking about.
  Then he asked whether the research station at Buxton could demonstrate how to avoid explosions. It is a little optimistic to think that we can do such things, but I believe I know what he has in mind, which is that we should try to show the public and others who go there the different devices which will minimise and prevent explosions. As a result of his question the other day, I did put this matter before the Research Board, and they are to consider it and to see whether it is possible to adopt his suggestion. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) complained about the attitude of His Majesty's Government at the recent meeting at Geneva and complained also that I was not there. That was unavoidable, but I would only remind him of the speeches which were made and of the unanimous resolution that was reached and of the attitude of the delegates of the Miners' Federation to the resolution which was passed.
  I do not want to enter into the quarrel which took place between my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg) and

  2843
  various Members of the Opposition, except to say that they seemed in their interjections to suggest that somehow or other they were responsible and had something to do with the introduction of selling schemes. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact is that the statutory authority which enabled amendments to the various schemes to be made was found in the Act of 1930 but that the first time that any district asked for such amendment to take place as would enable a district selling scheme to be set up was the case of Lancashire, and the order was introduced in the House by my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Labour. It is true that, at a very vague remove, statutory authority was inserted in the Act of 1930, but nothing which was done by the Government of that day had anything to do with the introduction of selling schemes.
  A good deal has been said about workmen's inspections, and I am at one with the desire that they should be made more often, because they are a very valuable check. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked what was to happen about the Foot Committee. There
  was a majority report, but there was a unanimous report about various other matters. The position to-day is that the existing Regulations have been extended until March of next year, as a result of arbitration. It would have been impossible for me to give any decision on the majority report of the Committee—for whose work I should like to express public appreciation—in view of the fact that just at the moment when it was under consideration there was the disaster at Markham Colliery. There might not have been any connection between the Ringrose detector and the explosion except that that was one of the collieries which had made extensive use of that device. We must therefore await the result of the inquiry into the Markham disaster. I hear the Clock. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Don Valley has found that we have had 16 long and dreary Debates on the Mines Estimates, but he ought to remember that his Government were responsible at least for two of the 16.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £143,704, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 270.
  It being after Ten of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No, 14, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put severally the Questions, that the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including a Supplementary Estimate, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, the Navy, including a Supplementary Estimate, Army, and Air, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1938.

  CLASS I.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,516,733, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  House of Lords Offices

  27,802

  2.

  House of Commons

  310,802

  3.

  Registration of Electors

  195,000

  4.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments (including a Supplementary sum of £3,175)

  257,804

  5.

  Privy Council Office

  10,264

  6.

  Privy Seal Office

  4,147

  7.

  Charity Commission

  26,392

  8.

  Civil Service Commission

  11,800

  9.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  94,065

  10.

  Friendly Societies' Deficiency

  5,5OO

  11.

  Government Actuary

  21,127

  12.

  Government Chemist

  55,438

  13.

  Government Hospitality

  5,000

  2848

  £

  14.

  Import Duties Advisory Committee

  42,455

  15.

  The Mint

  90

  16.

  National Debt Office

  2,148

  17.

  National Savings Committee

  74,959

  18.

  Public Record Office

  27,036

  19.

  Public Works Loan Commission

  90

  20.

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  30,287

  21.

  Royal Commissions, etc.

  26,500

  22.

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  26,151

  23.

  Secret Service

  250,000

  24.

  Treasury Chest Fund

  4,171

  25.

  Tithe Redemption Commission

  90

  27.

  Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

  7,615

  £1,516,733"

  CLASS II.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,058,384, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  3.

  League of Nations

  71,000

  4.

  Dominions Office

  35,456

  5.

  Dominion Services

  274,715

  6.

  Eire Services (Revised sum)

  20,100

  7.

  Oversea Settlement

  33,075

  8.

  Colonial Office

  118,078

  9.

  Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

  1,247,255

  10.

  Colonial Development Fund

  500,000

  11.

  India and Burma Services

  1,352,291

  12.

  Imperial War Graves Commission

  406,414

  £4,058,384"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 14.

  Division No. 323.]

  AYES.

  [10.1 p.m.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Frankel, D.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Gallacher, W.

  Lee, F.

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

  Gardner, B. W.

  Leslie, J. R.

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

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Logan, D. G.

  Ammon, C. G.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lunn, W.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Banfield, J. W.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Barr, J.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  MacLaren, A.

  Batey, J.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Maclean, N.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

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

  Marshall, F.

  Benson, G.

  Griffiths, O. A. (Hemsworth)

  Mathers, G.

  Bevan, A.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Messer, F.

  Broad, F. A.

  Groves, T. E.

  Milner, Major J.

  Bromfield, W.

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

  Montague, F.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

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

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

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Muff, G.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hardle, Agnes

  Nathan, Colonel H. L.

  Burke, W. A.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Cape, T.

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hayday, A.

  Owen, Major G.

  Chater, D.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Paling, W.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Parker, J.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Collindridge, F.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Pearson, A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

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

  Daggar, G.

  Jagger, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Dalton, H.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  John, W.

  Ridley, G.

  Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Ritson, J.

  Day, H.

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Ede, J. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

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

  Kirby, B. V.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Foot, D. M.

  Lathan, G.

  Sexton. T. M.

  Silkin, L.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Thurtle, E.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

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

  Tinker, J. J,

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Tomlinson, G.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Viant, S. P.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

  Walkden, A. G.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Watson, W. McL.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

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

  White, H. Graham

  NOES.

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

  Denville, Alfred

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Dodd, J. S.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Doland, G. F.

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

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Leech, Sir J. W.

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

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Apsley, Lord

  Duggan, H. J.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Dunean, J. A. L.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Assheton, R.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Lyens, A. M.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

  Ellis, Sir G.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Balniel, Lord

  Elliston, Capt, G. S.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Elmley, Viscount

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Errington, E.

  McKie, J. H.

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

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Everard, W. L.

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

  Blair, Sir R.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Markham, S. F.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Marsdon, Commander A.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Fleming, E. L.

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

  Boyee, H. Leslie

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

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

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Gluckstein, L. H.

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

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Gower, Sir R. V.

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

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

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Moreing, A. C.

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

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Bull, B. B.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

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

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

  Butcher, H. W.

  Grimston, R. V.

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

  Butler, R. A.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Munro, P.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Guest, MaJ.Hon.O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hambro, A. V.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Channon, H.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Peat, C. U.

  Christie, J. A.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Petherick, M.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Hepworth, J.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Procter, Major H. A.

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

  Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

  Radford. E. A.

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

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Ramsay Captain A. H. M.

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

  Holmes, J. S.

  Ramsbotham H.

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Hopkinson, A.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

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

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Cross, R. H.

  Hunter, T.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Crossley, A. C.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Remer, J. R.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Rowlands, G.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  De la Bère, R.

  Kimball, L.

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  2846

  2847

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Stewart, J. Henderion (Fife, E.)

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Salt, E. W.

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Storey, S.

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Scott, Lord William

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Willoughby de Eretby, Lord

  Selley, H. R.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

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

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Wise, A. R.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Wragg, H.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Touche, G. C.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Turton, R. H.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Wakefield, W. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J,

  Captain Waterhouse and Mr.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Furness.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Division No. 324.]

  AYES.

  [10.12 p.m.

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

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Ellis, Sir G.

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

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Elliston, Capt. G. S

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

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

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Apsley, Lord

  Errington, E.

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

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

  Assheton, R.

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

  Moreing, A. C.

  Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

  Everard, W. L.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Fildes, Sir H.

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

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

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

  Fleming, E. L.

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Furness, S. N.

  Munro, P.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

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

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

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

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Blair, Sir R.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Peat, C. U.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Boyce H. Leslie

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Petherlek, M.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Guest, MaJ. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Porritt, R. W.

  Brown Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Procter, Major H. A.

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

  Hambro, A. V.

  Radford, E. A.

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

  Hannah, I. C.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Bull, B.B.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Butcher H. W.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Butler, R. A.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hepworth, J.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Cazalet Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

  Remer, J. R.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (chippenham)

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

  Holmes, J. S.

  Robinson J. R. (Blackpool)

  Channon, H.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Hopkinson, A.

  Rowlands, G.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Horsbrugh, A.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Christie, J. A.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

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

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Russsell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Hunter, T.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Colman, N. C. D.

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

  Salt, E. W.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

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

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S' k N 'w' gt' n)

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

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

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

  Keeling, E. H.

  Scott, Lord William

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  selley, H. R.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Kimball, L.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedlay

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

  sheppeeson, Sir E. W.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Cross, R. H.

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

  Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Culverwell, C T.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Loftus, P. C.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  De Chair, S. S.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  De la Bére, R.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Storey, S.

  Denville, Alfred

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Dodd, J. S.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Doland, G. F.

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  McKie, J. H.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Eastwood, J. F.

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

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Markham, S. F.

  Touche, G. C.

  2850

  2851

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Turton, R. H.

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Wragg, H.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

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

  Young, A, S. L. (Partick)

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Captain Dugdale and Mr.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Wise, A. R.

  Grimston.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Morleneth)

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

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Wander, G. le M.

  White, H. Graham

  Foot, D. M.

  Owen, Major G.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Sir Percy Harris and Sir Hugh

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

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Seely.

  CLASS III.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £15,593,532, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Home Office

  513,068

  2.

  Air-Raid Precautionary Services

  5,693,400

  3.

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  49,276

  4.

  Police, England and Wales

  6,361,744

  5.

  Prisons, England and Wales

  634,637

  6.

  Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales

  440,850

  7.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

  90

  8.

  County Courts

  90

  9.

  Land Registry

  90

  10.

  Public Trustee

  90

  11.

  Law Charges

  88,668

  12.

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  8,724

  Scotland.

  13.

  Police

  962,482

  14.

  Prisons Department for Scotland

  192,140

  15.

  Approved Schools, etc.

  44,965

  16.

  Scottish Land Court

  4,733

  18.

  Register House, Edinburgh

  90

  Ireland.

  19.

  Northern Ireland Services

  2,383

  20.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

  2,808

  21.

  Irish Land Purchase Services (Revised sum)

  593,204

  £15,593,532"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS IV.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £36,810,963, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:
  2852

  £

  1.

  Board of Education

  32,502,330

  2.

  British Museum

  105,332

  3.

  British Museum (Natural History)

  74,445

  4.

  Imperial War Museum

  8,326

  5.

  London Museum

  3,983

  6.

  National Gallery

  18,436

  7.

  National Maritime Museum

  8,318

  8.

  National Portrait Gallery

  6,294

  9.

  Wallace Collection

  7,348

  10.

  Scientific Investigation, etc.

  163,981

  11.

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

  1,362,000

  12.

  Broadcasting

  2,540,000

  Scotland.

  14.

  National Galleries

  7,603

  15.

  National Library

  2,567

  £36,810,963"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS V.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £111,935,324, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939. for Expenditure in respect oaf the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Health (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000)

  16,752,572

  2.

  Board of Control

  99,991

  3.

  Registrar General's Office

  57,551

  4.

  National Insurance Audit Department

  110,890

  5.

  Friendly Societies Registry

  31,180

  6.

  Old Age Pensions

  30,617,000

  7.

  Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions

  11,500,000

  8.

  Ministry of Labour

  14,837,000

  9.

  Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

  2,420,000

  10.

  Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales)

  90

  11.

  Unemployment Assistance Board

  29,485,000

  12.

  Special Areas Fund

  5,500,000

  13.

  Financial Assistance in Special and other Areas

  501,344

  2853

  Scotland.

  £

  15.

  Board of Control

  11,030

  16.

  Registrar General's Office

  11,586

  17.

  Commissioner for Special Areas (Scotland)

  90

  £111,935,324"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 15.

  Division No. 325.]

  AYES.

  [10.24 p.m.

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

  Danville, Alfred

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Agnew, Lieut-Comdr. P. G.

  Dodd, J. S.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Doland, G. F.

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

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Donner, P. W.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

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

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Most Side)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Apsley, Lord

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Assheton, R.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Loftus, P. C.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Balniel, Lord

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  MaCorquodale, M. S.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  McKie, J. H.

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

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Errington, E.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

  Boulton, W. W.

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

  Markham, S. F.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Everard, W. L.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Fildes, Sir H.

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

  Brass Sir W.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Furness, S. N.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

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

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

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

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

  Gluekstein, L. H.

  Morgan, R. H

  Bull B. B.

  Gower, Sir R V.

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

  Bullock Capt. M.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Burgin Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

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

  Butcher H. W.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

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

  Butler, R. A.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Munro, P.

  Cartland J. R. H.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Neven-Spenoe, Major B. H. H.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Grimston, R. V.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Cazalet Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chlppenham)

  Guest, Maj.Hon.O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Channon H.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hambro, A. V.

  Peat, C. U.

  Christie, J. A.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Petherick, M.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Haslam, sir J. (Bolton)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Hepworth, J.

  Proster Major H. A.

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

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Radford, E. A.

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

  Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

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

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir. S.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Cox H. B. Trevor

  Hopkinson, A.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Crott Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Howtt, Dr. A. B.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hunter, T.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Cross, R. H.

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Crossley, A. C.

  James, wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Keeling, E. H.

  Rowlands, G.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  De la Bére, R.

  Kimball, L.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S,

  Salt, E. W.

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Storey, S.

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Scott, Lord William

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

  Selley, H. R.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Willougnby de Eresby, Lord

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Wise, A. R.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Touche, G. C.

  Wragg, H.

  Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Turton, R. H.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Captain Hope and Major

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

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

  Herbert.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Foot, D. M.

  Mander, G. le M.

  White, H. Graham

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Owen, Major G.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Angtesey)

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Sir Percy Harris and Sir Hugh

  Seely

  CLASS VI.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £38,584,541, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Board of Trade

  211,444

  1A.

  Essential Commodities Reserves Fund

  8,500,000

  2.

  Mercantile Marine Services

  284,970

  3.

  Department of Overseas Trade

  391,134

  4.

  Export Credits

  90

  6.

  Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

  25,402

  7.

  Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (including a Supplementary sum of £4,525)

  2,048,303

  8.

  Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain

  2,549,900

  9.

  Milk (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (including a Supple-mentary sum of £238,000)

  398,000

  10.

  Livestock Industry and Cattle Fund

  3,075,000

  £

  11.

  Land Fertility Improvement

  832,439

  12.

  Oats and Barley Subsidy (England and Wales and Northern Ireland)

  100

  I2A.

  Bacon Industry

  150,000

  13.

  Surveys of Great Britain

  225,337

  14.

  Forestry Commission

  550,000

  15.

  Ministry of Transport

  203,530

  16.

  Roads, etc.

  17,000,000

  17.

  Development Fund

  458,000

  18.

  Development Grants

  574,740

  19.

  Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

  474,067

  20.

  State Management Districts

  90

  21.

  Clearing Offices

  90

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 281; Noes, 14.

  Division No. 326.]

  AYES.

  [10.35 p.m.

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Brass, Sir W.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

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

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

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

  Apsley, Lord

  Beechman, N. A.

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

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Bull, B. B.

  Assheton, R.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

  Blair, Sir R.

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Butler, R. A.

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

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Prooter, Major H. A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Radford, E. A.

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Raikos, H. V. A. M.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buohan-

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Channon, H.

  Hepworth, J.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Christie, J. A.

  Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Holmes, J. S.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Coltox, Major W. P.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Remer, J. R.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Riokards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

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

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

  Ropner, Colonel L.

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

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Rowlands, G.

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

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Hunter, T.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

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

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Croft,Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Salt, E. W.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Cross, R. H.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvs.)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Kimball, L.

  soott, Lord William

  Culverwell, C. T.

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

  Selley, H. R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Latham, Sir P.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  De Chair, S. S.

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

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  De la Bère, R.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Danville, Alfred

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

  Dodd, J. S.

  Lewis, O.

  Smithers, Sir W

  Doland, G. F.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Donner, P. W.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Loftus, P. C.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L

  Lyons, A. M.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Duggan, H. J.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  Dunglass, Lord

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Storey, S.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Eckersley, P. T.

  MacDonald, Sir Murdooh (Inverness)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon, W. E.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  MeKie, J. H.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Macmillan, H. (Stookton-on-Tees)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Markham, S. F.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Errington, E.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Touche, G. C.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

  Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.

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

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Turton, R. H.

  Everard, W. L.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Wallaee, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Fleming, E. L.

  Moore, Lleut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

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

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Furness, S. N.

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

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Fyfe,D. P. M.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

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

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

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Gluekstein, L. H.

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

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

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

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Windsor-clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Woreester)

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Wise, A. R.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon, Sir Hugh

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Peat, C. U.

  Wragg, H.

  Guest, Lieut-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Petherick, M.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hambro, A. V.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Major Sir James Edmondson

  Hannah, I. C.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  and Mr. Munro.

  2858

  2859

  NOES

  Aoland, R.T.D.(Barnstaple)

  Harvey, T.E. (Eng. Univ's.)

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

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  White, H. Graham

  Foot, D. M.

  Mander, G. le M.

  George, Major G. Lioyd (Pembroke)

  Owen, Major G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —

  George, Megan G. Lioyd (Anglesey)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.

  Sir Percy Harris and Hugh

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

  Rothschild, J. S. de

  Seely.

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

  CLASS VII.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,707,904, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939,for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  236,715

  2.

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  103,355

  5.

  Osborne

  7,640

  6.

  Office of Works and Public Buildings

  382,770

  7.

  Public Buildings, Great Britain (Supplementary sum)

  5,250

  9.

  Royal Palaces

  93,100

  11.

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  153,390

  12.

  Rates on Government Property

  1,212,842

  13.

  Stationery and Printing

  1,460,082

  14.

  Peterhead Harbour

  21,000

  15.

  Works and Buildings in Ireland

  31,760

  £3,707,904 "

  CLASS VIII.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £26,504,156, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

  168,322

  2.

  Ministry of Pensions

  24,400,000

  3.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

  795,036

  4.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  1,140,798

  £26,504,156"

  CLASS IX.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £33,898,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:
  2860

  £

  1.

  Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  29,277,000

  2.

  Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

  4,621,000

  £33,898,000"

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1938.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £57,286,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—

  £

  1.

  Customs and Excise

  3,965,200

  2.

  Inland Revenue

  5,519,500

  3.

  Post Office

  47,802,000

  £57,286,700"

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1938.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £58,737,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—

  £

  1.

  wages, etc., of Officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services (Supplementary sum)

  1,090,000

  3.

  Medical Establishments and Services

  441,000

  5.

  Educational Services

  223,600

  6.

  Scientific Services

  656,000

  7.

  Royal Naval Reserves

  355,800

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—

  Section I.—Personnel (including a Supplementary sum of £27,400)

  10,121,400

  Section II.—Materiel (Revised sum)

  10,625,400

  Section III.— Contract Work (including a Supplementary sum of £1,713,300)

  21,455,300

  9.

  Naval Armaments (including a Supplementary sum of£94,500)

  10,486,500

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services (Revised sum)

  1,680,300

  12.

  Admiralty Office

  1,602,500

  £58,737,800"

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1938.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £48,085,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:

  £

  3.

  Medical Services

  1,105,000

  4.

  Educational Establishments

  1,327,000

  5.

  Quartering and Movements

  2,446,000

  6.

  Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts

  8,677,000

  7.

  Clothing

  1,995,000

  8.

  General Stores

  4,098,000

  9.

  Warlike Stores

  27,242,000

  12.

  War Office

  1,195,000

  £48,085,000"

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1938.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £16,894,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:

  £

  2.

  Quartering, Non-Technical Stores, Supplies and Transportation

  6,144,000

  5.

  Medical Services

  524,000

  6.

  Technical Training and Educational Services

  1,040,000

  7.

  Reserve and Auxiliary Forces

  1,660,000

  8.

  Civil Aviation

  2,925,000

  9.

  Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services

  2,587,000

  10.

  Air Ministry

  1,490,000

  11.

  Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services

  524,000

  £16,894,000"

  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, the sum of £465,164,987 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Captain Wallace.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  GAS UNDER TACKING ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Sudbury Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 21st day of June and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Sherborne Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 23rd day of June and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the March Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 30th day of June and published, be approved."—[Mr. Cross.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  BETTESHANGER COLLIERY DISPUTE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. Whiteley: I desire to raise a matter of principle particularly with regard to the power of an insurance officer to determine as to when a trade dispute should end or when it should not end. This matter arises out of the dispute at the Betteshanger Colliery in Kent on 30th April, when 226 men were dismissed in the ordinary way. Arrangements were attempted in order that these men should have the privilege of being re-employed at the colliery before any new hands were taken on. This the management refused, and in consequence there was a dispute which went on for seven of eight weeks. Then on 22nd June terms of settlement were suggested as follows:
  "That all workpeople who have not withdrawn their cards from the colliery offices and who are now available for work shall resume their ordinary employment at the colliery immediately or as soon as the work can be made available by the management.
  The company agrees to re-engage as many as possible of the men 'stood-off ' for whom

  2863
  they can find suitable work, and in the event of any of the 226 men not being re-absorbed the company will agree to meet the men's representatives when requested to discuss any specific case or cases."
  On the 22nd June these terms were put before the men and by ballot they accepted them. We therefore say that, a ballot of the men having taken place, this dispute automatically comes to an end. When the men who could not be immediately absorbed signed on, the insurance officer intervened and made the following observations:
  "Whilst the contention that the trade dispute ended on Sunday, 26th June, is not contested, it is submitted that the claimant lost his employment on 3oth April, 1938, owing to a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the premises where he was employed and that the stoppage of work has not yet terminated. … Accordingly the claimant's unemployment after that date (26th June) on which the dispute was settled was due to the dispute and to the continuance of the stoppage of work brought about by that dispute."
  The officer there, the House will see, relies mainly upon the fact that there has not been a general resumption of work, but the ballot had taken place. That, in our opinion, decides that the dispute itself is brought to a conclusion. It is with that power that we want to deal to-night. Further to that, we have the important fact that the manager gave a personal guarantee that two weeks' notice should be given by the management in any case of intention to employ any new men before the whole of the 226 men had been dealt with. We have, therefore, the important fact that the manager actually agreed before the ballot that the 226 men would be taken into consideration before there was any question of new men being brought in. If the management had taken that position at the start on 30th April there would have been no dispute. Therefore, the men cannot be said to have been responsible in any way for the situation that arises in consequence of that dispute. During the course of the dispute 100 lads joined the Army, and when it came to an end there was a shortage of boy labour. That made it more difficult for the management to find immediate room for all those who were ready to commence work. The insurance officer brought this matter before the Court of Referees, which made the following decision:
  "There was no general resumption of work on 27th June when only 100 men had returned
  2864
  to work and it therefore follows that on that date claimant was unemployed owing to a stoppage of work following and forming part of the trade dispute which commenced on 30th April, 1938. The court have been asked by claimant's representative to say whether, in the event of the appeal failing, there has been a general resumption of work upon any date subsequent to 27th June, 1938. If the court has power to give such a decision, they find that there has been a general resumption of work upon the ground that approximately seven-eighths of the men are back at work and the work at the colliery is proceeding normally. The work generally is not now held up as a consequence of the dispute, in fact only a small proportion of the work is so held up. The umpire does not use the words' complete resumption of work.' It is further held that claimant is out of work for a reason that cannot be said to be a direct consequence of the stoppage of work; it is considered that the cause (i.e., enlistment of the boys and the present shortage of boys) is indirect rather than direct. The court find that the date of the general resumption of work was on 30th June, 1938."
  The insurance officer is not even content with that. He writes a letter to the agent of the Kent Mine Workers' Association:
  "Dear Mr. Elks,
  I am unable to accept the finding of the Court of Referees in the case of your member, W. Dickens, and am consulting the Chief Insurance Officer with regard to an appeal to the Umpire. I am trying to dispose of the matter with the least possible delay, and I thought you would like this early intimation of what is contemplated. You will, of course, have an opportunity of commenting on the appeal if and when it is decided upon."
  The court gives a decision that in their view, as seven-eighths of the mineworkers have resumed work, the colliery is in full
  going order, but even then the insurance officer objects. Apparently he has made up his mind that 100 per cent. of the men must be at work before unemployment benefit can be paid. We take strong exception to the fact that one man has the power to decide whether when a stoppage has actually come to an end—
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
  Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Mr. Whiteley: Our point is the definite one that an insurance officer ought not to have the power to determine whether men shall be entitled to unemployment benefit or not, particularly when a ballot of the men has been taken and the ballot

  2865
  has decided to bring the stoppage to an end. I am not going further to refer to the fact that this stoppage was brought about by the refusal of the manager to agree to the terms of the men, to which he eventually did agree, and that when he did agree the stoppage was brought to an end. Here we have a situation where men are ready to resume work, and some of them do resume work. Others cannot be absorbed, and are placed in a very unfortunate position. During these seven or eight weeks they have not been entitled to unemployment benefit because of a trade dispute, and when that trade dispute is brought to an end the insurance officer refuses then to grant them unemployment benefit and takes exception to the fact that the court decides that with seven-eighths of the men at work the remaining men are entitled to unemployment benefit.
  It appears to me that the insurance officer might have the power to decide that if only a small fraction of men, even one-tenth or one-twelfth, were out of work he can still take up the attitude that a full resumption of work has not taken place. We stress the point that the men were placed in a very unfortunate position not because of their own fault but because of somebody else's fault, and were forced to seek public assistance in order to keep body and soul together after having fought a battle on a principle which they won over a period of eight weeks. I want the Minister to examine these facts and to direct his attention to the important point that in our opinion when a ballot has been taken that a trade dispute shall be brought to an end that at that point these men are entitled to unemployment benefit.
  11.3 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): The hon. Member has raised a matter of very considerable complexity and one which, since it affects a great number of people, is of very great human importance. He has taken this opportunity of raising it on the Adjournment, and I am glad that he has found time to do so. My right hon. Friend has for some weeks been fully in touch with this situation through the insurance officer, and also though the representations that have been made to him for many weeks by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dover
  2866
  (Major Astor), who has from the start of this difficulty represented the interests of the miners concerned, the town council of Deal, the Public Assistance Authority of the county of Kent, and all his constituents in a way that his friends realise he would invariably do. As the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) knows, the particular point which he has raised springs from Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, by which an insured contributor who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at premises where he was employed is disqualified from receiving benefit as long as the stoppage of work continues.
  In this case there was a stoppage of work at Betteshanger Colliery which started on 30th April. The trade dispute came to an end, I think, on 25th June as a result of a ballot among the men, and work was resumed two days later, on the 27th. The Insurance Officer held, and he held up to three days ago, that the stoppage of work was not over, and so he disqualified those workers still unemployed from receiving benefit, ruling that though the trade dispute was at an end the stoppage of work was not over. This may appear to some hon. Members as an over-fine distinction, but the House should realise that the statutory authorities which Parliament has set up are confronted with a difficult and complicated task. In this matter case-law is voluminous and complicated, but in general, as any hon. Member who examines the position will agree, the Umpire has taken the line that a stoppage of work does not necessarily come to an end until there has been a general resumption of work. There is abundant evidence in the leading cases on this subject for the view that a stoppage of work need not be complete in order to exist, and that claimants should remain disqualified after the dispute is over if the stoppage of work due to the dispute still continues.
  I recognise that a large number of workpeople are concerned in this case. When the dispute started there were some 2,637 men and boys employed in the Betteshanger Colliery. On 30th June, 1,756 were employed, and not, if my information is correct, seven-eighths of those employed at the start of the stoppage, as the hon. Member suggested.
  Mr. Whiteley: The proportion which I suggested was from the court of referees, who decided upon seven-eighths.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have given to the House the information which I have at my disposal. By 4th July, the number employed had grown to 1,872 and every day more and more workers were being taken back. The Insurance Officer kept his eyes on the position every day. The men appealed to Dover court of referees against the continued disqualification imposed by the Insurance Officer and the court decided that the stoppage continued only until 30th June. As the hon. Member has said, the Insurance Officer thereupon appealed to the Umpire against the decision of the court of referees. The decision of the Umpire is now awaited, and I hope and believe that it will be expedited. As I said the number of men who returned to work increased daily. Two or three days ago, on 22nd July, the Insurance Officer came to the conclusion that the stoppage could be said to be over, and he removed the disqualification from benefit as from and including 22nd July.
  Mr. Kelly: How many had resumed by that date?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that I cannot give exact information on that point, and I should be misleading the House if I suggested that even if I had the information it would furnish any general criterion in this matter. The men who were still out of work on 22nd July will now not be disqualified from the receipt of benefit. Hon. Members will realise that this does not affect the position as between 30th June and 22nd July, that is a matter for the Umpire, and I hope and believe that his decision will be given speedily.
  I am conscious that what I have said may not altogether satisfy hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS "It does not."]—but I have stated the situation as it exists, and the decision of those statutory authorities which Parliament has set up, and with whose decisions my right hon. Friend has no power to interfere. I hope that what I have said will answer the doubts in the minds of hon. Members opposite, both as to the position in regard to the insurance officer's decision, given three days ago, and as to the decision of the Umpire, which is now expected.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: This question is of very great importance. I, like every other Member here, have handled many of these cases, and, speaking from memory, I do not remember a case in which an insurance officer has allowed such a period to elapse before deciding that the general stoppage of work is over. What was the criterion on which, on 22nd July, the insurance officer decided that this stoppage was over? If on 30th June he decided that it was not over, because of what he regarded as the large number of men still out of work, what was the number of men out of work on 22nd July? Surely, if it was the number of men who were still out that decided him on 30th June to refuse benefit, it must have been a lesser number of men which on 22nd July decided him. If this is the criterion, we are laying doyn something which I am sure is quite new, certainly in my experience, namely, that the number of men still out determines whether the dispute is still continuing or not. That may mean that the dispute may be regarded as continuing for months afterwards. I understand that the insurance officer has decided that as from 22nd July the dispute is over. Does that mean that these men will get benefit, or does it mean that from 22nd July they have to put in their waiting days and then get benefit?
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With regard to the hon. Member's first question, men have been returning day after day, and, as he will realise, it is reasonable to assume that a considerable number have returned since 4th July, the last day for which I have given the figures to the House. Although it is not for me to say what would be in the mind of the Insurance Officer in arriving at his conclusion as to whether or not there had been a general resumption of work, quite obviously he would take into account the fact that in the intervening period a considerable number of jobs have been found for the men, and there would be considerably more employed on 22nd July than on 4th July. But I must repeat that I cannot interpret to the House the mind of these statutory authorities which Parliament has set up, and in whose decisions neither my right hon. Friend nor I have power to intervene.

  2869
  With regard to the hon. Member's second question, the decision of the Insurance Officer which I have announced to the House is that the men are not disqualified from receiving benefit as from and including 22nd July. I repeat that to the House although I fully appreciate the point of the hon. Member. The difficulty in which I am as regards the first question applies equally to the second, and I cannot add to or detract from the statement of the Insurance Officer, which I must give to the House in its entirety, leaving the House to interpret it, namely, that as from and including 22nd July those men who are still out of work are not disqualified from receiving benefit.
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Whiteley: Would the hon. Gentleman look up the court of referees' decision? He will find that they said on 30th June that seven-eighths of the workmen had resumed work. If he finds that to be correct, will not he and the Minister of Labour use their influence with the insurance officer to point out that, as seven-eighths of the men had actually resumed on 30th June, he should not have extended the period to 22nd July.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Kelly: The statement made by the hon. Gentleman is very serious and, if carried out, will have far-reaching effects. When a dispute comes to an end it is not possible in most cases to have a resumption of work by everyone who was concerned in the stoppage. You have to allow for only a certain number returning. To suggest that when the firm has taken into its service
  2870
  all those for whom it could find work, that is not going to be counted as a general resumption, is something that I am amazed that the Minister has permitted his servant to do—because the insurance officer is under the direction and in the service of the Minister. The Minister has no right to shelter under these officers, stating that they are statutory officers and that he has no right to interfere with an insurance officer as to the entering of an appeal. There was a resumption for all those for whom employment could be found. To penalise the others in the way they have been penalised is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Insurance Act, and I hope the Minister will again look into this matter.
  There is another serious matter. The Court of Referees decided that these men were entitled to their benefit, and I gather from the Minister's reply that no regard has been paid to the decision of the Court of Referees, and that the men were not paid benefit despite that decision. I hope it is not going to be the practice of the Minister, when a court has decided in favour, that benefit is to be withheld because some individual servant of the Minister decides that he will enter an appeal to a higher court. They have a right to that benefit. It should be paid for that period, until the competent authority—in this case the umpire—has decided.
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND EGYPT (TARIFF).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND EGYPT (TARIFF).
  TINPLATES AND STEEL SHEETS (EXPORTS).
  TINPLATES AND STEEL SHEETS (EXPORTS).
  BRITISH FILMS (CANADA).
  BRITISH FILMS (CANADA).
  POWER ALCOHOL (DUTY).
  POWER ALCOHOL (DUTY).
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT (ICE CREAM FACTORY).
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT (ICE CREAM FACTORY).
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  ALIENS (PROFESSIONAL MEN).
  ALIENS (PROFESSIONAL MEN).
  COMMUNIST MEETING, SHOREDITCH.
  COMMUNIST MEETING, SHOREDITCH.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE.
  LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE.
  MINES ACCIDENTS (NORTHUMBERLAND).
  MINES ACCIDENTS (NORTHUMBERLAND).
  EUROPEAN MINORITIES CONFERENCE.
  EUROPEAN MINORITIES CONFERENCE.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY, 1911.
  ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY, 1911.
AGRICULTURE.
  MUTTON AND LAMB PRICES.
  MUTTON AND LAMB PRICES.
  MILK MARKETING.
  MILK MARKETING.
  MARKETING ACTS (COMMITTEE).
  MARKETING ACTS (COMMITTEE).
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION, SCOTLAND.
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION, SCOTLAND.
  INDIA (SIKAR AND JAIPUR).
  INDIA (SIKAR AND JAIPUR).
POST OFFICE.
  NON-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS (PRICES).
  NON-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS (PRICES).
  IRISH SWEEPSTAKE TICKETS.
  IRISH SWEEPSTAKE TICKETS.
  WHITEFIELD.
  WHITEFIELD.
  NURSES (48-HOUR WEEK).
  NURSES (48-HOUR WEEK).
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (MAYORS).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (MAYORS).
EDUCATION.
  FREE MEALS AND MILK IN SCHOOLS.
  FREE MEALS AND MILK IN SCHOOLS.
  PEASEDOWN COUNCIL SCHOOL, BATH.
  PEASEDOWN COUNCIL SCHOOL, BATH.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, LIVERPOOL (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).
  MENTAL DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, LIVERPOOL (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).
  BLACK LIST SCHOOLS.
  BLACK LIST SCHOOLS.
  UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS, WALES.
  UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS, WALES.
  COLONIES (MEDICAL SERVICE).
  COLONIES (MEDICAL SERVICE).
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE (EMPLOYéS).
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE (EMPLOYéS).
  GOVERNMENT FACTORY, MERTHYR TYDFIL.
  GOVERNMENT FACTORY, MERTHYR TYDFIL.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  THORNE, YORKSHIRE.
  THORNE, YORKSHIRE.
  BIRMINGHAM.
  BIRMINGHAM.
  LABOUR SHORTAGES.
  LABOUR SHORTAGES.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT, WREXHAM (BUILDING DEMOLITION).
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT, WREXHAM (BUILDING DEMOLITION).
  ROYAL ARSENAL, BRIDGEND.
  ROYAL ARSENAL, BRIDGEND.
  TOWER OF LONDON (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  TOWER OF LONDON (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  ROYAL NAVAL DEPOT, CROMBIE (TERRITORIALS).
  ROYAL NAVAL DEPOT, CROMBIE (TERRITORIALS).
  AFFORESTATION (SHETLAND).
  AFFORESTATION (SHETLAND).
  CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CANTERBURY GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SEWERAGE) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREEN BELT (LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

DESTRUCTIVE ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to such recommendations as require legislation of the Select Committee on Agriculture (Damage by Rabbits) appointed by your Lordships' House in November, 1936. It is a Bill to make better provision for the protection of agriculture and the land from the ravages of rabbits, to make certain provisions with respect to the extermination of destructive animals, and to prohibit the setting of gin traps in the open. I move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended until the House do adjourn for the Recess.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended until the House do adjourn for the Recess.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Standing Order No. XXXIX suspended accordingly.

BILLERICAY URBAN DISTRICT ORDER.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 7th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

KETTERING RURAL DISTRICT ORDER.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 14th instant be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (LOUTH DRAINAGE DIS TRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
ISLAND OF ARRAN PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RATING AND VALUATION (AIR RAID WORKS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not think I need detain you very long explaining this Bill. It is indeed, I think, largely self-explanatory. The object of the Bill is merely to relieve the ratepayer of any obligation to pay rates or to have assessed for rates buildings that have been erected solely for the purpose of protecting the public against air raids. It will be seen that the Bill is a one-clause measure. Subsection (3) is required only because in its absence it would be impossible to bring into rating in London a room or hereditament which, though designed for air-raid purposes, was in fact used for other purposes, until the expiration of the valuation period of five years. As your Lordships know, the rating law in the case of London differs from that in the rest of England. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RATING AND VALUATION (AIR- RAID WORKS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, the purposes of this Bill are similar to those of the corresponding Bill for England, the Second Reading of which has just been agreed to. A separate Bill is necessary for Scotland because of the differences between the valuation and rating laws in the two countries. This Bill, like the English one, is a one-clause Bill. The first and second subsections in effect provide that no regard shall be had, in ascertaining the value for rating purposes of lands and heritages, to any additional room or other part of any structural alteration or improvement made and used solely for the purposes of air-raid protection. The third subsection similarly exempts from rating any separate subjects so used. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, the object of this Bill is, from the point of view of the administration of justice, of very considerable importance. The Court of Appeal in England has now been in existence a great many years, and it has become impossible for that Court to discharge all its duties at the present time with only two Appeal Courts sitting for most of the year. Occasionally it is found possible to constitute a third Court of Appeal by borrowing Judges from other Divisions, but when that is done it adversely affects the despatch of business in the King's Bench Division, and is on the whole a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the difficulty. There is also this to be said, that it is very desirable, in order that cases should be properly heard, that from time to time assistance should be afforded to other Divisions where, because of the great amount of work that they have to do, or because of illness of judges, or for some other reason, they are unable to deal with convenient

1093
despatch with the business of those Divisions.
Accordingly it has been thought best to deal with the difficulty, not by increasing the number of Judges of the King's Bench Division, at any rate at the present time—I do not know what may be necessary in the future—but by adding a sufficient number of Lords Justices to enable the Court of Appeal in ordinary times to sit with three Courts and thereby keep abreast of the extra work which modern legislation has imposed upon the Courts. Therefore this Bill provides in Clause 1 that the ordinary Judges of the Court of Appeal are to be increased to eight, which, with one Master of the Rolls, makes nine Judges, and will enable three Courts of Appeal, each with three Judges, to sit at the same time. In doing this, care has been taken, by means of Clause 2 of this Bill, to provide that the members of the Court of Appeal appointed under this Bill when it becomes an Act, shall have duties which shall include the duty of sitting in one of the inferior Courts when requested by the Lord Chancellor so to do. That will be a very convenient arrangement in cases where the Court of Appeal has got abreast of its work and there is some reason for lending one of the Judges appointed under this Bill to the Chancery Division or the King's Bench Division.
I think that is all I need say to your Lordships about the main objects of the Bill. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 provides for the customary request when persons appointed under this Bill are accredited to act as Judges of the King's Bench Division or the Probate Division. Clause 3 really only brings the existing law into effect having regard to the alterations made in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act by the extra appointments of Lords Justices, and Clause 4 provides in the customary way for the payment of the expenses involved in the appointments. I think it is a simple measure. It is a measure that is obviously necessary, and it accords, so far as it gees, with the recommendations of the Peel Committee. On the whole I think it may be safely commended to your Lordships without qualification.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ANGLO-TURKISH (ARMAMENTS CREDIT) AGREEMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MILK (EXTENSION AND AMEND MENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Bill is primarily aimed at enabling certain wage-regulating authorities to require the provision of holidays with pay, thus carrying out one of the recommendations of the Committee set up under my noble friend Lord Amulree, whose Report was issued as Command Paper No. 5724 some months ago. It affects potentially some 2,000,000 workers. I think it is agreed on all sides that holidays for our workers are most desirable, and although I understand that some 3,000,000 of manual workers are getting paid holidays by collective agreements and some millions of salaried workers, shop assistants and domestic servants are getting them otherwise than by collective agreements, there are still very many workers who are not getting paid holidays. That means in very many cases that they are not getting holidays at all, because a great many of the lower-paid workers really cannot afford to save up for holidays out of their wages. As in the Road Haulage Wages Act, which was passed a short time ago, holiday re-

1095
muneration was made the matter of statutory provision, so by this Bill holidays with pay will became a legal reality.
The Amulree Committee recommended early legislation on three main subjects. The first was to give power to trade boards, agricultural wages committees and any other statutory bodies for regulating wages to make provision for holidays with pay; the second was to entitle workers in domestic service to two weeks annual holiday with pay; and the third was to give power to the Minister of Labour to assist in the administration of special holidays schemes for industries with intermittent employment. This Bill implements the first and third of those recommendations. So far as domestic servants are concerned, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour announced in the House of Commons on June 2 that he did not think it would be "opportune to include in this Bill any proposal for dealing specially with domestic servants." but that this matter could be more appropriately dealt with in connection with general legislation on the subject of paid holidays and he saw no reason for legislating for one particular section of workers.
The Bill enables what are known as wage-regulating authorities to make provision for paid holidays, wage-regulation authorities being defined in Clause 5 of the Bill as a "trade board, an agricultural wages committee or the Road Haulage Central Wages Board." The trade boards and agricultural wages committees are given power to make provision for holidays and holiday remuneration. The Road Haulage Central Wages Board has already power under the Act to which I have just referred to determine holiday remuneration and by this Bill is given power to make provision for holidays. The workers who come within the scope of this Bill are those covered by trade boards, agricultural wages committees or the Road Haulage Central Wages Board. The approximate numbers, I am informed, are: under the trade boards, 1,300,000, under the agricultural wages committees, 600,000; and under the Road Haulage Central Wages Board 200,000, making in all just over 2,000,000 persons. The Bill also empowers the Minister of Labour to assist in the administration of voluntary schemes for securing
1096
holidays with pay for workers in any industry or branch of an industry. The Minister by Section 100 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, has power to assist in the administration of schemes for promoting greater regularity of employment, and this clause invests the Minister with similar powers in relation to the provision of assistance in the administration of voluntary schemes for securing holidays with pay.
Now, if I may, I will deal with the clauses of the Bill. In Clause 1 it is provided that trade boards and agricultural wages committees, in respect of any workers for whom they have fixed or are fixing remuneration, may direct that such persons shall be entitled to holidays. Clause 2 makes provision for payment for holidays. Your Lordships will see that subsection (1) is mandatory. Where a wage regulation authority has directed that holidays are to be allowed in accordance with the provisions of Clause 1, the authority
"shall make provision for securing that the workers shall receive pay in respect of the period of the holiday."
It will therefore not be possible for a wage-regulating authority to require holidays to be given without pay. Clause 3 is the administrative clause which makes applicable to holidays and holiday remuneration the procedure of the Trade Boards Act, the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act and the Road Haulage Wages Act. If they were not made applicable general provisions regarding procedure, enforcement and other matters would have to be included in this Bill, which would then become very lengthy. The clause also gives the Ministry of Labour power to make regulations regarding holidays and remuneration. This power the Minister already possesses in regard to other matters dealt with under those Acts.
Clause 4 is an important clause. It enables the Minister of Labour to assist voluntary schemes for securing holidays with pay for workers in any industry. The Amulree Committee, in their Report, expressed the view that in industries with intermittent employment, such as the building industry and port transport, where the employment may be of a casual nature and with many employers in the course of the year, it might be necessary to introduce a system whereby the holiday payment was made proportionately

1097
by the various employers who employed the workers. The Committee suggested that power should be given to the Ministry of Labour to assist in such cases through the employment exchanges, which were considered appropriate for the purpose. This assistance is not limited to industries that come under Section 100 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935. The clause invests the Minister of Labour with powers to assist voluntary schemes for securing holidays with pay with this difference, that where a scheme under Section 100 of the Act of 1935 must apply to the whole industry concerned, the scheme under Clause 4 of this Bill may apply to any workers in an industry or branch of an industry. Clause 5 of the Bill is a definition clause. Only three definitions have been found necessary. Clause 6 is the short title and extent.
That is the Bill, which I have explained in some detail to your Lordships. Those of your Lordships who have read the Report of the Amulree Committee will know that it recommended the establishment of an annual holiday With pay for industrial workers as part of the terms of the contract of employment. The Committee proposed a probationary period of two or three years to enable industries to make voluntary agreements with their workers as far as they possibly can. My right honourable friend the Minister fully agrees with this recommendation and hopes that during the next two years as many voluntary agreements may be made as possible, because the more voluntary agreements there are, the less field there will be for statutory action.
The Committee further recommended that there should be legislation in the 1940–1941 Session o f Parliament making provision for holidays with pay in industry generally. Obviously His Majesty's Government cannot decide at this moment the nature or scope of the legislation which will be required to be brought in at that time. This legislation must depend on developments during the next two years. But they quite realise that the recommendation as to legislation in 1940–1941 was an important element in the very satisfactory unanimous decision at which the Committee of my noble friend was able to arrive. For this reason the situation will be carefully watched by His Majesty's Government between this time and a few years hence with regard to
1098
future action. In the meantime I present this Bill to your Lordships as at all events a step on the way to the final goal—namely, holidays with pay for all our workers, which is the goal at which I think the nation wishes eventually to arrive. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to the noble Lord opposite for not being present during the first part of his remarks. I must confess that, as there were several other Second Readings on the Paper before the Second Reading of this Bill, I did not anticipate that it would come on so early. This Bill is one to which those of us who sit over here attach a great deal of importance, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I state as competently as I can our point of view. In the course of several years' experience those of us who sit on these Benches have learnt the habit of snatching somewhat greedily at any crumbs of social reform that may fall from the Government's table. We must confess that our appetite is never satisfied, and that we still continue to clamour for more. At the same time we prefer to accept whatever odds and ends may come our way rather than sit and starve.
This long-drawn-out metaphor implies what I am about to say: that we shall co-operate with the Government to our utmost in securing the passage of this Bill into law at the earliest possible opportunity and in preventing what no doubt the Government may fear: its demise through lack of Parliamentary time, which of course would involve the introduction of another Bill at some time during the next Session of Parliament. We are anxious that there should be no such delay before this humble but useful measure passes into law, and we are anxious to prevent the people who are affected by it from having to wait a day longer than they have waited already in order to receive the right to an annual paid holiday. The provision of this annual consecutive period of paid holiday is surely a measure of social reform that is not merely desirable on humanitarian grounds in the interests of the working people, grounds that have been described

1099
very adequately at considerable length during the discussions on this Bill, but also as a measure of elementary social justice. It is surely an intolerable and insufferable injustice that the salaried workers, the professional workers, those who receive rent and interest, should have a holiday of at least a fortnight, and very often a longer holiday, every year on full pay while the great majority of wage-earners have no holiday at all. It is from that point of view, as the fulfilment of a perfectly justified demand for social justice, that we on these Benches regard this measure.
It is no exaggeration to say, as indeed has been said frequently before, that this reform is long overdue. We are indeed among the last of the wealthy industrial countries, although we were one of the first to become industrialised, to provide statutory holidays with pay for our wage-earners. As many as thirty-eight other nations have already given the working classes a minimum period of holiday guaranteed by law. These include several of our own Dominions, and in Europe I should like to point out the dictatorships, with whom we are not usually afraid to challenge comparison, as well as the democracies. In France, for instance, there is a fortnight's paid holiday for all workers, and in Russia—I think your Lordships will agree that a great many nasty things are said about Russia in this House, and that it may therefore not be inopportune to say at least one kind word—twelve days a year are given with full pay to workers, who are thus enabled to enjoy their holidays. Frankly, I am ashamed that our country should be in the rearguard instead of in the vanguard of this widespread international movement towards more repose and more leisure for the working classes.
Let us envisage the scope of this measure and find how much relief it really brings. It has been estimated by the Amulree Committee—and its estimate has, I think, been the basis of the figures given during the discussions in another place—that of the 18,500,000 employed people in this country about 8,000,000 already enjoy an annual paid holiday, leaving 10,500,000 who have no such right at present. This Bill, as the noble Lord has pointed out, does enable certain statutory bodies, the agricultural wages boards, the trade boards, and the Road
1100
Haulage Central Wages Board, to provide holidays for a number of wage earners that will amount approximately to 2,000,000. Assuming for the moment, as I believe is the intention of the Government, that the statutory authorities empowered to arrange for paid holidays by this Bill will, in the great majority of cases, actually arrange them, there is still a residue of 8,500,000 people for whom no provision will have been made at all, and who have no certain prospect in time to come of annual holidays, either by statutory right or through collective agreements. It is to me, and I have no doubt it is to other members of your Lordships' House, a most melancholy thought that nearly half of our working population will still be without an annual paid holiday after this measure is passed into law, and after the statutory authorities whom it affects have taken advantage of the powers that have been given to them.
In one important respect, at least, this Bill departs from the recommendations of the Amulree Committee, whose proposals have otherwise been accepted as the basis for its provisions, and I should like to know, because, having read very carefully through the debates in another place, I am not in the least satisfied, what reason the Government give for what would appear to be a very arbitrary omission. I am referring to the failure to include domestic servants among those who will be entitled to annual holidays with pay. It is exceedingly difficult to see why this recommendation should have been ignored. There can be no doubt that domestic workers are even more entitled to consideration of this kind by Parliament than workers in other occupations, and I think their special claim rests in the first place on the fact that they are unorganised, that they have no trade unions to represent them, and that therefore they are unable to bargain with the same effectiveness as organised workers, with those who employ them. In the second place, because they do in many cases work for much longer hours than people in other walks of life. There is no regulation of their hours of work, either by Statute or by collective agreement, and one knows of many instances where they have to rise exceedingly early in the morning and probably to remain up, after working for the best part of the day, until their employers retire to bed at night.

1101
The criticism that I have advanced in regard to this Bill would be open to the charge of unconstructiveness, I think, unless I was prepared to show that we have a very definite, and I think a very practical, alternative to offer to the measure that the Government are proposing. We want a Bill that would recognise the right of all wage-earners to a paid holiday, in the same way as other fundamental rights, such as the right to education, to medical attention in the event of ill-health, and to security in old-age, which have already been recognised by Act of Parliament. We advocate that a minimum period of a fortnight's holiday with pay should be laid down by Statute for all wage-earners, leaving the detailed arrangements to be fixed in every industry, according to its particular circumstances, by negotiations between the employers and those whom they employ. The effect of such a measure would surely be no more than to bring what at present everyone would regard as the backward employers of labour into line with the practice of enlightened employers, whether private individuals or public authorities, at the present day. I am glad to be able to say that the 80,000 employees of the London County Council enjoy a fortnight's holiday, with full remuneration, regardless of their particular grade of work, and it is simply to bring the standards of those who are now unwarrantably depressed in this respect, up to the level of those who are in the employment of people who are perhaps prepared to make sacrifices for the benefit of their employees—certainly enlightened employers—that we want a much more far-reaching measure than the Bill which the Government have provided. I suggest that in view of what has been happening abroad, and in view of public opinion in this country, the time is over-ripe for a Bill that would provide for paid holidays for all classes of wage-earning people in this country.
There is just one question that I would like to address to the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government. I am asking it because there is just a possibility that I may not have understood perfectly correctly the meaning of one statement which he made. The question is this: Do the Government, or do they not, accept the recommendation in paragraph 150 of the Amulree Report? That paragraph opens with these words:
1102
"During the Parliamentary Session of 1940–1 legislation should be passed making provision for holidays with pay in industry generally."
There can be no doubt that there was considerable ambiguity about the utterances of those who spoke for the Government in another place, and I thought I detected—
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I interrupt for one moment? Did the noble Earl say paragraph 156?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No, paragraph 150. I thought I detected in the remarks of the noble Lord something more definite than had been said in the course of the Government speeches in another place. I thought that what he at any rate implied by his remarks—he will correct me if I am mistaken—was that, provided of course that our efforts to dislodge the noble Lords are unsuccessful between now and then, the Government, if in power in 1940 or 1941 and if circumstances were such that wage-earners had not received a holiday period by agreement with their employers, would introduce some sort of legislation. He was very careful, and indeed very rightly careful, not to commit the Government to any specific measure or any specific type of provision, but he did say, I thought, that legislation would, if necessary, be introduced.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Earl for his comparatively warm welcome to this Bill, which we think is a very good Bill indeed, but which noble Lords opposite, like their colleagues in another place, appear to think is a very small effort. The noble Earl asked me two main questions. One was about domestic servants. He asked why domestic servants were not included. I think the noble Earl did say that he had not been here during the whole of my speech, and he must have missed that part of the speech where I specially dealt with that matter. I will therefore repeat what I said. As far as domestic servants are concerned, my right honourable friend announced in another place on June 2 that in his opinion it was inopportune to include in this Bill any proposal for dealing specifically with domestic servants. This is a matter which he thought could be more appropriately dealt with in connection with general legislation on the

1103
subject of paid holidays, and there was, he thought, no reason to anticipate for one particular class of worker that general legislation. Really this has nothing to do with domestic servants having no union and not being able to bargain. I rather thought that there was such a shortage of domestic servants in these days that they could more or less make their own bargains; at least I have generally found it so. If the noble Earl knows that there is a great plethora of domestic servants anywhere I wish he would let some of us know, because we have not found it so.
The noble Earl asked me a specific question at the end of his speech as to whether the Government intend to introduce legislation in 1940 or 1941, as recommended by the Amulree Committee. He said that I was very cautious in my statement. Well, I hope I was. I always try to be very cautious in what I say from this box, because otherwise one is apt to get into trouble. I am afraid I cannot be very much more definite than I was in my opening speech. I think I can say this, that the Government will watch the situation very carefully between now and 1940, always hoping that as many voluntary agreements on this important matter will be made as possible, and, as far as they know, they very much hope—except in the exceedingly unlikely event of the Party of the noble Lords opposite displacing us before then—that they will bring in legislation along the lines that I have indicated for providing holidays for all workers. Beyond that I am afraid I cannot go, and I hope that that will satisfy the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. They are almost entirely of a drafting character.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  [The references are to Bill No. 76.]
  In the title, line 3, after ("proceedings") insert ("heretofore usually dealt with")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a legal Amendment, almost of a drafting character. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end, insert ("and, in the case of any county in Wales or the County of Monmouth, a person able to speak the Welsh language")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, as I propose to leave out from this Amendment the words "or the County of Monmouth" perhaps the noble and learned Lord would consider it convenient if I did so now. The County of Monmouth is an English county. I do not think that will be disputed, because in the Amendment itself it is mentioned apart from Wales. Monmouthshire is not merely an English County, it is an English-speaking County. Once, long ago, it was a Welsh-speaking County, but it is now impossible to find in the rural parts any person who can speak Welsh. In the industrial area the case is somewhat different. It is quite erroneous to suppose that the inhabitants of the Welsh coalfield are all, or nearly all, of Welsh origin. What is now the industrial area of Carmarthen-shire, Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire was in the eighteenth century sparsely inhabited by a few farmers. Then came the opening up of the coalfields, and people flocked in. These immigrants were derived chiefly from two sources, one from central Wales, and the other from Western England, and particularly Somersetshire, where the coal

  1105
  mines were being closed down. In the western part of the area the Welsh immigrants predominated, and in the eastern part the English immigrants predominated.
  The result was that in Carmarthenshire and parts of Western Glamorganshire the Welsh language was able to hold its own, but in Eastern Glamorganshire the English language became predominant, and in Monmouthshire it has become in effect the sole language of the country. These statements are substantiated by the Census of 1931. In Carmarthenshire the percentage of people who then returned themselves as able to speak Welsh was 82. In West Glamorganshire the figure fell to 40 per cent., and in East Glamorganshire to 25 per cent.; while in Monmouthshire the number of persons who claimed that they were able to speak Welsh was only 6 per cent. I would ask your Lordships to note that figure of 6 per cent., because a couple of years ago a Committee was set up under the very able Chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, to consider the revision of the circuit system. Monmouthshire has for very many years been part of the Oxford Circuit. Before that Committee a number of Welsh Nationalists appeared, persons unconnected with Monmouthshire, who tried to persuade the Committee that Monmouthshire ought to be transferred to the South Wales Circuit, and with this end in view they did not scruple to tell the Committee that most of the inhabitants of Monmouthshire spoke nothing but Welsh, or anyhow they spoke Welsh as their ordinary language. But I am glad to say the Committee did not believe them, and Monmouthshire remains part of the Oxford Circuit. Had the Committee any reason to suppose that Monmouthshire would profit in any way by closer connection with Wales, they would undoubtedly have come to a different conclusion from that which they reached.
  I was talking only the other day to a man who had been on the Bench for sixty years and had been Chairman of Quarter Sessions for thirty of them. Never in the whole of his experience has it been necessary to employ a Welsh interpreter in Monmouthshire. Our present Chairman, whose father and grandfather were Chairmen before him, is an Official Referee of the High Court of
  1106
  Justice, and therefore may not, under Clause 2 of this Bill, be precluded from his office because he cannot speak Welsh. I am not sure whether it applies to the Vice-Chairman as well. But it may be—I do not say it will be—necessary for the Lord Chancellor to consider whether he should not be passed over because he cannot speak Welsh. I cannot imagine that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or any noble Lord who may succeed him, would dream of turning out an eminent King's Counsel from the Chairmanship of the Monmouthshire Quarter Sessions, but under this provision he would have to contemplate it. It is most undesirable that the noble and learned Lord should have to contemplate the commission of such an extremely foolish act. Although these words are simple, they create a very dangerous precedent. This is the first time that an attempt has been made to impose a statutory disqualification because an Englishman cannot speak a language other than his own.
  It may go a great deal further. In the other place the Amendment, as originally moved, was designed to make it compulsory that the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of Monmouthshire should speak Welsh. There is no doubt that is what the Welsh National Party would like to see. They would like to see the Welsh language made compulsory, not only throughout Wales but throughout Monmouthshire as well. Why not Liverpool? There are certainly more Welsh people in Liverpool than in Monmouthshire. This Amendment has nothing to do with the administration of justice, and is merely an attempt to claim Monmouthshire for Wales and force the Welsh language upon it. The Amendment is very improper in a Bill which is intended to further the good administration of justice, and I hope your Lordships will reject it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out ("o. the County of Monmouth").—(Lord Raglan.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has, I am sure, said everything that can possibly be said in favour of this small Amendment. He has, however, not attributed quite enough weight to the place where the words occur because, after all, the Amendment is only this. In a case in which the Lord Chancellor for the

  1107
  time being has to appoint a person of the legal experience mentioned in Clause I to act as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Quarter Sessions, the proviso requires the Lord Chancellor to consider in the first place the advisability of appointing somebody who resides in the district. That is not always possible, but he would like to get such a person if he could. Then follows, "in the case of any county in Wales or the County of Monmouth a person able to speak the Welsh language." It is perfectly plain that there is no rigid necessity that a man should be able to speak the Welsh language. It is only a thing the Lord Chancellor ought to consider, and in some counties in Wales it would be very desirable that he should consider it. With that we all agree. In the County of Monmouth, it is true, there are only a comparatively small number of people who speak only Welsh.
  LORD RAGLAN: Who speak Welsh at all.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And quite a number who do not speak Welsh at all. That is true about a number of other counties in Wales, but for many administrative purposes the County of Monmouth for a long time past has been grouped with Wales, and a number of provisions regarding Wales are provisions which contain the words "and County of Monmouth."
  LORD RAGLAN: Not for judicial purposes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree that it is not so in the case of circuit. In another place it has been thought desirable that on the whole there should be this consideration which the Lord Chancellor must bear in mind. The noble Lord says Monmouth should be left out. If Monmouth were left out, a few of the other counties should be left out too, and I do not quite know where we should be when the matter goes to another place and we begin to consider the counties in which Welsh is spoken. I would draw the attention of the House to the County of Radnor. In the County of Radnor the total population under the 1931 census was 20,362, excluding those who were not three years old. Of these, 967 spoke Welsh and English, and seven only out of the total spoke Welsh alone. Yet Radnor must be included in the definition of
  1108
  "Wales." But when we come to Monmouth, including Newport, we have these figures. The total population over three years old was 413,191. Of these, 24,449 speak Welsh and English, and I quite agree that a small number—514—speak Welsh only. That is 514 in Monmouth who speak Welsh only and only seven in Radnor. The effort to divide up the country into those places where there is a considerable number of Welsh-speaking inhabitants would lead to all sorts of difficulties. The net result is that there are over 24,00o people who speak Welsh and English in the County of Monmouth.
  Those who are engaged, or have been engaged, in the Courts of Justice know that somebody who speaks both Welsh and English can be very useful, and for my part, if there were two people applying for the post of Chairman of Quarter Sessions, exactly similar in all respects except that one of them had a certain knowledge of Welsh and the other had none, I should think that to some extent it would weigh the scales in favour of the Welsh-speaking person. I do not think this Commons Amendment has any sinister import. I think that it will do no harm to anyone. It will not be a precedent, and no Lord Chancellor who has any sense—and I hope that will apply to all occupants of this office—will bother about this provision in any material sense. Therefore I really cannot regard the matter as of importance. I think the whole of the other Amendments made in the other House to this clause are Amendments which your Lordships will accept without discussion. I desire that the Bill should not go back to the other place because, if that were so, delay might be occasioned by such an Amendment as that proposed by the noble Lord, which, as I have said, I cannot regard as of any real importance. In those circumstances, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I regard this as a matter of very great importance. Welshmen are always trying to bring in the use of their language in these matters. We in Monmouthshire are English and wish to remain English, and very much regret that the Lord Chancellor is bent upon compelling us to speak the Welsh language, a language which we do not know and do not wish to know.
  LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and I should feel extremely sorry to do anything that would mean delay in the passing of this Bill into law, but I was not able to follow the Lord Chancellor's explanation of this matter, which I conceive to be of some importance in Wales. I cannot understand quite what is going to happen in Wales if this Amendment is passed, but, as I read Clause 1, it appears to me that a Welsh Court of Quarter Sessions would only have power to apply to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of a legally qualified Chairman providing that that legally qualified Chairman NN as also a Welsh-speaking Chairman.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I answer the noble Lord? That really is not so. This proviso is only what you may describe as a hint to the Lord Chancellor that he has to consider something in addition to the place where the Chairman ordinarily resides. He need not be occupied by it at all, but it is a thing that he has to bear in mind. I may add, for my part, that I believe he always would bear in mind the question of the residence of the proposed person, and also, if the district in question was a Welsh-speaking district, and whether the person to be appointed could speak Welsh. It is merely a reminder to the Lord Chancellor that in appointing people in Wales and Monmouthshire, he should bear in mind the question whether the person appointed could speak Welsh or not. It is nothing more than that, and is of no real importance.
  LORD CHARNWOOD: Of course, if the Lord Chancellor assures me the effect of the words used in this Amendment is as lie has stated it to be, I must accept his assurance, but I have the greatest difficulty in reading the clause as proposed to be amended in the sense in which he has just stated.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Page 2, line 17, leave out from ("of,") to ("deputy,") in line 18, and insert ("such a person as aforesaid as Chairman or")
  Page 2, line 22, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
  Page 2, line 24, after ("term") insert ("and on such conditions as to retirement")
  Page 2, line 25, leave out from ("shall,") to ("a,") in line 26, and insert ("if not already")
  Page 2, line 27, after ("appointed,") insert ("be a justice of the peace for that county by virtue of his office")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendments on Clause 1, page 2, down to line 27, are consequential, and with your Lordships' permission I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in those Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 2, line 30, at end insert:
  ("(4) In this Act the expression 'Deputy Chairman' means in relation to any Court of Quarter Sessions, a person, by whatsoever name styled, performing or nominated to perform the duty of presiding over the Court in the absence of the Chairman and of presiding over any second Court, and the said expression includes, in relation to any Court, any number of such persons.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Commons Amendment on line 30 is in fact a drafting Amendment. It enables the person nominated to act as Deputy-Chairman. I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in that Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 2, page 3, line 2, leave out ("any,") and insert ("a")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 6, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 10, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 13, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 17, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 19, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 23, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 27, leave out from ("borough,") to ("a,") in line 28, and insert ("having")
  Clause 2, page 3, line 31, leave out ("of Quarter Sessions")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Commons Amendments on Clause 2, down to line 31, are purely

  1111
  drafting. I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in those Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 3, line 40, leave out from ("borough,") to ("a,") in line 41, and insert ("having a separate Court of Quarter sessions and")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is to amend a slip in the drafting because there are boroughs without a separate Court of Quarter Sessions. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 3, line 42, at end, insert:
  ("(4) For the purposes of this section a borough shall be deemed to have a population of not less than fifty thousand if according to the census last published before the commencement of this Act or according to any census published after the commencement of this Act it contained or contains a population of fifty thousand or more.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to ensure that a borough which has a population of less than 50,000 at the last census shall not lose its jurisdiction as mentioned in the Act if the population happens to diminish during the period. In other words, it is to prevent the jurisdiction fluctuating with population. The effect will be to avoid the great inconvenience that might be caused if this provision were not inserted. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 4, line 10, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (3) of this section")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is pure drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 6, page 6, line 29, at end, insert:
  ("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the power of the Lord Mayor of the City of London or any alderman of that City to direct that a person charged with an offence before him shall be tried at the Central Criminal Court.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a saving for the City of London. The power of the Lord Mayor or any alderman of the City of London to commit persons direct to the Central Criminal Court is one which ought not to he interfered with. The Central Criminal Court is a Court which is amply suited to deal with the less important as well as the more important indictable offences. Accordingly this proviso was inserted in another place. I think it is a reasonable one and one to which your Lordships may well assent. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 7, page 7, line 9, at end, insert ("by the High Court")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is to meet the point that a writ of certoriari may be issued by the House of Lords and it is not intended to interfere with the procedure of the House of Lords. It is in order to make that clear that this Amendment is inserted. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("the") to ("for,") in line 16, and insert ("High Court or any Division thereof")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the reason for this Amendment is that the King's Bench Division has not got exclusive jurisdiction in certiorari and accordingly the clause in that respect was defective. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 11, page 9, line 29, leave out ("than") and insert ("from")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I ought to express regret that my noble friend Viscount Bertie did not call attention to this matter, because the words in the clause were words which might well have claimed his attention in regard to the grammar. The words in the clause are "different than" instead of "different from." I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 10, line 3, at end, insert ("and the expenses of maintaining and removing prisoners")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment was in fact passed by your Lordships' House but it had to be excluded because it was a Privilege Amendment. Now it has been reinserted in another place. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 15, page 11, line 35, at the beginning, insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section")
  Page 22, line 9, at end, insert:
  ("(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any of the following enactments, that is to say—

  (a) Sections thirty-seven to forty of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853.

  (b) Section thirty-six of the Building Societies Act, 1874;

  (c) Section four of the Telegraph Act, 1878;

  (d) Section ten of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886;

  (e) Section one of the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment Act, 1886.")

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments relate to the same matter. They are savings for appeals from the Mayor's Court, which under existing law go, not to the Court of Appeal, but elsewhere. It really was not intended to prevent these cases going to the Chancery Judge as directed under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, or the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, or
  1114
  going, under the Telegraph Act, 1878, to the Railway and Canal Commission or under the Parliamentary Elections (Return of Officers') Act (1875) Amendment Act, 1886, to the King's Bench Division. These appeals were saved from the operation of the general provision relating to County Court appeals by Section 192 of the County Courts Act, 1934, and they should be accordingly excluded here from the provisions of the clause as mentioned in the proposed Amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 20, page 13, line 26, at end, insert (",and any Act passed during the same Session of Parliament as this Act")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to include in the Acts a measure which is at present before Parliament entitled the Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill, in which Section 90 of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1934, is being amended so as to enable Middlesex justices to appoint an Assistant Chairman. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 13, line 34, leave out ("October nineteen hundred and thirty-eight,") and insert ("January nineteen hundred and thirty-nine")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is obviously to postpone the commencement of the measure to the beginning of next year, which is thought more convenient. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 15, line 28, after ("order") insert ("where it secondly occurs")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is pure drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Fourth Schedule, page 21, line 5, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is one which I hope will rejoice the heart of Lord Strabolgi, because when the matter Was before your Lordships on a previous occasion he complained bitterly that two words were being removed from Magna Charta. When the matter went to another place, the same objection was felt by other persons, and it was thought a great pity that anything should be removed from Magna Charta. Clause 12 of this Bill provides for the abolition of the particular species of outlawry to which it was desired to put an end; so, the clause having effectively put an end to outlawry of the only kind that now remains, it was pointed out to those people who are so concerned about Magna Charta that it would not matter if the words were left in, because they were going to be removed once and for all by the present measure if it became an Act of Parliament. That was agreed to. Perhaps I may say for myself that I, too, am glad that Magna Charta will not be affected by anything with which I am concerned, so that I shall not go down with Lord Keeper Jeffreys and others as having acted against the interests of this country.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 23, leave out lines 48 and 49.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it has been discovered on consideration that this repeal goes too far, and therefore those lines should be omitted.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FIRE BRIGADES BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1 [Provision of fire services]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the first three Amendments which stand in my name are all drafting Amendments. I do not know whether your Lordships will let me move them en bloc.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships approve, I will put these Amendments together.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 2, line 14, leave out ("which complies with") and insert ("whose local fire services are of")
  Page 2, line 16, leave out ("discharged their duty under") and insert ("complied with the provisions of")
  Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("may") to ("into") in line 20, and insert ("secure local fire services for their borough or district by themselves providing and maintaining either wholly or in part, such fire services or by entering").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  No payments to be made by owners and occupiers in respect of fire services.
  5. A fire authority shall not be entitled to require the owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur to make any payment in respect of the expenses of a fire brigade in attending the fires, and all enactments under which fire authorities may require such payments to be made by the owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur shall cease to have effect:
  Provided that…
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out "the expenses of a fire brigade in attending the fires" and insert "local fire services or any fire services provided in pursuance of arrangements made under subsection (5) of Section one of this Act or in pursuance of a scheme made under this Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next two are practically drafting Amendments, but perhaps I should add that they will render it unnecessary to make any further or special amendment in Clause 28 to meet the special case of any of the Highland counties or burghs which may be exempted from the compulsory provisions of the Bill by Order of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and have no regular local fire services. I understand that the representatives of the insurance interests have been consulted on these Amendments and have no objection to them. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 7, line 9, leave out from ("of") to ("and") in line 10, and insert ("local fire

  1117
  services or any fire services provided in pursuance of arrangements made under subsection (5) of Section one of this Act or in pursuance of a scheme made under this Act")
  Page 7, line 11, leave out ("such")
  Page 7, line 13, after ("occur") insert ("in respect of the expenses of a fire brigade in attending the fires").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment and the next apparently operate together on Clause 5. I have heard what my noble friend has said, but as he has mentioned other districts I am a little in doubt as to his exact meaning. In order to shorten my question I will put it in this way, if I may: May I take it that these Amendments do not impair the effect of Clause 5 in the sense in which it was accepted on the Committee stage?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. I did say that the insurance interests had been consulted about these Amendments and had raised no objection to them.
  LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Schemes for co-ordination of fire services.
  9.— (1) If the Fire Service Commission report, as respects any fire authorities, that adequate arrangements have not been made for the provision of such assistance as aforesaid, they may submit to the Secretary of State a scheme (hereinafter referred to as a "co-ordination scheme") for ensuring the provision by those authorities of such assistance:
  Provided that, before submitting any coordination scheme to the Secretary of State, the Fire Service Commission shall give an opportunity to all file authorities affected by the scheme to mace representations with respect thereto, and shall submit any such representations together with the scheme.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "scheme," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "and to any other persons appearing to the Commission to be specially concerned." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down in recognition of the fact that in framing co-ordination schemes under Clause 9 not only fire authorities will be concerned, but also such persons as factory owners whose premises may constitute a special risk and where probably
  1118
  a private fire brigade is maintained. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 6, after ("scheme") insert ("and to any other persons appearing to the Commission to be specially concerned").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Powers of fire brigades and police in extinguishing fires]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next two Amendments are to Clause 14 and are manuscript Amendments.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the first is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 34, leave out ("cause") and insert ("require").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next is also drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 40, leave out ("the provisions of this section") and insert ("such a requirement").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Definition of "fire brigade duties" for purposes of Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, and this Act]:
  THE EARS OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 43, after ("shall") insert ("as soon as may be after regulations have been made by the Minister of Health under the next following subsection").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 6, leave out ("continue to apply to him accordingly") and insert ("apply to him, and be deemed to have applied to him as from the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 11, after ("him") insert ("and be deemed to have applied to him as from the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18 [Central Advisory Council for Fire Services]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment is practically a drafting Amendment. The words which have been left out here have been reinserted in Clause 24 (2). I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 2, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line 6.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Power of Secretary of State to require uniformity of appliances and equipment]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is drafting.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Should the reference not be to line 40?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The words which we propose to leave out are "after consultation with the Central Advisory Council for Fire Services," and the Amendment should read: "from 'State' in line 39 to 'may' in line 40."
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 39, leave out from ("State") to ("may") in line 4o.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Provisions as to orders of Secretary of State]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
  "(2) Before making any order prescribing scales of payments for fire services or any order requiring uniformity of appliances and equipment and fire hydrants, the Secretary of State shall consult the Central Advisory Council for Fire Services, and before making any order prescribing standards of efficiency for fire services, the Secretary of State shall consult with the said Council and with such associations representing fire authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any fire authorities with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will recall that, on a previous stage of the Bill I informed Lord Saltoun that I should be moving an Amendment at this stage of the Bill, in fulfilment of the pledge which I gave him at that time. I do not think there is any necessity further to explain this Amendment to your Lordships, as I think it was fully dealt with on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 19, at end, insert the said new subsection (2).—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 21, leave out ("under Section one of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 27:
  Provisions as to London.
  27.—(1) The provisions of subsections (3) to (7) of Section two and the provisions of Sections three, five and twenty-one of this Act shall apply to the administrative county of London, subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—

  (a) for the references to a fire authority and to the borough or district of a fire authority there shall be substituted references to the London County Council and the administrative county of London, respectively; and

  (b) for the reference in Section twenty-one to this Act there shall be substituted a reference to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act, 1865;

  but save as aforesaid this Act shall not apply to the administrative county of London.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 4, at end, insert ("fifteen").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, these Amendments are all drafting.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 21, line 6, leave out from ("London") to the first ("to") in line 8, and insert ("and the London County Council, and accordingly—
  (a) the references in those provisions")
  Page 21, line 9, leave out ("there shall be substituted") and insert ("shall be construed as including")
  Page 21, line 13, leave out ("for")
  Page 21, line 14, leave out ("there shall be substituted") and insert ("shall be construed as including").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "but save as aforesaid this Act shall not apply to the administrative county of London" and insert:

  1121
  "Provided that nothing in the said Section five shall be taken to affect Section sixty of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1934.
  (2) The provisions of Section one of this Act, so far as they relate to the provision of fire services for any borough or district by other fire authorities, shall have effect so as to enable such fire services to be provided by the London County Council and accordingly the references in subsections (3) and (5) of Section one to other fire authorities and the references in subsection (4) thereof to a fire authority shall be construed as including references to the London County Council; and the duty of a fire authority (not including the London County Council) under subsection (5) of Section one of this Act may be discharged, either in whole or in part, by entering into arrangements with the London County Council under Section forty-nine of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1936."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of some importance, and perhaps I should explain it fully to your Lordships. The opening proviso !is a matter of drafting, for the purpose of safeguarding powers that the London County Council already possess to recover penalties for chimney fires. The new subsection (2) has been put down to meet two points which have been raised regarding the application of the Bill to London, especially as respects the relations between the London Fire Brigade and the brigades serving adjoining areas. Under Clause 1 a fire authority, in lieu of providing and maintaining local fire brigade services on their own account, may enter into arrangements with another fire authority to provide for fire services on their behalf; but the Bill as it now stands would not permit of such an arrangement being made with the London County Council. The London County Council have been consulted, and agree that this gap in the Bill as it now stands should be filled. The House will recall that Clause 1 (5) of the Bill at present makes no provision for the co-operation of the London County Council and the London Fire Brigade in measures for mutual assistance for dealing with exceptional fires. Section 49 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1936, provides very similar machinery to that in the Bill, as respects the London County Council and fire authorities adjoining or near the Council's borders, and the object of tins Amendment is to make any necessary adaptations. I might mention, in conclusion, that the London County Council
  1122
  have been consulted on these Amendments, and they concur in them.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, leave out lines 16 and 17, and insert the said proviso and subsection (2).— (The Earl of Munster,)
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on behalf of the London County Council, I should just like to thank the noble Earl for the Amendment that he has put down, and also for meeting the point which I raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. The London County Council is now absolutely safeguarded against the danger that it might lose its power to recover penalties in respect of fires in chimneys.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert at the end of the clause:
  "(4) Save as is in this section provided, this Act shall not apply to the administrative county of London or to the London County Council."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 37, at end, insert the said new subsection (4).— (The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 28:
  Application to Scotland.
  (4) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the county council of any of the following counties videlicet: Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Zetland, or with the town council of any burgh situated in any such county, by order direct that the provisions of this Act in their application to such county or burgh shall have effect as if—

  (a) subsections (1) to (5) of Section one and Sections eight to thirteen were omitted; and

  (b) the word "may" were substituted for the word "shall"—

  (i) where that word first occurs in subsection (1) of Section two; and

  (ii) in subsection (8) of the said section.

  THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE had given Notice of Amendments in subsection (4), to leave out "the" ["the county council" and insert "any," and to leave out "of any of the following counties videlicet: Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Zetland." The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 28, subsections

  1123
  (4) and (5), as amended in Committee, and as I understand them, enable the seven Highland counties to set up special fire brigade districts in the more populous places, in order that the mountainous regions and the islands should not be rated for fire fighting services, appliances and apparatus, which cannot be provided owing to inaccessibility. The object of this Amendment is to extend this concession to all the Scottish counties, most of which, in this respect, are practically in the same position as the Highland counties. Take Lanarkshire, for instance, the most important industrial county in Scotland. In what is called the Upper Ward there are large districts of the whole County where fire engines could not possibly manœuvre, even if there were water, which there often is not. On the other hand, a small county like Clackmannan, which is almost wholly industrial, would, if allowed to form special fire brigade districts, almost certainly form one district for the whole County, with the burghs therein, which are within a reasonable distance of each other.
  The Amendment may be clumsily drafted, as I am an amateur in these matters and I am advised that the paragraph should be re-drafted to read:
  "(4) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the county council of any county or with the town council of any burgh, by order direct that the provisions of this Act in their application to such county or burgh shall have effect as if"—
  It is no doubt too late to substitute that to-day, but if the Amendment is accepted that could be altered on the Third Reading. At any rate, as I have stated, the object of this Amendment is perfectly clear. It is that the concessions proposed for the seven crofting or Highland counties should be extended to all the Scottish counties.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 22, line 22, leave out ("the") and insert ("any") and leave out from ("council") to ("or") in line 24.—(The Earl of Mar and Kellie.)
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: When my noble friend says "the Secretary of State" I suppose he refers to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Yes, the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, if I may say one word, I must for my own part admit that I had considerable misgivings from the Scottish point of view when this measure came before your Lordships' House, because it seemed as if unnecessary expenditure was to be thrown upon the local authorities, not only those in the Highland counties which have already been mentioned, but also those in the counties of which the noble Earl has just spoken. But, with two other members of your Lordships' House, I had an interview with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was kind enough to see us, and from that conversation I am quite satisfied in my own mind that no unreasonable measures will be insisted upon in any of the districts such as have been mentioned by the noble Earl, where it can be shown by the local authority that they would be neither workable nor in the best interests of local government. For that reason I think it is not necessary to amend this clause as the noble Earl has proposed, and I for one would like to support it as it stands.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think the two noble Lords who have just spoken have given your Lordships to understand that this Amendment applies to Scotland, but it seems to me that the effect of an Amendment such as this will apply to more than Scotland. Unless the county councils which the Bill specifically mentions are kept in the word "any" might apply to any English county council.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at subsection (1) he will see that the whole of Clause 28 applies only to Scotland. It begins thus:
  "The provisions of this section shall have effect for the purpose of the application of this Act to Scotland,"
  As I understand it everything that follows in the clause applies to Scotland only.
  LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged. I am sorry.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to alter the Scottish Application Clause so as to extend the special provisions regarding the seven crofter counties and the burghs therein to every county and burgh in Scotland. Suggestions that this should be done, at any

  1125
  rate for landward areas, or alternatively that the list of counties specified in Clause 28 (4) should be extended so as to include counties such as Angus, Banff, Berwick and Perthshire, were made during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I undertook to ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter with a view to his giving, if possible, an undertaking, but I did warn the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that I did not think that reconsideration would be likely to result in any such Amendment as this being accepted. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these proposals, and has reached the conclusion that he would not be justified in asking Parliament to confer power upon him to exempt any county or burgh, other than the seven crofter counties and burghs therein, from the compulsory provisions of the Bill. These seven counties present special problems in the way either of numerous islands, or of sparsity of population and length and difficulty of road and telephone communications, and their special circumstances may justify the exercise of the power of exemption which is given by Clause 28 (4).
  There are of course certain other counties with relatively sparse population, or with tracts of moorland and mountain, but these counties differ so much from the crofter counties in their size, or their means of communication, or in the number of burghs situated within or near their boundaries, that they cannot be placed in the same category. For instance, Angus has eight burghs, Banff has eleven, Berwick has four and Perthshire has eleven. All of these burghs are separate fire authorities under the Bill, and will be under a duty to co-operate with the county councils in the provision of fire services. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are so drawn as to enable full account to be taken of differences in the requirements of, and the facilities available in, different kinds of locality, as has already been stated to the House, there is no intention to subject rural areas—for instance, areas which would have to do their fire fighting with natural or static water instead of water from Water mains—to the kind of standard which would be appropriate and feasible only in urban areas.
  At the same time, the Government fully recognise the need for adequate consulta-
  1126
  tion before standards of efficiency are prescribed under Clause 1 (2). The Bill has hitherto provided for consultation, as regards standards of efficiency in Scotland, with the Scottish Central Advisory Council for Fire Services—a body which will include representatives of Scottish county and town councils. In order further to safeguard the position of local authorities an Amendment to Clause 24 has been put down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, which will make it compulsory upon the Secretary of State, before making any Order prescribing standards of efficiency, to consult not only that Central Advisory Council but also such associations representing county or town councils as appear to him to be concerned, and, in addition, any individual county or town council with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable. This new provision, coupled with the fact that Orders prescribing standards of efficiency are open to challenge and annulment by Parliament, give local authorities full protection against the imposition of impracticable or unduly onerous requirements. In these circumstances, and in view of that further explanation, I very much hope that the noble Earl will feel inclined to withdraw his Amendments.
  THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, I am glad I have raised the question, because we have had a very full and lucid explanation of the clause and of the Bill from my noble friend Lord Strathcona, and also because my noble friend Lord Airlie, who lives in Angus, which is one of the counties I had in mind as being mostly a Highland county, is satisfied. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I will withdraw my Amendments.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  Third Schedule[Enactments Repealed]:
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the two next Amendments are both drafting and I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 29, line 35, at end insert—

  ("25 & 26 Vict.c.ccv.

  The Salford Improvement Act, 1862

  Section two hundred and seventy-four, so far as it relates to payments by owners of property.")

  Page 31, third column, line 6, at beginning insert ("and of a").—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BACON INDUSTRY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to make one or two preliminary observations before dealing with the merits of the Bill. The first is that in what I say this afternoon I claim to be speaking on behalf of some forty women's societies in the United Kingdom and about 120 women's societies in the Dominions, all of which are composed of representative and responsible women. I may add that the Bill also had the support last week of the International Council of Women which met in Edinburgh and which represented thirty-one nations. The second observation of a preliminary character that I desire to make is this. I beg your Lordships not to regard the comparative brevity with which I hope to address the House as commensurate with the importance of this subject. If I were to attempt to deal fully with all the constitutional problems which are involved, and with the legislation and attempted legislation which has taken place with regard to the nationality of married women, or were I even to recite the various conventions and conferences, national, international, and Imperial which have been held regarding this matter, then I should make an unpardonable inroad on the time of your Lordships' House. All I can hope to do, and all I propose to do, is to give your Lordships
1128
some short account in, so to speak, tabloid form, of these matters, and then to present the argument for the Bill as shortly and succinctly and, I hope, fairly and temperately as I can. The last preliminary observation I desire to make is that I regret that the form of the Bill is somewhat obscure, in fact to a lay mind, I should think, almost unintelligible; but I have been advised that in order that this measure should fit in with what I might call the jigsaw puzzle of the series of Statutes which deal with the nationality of married women the Bill had to take this particular form.
The Bill deals, as I say, with the thorny question of the nationality of married women. To-day, as your Lordships are aware, an alien woman, on marrying a British man, ipso facto becomes herself a British subject. On the other hand a British woman who marries an alien loses her British nationality if, by reason of her marriage, she acquires the nationality of her husband. In other words, the question of whether or not a British woman who marries an alien loses her nationality depends on the law of the State of which her husband is a national. The principal purpose of this Bill is to restore to the British married woman the right to retain her nationality when she marries an alien, and to restore the corresponding right to an alien woman who marries a British subject.
There are four propositions which, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to submit and, I hope, to establish, because they appear to me to be of the first importance in connection with this subject. The first is of this character. I said a few moments ago that this Bill proposes to restore the right of a British woman who marries an alien to retain her nationality and to restore the right to an alien woman who marries a British subject to retain her nationality. "Restore" is tile right word, for it cannot be too strongly emphasized that up till comparatively recently, by the Common Law of England, the marriage of an alien woman to a British man, or of a British woman to an alien, left the question of nationality entirely unaffected—that is to say, if a British woman married an alien she remained British, and if an alien woman married a British subject she remained an alien. It was not until the year 1844,

1129
by virtue of a Statute passed in that year, that an alien woman on marrying a British subject became herself a British subject. It was not until an Act passed in 1870 that a British woman, for the first time in British history, on marrying an alien lost her British nationality and herself became an alien. It is very difficult to discover at this time of day precisely why these changes in the law were made. The debates in both Houses do not show clearly or distinctly why this thing was done. The question of the right of an alien to hold property in this country was very much in the forefront in the course of the debates in 1870, but, on the other hand, very little importance seems to have been attached at that date to the nationality of a British woman who married an alien. Incidentally, I may add that the passport system as we know it was not then in use. I desire, therefore, as my first proposition to stress that this Bill sets out not to confer a new right, but to restore an old right.
The second proposition is this. The Bill seeks to equalise the position of the sexes in the eyes of the law. To-day a natural-born British man cannot lose his nationality except by his express and deliberate choice—in other words, unless he applies for, and is admitted to, naturalisation in a foreign country. Further, a British woman, until her marriage, enjoys the same right as a British male subject. On the other hand, a British woman who marries an alien forfeits her British nationality and all the privileges attached to it, subject to the one condition which I stated a few moments ago. She is refused a British passport, and she loses her right to vote in municipal or Parliamentary elections, or to be elected to a municipal or Parliamentary body. When she is abroad she is refused the protection of the British Government, and when she comes home and seeks for a post in this country she is very often brought under the ban which prevents the employment of aliens here. Even though she has never left this country, and cannot speak a word of the language of her alien husband's country, she is nevertheless doomed to perpetual alienage. There are other disabilities which I could recount, but I do not wish to delay your Lordships' House by doing so. I can sum it up in a sentence by saying that the British woman married to art alien is classed with minors
1130
and lunatics and becomes a mere chattel in the household. I venture to think that such a doctrine to-day is repugnant to all enlightened and unprejudiced minds. I do not want to weary your Lordships by reciting the painful and harsh cases which have come to one's knowledge in this connection. Within the last few weeks I have had under my personal observation several cases of intolerable indignity, of hardship, and indeed tragedy, inflicted upon British married women who have married aliens, by reason of the operation of this law. These cases are no doubt comparatively limited in their number. I venture to think that, had they been more numerous, the British women of to-day would not have had so long to wait as they have for the remedy which they seek.
So much for the position of a British man who marries a foreign woman. Now take the case of a foreigner who marries a British woman. Before a foreigner is admitted to British nationality he must take the Oath of Allegiance, and he must fulfil certain other specified conditions. That also applies to an unmarried foreign woman. But in the case of a foreign woman who marries a British subject she has British nationality thrust upon her whether she wishes it or not, and whatever her loyalties may be to the country of her origin. As we know, the present law, moreover, enables women to become British subjects who would not otherwise be allowed to remain in this country. These doctrines, and the practices which have followed upon them, humbly appear to me to be obnoxious, not only to the spirit of the age, but to the spirit of justice as well.
It is not surprising in those circumstances to find that the proposals which are contained in this measure have had the unqualified and authoritative support of His Majesty's Government in times which are quite recent. If your Lordships will bear with me just for a few moments, I want to document that proposition if I can. On April 15, 1929, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, on the eve of a General Election, made the following statement to a deputation which he received from women's societies of the United Kingdom. He said he agreed with the following proposal—namely:
"A British woman who marries an alien shall not automatically lose her nationality. A foreign woman who marries a British sub-

1131
ject shall not have British nationality imposed upon her unless she applies to be admitted as a British subject; and a married woman shall no longer be classified in the nationality laws with minors and lunatics, as a person under a disability, but shall be deemed competent to apply for and be admitted to British nationality in her own right."
That was the Prime Minister's enunciation in 1929 of the policy of His Majesty's Government of the day.
Again, in 1930, on the eve of the Codification Conference which was summoned by the League of Nations, and which took place at The Hague, the Foreign Secretary in this country, in a letter addressed to the Six Point Group, stated:
"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in principle in favour of the policy with regard to the nationality of married women with which Mr. Ramsay MacDonald expressed his agreement on the occasion of the deputation of women's societies received by him in April, 1929, and that the delegation of the United Kingdom be instructed to endeavour to obtain the adoption of this policy by the Conference."
Again, if I might trouble your Lordships with another short quotation, in 1930, during the Second Reading debate on a similar Bill to this in another place, the Home Secretary—I have already quoted the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary, and we now have the Home Secretary—speaking for the Government of the day, said:
"I would like to express in the most emphatic terms the approval of the Government of the principle embodied in this Bill."
Then he added:
"If a Second Reading is given to this Bill, I shall regard it as a demonstration of a principle which is acceptable to all."
And yet again—and this is a most important episode in the history of the matter—the first National Government, at the Assembly of the League of Nations, held at Geneva in 1931, through the mouth of their delegate, Dame Edith Lyttleton, made the following declaration of policy. It is only a sentence, but it is a most important sentence:
"The British Government considers that it is right that all disabilities of married women in matters of nationality should be removed, and that, in so far as nationality is concerned, a married woman should be in the same position as a man, married or unmarried, or any single woman."
And in 1933—and this is my last quotation—in the House of Commons during a debate on the Nationality and Status of
1132
Aliens Bill of that year, this declaration which I have just quoted was read and acknowledged by the Home Secretary to embody the policy of His Majesty's Government. This policy, if I may respectfully say so, is a just and right policy, but it is entirely out of accord with the present laws of our country. It is to be noted also that the policy thus enunciated so clearly and authoritatively by successive representatives of the Government of the day has never been renounced or repudiated or modified in any way by any subsequent Government. Accordingly, we have had any amount of sympathy, but very little or no action.
My last point in this connection is to indicate to your Lordships what has happened in this matter of nationality in other countries. During the last twenty years great progress has been made in nearly every other country in the extension of nationality rights to married women. In 1918 the rule in most of the European countries and in most of the North American States was that the nationality of a woman followed the nationality of her husband, but that was never the law in the Southern States of America, or at least in the greater number of them, where the rule always has been that the national status of a woman remains unaffected by her marriage. Now Russia, in 1918, gave married women the same nationality rights as men. The United States of America, in 1922, passed similar legislation. Since 1929 China has allowed her woman nationals to retain their nationality on marriage with aliens. That means that States in whose territories are comprised half the population of the world permit a married woman to retain her nationality on marriage with a foreigner. Belgium, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Albania and Cuba have all conferred similar rights on their nationals, and, I may add, with certain and no doubt important exceptions, Sweden. Denmark, Iceland, Finland and France have conferred similar rights upon their woman nationals. Accordingly, this country, I venture to say, lags far behind all these other countries which I have named in refusing nationality rights in her own person to a married woman, and lags far behind, I would venture to add, in the pursuit of a policy of equality and justice.
All this being so, I feel entitled to ask: What reasonable objections can be taken

1133
to the proposals which are embodied in this measure? The first, which I have heard urged, is that there should be only one nationality in one family. Having regard to the rights of men today, this argument hardly seems to me to be tenable. In essence it involves and postulates that the woman should be a subordinate partner in the marriage and should be the mere chattel of her husband—a doctrine which would surely not find favour to-day. The second objection taken is that it would be troublesome to accord protection abroad to the British-borne wife of an alien husband. I ask respectfully: Why should women be denied that particular privilege solely on the ground of their sex? A British man and his alien wife are given their passports and have at least that measure of protection afforded to them. Argentina gives to her women subjects abroad—I am quoting—"succour and aid from the representatives of the Republic." Is it really to be suggested that this country should lag behind the law and the practice of Argentina?
But, my Lords, I venture to think that the chief line of opposition to-day—and I shall not be surprised if I hear it in a few minutes from the Front Bench—will be based upon a plea for uniformity of nationality within tie British Empire. In other words, it is what we lawyers would term a dilatory plea and not a plea upon the merits. That was made quite plain in the debate which took place in your Lordships' House in 1933 by Viscount Sankey, the then Lord Chancellor, when he said:
"The reasons which prevent the Government from taking this matter up at the present time"—
that is the subject of the present Bill—
"are not reasons connected with the intrinsic advantages or disadvantages of the proposal. They are quite different reasons, based on the Imperial character of our nationality law, and on the impracticability, at the present time, of securing agreement on other points than those dealt with in this Bill."
Then the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, added in words which are, I venture, to think, significant to-day:
"I certainly hope to sec the day, at no distant time, when all these grievances"—
that is, the grievances which this measure seeks to remove—
"will be removed."
We are still waiting for the arrival of that day. The object of the present Bill, as
1134
I have indicated, is to place both sexes on the same footing in the eye of the law, and also to place the married woman in the same position in this regard as the unmarried woman.
May I with your Lordships' permission, examine just for a moment a little more closely the argument which the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, used in urging upon the House the acceptance of the Bill which was then promoted by His Majesty's Government? The argument is based on two things and two only. It is based, firstly, on the uniformity of nationality. It is based, secondly, on the importance of obtaining Imperial agreement as a condition precedent to this reform. With regard to the uniformity of nationality, that argument seems in my humble view to be no longer acceptable. If I am not misinformed, uniformity of nationality throughout the Empire no longer exists. There is nothing new in having British nationality recognised in one part of the Empire and not recognised in another part of the Empire. By the adoption of new legislation in New Zealand and Australia, rights of British nationality are being conferred on many women who are still aliens in other parts of the Empire. In short, it is eminently arguable that to-day uniformity has ceased to be a characteristic of British nationality.
Then, with regard to the consent of the Dominions, the second ground upon which Lord Sankey based his argument, I venture to say that it is anomalous and worse that this reform, approved and applauded by successive British Governments in the past time and again, should be held up until the last and most reactionary Dominion has come into line. It does seem to me unmaintainable that one Dominion of the British Empire should claim the right to veto the progress in this matter of all the other parts of the British Empire. I do not know in the least which Dominion or what Dominions is or are to-day holding up this reform. Information on that topic has hitherto been refused us. It was refused in another place during the debate on nationality which took place in 1933. What we do know is that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India favour this reform. Surely justice to women should not be subservient to a uniformity which is based on injustice. In that connection I would respectfully ask whether

1135
there was consultation with the Dominions when the Acts of 1844 and 1870 were passed—Acts which revolutionised the whole question of nationality.
But, assuming that I am wrong in all that I have said up to now, I still think that I am entitled to ask the Government, as I most respectfully do, what action they propose to take in order to give effect to a reform which in principle they in the past have applauded and described as just and right. Will the Government not take us into their confidence and tell us which Dominion or Dominions are in the meantime holding up this reform? That information, has, up till now, been denied this country. Do the Government, I respectfully ask, propose to sit with folded hands and let events drift, or will they not once again summon an Imperial Conference, put nationality in the forefront of the agenda, announce their policy, which has always been to reform the law in the direction which I have mentioned, and endeavour by argument to persuade the dissenting Dominions if there be such—and I assume there are—into line? In other words, will the Government not give a lead in this matter? If they do, for my own part I have little doubt that we should not have long to wait for the reform which is desired. Surely in a matter which involves a conflict of vital principle such as this it is better to be in the vanguard than the rearguard! I cannot imagine, if I may respectfully say so, a more eloquent gesture on the part of His Majesty's Government than by assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, even if it had added to it a suspensory clause, to the effect that it should not come into effective operation until the Dominions came into line. At any rate, I do beg that a lead should be taken by the Government in this matter to give effect to the policy which they have long approved and indeed applauded.
I come now for a moment to refer to the Bill itself and I do not propose to detain your Lordships by going through the clauses. Those of your Lordships who have looked at the Bill will see that it is prefaced by a Memorandum, which, it seems to me, fully explains the contents of the measure, in so far as it is necessary to do so on Second Reading, and all other points can be discussed quite properly at the Committee stage.
1136
I apologise to your Lordships for having detained the House so long in dealing with this measure. My only excuse must be the supreme importance which I conceive to be attached to it. In conclusion I venture without hesitation to submit for acceptance three propositions. The first is that to enjoy nationality in one's own person is a fundamental political right. The second is that nationality should not be imposed upon, nor taken away from, any adult citizen of either sex without the express consent of that person. The third is that to await, without effort to secure it, the concurrence of the Dominions in this matter would be a spineless, a pusillanimous and a defeatist policy, and I cannot for a moment think that His Majesty's Government would adopt it. I venture to think that these propositions are fully documented and unimpeachable. I earnestly ask the Government to reconsider their passive attitude in this vital matter and to take active steps to bring about a reform which all their Ministers who have addressed their minds to this matter in the past have approved and applauded, and which I venture to think commends itself to the good sense and the sense of fair play of every right-thinking man and woman. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Alness.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, for a moment or two I want to say a word on this very important measure on behalf of the Opposition. We support the general principles of this measure, and we hope very much that this House will give a Second Reading to the Bill. I personally regret very much that the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill has done it so very late in the Session, because of course it makes it, apparently, impossible that it can in fact get through this Session. I hope, however, that I may be mistaken in that view, and that whoever speaks for the Government will be able to give us an indication in that regard. But in any case I think to introduce a Bill of this importance at this very late stage, two or three days before the Recess, might conceivably make it appear that the Bill was not considered of that importance which I think it really possesses. In my opinion the Bill is of so great an

1137
importance that it is regrettable that it has come in so late.
The noble Lord mentioned particularly in his speech the question of the vetoing of legislation by the Dominions. I seem to remember that when we were debating in this House the Statute of Westminster in 1931 or 1932, it appeared to be the case that the Dominions might or might not adopt legislation introduced into this Parliament, either adopting it as introduced here, or, as in the case of the Union of South Africa, embodying such legislative proposals in their own law because of their non-recognition of any laws passed by the British Parliament in this country. I think it would be interesting if we could have from the representative of the Government just a word of what is the actual position with regard to the Dominions in this matter. If, of course, the position is as the noble Lord appeared to suggest: that any one Dominion can in fact veto legislation in the British Parliament here, that position would seem to be intolerable and, I should think, entirely unexpected. It would at least be interesting to know how the position stands.
The noble Lord said that he was only going to make a tabloid speech. I think it was a very digestible tabloid, if I may venture to say so, because he did give a most interesting and valuable historical survey of the position that we can now have on record. In particular he referred to some of the older debates on this subject of many years ago in both Houses, and suggested that no importance was at that time given to the nationality of British women who married foreigners—that it did not appear to be considered. It is, of course, conceivable that it was felt that so few British women would ever take such a lamentable step as to marry some foreigner that the number of cases was very small. But at least we must remember that it is almost normal in such few Royal families as remain in the world for foreign marriages to take place, and therefore we cannot dismiss as of negligible importance the marriages taking place between foreigners. In consequence it is of vital importance that the law should be put upon a just basis in connection with this matter.
The noble Lord suggested that this was in a way a reversion to the question of the private property in women, the chattel
1138
status of women. Of course I am bound to say it does appear in some way to follow that line of thought. I think, however, that men would desire to divest themselves of this responsibility for frequently undesirable or risky property over which they have little or no control, and that position in law has already been recognised by such legislative proposals as the Married Women's Property Act and other matters which have been dealt with in the British Parliament. In the United States of America a woman, of course, is considered a human being and can retain her American citizenship. She can also assume the nationality of the foreigner she marries, and the curious case arises that a number of American women who have married foreigners have two passports—a most useful situation in case of certain activities and very valuable to American women, but, as far as I know, not existing in the case of the women of any other nationality. In Britain the one case, apparently, as far as I know, in which British women do not assume the nationality of their husband is when that husband has no nationality. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, does laugh at that, and yet there are a considerable number of people in that position to-day.
EARL STANHOPE: I was only laughing at the suggestion that she should adopt a nationality which does not exist.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Earl explains his amusement, and I join with him in being amused. At the same time, I am not unaware of the tragedy of women who might even desire to assume a nationality did it exist. For example, there are a number of persons, such as Russian refugees, who are living in this country who hold only Nansen passports and therefore have no nationality. They are Stateless persons, and if a British woman marries one of these persons she does in fact retain her British nationality. That has been a very great difficulty in other countries. In France, for instance, there are a considerable number of cases of Stateless persons who are living illegally. When they many, the woman dare not announce her marriage, and any children born cannot be French citizens, as they would be normally, because were the child registered the legal position of the refugee

1139
would become apparent and he would be liable to be removed from the country under the position of the law which existed before the Décret de Loi of May 2 this year, which has to some extent regularised this position. But clearly the anomaly of certain cases in which a woman may retain British nationality on marrying an alien—if a Stateless person can be considered to be an alien in this connection—is a position which I think might be, in the interests of uniformity, cleared up.
We then have the position of a British woman who marries a foreigner and takes on his nationality and then is divorced, and I understand there are differing laws in different countries as to the unhappy position in which that woman finds herself. She cannot then retain the nationality of the country in which she finds herself, and as far as I understand the matter, she has a difficulty in returning to a British nationality. I hope I am wrong in that, but that is as I understand it. This peculiar position of obtaining nationality by marriage has led to a number of very curious anomalies. Take, for instance, the position in Palestine. In Palestine, it is interesting to note, there is the highest proportion of divorces in any country in the world, because a number of persons marry entirely to obtain nationality in that country, and they marry as a sort of arrangement. There are, I think, professional husbands there and, roughly speaking, 40 per cent. of all the people married are divorced within a year. They are married merely in order to obtain citizenship. This is a most undesirable state of affairs, and one which would be dealt with under the clauses of the present Bill.
A case which is nearer home, and which will be well within the minds of many of your Lordships, is the case of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. There a British woman who may have been a prominent and valuable member of Chatham House for many years marries a foreigner, and loses her right to remain a member. She is turned out. On the other hand there may be, from a British nationality point of view, quite undesirable people who marry people of British nationality, and then can become members of Chatham House, attend all its meetings, and even have
1140
access—I do not say it is necessarily abused, but access to information, statements and so on, which are not intended to be public property, but which by this means may become immediately available to other Powers. With the growth of espionage, and of undersirable foreign activities, in this and other countries, and notably in the United States of America, we do find a factor which should not be lost sight of when considering the present state of the law—a factor which would be cured, I think, if the present Bill were to be passed.
In this connection let me remind your Lordships of the new racial theories which are spreading over the world—the theory of retaining the nationality of a man's race when living in other countries. For instance, the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia. There may be a Department of State in Germany for the express purpose of looking after the interests of these Germans living in other countries, and that clearly brings about a state of some difficulty, owing to the divided loyalty in the case of a German woman who marries a British subject, and who has the pull of divided loyalty towards her previous German citizenship and towards her present British citizenship. It would be, I think, desirable to remove that danger and difficulty, which is felt very greatly in some of the mandated territories, such as, for instance, the ex-German South West Africa, in which the present state of the law renders the position difficult if not dangerous. For these reasons, as well as for the reasons adduced by the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill, I very much hope that it will be taken as a very serious measure, and that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading, although that may be only a preliminary to its subsequent reintroduction at an early date, and that the Bill will then pass into law.
LORD DICKINSON: My Lords, I hope you will pardon me if I detain you for a few moments on a subject with which I had considerable connection during the time I spent in another place. I agree that it is unfortunate that this Bill comes on so late in the Session, although that may be necessary from the point of view of the promoters. I am sorry that we shall not have the advantage of any observations from the Bench directly opposite me. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, had intended to speak, but owing

1141
to the alteration in date he is unable to do so to-day, having had to leave for some other public engagement. I think we are very grateful to Lord Alness for bringing forward this proposal on this occasion. I can assure your Lordships that there are thousands of women, I might say hundreds of thousands, who will be equally grateful, for although the effect of this measure will be comparatively small, it proceeds upon a principle to which women all over the world attach the greatest importance—namely, the principle that marriage shall not ipso facto deprive a woman of any of her rights as a citizen.
The most important right possessed by a British citizen is British nationality. He or she obtains it by being born in territory of the British Empire, and so long as he or she commits no offence no one can deprive him or her of that right. It is as complete as was the Roman citizenship of the Apostle Paul, and it is as valuable to us as that was to him. Yet since 1870 our law says that a woman, who commits no crime except that she marries a foreigner, thereby loses that right. Is there any sufficient reason for an act of such cruel discrimination? Personally, I can see none. I have read all the speeches made in this House and the other place on this matter. It has been discussed in Parliament on three or four occasions in recent years, and I have been able to find only one single instance in which the proposal to give a woman freedom to retain her nationality has been controverted on principle. In another place Sir Gerald Hurst, the Member for the Moss Side division of Manchester, argued at considerable length against it, but the whole of his argument was expressed in one sentence. He said:
"I think that when a woman marries a man it is best for them both that she should take his nationality. That was the reason why the change was made in 1870."
Sir Gerald was probably right in assigning this origin to the Act of 1870; but things have moved since then.
At that time a woman's property, on marriage, passed to her husband. In the absence of a settlement she lost control altogether over her own affairs. Moreover, in 1870, women had no political power, and so far as I have been able to learn no woman was consulted when a committee of lawyers proposed this
1142
immense alteration in the position of women. It was regarded by them as merely another step in the normal process of subjection to man, to which all women were expected to submit themselves. During the next forty years, however, these notions were rapidly dissipated, and in 1914, when Mr. Harcourt brought forward his British Nationality Bill, in which it was proposed to re-enact the provisions of 1870, women's associations on all sides protested, and those of us who represented the interests of women in the other place were able to obtain certain modifications in the Bill, which have proved to be of considerable importance. The Government agreed that if the British husband of a British-born wife ceases to be a British subject his wife may retain her British nationality. Also, if a British woman has married an alien and war breaks out between their respective States the wife may resume her British nationality. Furthermore, provision was made whereby in the case of death or dissolution of marriage a woman who was originally British can regain her former nationality.
These alterations, although not all that we desired, made an important breach in the wall of prejudice round the citadel, for if it be once admitted that a woman, on her husband becoming a foreigner, may remain British, there can surely be no objection to a woman on marrying a foreigner exercising a like option. And since then further breaches have been made in this indefensible structure, although we have not yet obtained full recognition of the simple proposition for which we contend. The leaders in this crusade have attacked, one after the other, the League of Nations, the Conference at The Hague and the Imperial Conference. They have also approached the various Governments and Parliaments of civilised countries and have obtained a very considerable measure of success. In the first place, the Hague Conference was induced to make certain important recommendations which have now been accepted and are embodied in the British Nationality Act of 1933. The most important of these is that which enacts that if a British woman on marrying a foreigner does not by the law of his country attain the nationality of her husband, she can retain her British nationality. This concession has affected many

1143
marriages between Canadian women and American men. The one partner is still British; the other still American. No evil results have accrued. The arrangement works well, and, if it does not work, it can easily be remedied by mutual consent of husband and wife. At any rate, it is another nail in the coffin of that antiquated corpse, the Act of 1870. What I may term a home circle with dual nationality has proved to be practicable and unobjectionable from any public point of view, and there is, I submit, no justification for depriving a British woman any longer of her rights, simply because she has committed the crime of falling in love with an American or a Frenchman. In these troublesome days I should have thought that such an Act might be regarded as one of real patriotism.
Secondly, although British Governments have shown themselves very lethargic in relation to this question, public opinion in the rest of the world is alive to its importance. Since it was first raised in connection with the legislation of 1914 the women's organisations in many States have pursued it with intense activity. My noble friend has told the House of a number of countries in which changes of law have been brought about through this agitation. It has even gone so far as to bring about a total change of opinion among Turkish men and women. I believe that we shall find that the Turkish women enjoy this right long before the British women have been given it by Parliament.
Then there is the Imperial Conference. This has already been twice trotted out as the bogey man in the way of any progress. The Government have said, and I am afraid will repeat to-day, that they have tried their best at two Conferences and found it impossible to obtain universal assent to the proposition we have advanced. The Government contend that as the law of naturalisation affects the whole Empire no change should be made unless it is accepted by every member. If this is to be an accepted principle, I fear that the Imperial Conference will prove to be an obstacle in the way of Imperial solidarity rather than a means of common progress: but I submit that this is all the more reason why His Majesty's Government should try by persuasion to
1144
alter the views of any dissentient member. I believe that if a serious attempt were made to urge the acceptance of the principle that a woman on marriage should be free to retain her own nationality, the Dominions would not hold out against it.
We have certain opinions already expressed on behalf of the principal Dominions. In 1932, in a letter from the Department of the Interior of the Australian Commonwealth, addressed to Mr. Nairn, he was informed that:
"in regard to the principle that a woman on marriage shall not lose her nationality or acquire another without her consent the Commonwealth Government is prepared to adopt that principle and to amend its laws accordingly, provided that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and in other self-governing Dominions agree to do likewise."
In New Zealand the Prime Minister said that if Britain made this alteration he would be willing to fall into line with her. As to Canada, the Honourable Hugh Guthrie, at the League of Nations Assembly of 1931, said:
"He believed that his own country would go as far as granting equal rights if the other countries of the world decided to do likewise. The sooner the equality of the sexes was realised, not only in nationality but in regard to all matters of law, the better it would be for the world."
With that approval of those three most important Dominions, surely it is not hopeless for our Government, if our Government chose, to throw their weight alongside those opinions which I have just quoted.
It is not unlikely that they would be able to convince the other Dominions who are hesitating upon this question up to the present moment. As a matter of fact, these Dominions are not waiting for any such consent, for we have in Canada, Australia and New Zealand already legislation which has been passed whereby British-born wives of aliens may retain their rights within those Dominions. They have not waited for unanimity, and I suggest that we need not wait either. If we would pass our own laws in that direction within our own territory I believe the time would very shortly come when all the Empire would rally to the same opinion. In any case, even though the Government should decline to do anything to-day, I hope they will not continue to bury their heads in the sand. May I just quote the words of the Report

1145
of the last Imperial Conference, to which I presume they put their signature? After referring to the discussion that had taken place on the enactment of legislation to provide that the nationality of married women should not necessarily be dependent on that of their husbands, the Report stated:
"It was not found possible to arrive at an agreement in favour of any change in the existing law. While, therefore, the Committee was unable to put forward any recommendations, it was assumed that the matter would be the subject of further consideration by, and consultation between, the respective Governments."
I think I am entitled to ask the Government most respectfully whether they have already given further consideration to this question, and whether any further consultation is going on.
I would join my request to that which has already been made by my noble friend, that there should be some opportunity given by the Government to those who are interested in this question to lay their views before them in sufficient time to prepare the ground for the next Imperial Conference. If Britain gives a definite lead, I am firmly convinced that this measure can be passed into law. I do not believe that any harm will be done even if we go a step or two in advance of one or two of our Colonies; and, as regards other countries, it is useless to wait for them inasmuch as in most of them the laws which regulate nationality are so radically different from those which prevail with us that they could not in any case be assimilated.
May I add one further observation so as to clear away an objection which is often raised in relation to Bills on this subject? People are wont to ask what provision is being made with regard to the nationality of the children. The answer is "None," because this is not the place for such a provision. The nationality of a child is regulated by laws that differ greatly in the different countries. In some places he takes the nationality of his father, in some that of his mother; in others, notably throughout the British Empire, he does not necessarily follow on that of either his father or his mother, but takes his British nationality from the soil on which he first sees the light. The mere fact that the law we are asking for would enable a British woman to retain her rights as a British subject can have very slight effect
1146
upon the ordinary nationality laws of children, and where it does affect them, they could easily be adjusted so as to meet the difficulty. Accordingly I hope I may once more quote the words used by the British Government in 1931, to the effect that the Government consider that in so far as nationality is concerned a married woman shall be in the same position as a man, married or unmarried, or any single woman. That was the announcement made on behalf of the Government which has been quoted by my noble friend, and we beg that they will act on that principle.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alness, who has moved the measure that stands in his name has explained quite fully to your Lordships the purport and intention of the Bill to which he invites the House to accord a Second Reading. Noble Lords will have read the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill, which is a generally accurate statement of the course that British legislation has taken on this question over a period of many years. The Bill, as the noble Lord himself has said, is designed to effect a very considerable alteration in the existing law. I should, in replying on behalf of the Government, like to confine my remarks to a general summary of the course of this subject during the last few years.
Firstly, it is generally admitted that the question of the nationality of married women has been a subject of controversy for a very long time between those people, on the one hand, who consider that a woman's nationality should not be affected by her marriage and those people, on the other hand, who consider that the possession of different nationalities by a husband and a wife is bound to impair the unity of the family. It is, as was stated by noble Lords in the course of this debate, a question which has come before successive Imperial Conferences, and so far we have not been able, nor has it been possible, to secure agreement on proposals for amending the law so as to give women a position more closely approximating to that of men. Your Lordships will know very well that the general principle laid down in the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act is, as I think was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, that the wife of a British subject

1147
shall be deemed to be British and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien; but for many years past there have been various exemptions from the principle. Your Lordships will recall that in 1933 an Act was passed providing that a woman should retain her British nationality on marriage to an alien if she did not, by reason of her marriage, acquire her husband's nationality.
The Imperial Conference of 1930, which discussed this question, placed on record these words which, with the permission of the House, I shall read:
"The Conference are satisfied that any proposals for the further modification of the principle of the existing law"—
that was the law of British nationality—
"would fail to secure unanimous agreement."
It is perfectly true to say that consultations took place during 1931 and 1932 in connection with the proceedings at Geneva, and that the United Kingdom delegate did make a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government in September, 1931. The purport of that statement has been mentioned to your Lordships, and I need not repeat it; but it was not made clear, as it should be, that it was stated by the Government that we in this country—that is, the Government—were not prepared to take any action in this matter in the absence of agreement between other members of the Empire.
As to my own views, I feel that if you have a large Empire containing many hundreds of millions of people, each owing common allegiance to the Crown, it is absolutely essential and vital that any legislation on a subject like this should be of a general character, agreed by all the members of the Empire, rather than be of a unilateral nature. If I may for one moment refer to the Act passed by your Lordships' House in 1933, the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, in introducing that measure used these words:
"However important such legislation might seem to those who are impressed, as many of us are, by the grievance which the existing law is liable to cause, the Imperial considerations are more important still, and legislation changing the principle can only be contemplated when such a change becomes acceptable to the Governments and Legislatures of the other members of the British Commonwealth."
This matter was again considered at the Imperial Conference of last year, and it
1148
was not found possible to arrive at an agreement in favour of any change in the existing law.
I should impress upon your Lordships that His Majesty's Government attach the very highest importance to the fact that there must be uniform legislation as regards the conditions governing the acquisition and the loss of the common status of British subject. I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that every sympathy will be felt by noble Lords with those women who desire to retain their British nationality and who are unable to do so under the existing law, but in the circumstances, and due to the circumstances, which I have indicated, we regret that we could not possibly see our way to support this Bill or to offer to my noble friend Lord Alness facilities for the passage of it. As I think was indicated in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1937, this subject is one for still further consultation between members of the Empire. I hope that my noble friend will observe that, while His Majesty's Government have every sympathy, we cannot depart from the course which I have indicated to your Lordships this evening, and I hope my noble friend will withdraw the Bill which stands in his name.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Alness replies, may I in a few sentences express my profound disappointment with the reply which has just fallen from the noble Earl who answered for the Government? He said that it was the conviction of His Majesty's Government that legislation in this matter must be universal and not unilateral. That would be all right if there was common agreement among all the Dominions that that principle should be adhered to, but some Dominions are going ahead and making a change. Why should His Majesty's Government lag behind? After all, this is a simple matter of justice, and it does seem to me very unfortunate indeed that His Majesty's Government should be so slow to accord that justice to people who are in very great need of it. I did not venture to address your Lordships before the noble Earl replied, because the case had been so admirably put from other quarters of the House and there was really nothing more to say. I rise now only in order to express, as I have said, my very profound disappointment with the

1149
Government's reply. I would like to add one word of congratulation to my noble friend Lord Alness for his very admirable speech. As the noble Lord opposite said, it seems now that that will be the only good thing we shall get out of this debate. At all events we shall have his statement on record, and it will provide a good reference for anybody who is interested in this subject. I very much regret that the noble Earl has not given a more sympathetic reply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I wish only to say that there is really nothing to be found out by making a further investigation. If the noble Lord who has just spoken really wants to investigate the subject he will find in the Report of the Select Committee which dealt with the matter, and which was ordered to be printed in 1923, not only a most interesting Report but also a good deal of evidence from people who have gone thoroughly into this matter. It will, I think, satisfy him that this is not a simple matter but one of very great difficulty which requires the greatest consideration. It is quite a mistake to think that it is a subject of a simple and easy character, or that the arguments in favour of the measure introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, are really incapable of an answer.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, perhaps you will permit me a few minutes in which to make one or two observations arising out of the debate that has taken place. In the first place, I want to thank the noble Earl for his very courteous reply, but I associate myself with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in expressing my extreme disappointment with the terms of the reply made on behalf of the Government. I was disappointed but not surprised, because the reply followed precisely the lines which I ventured to adumbrate and the arguments contained in it I attempted to meet in advance in the course of my speech. I quite realise, if I may say so, what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has just said, that this is not a simple subject. I ventured to make that the starting point in my argument and to impress upon your Lordships, not its simplicity, but its complexity. I have endeavoured to familiarise myself with the various historical steps taken in connection with
1150
this matter. I have read the Report which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has referred to, a very interesting and informative document, in which all the members of your Lordships' House voted one way and all the members of another place voted in the contrary sense. I do not want to weary your Lordships by reiterating the arguments which, I am afraid at too great a length, I have already presented to your Lordships' House. I will only say that at this stage of the Session and in the circumstances in which I find myself, I will not venture to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division. With the leave of the House I will withdraw my Motion for Second Reading.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, before the adjournment of the House I would like to state that as your Lordships know, there is a long Motion on the Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for discussion to-morrow. I understand that he has been in correspondence with my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, who proposes to reply to that Motion on Wednesday when he replies to other Motions on the Paper in regard to foreign affairs generally. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has agreed to that being done. I only make this statement now so that your Lordships will realise that there is not likely to be a long debate on Lord Davies's Motion to-morrow; at any rate there will be no reply to it then because that reply will be made on Wednesday. In regard to Wednesday, my noble friend Lord Elibank has agreed to ask your Lordships' leave to move his Motion after the Motion of my noble friend Lord Snell. Therefore the order of proceedings, if your Lordships agree to that, will be that the Bishop of Chichester's Motion in regard to post-War refugees will first of all take

1151
place, and my noble friend Lord Plymouth will reply to that. Then Lord Snell will move his Motion on general international affairs, and Lord Elibank will move his Motion in regard to China. Then the debate will take place on those two Motions, to which my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will reply at the end of the debate upon them.

AROON KUMAR SINHA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).
Ordered, That a Commission do issue to examine upon Oath viva voce Gobinda Mohini, Lady Sinha and such
1152
other persons as may be deemed necessary and to take down in writing their answers to the several questions set forth in several Interrogatories annexed to the Commission, and to report the same to the House: and that evidence taken before Mr. Justice Biswas, a Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, whom failing, Mr. S. M. Bose, Standing Counsel to the Government of Bengal, be evidence so taken as to comply with this Order of the House, for the purposes required by the Committee for Privileges on the Petition of Aroon Kumar Sinha praying for a Writ of Summons to Parliament.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.