Sitting of 27 July 1938

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

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. GRIMSTON) reported His Majesty's Answers to the Addresses, as follow:
I have received your Address praying that I will withhold My approval from the Fife Educational Trust Scheme, 1936, made under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1928, a copy of which scheme was presented to your House on the 26th day of May last.
I shall withhold My approval from the scheme in accordance with your advice.
I have received your Address praying that I will withhold My approval from the Perth and Kinross Educational Trust Scheme, 1936, made under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1928, a copy of which scheme was presented to your House on the 20th day of May last.
I shall withhold My approval from the scheme in accordance with your advice.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Isle of Arran Piers Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Order for Third Reading read.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Date when Closure moved, and by whom.

Question before House or Committee when moved.

Whether in House or Committee.

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Number for and against.

Mr. Kirkwood: Should I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in asking a question at this juncture regarding this Order Bill?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is not opposing the Third Reading of the Bill he may make a few remarks.
Mr. Kirkwood: I wish to get information. I desire to know whether the piers are going to be beneficial to the Duke of Montrose, who owns the island, and not to the islanders. Is it still going to be under the control of the Duke, and are the Government making the island more valuable for the Duke, and not for the inhabitants of the island?
Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for the Scottish Office.
Mr. Kirkwood: The only action that I can take in order to get the information I desire is to object to the Bill.
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS (RETURNS, ETC.).

  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 8.
  Return ordered,
  "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 8, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1937–38."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Return ordered,
  "respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1937–38 (1) in the House and in Committee of the Whole House, under the following heads:
  and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  Date when Closure moved, and by whom.

  Question before Committee when moved.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against."

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return ordered,
  "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1937–38:
  Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1937–38 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1937–38, have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member was summoned and on which each Member attended:
  And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered,
  "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1937–38; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent
  3072
  were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered,
  "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1937–38, with the total number of signatures in that Session."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a return be ordered,
  'of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1937–38, the Chairmen's Panel, and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance on witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees.' "—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
  Mr. Garro Jones: Will the Deputy-Chairman inform the House whether there are any new Motions on the Order Paper which are establishing a precedent? Particularly, I desire to be informed whether the 8th Motion (Standing Committees) is a new one.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): No, Sir. I think these are ordinary Sessional Orders. These are not printed as a normal rule, but the information is required for the officers of the House, and also for the Select Committees on Procedure when they are set up. It is merely to authorise the Clerk of the House to keep up the information.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY.
  Return ordered,
  "of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1937–38, stating for each day the date

  3073
  of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after 11 p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered,
  "for Session 1937–38 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: On a point of Order. In the event of so much time being taken with the business which you have just carried through, Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for you to extend the time allowed for Questions, in order to make up for it?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter which is within my power.
  Mr. Thorne: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of altering the Standing Orders so that Mr. Speaker will not be called upon to read out all these Motions?

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  DANZIG (HERR FORSTER).
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Herr Forster, the German Gauleiter of Danzig, is visiting this country; whether this visit has any diplomatic significance; whether interviews with responsible Ministers in His Majesty's Government are being accorded to Herr Forster; and what is the alleged purpose of this visit?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I understand that Herr Forster recently paid a short visit to this country. This visit was of a private nature and Herr Forster did not have any political discussions with members of His Majesty's Government.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Would it not be correct to say that the office held by Herr Forster is absolutely unofficial and nominal?
  Mr. Gallacher: Is there any reason for this epidemic of visits from Germany?
  Mr. Butler: With regard to the previous supplementary question, I shall require notice.
  Mr. Mander: Is it not a fact that Herr Forster is the real ruler of Danzig, under the German Government?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SWITZERLAND.
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of making representations to the German Government on the subject of their communication to the Swiss Government, arising from the decision of the Council of the League of Nations in respect of her obligations under Article 16 of the Covenant, suggesting that her neutrality now involves, so far as opposition to Nazi ideas are concerned, Press consorship and permission for the development of the Nazi parties and Gestapo in Switzerland?
    Mr. Butler: I am not aware that any such communication has been addressed to the Swiss Government. This question, if I understand the hon. Member correctly, is not one in which His Majesty's Government could intervene.
    Mr. Mander: May I ask whether the Government accept the German definition of neutrality as outlined in the question?
    Mr. Butler: I found some difficulty in finding out what the hon. Member had in mind.
    Mr. Mander: May I call the hon. Member's attention to the communication to which I refer?
    Mr. Butler: I will certainly further investigate the hon. Member's elucidation of his question.

    BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Prime Minister whether the states of Bolivia and Paraguay are members of the League of Nations; whether he can give any information in connection with the dispute between the two states; whether this dispute has been reported to the League; and whether any efforts have been made to settle it?
    Mr. Butler: In reply to the first part of the question, Bolivia is a member of the League of Nations. Paraguay gave notice of her intention to withdraw from the League on 24th February, 1935, and confirmed this intention on 19th February, 1937. In reply to the second part, a peace treaty was on 21st July initialled ad referendum to their respective Governments by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Paraguay. Among its other provisions the treaty includes a non-aggression pact which is to be signed "under the auspices and moral guarantee" of the mediatory nations. The reply to the third and fourth parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Thorne: Would it not be a good thing if other nations would settle their differences in the same way as these two nations?
    Mr. Butler: Certainly, Sir.

    CHINA (ANTI-EPIDEMIC WORK).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the spread of disease and epidemics in China, His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of increasing its grant for the health work undertaken under the auspices of the League of Nations?
    Mr. Butler: This matter will, I understand, be considered by the Council Committee for Technical Collaboration with China at its next meeting. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will be prepared to give their most sympathetic consideration to any proposals for the continuance of this anti-epidemic work in China by the League.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that the hon. Member will support any proposal to increase the grant for these purposes?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may rest assured that the question would receive most sympathetic discussion and collaboration.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Seeing that many of the League of Nations hospitals in China have been destroyed by Japanese aircraft, will the Government consider increasing the grant at once?
    Mr. Butler: We will consider the position very favourably.

    CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what representations have recently been made by the British Minister in Prague on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the Czechoslovakian Government in relation to the Sudeten-German problem?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement concerning the recent conversations between His Majesty's Minister in Prague and the head of the Czech Government?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Members to the statement which I made on this subject in my speech yesterday, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Mander: Did these representations include the suggestion that a British subject should go out and act in the position of alleviator in Prague?
    The Prime Minister: I dealt with the point in my speech yesterday.
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to send a special representative to Czechoslovakia to advise the Government in their negotiation with the Sudeten Deutsch; and, if so, what are the terms of his appointment?
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on this subject yesterday.
    Sir P. Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Noble Lord is going in a private capacity?
    The Prime Minister: I made a statement on the subject in the House yesterday.
    Mr. Bellenger: If the Government have any representations to make to the Czechoslovakian Government, will they make them through their own representative or through Lord Runciman?
    The Prime Minister: If the Government have any representations to make we shall make them through our own representative.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the progress of negotiations between the Czechoslovak Government and the Sudeten-German and other minorities over the proposed nationalities statute; and, in view of our special interest in the welfare of these minorities arising from the Treaty of St. Germainen-Laye, whether he is satisfied that the proposed statute fulfils the pledges as to the status and welfare of the minorities in Czechoslovakia contained in the Benes memorandum of 1919?
    The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made yesterday. His Majesty's Government have not yet seen the text of the proposed statute, and I cannot, therefore, express any opinion regarding its contents.
    Mr. De Chair: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the request of the Sudetan Germans to join the Austrian Republic in 1919 was turned down by the Peace Conference on the promise contained in the Benes memorandum that autonomy would be given to this minority, and will he, therefore, make representations to the Czechoslovakian Government to see that this pledge is at long last fulfilled?

    SPAIN.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what replies have been received from the Spanish Government and the Spanish Insurgent authorities, respectively, to the submission on behalf of the Non-Intervention Committee of the scheme for the withdrawal of foreign nationals now serving in Spain?
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on this subject made in the course of the Debate last night.
    Mr. Henderson: Can the Prime Minister tell the House when the Non-Intervention Committee are likely to meet? I understand that they are not to meet until replies have been received?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot say. I understand that they are releasing the Spanish Government's reply to-morrow morning for publication.
    Miss Rathboneasked the Prime Minister whether the composition of the proposed Commission to investigate the bombing of civilian populations has yet been decided on; whether the Spanish Government and the Burgos authorities have agreed to the proposal; and when it is expected that the Commission will be able to begin its operations?
    Mr. Butler: The Commission will consist of two British subjects, the one a retired officer of the Royal Air Force and the other a serving officer in the Royal Artillery. We are awaiting a final reply from the Spanish Government, and are considering a request of General Franco's administration that the scope of its inquiries should be widened, but it is hoped that the date of their departure will not be long delayed.
    Miss Rathbone: In view of the fact that it is more than two months since His Majesty's Government's intention of arranging for some Commission was put forward, and in view of the great importance of securing impartiality, cannot the Government ask the French Government to appoint someone to the Commission?
    Mr. Butler: I do not think we can reopen the question of the membership of this Commission at this stage.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the hon. Member give some indication as to the direction in which the Burgos authorities desire the scope of this inquiry to be widened?
    Mr. Butler: The Burgos authorities wish the scope to be widened to include assassinations and barbarities not connected with air raids.

    AUSTRIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Prime Minister whether arrangements have been agreed with the Government of Germany to enable British subjects, formerly resident in Austria and who now wish to live in Great Britain, to transfer the proceeds of their Austrian property to British currency?
    Mr. Butler: British subjects formerly resident in Austria who wish to transfer money abroad from former Austrian territory can do so on the same conditions as British subjects wishing to transfer money from any other part of Germany.
    Sir A. Knox: Does the hon. Member realise that a constituent of mine lately resident in Austria has communicated with the Foreign Office, and while receiving a sympathetic reply, was told that he stood to lose 85 per cent. of his property? In view of the fact that there are some 40,000 Germans resident in this country, could not inquiries be made with a view of securing a degree of reciprocity?
    Mr. Butler: I have had some correspondence with the hon. and gallant Member on this particular case, and I would call his attention to the fact that there are provisions in cases of special hardship and certain new provisions under the terms of the recent Transfer Agreement with Germany.
    Mr. Riley: Can the hon. Member say what are the conditions under which British nationals can transfer property?

    CHINA AND JAPAN.
    Sir John Haslamasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any further information in connection with the importation into Macao of Iranian opium designed for the Japanese authorities for distribution and sale to the Chinese; and, if so, whether he will state its nature?
    Mr. Butler: I have received no information with regard to the consignment in question other than Press reports of the speech made by the United States delegate at the session of the Opium Advisory Committee on 21st June.
    Sir J. Haslam: Cannot the Government do something to suppress this abominable trade? It looks as though it is being done with a deliberate object by the Japanese?
    Mr. Butler: In answer to a previous question I have said that His Majesty's Government have this matter in mind.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Does not the hon. Member know that His Majesty's Government can do nothing with the Japanese Government?
    Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister particulars of the reply received by His Majesty's Government to the protest made to the Japanese relative to their occupation of British-owned works at Shanghai?
    Mr. Butler: I am not yet in a position to make any statement in this matter.
    Mr. Day: Do the Government recognise the right of the Japanese Government to take possession of British property in the International Settlement?
    Mr. Butler: That is precisely the question under consideration, and that is why we have made representations.
    Mr. Day: How many cases have there been of this nature?

    SPANISH REFUGEE CHILDREN.
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any reports of the work of the International Commission for assisting child refugees in Spain; whether he is satisfied that the funds of the Commission are adequate to the magnitude of its task; and whether His Majesty's Government can give further assistance to the work of the Commission in view of the urgency of the need?
    Miss Rathboneasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that the fund at the disposal of the International Commission which is assisting to feed refugee children in Spain will only suffice for a small proportion of the children urgently needing assistance and is approaching exhaustion, His Majesty's Government will make a further grant for this purpose?
    Mr. Butler: I have received a report on this subject from the Commission, who represent the urgent need of further funds, and request His Majesty's Government to make a further contribution. This request is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Harvey: In view of the assistance given by His Majesty's Government to the Commission's work at the outset, will they be willing to consider again approaching other Governments with a view to further collaboration?
    Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government realise the importance of this problem,

    3081
    and that is why these further requests for increased contributions are receiving consideration.
    Miss Rathbone: Have not the British Government a special responsibility in the matter in view of the fact that these people would not have been in their present plight if it had not been for the policy of His Majesty's Government?

    AERIAL WARFARE.
    Mr. Harveyasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the official declaration by the Secretary of State of the United States of America on 3rd June last, that his Government are prepared to join with other nations in resuming and carrying forward the work begun at The Hague two generations ago; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to support the convocation of a third Hague conference in accordance with the proposal of the second Hague conference in 1907?
    The Prime Minister: As I informed the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 16th June, His Majesty's Government are aware of the observations of Mr. Cordell Hull referred to, and they are always ready to co-operate with other nations in seeking an agreement to humanise the rules and practices of warfare. But for the reasons which I gave to the same hon. Member on 11th July I am not at present able to make any further statement.

    ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT.
    Captain Alan Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the delay in bringing into effect the AngloItalian Agreement in regard to the Mediterranean, he will convey to the Royal Italian Government the reaffirmation of this country's loyal and abiding friendship for Italy?
    Mr. Butler: As the House is aware, His Majesty's Government have, in recent months, consistently given proof of their anxiety to re-establish on a solid basis the traditional friendship between this country and Italy, and I do not think that any such reaffirmation as is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member is needed.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a definite pledge that the House will be summoned if, during the Recess, the settlement of the Spanish question, contemplated by the Anglo-Italian Agreement is reached?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I could not go so far as to give a definite pledge about conditions which have not yet arisen and may not arise.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will not be put in the position of having to discuss this Agreement weeks after it has begun to operate?
    The Prime Minister: That is the same question in another form.
    Sir J. Haslam: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the majority in this House and in the country can trust the Cabinet?

    NAVAL EXPENDITURE (PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to pages 12 to 17 of the second report from the Committee of Public Accounts; can he make a statement on the matters raised; and what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition of the charges made by the committee?
    Mr. Kennedyasked the First Lord of the Admirality whether he will account for the difference between the first estimated cost of the conversion of the former liner "Majestic" to serve as a temporary training establishment at Rosyth, and the final net cost, including the purchase price, which increased from £150,000 to £612,056?
    Mr. Lyonsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the large differences between the estimates for, and the actual costs of, converting the "Vulcan" and "Majestic"; whether he can explain why these differences arose; whether any and what unexpected expenditure became necessary; and whether he will take steps to prevent any such future disparities in such estimates?
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer the hon.

    3083
    Members to the reply given yesterday to questions on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which, I think, the House will not wish me to add anything at present.
    Commander Marsden: Before purchasing this obsolete ship made in Germany, did the Government consider the erection of permanent buildings, and, if so, what would have been the cost?
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the number of persons accommodated in the ship?
    Mr. Cooper: That hardly arises out of the question. As I have already stated, it would not be correct until the matter has been before the Public Accounts Committee, as provided for by a Treasury Minute, to make any statement on the subject.

    COLONIES (LABOUR PROBLEMS, REPORTS).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received reports from all the Colonial Governments on the subject of the circular sent to them last summer by his predecessor dealing with labour problems, trade union rights, and the establishment of labour departments and inspectorates; whether such information has been examined and collated; and whether it will be issued for the information of Parliament?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The replies to the circular despatch, which are not yet quite complete, are being considered as and when they are received, and I am in communication with a number of Colonial Governments in regard to specific questions raised. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman be issuing a White Paper setting out, for the information of the House, all that has been done in the territories in respect of labour matters?
    Mr. MacDonald: A good deal of that information was contained in the survey which was prepared and published by my predecessor. I will consider whether anything further is necessary at the present time.

    COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (AGRICULTURE).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the assistance approved of £45,815, in the year ended March, 1936, for agricultural development in the Colonies from the Colonial Development Fund is to be devoted mainly to the assistance of native or European agriculture, or to what extent to the assistance of each?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not quite certain how the hon. Member has arrived at the total of £45,815, but it appears to include schemes relating to a variety of territories to a number of which the antithesis between European and native agriculture is inapplicable. In the remainder, it is impossible to determine the relation between the benefits derived by the two sections of the population, both of whom will gain.
    Mr. Adams: May I take it that there will be no discrimination between the non-European and the European population in the disposal of these funds?
    Mr. MacDonald: Certainly, there will be no discrimination whatever.

  WEST INDIES.

    UNIVERSITY GRADUATES.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many students from the British West Indies have graduated at universities in the United States of America in each of the last 10 years; and how many such students have graduated at universities in Great Britain in the same years?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I regret that I have not the information for which the hon. Member asks.
    Mr. Adams: Could not that information be obtained very simply?
    Mr. MacDonald: I do not think it could be obtained for past years at any rate, and I think any information which we could get for the present year would be rather unreliable.

    JAMAICA.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make concerning the situation in Jamaica, especially as to the enrolment of special

    3085
    constables and their equipment with rifles and the cancellation of police leave in anticipation of disorders on 1st August?
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement on the condition of Jamaica, in view of the apprehension felt in regard to the good order of the Colony; and whether he is able to make any statement regarding the proposed inquiry into the recent disturbances and the conduct of those responsible for order in the Colony?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The Government of Jamaica are pursuing steadily their plans for improving social and economic conditions in the Island, but I am aware that some anxiety prevails with regard to the celebrations which are to be held in connection with the centenary of emancipation on 1st August. It is suggested that these may provide an opportunity for a recrudescence of the recent unhappy disturbances, especially in view of rumours, which have been officially denied, that on that day land will revert to the peasants. The Colonial Government have taken due precautions. Special constables have been enrolled and equipped. I have seen a report in the Press regarding the cancellation of police leave, but have received no official confirmation of this. I hope and believe that the people of Jamaica will maintain good order on their day of celebrations. As regards the inquiry into the recent disturbances, I understand that this is now proceeding, though I have not yet had official confirmation of this.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Minister consider making some official proclamation from London with a view to allaying the very considerable apprehension among these people as far as the centenary celebrations are concerned, and will he also note the considerable apprehension that is felt as to the way in which the disturbances which took place a few months back were quelled and the conduct of the police on that occasion?
    Mr. MacDonald: With regard to the first part of the question, if anything additional is required, I shall certainly be prepared to do it. I will consider the matter. With regard to the second part, all sorts of charges are always made on such occasions. I am certain that the great majority of them, if not all, are unfounded, but in any case, as I said in the answer, an
    3086
    inquiry is now being conducted into the facts.
    Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider the question of an amnesty for the persons who were arrested?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have already said in answer to a previous question that that is a matter for the Governors of the Colonies concerned.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there are rumours circulating that seamen arriving there are being enrolled as special police, and that I have seen letters to that effect?

    ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS (COMMISSION).
    Miss Cazaletasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will include a woman on the Commission which he is setting up to investigate the economic and financial conditions in the West Indies?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

    BRITISH HONDURAS.
    Mr. McGheeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Director of Colonial Audit will visit British Honduras in the course of his next visit to the West Indies?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Nothing has yet been settled as regards a further visit to the West Indies by the Director of Colonial Audit.
    Mr. McGheeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to ascertain the extent of unemployment in British Honduras?
    Mr. MacDonald: According to my latest information from the Governor, unemployment is not now a serious problem in British Honduras; but the question of compiling unemployment returns will be among the subjects which will be discussed with the Governor by my Labour Adviser during his forthcoming visit to the West Indies.

  KENYA.

    AFFORESTATION.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Government of Kenya

    3087
    to preserve the existing forests in native reserves and to encourage reafforestation and tree-planting in these areas?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Efforts are being made by propaganda, instruction and the planting of demonstration plots to impress the natives with the importance of this matter. Local native councils are encouraged to maintain tree nurseries and to distribute plants. Progress is being made with the demarcation of the areas already declared to be forest reserves and efforts are also being made to persuade the local native councils concerned to agree to further areas of forests being brought under the direct control of the Forest Department.
    Mr. Mathers: Is any financial assistance being given to help in that very important work?
    Mr. MacDonald: I should like to have notice of that.
    Mr. Robert Gibson: What is the type of timber? Is it valuable?
    Mr. MacDonald: Again, I should like to have notice of that.

    SOIL EROSION AND CONSERVATION.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which of the native reserves in Kenya soil erosion is considered to be serious; and what steps are being taken for the reclamation of the eroded areas and for the protection of other areas which are threatened with erosion?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Soil erosion is a serious problem in most of the native reserves in Kenya; it is particularly bad in parts of the three Kavirondo districts of the Nyanza Province, in West Suk, Elgeyo, Kamasia, Samburu, Kitui, Machakos and the lower areas of Fort Hall and Embu.
    As regards the second part of the question, I regret that it is impossible, within the scope of a reply to a Parliamentary question, to give any adequate account of the steps which are being taken to deal with the problem. These
    3088
    include instruction in, and demonstrations of the value of, such measures as terracing, gully stopping, contour ploughing, planting of trees and grass, control of grazing and the building of dams; and the natives are encouraged to undertake these and a variety of other remedial and protective measures under the supervision of district and agricultural officers. In one district alone no less than £1,500 a year is being spent by the local native council on such measures. For the purpose of preparing and supervising the execution of comprehensive plans for the reconditioning of badly eroded areas, a Soil Conservation Service, consisting of an agricultural officer and an engineer, has been established. Land utilisation surveys has already been made in four of the reserves and preliminary reports have been received of two others. With the assistance of a free grant of £10,000 and a loan of £24,000 from the Colonial Development Fund an intensive programme of work is being carried out in the Machakos district, and the opportunity is being taken to train native instructors from all parts of the Colony.
    Steps are being taken to reduce the numbers of cattle in this area in conformity with the carrying capacity of the land, and in other areas rules are being issued to enforce a simple system of grazing control.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are taken by the Government of Kenya to ensure that the principles of land conservation are taught in Government schools and in all mission schools which receive Government grants?
    Mr. MacDonald: An illustrated booklet on soil conservation has been prepared by the Kenya Soil Conservation Service, in consultation with the Education Department, for use in native schools. It will be issued in Swahili and three vernacular languages in addition to the English version which has already been published In Government elementary schools particular emphasis is laid on the teaching of the elements of agriculture, a school garden and tree nursery being often provided.
    Mr. Paling: Will they also teach the Africans that they have no right to have their land taken away from them for the benefit of Europeans?
    Mr. David Grenfellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the consequences of cutting down natural growth and the serious damage done by soil erosion in Kenya Colony, he will represent to the Governor that, before giving authority to cut bamboo on the Aberdare mountains, he should inquire how far soil erosion may be caused by cutting down the natural protection of soil on this area?
    Mr. MacDonald: I can assure the hon. Member that this matter has already been engaging the attention of the Government of Kenya, and that effective steps will be taken to ensure that the development of the bamboo area is conducted in such a manner as not to cause soil erosion.
    Mr. Grenfell: What guarantee has the right hon. Gentleman, and what is the basis of his confidence, that these instructions will be carried out, and what special methods are to be adopted to prevent the recurrence of the excessive cutting which has led to so much erosion and has prejudiced so greatly the interests of the natives?
    Mr. MacDonald: I understand that, as far as this proposal is concerned, licences are to be issued, and that proper safeguards will be contained in those licences.

    MAIZE ADVANCES.
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a reply from the Governor of Kenya Colony on the question of the repayment, whether as regards capital or outstanding interest, of the £81,000 lent to European farmers in the form of maize advances?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir.

    HIGHLANDS (NATIVE RIGHTS).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any date has yet been fixed for the issue of the Order-in-Council on the highlands and reservations in Kenya; and whether it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government to extinguish native rights in the highlands and to dispossess certain of the African people of their ancestral lands?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not yet in a position to say when these Orders-in-Council will be issued. As regards the
    3090
    second part of the question, there has been no change in the policy of His Majesty's Government as indicated in Command Paper No. 4580 of 1934.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Minister give special attention to the new Ordinance, and will he consider particularly Section 70 of that Ordinance, whereby it is definitely proposed to extinguish the rights of natives, particularly the rights of natives going back for many generations?
    Mr. MacDonald: As far as that is concerned, there has been no change in His Majesty's Government's policy. It has been very carefully considered by the Government, and also discussed in the House.

  PALESTINE.

    RAILWAYMEN (RETIREMENT GRATUITY).
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is a considerable unrest among Palestine Government railwaymen owing to the inadequate amount of gratuity paid on retirement from the service; and whether he intends to adopt the recommendation made by the High Commissioner in June, 1935, that in future on retirement the men be granted two weeks' pay instead of one for each year of service?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I have no recent information on this subject and I am asking the High Commissioner for a report. I will communicate with the hon. Member when I receive the reply.
    Mr. Dobbie: In view of the promises that were made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, will he be prepared further to review the situation in the light of certain knowledge with which I am prepared to furnish him?
    Mr. MacDonald: I should be glad to receive any information that the hon. Member has. It might be wise perhaps to await first the report from the High Commissioner, for which I am asking, and with which I will furnish the hon. Member when it arrives.

    TERRORISM.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information in connection with the bomb outrage at Haifa, when 35 people

    3091
    were killed and 50 wounded on Monday last; what is the estimated damage done to property; and whether anyone was arrested?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement concerning the most recent terrorist outrages in Palastine?
    Sir P. Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement on the present position in Palestine, especially as to the riots and serious loss of life on Monday, 25th July?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Early on the morning of 25th July a bomb exploded in the Arab vegetable market in Haifa. Subsequently there was some shooting and stone-throwing, and an Arab crowd began attacking Jewish shops. A curfew was imposed on the mixed quarters of the town, and troops and marines co-operated with the police in maintaining order. The total casualties during the day were 45 Arabs and four Jews killed, 45 Arabs and 13 Jews wounded. I have no information as to the extent of damage to property, nor as to any arrests made. Other recent incidents include the explosion of a bomb in an unattended car in a Tel Aviv street on 23rd July, as the result of which 23 Jews were injured; and three attacks on Jewish lorries in the north of Palestine resulting in the death of two Jewish Supernumerary Police and another Jew. A curfew has been imposed in Jenin, following the shooting of an Arab constable on 23rd July. My latest report from the High Commissioner, received this morning, states that there were no major incidents in Palestine during the previous 24 hours, and that Haifa was quiet.
    Sir P. Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these forces are large enough to deal with the difficult problems now existing in Palestine; and if not, will he consider increasing the police force rather than adding to the number of troops?
    Mr. MacDonald: We are at present engaged in recruiting 236 extra British police. They will proceed to Palestine as soon as they are recruited.
    Mr. Thorne: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show who is
    3092
    supplying the arms and munitions for the purpose of carrying on these outrages?
    Mr. MacDonald: We have no further information regarding that.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have all the requests received from the authorities in Palestine in connection with these outrages been complied with; have all the reinforcements which were asked for been sent, and is it proposed to incur more expenditure in the construction of the roads which are necessary for military operations?
    Mr. MacDonald: All the requests that have been received have been complied with at once, or as soon as was physically possible. In regard to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, the building of roads in the difficult territories is proceeding as rapidly as possible.
    Captain Cazalet: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the bomb thrown in Haifa was of a different character from those used in other outrages? Does he know anything about the nature and character of this bomb or its origin?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have no definite information regarding its origin. The only information which I have is information which has appeared in the Press. It seems to suggest, from an examination of the dead bodies, that the contents of the bomb were such that it must have been of crude local manufacture.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the Government's policy that is responsible for all this?

    WEST AFRICA (COCOA INDUSTRY).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement respecting an approximate date when a report may be expected from the Commission now investigating the West African cocoa industry; and whether there is likely to be an interim report?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The Commission hope to be able to present their report to me during August. A certain amount of time will be required for printing and for transmission to West Africa, so that the report may be published there and in London simultaneously. It is hoped that publication will take place early in September. There will be no interim report.
    Mr. Sorensen: May we receive an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the contents of this report will be available to Members during the Recess?
    Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

    GIBRALTAR (CHIEF JUSTICE'S STATEMENT).
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the conduct of the Chief Justice of Gibraltar who, whilst sitting in court on 24th June last, made charges of breaches of the Carriage of Munitions to Spain Act, which proved afterwards to be unfounded, against a firm of shipowners who were not parties to the case before him; and whether he will consult with the Governor of Gibraltar, with a view to holding an inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I have seen a report of the case to which the hon. Member refers. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. Paling: Is it not the fact that other cases in which this company is involved may come before the very judge who has made these comments; and is it fair or for the benefit of the administration of justice in Gibraltar that such a judge should try such cases?
    Mr. MacDonald: It is no part of my duty to comment on the observations made by judges in carrying out their duties. With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I am not aware of those facts, but I shall look into the matter.
    Mr. Paling: If a judge makes such comments as were made in this case which were clearly unfounded—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make charges of that kind.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: To which Member of the Government may questions be put as to the responsibility for allowing this baseless allegation to be made against this firm of shipowners?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have been asked a question with regard to this matter and
    3094
    I have answered it. If there are other questions which hon. Members want to put down let them be put down and I will consider them.
    Mr. Paling: Has the Minister himself considered very carefully the statements that have been made?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have read the Press report and have considered that report very carefully.
    Mr. Paling: Has the Minister not received a report—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot spend any more time on this question.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the Royal Commission that is to consider the Workmen's Compensation Act and the effect of accidents and industrial diseases on the lives of the people, and can he announce the names of the Commission and their terms of reference; and what action is to be taken with regard to the Departmental Committee's report with special reference to miners' nystagmus, medical examinations, certificates, and lump sum settlements?
    The Prime Minister: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add to the answers which I gave on 21st July to questions by the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).

    VAN ZEELAND REPORT.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make known the Government's conclusions with regard to the van Zeeland Report?
    The Prime Minister: In the circumstances explained by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the course of the Debate on the Board of Trade Vote on 15th June last, the view of the Government is that action in the direction of following up the recommendations made by M. van. Zeeland must be deferred for the time being. The situation will, however, be kept under review.

  DEFENCE.

    TRADE UNION CO-OPERATION.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will state the date on which he first approached the trade unions for co-operation in armament production; the results obtained up to the present time; and what further action is contemplated?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I first wrote to the unions on this subject on 18th March. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 5th July. This substantially represents the present position.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that the 39 trade unions concerned have recently expressed the view that no action is necessary; and, in view of the complete failure of the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations, will he be good enough to say what he proposes to do now?
    Sir T. Inskip: The resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was passed by one of these bodies—the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades—and I had observed that fact.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister in a position to inform the House that, as far as the shipbuilding and engineering operatives are concerned, they are, up to the moment, giving him every satisfaction?
    Sir T. Inskip: Not only the shipbuilding operatives, but all workmen engaged upon the rearmament programme, have worked magnificently.

    MACHINE TOOL MANUFACTURE.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence when the Government formed a committee to supervise the manufacture of machine tools; and what is its personnel?
    Sir T. Inskip: I have maintained constant touch with the Machine Tool Trades Association since the outset of the rearmament programme, but I am not aware of the existence of such a supervisory committee as the hon. Member mentions. In the circumstances, the second part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. Smith: I hope we shall not have any stone-walling on this question. Is
    3096
    it a fact that a consultative committee has been set up by the machine tool manufacturers, and, if so, has the right hon. Gentleman been in touch with them?
    Sir T. Inskip: I am not aware of any advisory or consultative committee at all. I have given the hon. Gentleman a very plain answer that I have been in touch with the Machine Tool Trades Association from the beginning of my occupancy of my office.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Minister aware that there is an unco-ordinated demand by aircraft manufacturers and other manufacturers upon the limited number of machine tool manufacturers, with the result that prices are going up out of all proportion to the true value of the article?
    Sir T. Inskip: There has, of course, been a heavy demand upon the manufacturers of machine tools, but there has been a great deal of co-ordination with the help of the Machine Tool Trades Association and the manufacturers concerned.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is not the Minister aware that in spite of that alleged coordination, individual manufacturers are going behind the backs of the co-ordinators and inducing machine tool makers to give them priority by offering increased prices for the supply of machine tools?
    Sir T. Inskip: I am not aware of any such cases. If the hon. Member has any information to give me, I shall be very glad to consider it.

    NORTHERN RHODESIA (COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Northern Rhodesia has completed his consideration of the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the financial and economic position of Northern Rhodesia; and, if so, what action does he propose to take?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am informed that the Northern Rhodesian Government is in general agreement with the recommendations made in the report for the expansion of social services and that concrete proposals for carrying them into effect are being prepared.
    Mr. Paling: Is immediate action going to be taken to deal with the terrible situation of these people who have no medical facilities whatever, as shown in the report?
    Mr. MacDonald: Proposals are now being prepared, and they will be carried into effect at the earliest possible moment.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    REJECTED APPLICANTS.
    Sir William Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any medical statistics are available to show how many airmen, boys, or pilots are rejected on medical grounds due to malnutrition?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I regret that there are no such statistics available.

    OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS (MAJOR VERNON).
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) in view of the fact that Major Vernon has chosen to make his representations concerning his dismissal as an individual and through the staff side of the National Whitley Council, and that it is common in cases of this kind when an appeal is made for the appellant to be accompanied by a friend or advocate, whether, if representatives of the national staff side can be received by the Minister, there will be any difficulty in including Major Vernon in the deputation, thus fufilling the technical requirements;
    (2) in view of the fact that the refusal to receive a deputation of the staff side of the National Whitley Council on the Vernon case is based in the main on the proviso that the grounds on which the appeal is made must be given in writing beforehand, whether he is aware that the staff side, which is handling this case, wishes to lay before him oral and not written evidence; and what is the reason why such oral evidence cannot be accepted to justify the reception of the deputation?
    Sir K. Wood: In the reply which he gave on my behalf on 18th July, the Under-Secretary of State explained that I felt unable to receive a deputation from the staff side of the National Whitley Council in this matter because the recognised procedure already provided ample
    3098
    facilities for representations to be made; and I see no reason to alter my decision.

    FACTORIES, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any sites have been surveyed or inspected in or near Glasgow, with a view to establishing factories for the production of aircraft or component parts?
    Sir K. Wood: As the hon. Member is probably aware, a factory has been established at Dumbarton by the Blackburn Aeroplane Company and William Denny and Brothers in conjunction. Consideration will be given to the possibility of locating in Scotland any further factories required for the production of aircraft or component parts, but no inspection of sites has yet been carried out.
    Mr. Davidson: Have any representations been made to the right hon. Gentleman on this question by the Glasgow Council?
    Sir K. Wood: I could not say without notice.

    RECRUITS (TRAINING, SCOTLAND).
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that the present facilities of air squadrons now established in Scotland are sufficient to ensure the efficient training of recruits now enlisting in Scotland?
    Sir K. Wood: Airmen, wherever enlisted, proceed for training, before they are posted to squadrons, to depots or other training establishments, and the organisation and location of these establishments have to be determined by regard to the needs of the Royal Air Force in its entirety. It would not be practicable to provide special establishments for training of recruits enlisted in Scotland.
    Mr. Davidson: What percentage of recruits in Scotland now joining the Royal Air Force are transferred outside of Scotland because of the lack of training facilities?
    Sir K. Wood: I will inquire and let the hon. Member know.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: May I ask to which air squadron the hon. Gentleman who asks the question is attached?
    Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. May I say that I consider the remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as an insult, and that I am prepared to place before the House my record of service for the country along with his without any fear?

    MR. D. C. GUISE.
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will have inquiries made regarding the case of Mr. D. C. Guise, late Royal Air Force, Royal Air Force No. 536,868?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. De la Bére: May I take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend?

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    TRANS-ATLANTIC FLIGHTS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the success of the Mayo composite aircraft in its trans-Atlantic flight on 21st July, what arrangements are being made for the purpose of instituting a regular service in 1939; and by what arrangements, and by whom it will be operated?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The arrangements to be made for the institution of a regular trans-Atlantic service are dependent on the outcome of the whole of the 1938 programme of trial flights which I outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) on 20th July last. The regular trans-Atlantic service when instituted will be operated by a joint operating company working in cooperation with Pan-American Airways. As regards the arrangements under which the service will be operated, I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement of policy contained in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Sir H. Seely) on 30th July, 1936, the terms of which are also set out on pages 15 to 17 of the Civil Aviation Progress Report for 1936.
    Mr. Day: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the double crossing will be made?
    Mr. Simmonds: Does it mean that Pan-American Airways will not commence before we are ready?
    Captain Balfour: That is in the terms of the agreement.

    AIR LINERS (DEVELOPMENT).
    Mr. Stuart Russellasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any information as to the progress in stimulating the development and production by the aircraft industry of suitable types of air liners in accordance with the recommendations of the Cadman Committee?
    Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. A twoengined monoplane capable of carrying 12–17 passengers and of cruising at over 200 miles per hour is at present under construction by Messrs. de Havillands, and as far as can be seen at present should be on the market next summer. Further, an outline specification has been prepared in consultation with the operating companies for an all-metal, four-engined monoplane weighing about 40,000 lb. and capable of a cruising speed of 200 miles per hour and of carrying 20 passengers from London—Berlin non-stop. A general specification has also been prepared for a four-engined all-metal landplane weighing 70,000 lb. intended for high speed long range flights. There will be two versions—a low altitude version flying at 10,000 feet and a high altitude version, with a pressure cabin, flying at 25,000 feet at a speed of 275 miles per hour. It is intended to be in production by the summer of 1940 and instructions to proceed have already been placed by the Air Ministry for the production of prototypes of both versions.
    In order to make first-hand acquaintance with the latest features of civil aircraft now being developed in America, it has been arranged that the Director of Civil Research and Production should visit the United States of America and Canada in the autumn of this year.
    Mr. Montague: If it will be possible by 1940 to carry 40 passengers to Berlin, will it also be possible to carry 40 bombs to Berlin?
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: On a point of Order. Is it permissible for an hon. Member from the Front Opposition Bench to ask, as a supplementary question, a question containing a suggestion such as the hon. Gentleman has made?
    Later:
    Mr. Montague: I rise with permission to make a personal explanation. I realise that a supplementary question I put this afternoon is open to serious misunderstanding, and that such misunderstanding was entirely my own fault. I assure the House that in that supplementary question all I had in mind was the general question of the range of military aircraft. I had no other thought, and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will accept my apology and my withdrawal of that supplementary question.

    LOW FLYING, PURLEY.
    Sir Richard Mellerasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the low flying of a Belgian aeroplane over Ridge Park, Purley, on Thursday evening, 21st July, when it is alleged to have skimmed over one house and dived between two houses opposite; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this danger to life and property?
    Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. In the condition of wind prevailing at the time aircraft landing at the airport have necessarily to make a relatively low final approach over Ridge Park. I will, however, take up the matter with the operating company concerned.
    Sir R. Meller: Having regard to the frequency of complaints of low flying in this area, will the Minister consider the advisability of setting up a more effective form of control than at present exists?
    Mr. Emmott: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this low flying is a matter of very real complaint in this neighbourhood, and can he hold out some hope that measures will soon be devised to prevent it?
    Captain Balfour: As regards the last supplementary question, both my hon. Friends know that I convened a meeting of all the operating managers and asked them to meet the local residents, and that exchange of views took place as to the technical difficulties of the operating companies and the position of the local residents. As regards this particular incident, it is very difficult indeed when the wind is in this direction, to avoid low flying because a low approach must be made to prevent over-running. Quite
    3102
    recently there was an example of overrunning, when an air liner ran down the slope into the boundary fence, when the wind was in this particular direction.
    Sir R. Meller: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the complaints arise in respect of foreign machines and not of English machines.
    Mr. Perkins: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend must realise that Croydon is now no longer suitable for an aerodrome?

    CIVIL AIR GUARD
    Mr. Cartlandasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider granting the facilities for air training, proposed for the Civil Air Guard, to serving members of the Territorial Army who obtain a recommendation from their commanding officer?
    Captain Balfour: No, Sir. It would not accord with the objects of the Civil Air Guard scheme to enrol persons who in times of emergency are under a prior liability for service in the Navy, Army, or Air Force or the Reserves or Auxiliaries of those Forces.
    Mr. Cartland: Would my hon. and gallant Friend make the position clear, so that men may join the Civil Air Guard and later when they want to join the Territorial Army, find that they are deprived of these facilities?
    Captain Balfour: It will be made entirely clear on the enrolment forms.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS (CYCLISTS).
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any further statement to make regarding the Transport Advisory Council's Report on accidents to cyclists?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): As I have already indicated in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 29th June, the important recommendations in this report are receiving my full and careful consideration. I would remind my hon. Friend, however, that the more important of these recommendations would involve legislation, which in any event could not be introduced before next year, and in the meanwhile, I hope to have

    3103
    the advantage of studying the Report of the Select Committee on the prevention of Road Accidents, which is sitting in another place, and which in the course of its investigation is examining the same question. I may add that I have agreed to receive a deputation from the National Committee on Cycling on the subject.
    Viscountess Astor: When my right hon. Friend looks into the report on road accidents, will he also look into the report of the committee of the British Medical Association referring to alcohol in road accidents?

    BRIDGE SCHEMES.
    Mr. Quibellasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the recession in the iron and steel trade, he will now give his approval to the authorities concerned in the promotion of the Humber bridge to proceed with the preliminary work and negotiations necessary for such a scheme; and will he take steps to ensure that the expenses incurred in such promotion shall rank for grant?
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrenceasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to announce his decision with regard to the Forth road-bridge?
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to announce his intentions regarding the proposed Forth road-bridge?
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the construction of a bridge over the Severn river?
    Mr. Burgin: The Government have reviewed the position regarding these three schemes for the construction of bridges over the tidal estuaries and regret that in view of the need for concentrating the financial resources of the country upon its most urgent requirements, and particularly upon defensive rearmament, they are unable, in the present circumstances, to offer contributions towards the cost of these bridges.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the great disappointment which his answer will cause not only in Scotland and the other places affected, but in the steel trade where there are large numbers of people out of work, and that his answer will mean that the
    3104
    Government will have to make further contributions in unemployment pay?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that people in Scotland are anxious that the rearmament programme should go on?
    Sir Louis Smith: Having regard to the considerable industrial development of North Lincolnshire, and to the fact that the local authorities in that district are prepared to find the major proportion of the cost of the Humber Bridge, will my right hon. Friend give this matter further consideration, especially having regard to the inadequate facilities over the Humber?
    Colonel Baldwin-Webb: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that there are other claims in the country and that other roads require equal treatment?
    Mr. Mathers: When will this matter be reviewed?
    Mr. Quibell: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    PROPOSED NEATH BY-PASS.
    Sir W. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the recent large increase in the number of unemployed in the Neath area, there is an early prospect of proceeding with the Lonlas-Briton ferry by-pass of the trunk road through Neath which would provide a means of employment for a substantial number of men?
    Mr. Burgin: The route of the proposed Neath By-Pass was the subject of a public inquiry on 7th December, 1937. Since then discussions have been taking place with the Harbour Commissioners about the site of the bridge over the estuary, but it has not yet been possible to reach agreement with all the objectors. In the meantime it is not possible to proceed with the preparation of detailed plans or with the acquisition of the necessary land. In the circumstances, I am afraid that some considerable time must elapse before the works can be begun.
    Sir W. Jenkins: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to get a report, and who are the people holding up the scheme?
    Mr. Burgin: The matter very largely depends on the negotiations with the Harbour Commissioners. It is the commissioners who are making difficulties about

    3105
    the crossing of the estuary. All other objections have, I think, been met.

    COACHING SERVICES.
    Sir L. Smithasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the growth of holidays with pay, he will issue to the various traffic commissioners advice in favour of greater elasticity in sanctioning coaching services?
    Mr. Burgin: I am confident that any demonstrable need for the provision of coaching services arising out of the growth of holidays with pay will, as in any other case, receive due consideration by the Traffic Commissioners when granting road service licences.
    Sir L. Smith: Having regard to the short time in which the necessary changes might be made, will my right hon. Friend give instructions to his Department to watch the position carefully during August?

    ELECTRIFIED RAILWAYS (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN).
    Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that at an inquest at Mitcham on 16th July, on a child electrocuted on the Southern Railway, the jury added to their verdict that they considered the company should take steps to make it impossible for any young child to get on to the line; and will he take action in the matter?
    Mr. Burgin: I am aware of the jury's rider. I am informed by the Southern Railway Company that there was unclimable fencing five feet high at this place and that the child crawled through a hole which had been made in the ground under it. The company are providing concrete filling which should prevent children from going on to the line at this spot in future.
    Wing-Commander James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since I put this question down a horse has been electrocuted at Lewisham, and, having regard to the slaughter of wild life and of cats
    and dogs which takes place, will he take steps to have the lines themselves guarded?

  BILL PRESENTED.
    AIR ADVERTISEMENTS BILL,
    "to prohibit the exhibition of advertisements by aircraft, balloons, parachutes, kites, and other similar devices; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Alan Herbert; supported by Mrs. Tate, Sir Hugh Seely, Mr. Mabane, Mr. Goldie, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Bevan, Major Lloyd George, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Foot, Mr. H. Strauss, and Mr. Perkins; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUMMER RECESS).
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement with regard to the resumption after the Recess.
The Prime Minister: The Government propose that the House shall reassemble after the Summer Recess on Tuesday, 1st November. It is expected that Parliament will be prorogued during that week and that His Majesty will open the new Session on Tuesday, 8th November.
The Motion for the Summer Adjournment which, as I have already announced, will be moved on Friday, will contain the usual provisions to empower Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course should appear necessary in the public interest.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 118.

Division No. 329.]

AYES.

[3.47 p.m.

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

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

Beechman, N. A.

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

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

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

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

Bernays, R. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Bossom, A. C.

Assheton, R.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Brass, Sir W.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

Hambro, A. V.

Owen, Major G.

Bull, B. B.

Hannah, I. C.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Patrick, C. M.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Harbord, A.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Butler, R. A.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Petherick, M.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

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

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Pilkington, R.

Carver, Major W. H.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Cary, R. A.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Procter, Major H. A.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Purbrick, R.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

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

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Channon, H.

Holdsworth, H.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Holmes, J. S.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Hopkinson, A.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Christie, J. A.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Cobb. Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Colfox, Major W. P.

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

Rowlands, G.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Hulbert, N. J.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Hunter, T.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

Hurd. Sir P. A.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

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

Hutchinson, G. C.

Salmon, Sir I.

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

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

Salt, E. W.

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

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Cox, Trevor

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Sandys, E. D.

Cross, R. H.

Keeling, E. H.

Scott, Lord William

Crossley, A. C.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Seely, sir H. M.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Shakespeare, G. H.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

shaw, captain W. T. (Forfar)

Culverwell, C. T.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

shepperson, Sir E. W

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

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

shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

De Chair, S. S.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Simmond, O. E.

De la Bére, R.

Latham, Sir P.

simon, Rt. Hon. sir J. A.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Smith Sir Louis (Hallam)

Denville, Alfred

Leech, Sir J. W.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

Lees-Jones, J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Drewe, C.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Liddall, W. S.

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

Duggan, H. J.

Lindsay, K. M.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Lipson, D. L.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Eckersley P. T.

Llewellin, Colone1 J. J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Lloyd, G. W.

Tate, Mavis C.

Emery, J. F.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Thomas, J. P. L.

Emmott, C. E. G. C

Loftus, P. C.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Touche, G. C.

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

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Turton, R. H.

Fildes, Sir H.

Macquisten, F. A.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Findlay, Sir E.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

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

Fleming, E. L.

Mander, G. le M.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Foot, D. M.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Warrender, Sir V.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Markham, S. F.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Marsden, Commander A.

Wayland, Sir W. A.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gluckstein, L. H.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Wise, A. R.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Grant-Ferris, R.

Morgan, R. H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Granville, E. L.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Nall, Sir J.

Mr. Munro and Captain Dugdale.

Grimston, R. V.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Bevan, A.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

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

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

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

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

Buchanan, G.

Day, H.

Ammon, C. G.

Burke, W. A.

Dobbie, W.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Charleton. H. C.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Chater, D.

Ede, J. C.

Banfield, J. W.

Cluse, W. S.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Barr, J.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Batey, J.

Collindridge, F.

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

Bellenger, F. J.

Cove, W. G.

Gallacher, W.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Daggar, G.

Gardner, B. W.

Benson, G.

Dalton, H.

Garro Jones, G. M.

3108

3109

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Leslie, J. R.

Silverman, S. S.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Simpson, F. B.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

McEntee, V. La T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Grenfell, D. R.

McGhee, H. G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

MacLaren, A.

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

Groves, T. E.

Maclean, N.

Smith, T. (Nor nanton)

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

Marshall, F.

Serensen, R. W.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Mathers, G.

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

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Messer, F.

Stokes, R. R.

Hardie, Agnes

Mentague, F.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Hayday, A.

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

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

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

Thorne, W.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Nathan, Colonal H. L.

Thurtle, E.

Henderson, T.(Tradeston)

Naylor, T. E.

Tinker, J. J.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Tomlinson, G.

Hopkin, D.

Paling, W.

Viant, S. P.

Jagger, J.

Parkinson, J. A.

Walkden, A. G.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Pearson, A.

Watkins, F. C.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

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

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

John, W.

Poole, C. C.

White, H. Graham

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

priee, M. P.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

pritt, D. N.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Kelly, W. T.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Kirby, B. V.

Ridley, G.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Kirkwood, D.

Riley, B.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Lathan, G.

Ritson, J.

Lawson, J. J.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

Question put, and agreed to.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Robert Gibson: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the procedure anent the appointment of justices of the peace in Scotland."
The present procedure is that appointments of Justices of the Peace both in England and Scotland bear to be on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. So far as Scotland is concerned, the present procedure is not in accordance with Scottish sentiment, and in practice it meets, and has met in recent times, with considerable difficulty. The theory on which jurisdiction is exercised by the Lord Chancellor in the appointment of justices of the peace is, as I understand it, that the Lord Chancellor is head of the Justiciary. That is certainly true so far as England is concerned, but it is not true, as I think I shall be able to demonstrate very shortly to the House, so far as Scotland is concerned. For example, in England the appointment of High Court Judges bears to be on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. The corresponding appointments in Scotland are the appointments of the Judges of the Court of Session, and in practice these bear to be made on the advice of the Secretary of State for Scotland and are certainly never made on the advice of the Lord High Chancellor of England. In the case of the appointment of County Court Judges in England these, again, are, I understand, made on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. Corresponding appointments in Scotland, the
appointments of the Judges in the Sheriff Courts, bear to be on the advice of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Carrying the matter a little further, the appointment of King's Counsel in England bears to be on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, and hon. and learned Members representing English constituencies are very familiar with that procedure. In Scotland, however, the appointment of Scottish King's Counsel is on the advice of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and not at all on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. In point of fact the first acquaintance that the Lord Chancellor has with a new King's Counsel appointed in Scotland is when that particular King's Counsel appears in his professional capacity in the House of Lords or before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Again, I find that in England every writ of summons in the High Court is issued in the name of the Lord Chancellor. That is not the case with regard to summonses in the Court of Session. The Lord Chancellor has no functions and no jurisdiction whatever with regard to summonses either in the Court of Session or in the Sheriff Court of Scotland. Accordingly, so far as Scotland is concerned, the Lord Chancellor is not the head of the justiciary. Take the functions of justices of the peace in so far as these are judicial functions. In Scotland, practically speaking, they are confined to criminal matters. I think it is within the knowledge of all right hon. and hon. Members that the

3111
criminal law in Scotland differs very materially from the criminal law in England. Let me give one or two salient facts. The criminal jury in Scotland consists of 15 members and not of 12. In Scotland we have three verdicts, "guilty," "not guilty" and "not proven." There is no "not proven" verdict in England. The fact that the Scottish criminal jury consists of 15 allows a jury in Scotland to return a verdict by a majority, and that verdict by a majority rules. It is possible—this may alarm some hon. Members from South of the Border—for a death sentence to be pronounced in virtue of a majority verdict of a jury, by eight to seven. While still a junior counsel in Scotland I defended in the High Court a man who was found guilty by eight to seven, and he received a sentence of three years penal servitude.
In Scotland we are devotees of the democratic principle. There are so few "yes, yes men" in Scotland that our criminal procedure would break down unless majority rule held sway. That may sound very strange South of the Border. There is another fact that has relevance to the matter I am seeking to discuss, and it is this: While there is an appeal in civil cases from Scotland to the House of Lords, there is no such appeal in criminal cases. The final court of appeal of Scotland, in criminal matters, is the High Court of Justiciary, and there is no appeal from that court to the House of Lords. Accordingly, the Lord Chancellor has no means of learning, through the arguments of counsel, matters concerning the criminal law of Scotland.
I think I have said sufficient to show the difference between our Scottish judicial system and the English judicial system, and to show that the Lord Chancellor is not, in fact, the head of the judicial system in Scotland as he undoubtedly is of the judicial system in England. This Motion has been well received in all quarters. On this side of the House my hon. Friends are entirely in favour of it, and any hon. Members I have spoken to in other parts of the House agree that this is a change that ought to take place. The Press in Scotland has welcomed this Motion and is anxious that leave be granted to bring in the Bill.
Question,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the procedure anent the appointment of justices of the peace in Scotland,"
put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Gibson, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Welsh, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Barr, Mrs. Hardie, and Mr. Kirkwood.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SCOTLAND) BILL,
"to amend the procedure anent the appointment of justices of the peace in Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]

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

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,

Rating and Valuation (Air Raid Works) Bill,

Rating and Valuation (Air Raid Works) (Scotland) Bill,

Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill,

Holidays with Pay Bill, without Amendment.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
4.5 p.m.
The Prime Minister: I beg to move,
"That the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts have leave to sit notwithstanding the Adjournment of the House:
That the Committee have leave to report their observations from time to time and the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:
That the Committee have leave to send their first Report and the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them, if the House is not sitting, to the Clerk of the House who shall give directions for the printing of the Report (and the Minutes of the Evidence) and shall cause it to be circulated on Tuesday, 18th October, 1938, and shall lay the Report upon the Table of the House at its next meeting, provided that in the event of Mr. Speaker summoning the House to meet at a date earlier than that to which the House stands adjourned, in pursuance of the power conferred upon him by any Resolution of the House, the Report shall be circulated as soon as may be after Mr. Speaker has issued his notice summoning the House to meet."
Hon. Members will have read the report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts circulated in the Votes and Proceedings to-day. It will be remembered that the Committee was appointed on the 30th of last month, and that on the 19th of this month it had a further matter referred to it. It can hardly have come as a surprise that it has not been able to complete its report on the first part of the terms of reference before the Summer Adjournment. The Motion which I am now bringing before the House contains three paragraphs. The first two grant the powers for which the Select Committee ask, namely, power to sit during the Recess and power to report from time to time, which will enable them to present more than one report. The last paragraph of the Motion deals with the procedure of the presentation and circulation of the report during the Recess. A Select Committee can present a report only to the House, and, therefore, without some special arrangement such as that which I now propose, if the House is not sitting and the Committee were to agree on a report during the Recess, it could not be presented until the House reassembled, which, as I have said this afternoon, will not be until 1st November.
As the House will see, we propose to give the Select Committee leave to send their first Report to the Clerk of the House. He can then make arrangements
3138
for the publication of the Report on 18th October, a date which was fixed a fortnight before the date on which we propose to meet again, in order to give reasonable time for the Report to be studied before the House considers it on Wednesday, 2nd November. I think the House will wish to discuss the Report as soon as possible and to dispose of it before the present Session comes to an end. It does seem to us, and the House will probably agree, that it is not desirable that the Committee's Report, whatever it may contain, should be issued immediately after the Committee has approved it, because in that case it might be the subject of comment in the Press and elsewhere for some 10 weeks or more without any possibility for the Government or other hon. Members to state their views in a Debate in this House. On the other hand, we do not think the Report ought to be held up until 1st November, because if that course were adopted the Debate could not take place before the Prorogation and consideration of the Report would have to be delayed until after the Debate on the Address in the new Session.
If the House agrees that the matter should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, hon. Members will see that it is necessary that the Report should be in the hands of Members before the House meets. The House, I am sure, would wish to give a considered judgment on the Report when it is available. I think that the interval of a fortnight which is. proposed will be sufficient to give hon. Members an adequate amount of time for a study of the Report. One other matter we had to provide for, and that is the eventuality of the House being called together before 1st November in special circumstances. Hon. Members will see, by reference to the Motion, that we have provided that in that case the Report is to be circulated as soon as may be after Mr. Speaker has issued his notice summoning the House to meet. I do not think it is necessary to say anything more.
4.11 p.m.
Mr. Attlee: I only wish to say that I think the Motion of the Prime Minister provides a most convenient way of disposing of this matter, and I entirely agree with what he said as to the suggestions made.
4.12 p.m.
Sir Percy Harris: I would like to concur in what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. We had to face a problem, and this seems to me to be the most practical and ingenious way out of the difficulty. No one can say that the Select Committee has not been diligent in its labours. If rumour is correct it has sat a great number of times, it has sat at great length and concentrated on the responsible work entrusted to it. This is a House of Commons matter. The House of Commons has the responsibility, and, therefore, is entitled to have the first opportunity to discuss the report after its publication. We are all agreed that it would be unfortunate, in the interests of everyone concerned, if before the House of Commons had a chance of discussing the subject there was a long report in the Press and the inevitable correspondence that would follow. One point I would press on the House, and that is that the word "circulate" clearly must mean "circulate to Members of the House." It would be a breach of Privilege if the report were circulated in any other way. We have had many discussions and some of us are a bit weary of this problem, but I think we are agreed that this is the wisest and the best way of getting out of what is an obvious difficulty, because of the inevitable delay in the Committee reaching its conclusions.
Question,
"That the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts have leave to sit notwithstanding the Adjournment of the House,"
put, and agreed to.
Ordered,
"That the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts have leave to sit notwithstanding the Adjournment of the House."
Ordered,
"That the Committee have leave to report their observations from time to time and the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them."
Ordered,
"That the Committee have leave to send their first Report and the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them, if the House is not sitting, to the Clerk of the House who shall give directions for the printing of the Report (and the Minutes of the Evidence) and shall cause it to be circulated on Tuesday, 18th October, 1938, and shall lay the Report upon the Table of the House at its next meeting, provided that in the event of Mr. Speaker summoning the House to meet at a
3140
date earlier than that to which the House stands adjourned, in pursuance of the power conferred upon him by any Resolution of the House, the Report shall be circulated as soon as may be after Mr. Speaker has issued his notice summoning the House to meet"—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO- PRIATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

  HOME OFFICE ADMINISTRATION.
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: The Home Office is the first office of the State, and the oldest. There are many issues which I could raise to-day in relation to the multifarious duties of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and his deputies, but I propose to confine what I have to say to the work of the branches concerned with children, factory inspection and industrial diseases. Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will know very much more about industrial diseases than I do, but I propose nevertheless to touch in passing upon the problems which they present. It is not my intention to raise vast questions of policy relating to our prison system, although I gather that the right hon. Gentleman, having declared himself on the Floor of this House some time ago an ardent prison reformer, may launch out upon that subject to-day, whatever I may say. I would first venture to put to him two or three points about our prison system.
  Every prisoner having legitimate complaint against authority ought to have the right to the services of a friend to watch his interests. Prison reformers are very keen upon that proposal because a soldier brought before a court-martial is entitled, I understand, to what is called a soldier's friend. That there is the necessity for a friend of a prisoner who has a complaint against authority is amply proved by the fact that in 1936 there were 572 complaints by prison officers against prisoners, and six complaints by prisoners against officers. Consequently this matter is a serious issue for those who are within

  3141
  prison walls. I would like, also, to mention the problems of a more varied diet, especially for the older prisoners, teaching of handicrafts in prison, extension of the practice of psychiatry in the treatment of offenders, ticket-of-leave men being allowed to report to some responsible body other than the police, censorship of prisoners' letters and bringing under review the experience gained by the experiments in Wakefield gaol. Finally, everybody who takes the slightest interest in our prisons is very much alarmed at the slow pace of the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners in providing new buildings for the treatment of offenders. Some of the present buildings are about 75 years old and were erected at a time when there was a different conception of the treatment of prisoners. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say to-day, I trust that he will give us some hope that these old prisons will be demolished and new ones put in their places. But all that is by the way.
  Before I come to the three subjects which I have suggested I would like to say just a word about the administration of the Shops Acts. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have passed several Acts of Parliament in the last few years dealing with shop life, affecting the conditions of employment of at least 2,250,000 shop assistants. I am sorry to learn from inquiry that local authorities in some parts of the country are not yet alive to their duties on that score. It would please some of us if the right hon. Gentleman could say whether the Home Office are urging those local authorities who have not done their duty to take more notice of the decisions of Parliament in this matter.
  I now turn to the subject of approved schools, which are the responsibility of the children's branch of the Home Office. Whatever criticism I may make of the administration of that branch I gladly admit that the teachers in dealing with this problem from year to year and the staff who manage those very awkward children ought to be encouraged. A very valuable report has recently been issued on the work of the children's branch of the Home Office. It is all the more valuable because it is 10 years since a similar survey was given to the public. I have read through this document, which ought to be studied by social workers, reformers, politicians and, if I may say so,
  3142
  without offence, all those who occupy the pulpits of our churches. Delinquent children are often regarded in this country as children of the dead-end. It is well that we have a democratic Parliament in which to ventilate these problems in the open, because there are 15,000 of these youngsters under the charge of the officials of the Home Department. I am pleased with this report because it shows that exceptional efforts are being made to reclaim those youngsters and make them into decent, well-disciplined citizens when they come out. I rejoice in the privilege of saying a word or two upon this aspect of our social ills and I hope that hon. Members will find as we proceed that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the kind of treatment that is aimed at by the staff of the children's branch at the moment.
  We must not blind ourselves, however, to the stern facts disclosed by the report. I am sure that hon. Members will be interested to learn the actual statistics in this connection. In 1934, the number of young persons proceeded against in juvenile courts was 22,191; in 1935, 27,358 and in 1936, 28,722. Of the last number, 11,624 boys and 840 girls were found guilty of indictable offences. I am sure that women Members of this House will be gratified to know that little girls are always better behaved than little boys.
  Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear—always.
  Mr. Davies: I am not so sure that that is so when they grow up. My experience is that the position is very nearly reversed.
  Viscountess Astor: Not on this side.
  Mr. Davies: Those who have studied these problems at close quarters must not, of course, be alarmed at the increase in the figures. I very much doubt whether the youngsters of to-day are worse than those of the days when we ourselves were youngsters. I will venture to tell the House how I view this problem. The volume of law has increased in this land and, as you increase that volume you throw your net wider to catch offenders, and the meshes become much smaller. That is true in the sphere of life with which I am particularly intimate. It is true in respect of social legislation; the ills of society are never fully dis-

  3143
  closed until you have laid down schemes to find them out. Take the statistics of unemployment insurance. We say that we have 2,000,000 people unemployed. I was unemployed once upon a time for six months, but no Government in those days would have regarded me as unemployed because there was no scheme to measure unemployment. The same may be said of the Children and Young Persons Act; it has undoubtedly disclosed some of the ills of society that were not apparent before. Consequently, I say that we need not to be alarmed about the statistics which I gave.
  When we are dealing with statistics I always like to take the percentage basis in order to arrive at a proper picture. Let us remember that although the number of delinquent boys has increased there has also been an increase in the total number of boys at the same time. In 1912 about 2,000 boys were ordered by magistrates to be whipped, but in 1934 the figure was only 130. In 1935 it was 189 and in 1936, 155. I hope that the courts of this land will abolish whipping altogether. I have not the slightest doubt that whipping by order of a court makes a boy worse than he was before; the resentment in him against such harshness must grow as the years go by. I sat upon a committee for two years inquiring into this very subject. I have heard hon. Gentlemen say on the Floor of this House that they were whipped at Harrow, Eton or elsewhere and are none the worse for it; yes, but they were whipped by their schoolmasters. If I had been their schoolmaster I am not sure that I should not change my mind about whipping, but that is by the way.
  After listening to a great deal of evidence on that problem I came to the conclusion that it is quite a different thing for a child to be whipped by its parents or by its schoolmaster to being whipped by a sturdy policeman by order of a court. The boy has probably never seen the policeman and the policeman has never seen the boy before, and in any case the policeman himself usually revolts against doing the job. If hon. Ladies in this House will forgive me, I must make one comment on this matter: I have been sad to note that some boys have been ordered by women magistrates to be whipped.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: Not mothers.
  Mr. Davies: I am not so sure about that. I lived in Manchester when Mrs. Pankhurst was at the forefront of the battle for women's franchise, and one of the arguments I used upon public platforms as one of her supporters was that once women were brought into public life and placed upon benches of magistrates the quality of mercy would be extended. I do not take that view now. Mercy does not depend upon sex, but upon the type of the individual. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something about the appointment of younger magistrates, of women magistrates and of magistrates of the right type, both men and women.
  Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Davies: I am glad that the Noble Lady agrees with me upon something. There are passages in this report dealing with juvenile delinquency which ought to encourage us. It says:
  "It must not be forgotten that lawbreaking by boys is far less serious in itself than law-breaking by adults. Often it is a manifestation of the spirit of adventure or mischief, and is not deliberately anti-social in essence."
  That is the spirit of the whole report. Here is another passage which is quoted from the report of the Warden of the Philanthropic Society's School at Redhill, Surrey:
  "Considering this school as a centre of medical, educational, industrial and character-forming activity, I put the medical work first in the boy's half-year with us. The malnourished child now forms 1 per cent. in the elementary schools, but 60 per cent. of our new arrivals this year were registered by the medical officer as below normal in nutrition."
  I have no hesitation in saying that a hungry youngster will do more mischief and break more laws than a well-nourished child. I know that, if I were a boy and were starving, I would break every law of the land in order to get something to eat. It is interesting to see where some of these boys come from. Here are one or two cases:
  "Illegitimate, mother deserted, no interest, no home.
  Father dead. Boy lived on barges, only home occasionally.
  Father executed; step-father in prison for assault on step-daughter."
  There are many other similar cases. There are ample indications in the report that some of these boys and girls really have more need of our sympathy than of punishment. There are some people to-

  3145
  day who claim to be able to measure the intelligence of children. I wish they could measure the intelligence of Members of Parliament. If so, not a single Tory would ever enter the House; I am not so sure about the Liberals—
  Mr. Kirkwood: They are a diminishing quantity.
  Mr. Davies: The detailed figures in connection with this measurement of intelligence are very interesting. In one of the schools with which we are dealing to-day, only 38 per cent., according to the test, were normal, 22 per cent. were dull, 32 per cent. were bordering on mental deficiency, and 8 per cent. were mentally deficient. Delinquency, therefore, is often a matter of low mentality rather than human "cussedness." The Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Education promised to make an investigation into this problem of dull boys among the school population as a whole. It would appear to be a little unfair to a boy of low mentality who commits an offence against the law to regard him as an outcast when in fact he has not the intelligence to know what he does to the same extent as other boys. I think the House of Commons, and especially the Home Office, ought to consider the problem from that angle.
  Mr. Morgan: Do I understand that the percentages which the hon. Member has just quoted apply only to the approved school in question?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, they apply to one single approved school, and the masters of this school rightly point out that they are not dealing with children of the same mental measurement as the children in other schools in the country. Some years age I was deputed to go abroad on behalf of the Home Office to see what was being done in observing these cases. There is machinery in some countries for appointing psychiatrists to observe the mental capacity of these children before it is decided how they shall be treated. We have been appealing to the Home Office for years to do something of the kind in this country, and I was very pleased the other day to notice that the Goldsmiths' Company have offered £6,000 towards the establishment of an observation centre in London. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us if anything has come out of that offer. I
  3146
  hope he will also tell us also whether he is quite satisfied with the method adopted of handing children over to the care of fit persons. Hon. Members will be aware that this is a new experiment in dealing with children who are neglected and forgotten by their parents and relatives. I would also express to the right hon. Gentleman the hope that we may not have to wait another 10 years for a further report, because, after all, we are charged with the welfare and future of these 15,000 children.
  I turn now to the subject of industrial diseases. As I said at the beginning, I am not as familiar with this problem as are some of my hon. Friends who are connected with the mining industry, but I have been the secretary of an approved society for about 26 years, and it has been my duty very often to study this question at close quarters from the office point of view. Those of us who represent constituencies in Lancashire have always been interested in the efforts that are being made to deal with the awful question of bronchitis in card-room workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), who has worked in a textile mill himself, will be able to tell the House something that I do not know about this problem, but I do know that the Home Office, though they have been trying to get the operatives and employers together, have not yet solved the issue of putting these people into the category of being able to claim workmen's compensation.
  Approved societies who pay sickness and disablement benefits are becoming alarmed at the large number of cases which are thrust upon their funds but in respect of which, in their opinion, workmen's compensation ought to be payable. The position is becoming very strained. A workman who meets with an accident or contracts an industrial disease tends, particularly if he is not a member of a trade union, to lean on the funds of the approved society instead of standing up to the insurance company for compensation. I am sure that, if a statistical research were conducted, it would be found that the approved societies of this country are year by year compelled to accept financial liabilities in respect of industrial diseases and accidents which ought to fall on the insurance companies who accept workmen's compensation premiums. I should like, therefore, to

  3147
  know what is the position at present with regard to the cardroom operatives in Lancashire. There was an inquiry as to whether it was possible to prove that they suffered from the disease as a consequence of their work, and then another committee was established who are still, I think, continuing their investigations as to what method can be employed to compensate operatives who are suffering from this disease. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something about that matter to-day.
  There is, of course, a schedule of industrial diseases for the purposes of workmen's compensation. The industrial diseases scheduled are nearly 40 in number, and include arsenic, lead, dope and nickel poisoning, dermatitis, cataract in glassworkers, miner's nystagmus, beat hand, beat knee and beat elbow, telegraphist's and writer's cramp, glanders, and other diseases. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman or his deputy will be able to enlighten us as to what is happening in that sphere. But we are more concerned to-day about those industrial diseases which are not scheduled—for example, silicosis and asbestosis. These fall to be dealt with under special schemes, and we are wondering whether those schemes are giving satisfaction to the Government Departments concerned, and especially to the people suffering from these diseases. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has been questioned once or twice about the investigation that is now taking place in the anthracite coalfield of South Wales with regard to silicosis among the workpeople there, and he will probably be able to tell us something about that investigation to-day.
  In connection with this problem of industrial diseases there is a vacuum which ought to be filled. There is not yet sufficient statistical information regarding industrial diseases at the centre. If all the miners were in one approved society, all the textile operatives in one approved society and if all shop workers were in the approved society with which I am connected, then we should get reliable statistics to show how these people suffer as a consequence of being employed in any given industry; but they are scattered over about 2,000 approved societies, and we have not therefore the statistics that we would desire.
  3148
  There is another point to which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn his mind in the near future. We would like the Home Office to consider diseases and affections of the muscles, joints and nervous system arising out of the use of vibrating machinery. Hon. Members have probably seen the vibrating machines which are used for cutting up the roads, and I am assured that the men who handle these machines sometimes suffer unduly from nervous diseases consequent upon their use. We should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would go into that problem. Then I have to call his attention to the case of some of the grinders in Sheffield. My hon. Friend the Member for the Bright-side Division is more familiar with this problem than I am, but I understand that some of these men who were employed on sandstone grindstones were entitled to come within one of the special schemes if they suffered from silicosis. It was thought that, with the introduction of the new abrasive wheel in place of the sandstone grindstone, they would not suffer from silicosis any more, but I understand that, strangely enough, the new process brings about very nearly the same disease.
  There is one other complaint I want to make. A very remarkable thing has happened under the law as it stands, and, as always, it is against the workman. If there is any flaw in the law, it is always in favour of the employer and against the workman. In the change-over to the abrasive wheel, the scheme leaves out all cases of diseases among men who suffered before the change; and they are left to the mercy of either public assistance, friendly societies or approved societies, or to fend for themselves.
  My last point is with regard to factory inspection. I am very sorry that the Home Office, and some other Government Departments, cannot see their way to provide Parliament with a copy of the report of their work during the previous year before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. I understand the same complaint was made in connection with the Mines Department. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Board of Education."] And the Board of Education. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Ministry of Health."] Yes, and the Ministry of Health. This is indeed a rotten Government. I am sure than any intelligent

  3149
  Government could provide a report of some kind in good time. Since the Noble Lord has come to the Home Office I think he has been a drag on the wheels of progress. I have a feeling that if the Noble Lord had never touched the Home Department we might have had this report. I remember him at the India Office; we could not get a report from him then. No matter where he is, it is always the same. I do plead with the Government that we may get the report of the Factories Inspector in future before the Summer Recess.
  Let me ask whether there has been an increase in the number of appointments yet in the inspectorate. There are about 278,000 premises subject to inspection by factory inspectors, and, according to the last report, there were only 264 inspectors to carry out the work. I do plead with the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the coming into operation of the last Factories Act in July this year, with all the new impositions on employers and employed, to realise that we ought to have an increase in the number of factory inspectors.
  Section 50 of the Factories Act, 1937, deals with what is called shuttle-kissing in the textile industry. Section 21 deals with the training of young persons on dangerous machines. While I am on that subject, I might mention that I was in a town in Lancashire the other day. I read in a local newspaper, quite casually, of a boy of 16 years of age who got his right hand entangled in machinery and the whole of his arm taken away. I suppose it is not possible to carry on industry without some accidents, although I notice that, in his last report, the Chief Inspector quoted a case in 1847 when the people of Exeter smashed a whole factory to pieces because a boy was killed there. There would not be a single factory left in England, Scotland or Wales I suppose if people did those things to-day. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter of factory inspectors.
  Then there is the problem of goggles and screens in industry. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say something about this, in connection with Section 49 of the Factories Act. When we were dealing with that Act we were told that the Home Office were very keen on a standard of lighting. I believe a committee has been appointed to look into that. Perhaps we shall be told what the result is.
  3150
  I would also like to know whether anything has been done to make part of the Industrial Museum moveable. I believe sections of the museum have been taken to the Empire Exhibition in Glasgow. That is all to the good, but I would like an answer to that question. The last Factories Report we got was really a terrible one, indicating an enormous increase in accidents among juveniles. I hope that education authorities in this country, when they grant exemption certificates for beneficial employment, will see to it that youngsters are not allowed to go to jobs to handle dangerous machinery, and that, in any case, the Home Office will compel employers to implement the Factories Act, so that these terrible tragedies shall be made fewer. Finally, it is pleasing beyond measure to me, after Parliament has encompassed the whole world, and dealt wtih the problems of all the peoples and nations of the earth, to come back for once, on the last day but two of the Session, to deal with issues that affect our own people, at home, and I trust I may have contributed a little to bring us back to that which matters most—the working lives of our own folk who dwell in these islands.
  4.52 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am sure every hon. Member on this side of the House cordially agrees with the last observation of the hon. Gentleman. I would take this opportunity of thanking him for having raised these questions today, having dealt with them with the instructed outlook with which he has approached them, and having drawn the attention of hon. Members on all sides of the House to certain questions of very great importance in our national life. I will not follow the hon. Member in what he says as to the mental capacities of hon. Members on this side of the House, nor will I follow him into the equally attractive field suggested by his rather one-sided description of the great qualities of my Noble Friend. Rather will I attempt to take the broad subjects with which he has been dealing, and give the House a report of the present position in those matters. I propose, subject to the approval of hon. Members, to deal myself principally with the questions the hon. Member asked about prisons, juvenile delinquency, and penal administration,

  3151
  and to leave the subject of industrial diseases and industrial accidents to my Noble Friend.
  Mr. Buchanan: And factory inspectors?
  Sir S. Hoare: And factory inspectors. My Noble Friend, representing in the House the Department of Industrial Research, has been brought into close contact with some of these questions which are being considered by that department, and I think he will be able to give the House interesting information on each of the questions raised by the hon. Member. I come at once to the questions the hon. Member asked about prison administration and penal treatment.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Noble Lord deal with Judge Stewart's recommendations?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir. If the House is to deal intelligently with this matter of penal reform, there are certain facts which ought to be kept in mind. It is necessary that I should go into some detail in connection with what is being done, particularly after the speech of the hon. Member. We have to take concrete details, avoid generalities, and deal with these details. It is interesting to me, as Home Secretary, to note the fact that the greatest of my predecessors, Sir Robert Peel, who held very advanced views about prison administration and penal reform, was the Home Secretary who, above all others, interested himself in details. There is, for instance, in the Home Office a minute signed by his own hand, ordering that constables in the uniformed police force should be given two blankets instead of one. There is another minute, also signed by his own hand, saying that in future convicts to be transported to Australia should be given two sets of warm underclothing. I take that attitude of constantly facing the details as my example at the Home Office. I remember very well, and I dare say other hon. Members will also remember, the very striking phrase in a poem by William Blake in which he spoke of "labouring well the minute particulars." That is essentially the duty of a Home Secretary in dealing with the kind of questions that have been raised in the Debate this afternoon.
  With those few words of introduction, I come to details about our prisons and
  3152
  certain aspects of our penal administration. The last statistics—the statistics for 1937—show that during the year 42,014 men and 5,035 women—that is to say, a total of 47,049 men and women—were admitted into our prisons. It is interesting to compare that figure with the figure not very long ago—30 years ago—during the Parliamentary lifetime of a good many hon. Members still in this House. At that time, no fewer than 211,519 men and women were admitted to the prisons in the course of 12 months. That is to say, prison receptions have fallen from 211,000 to 47,000.
  Mr. Buchanan: How does the post-war period compare with the pre-war period?
  Sir S. Hoare: It shows a very marked fall, particularly in the years since the passing of the Money Payments Act—an Act on which I should like to pay a tribute to my predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has done more to keep men and women out of prison than almost any other single Act in our generation. If we come to analyse these figures further, we find that of the 11,200 men and women who are in prison on an average every day of the year—that is to say, 10,500 men and 700 women—very roughly 1,200 men and 120 women are awaiting trial, or are in prison as a result of civil process or for non-payment of fines; about 2,100 men and 150 girls under 21 are in prison or under Borstal sentences; about 2,000 men and 75 women are first offenders; about 4,000 men and 120 women have had previous convictions; and about 170 men and 70 women may be described as habitual inebriates. There is one figure that my advisers have put in of very roughly 1,500 of what we might call hardened criminals, a very small number on the whole when we consider the total numbers of the prison population—1,500 out of about 11,000.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Are they all men?
  Sir S. Hoare: 1,500 men and 80 women. To carry these figures a step further; of 38,139 prisoners received into prison for the first time during the last period of years for which we have had statistics, 30,475, or 79·9 per cent., almost 80 per cent., had not, as far as is known, returned to prison two to six years after these statistics applied. The percentage is high with regard to first offenders. It is

  3153
  satisfactory to note, I would ask hon. Members to notice, that about 80 per cent. of the men and women who get into prison for one reason or another do not get back there.
  There is another comment I should like to make upon these figures, and it deals with two of the classes to which I have just drawn the attention of the House. I spoke just now of this class of habitual inebriates—170 men and 70 women. This is one of the most difficult classes with which we have to deal, particularly the women. If any hon. Member goes to Holloway he will be depressed by the large number, compared with the total number of the existing inmates, of women who spend almost the whole of their lives going in and out of prison. There are women there who have had 30 and 40 convictions and make a regular habit of going into prison on a Monday, with a five-day sentence, and coming out of prison on the Friday, and then coming back the following Monday; so much so that one of the prison administrators told me that some of them say, when they are leaving on the Friday, "Keep my room for me next week."
  I draw the attention of the House to these facts to-day not to suggest that I have got a solution. I am searching about for one, and I cannot find one. Perhaps the only comforting factor about the problem is that most of these men and women are oldish, and that it is to be hoped that, with a better standard of education and better conditions of living, and so on, this intractable class will gradually fade out from our prison population. Meanwhile hon. Members will see how difficult it is, in a prison like Holloway, to organise the kind of reformatory treatment we all wish to see adopted when we have this number of quite irredeemable habitual inebriates.
  There is another class about which I would say a word or two—the class of juvenile delinquents to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) made some allusions in his speech. I agree with him. I do not take the view that original sin has increased in the minds of the young since the year 1933. The figures that he quoted were a comparison of the figures in 1933 and the more recent years. Does anyone in this House to-day, with his own experience of the world, in going about in the streets and in the country, suggest
  3154
  that the young have become more wicked in the spectacular degree during the last five years? I do not accept that view at all. I agree with him that the increase in numbers is mainly due to the operations of the Young Persons Act. Indeed, the Act has operated exactly as the hon. Members who passed it wished it to operate. We wished it to call attention to these cases and to call the attention of magistrates to the greater opportunities of dealing with juvenile delinquents. I do not regard this increase in numbers, great as it may appear at first sight, as very much more than the result of the operations of the 1933 Act. It is, however, regrettable that, in spite of public opinion upon the subject, the number of boys and girls actually in prison still remains at a figure which we must all deplore. The figures for 1936—the last year for which I have statistics—show that there were still 1,237 boys and 77 girls committed to prison in that period of 12 months. Of the 1,237 boys sentenced to imprisonment, 34 per cent., so far as is known, had not previously been proved guilty of offences. They were first offenders, and would seem to me to be cases for which probation is eminently suitable. Of the remainder, namely, 66 per cent., with previous proved offences, many I should have thought had records that seemed to justify a Borstal sentence more appropriately than a sentence of imprisonment. I draw attention to these figures to-day, and I draw the attention particularly of the benches of magistrates throughout the country to the alternative methods which have now been developed, and which each year are being developed more successfully for dealing with the young and avoiding sending boys and girls to prison at all.
  I have stated the problem so far as numbers and categories are concerned. I do not to-day attempt to theorise about penal treatment. Indeed, as far as my studies teach me anything, they go to show the great danger of adopting a doctrinaire attitude towards these penal questions. A great deal of harm, for instance, was done in the middle of the nineteenth century by people with the best intentions in the world applying doctrinaire theories to the treatment of individuals, and, as a result, the cause of more humane treatment of prisoners, quite contrary to the desire of these particular doctrinaires, was put back a

  3155
  generation. I try to approach these problems in as common-sense and concrete a way as I can, and I set myself two objects. First of all, it is the duty of the Home Secretary, and indeed the duty of every hon. Member in this House, to protect society against the enemies of society, and, secondly, to do what one can to help those who have slipped up to find their feet again.
  I have here a number of details connected with penal administration during the last 12 months which may, at first sight, individually seem insignificant to some hon. Members. I venture to quote them for two reasons. First of all, they will help to show what we are trying to do to develop the reform side of prison life, and, secondly, I think that their cumulative effect, even though individually the particular items may not be of any great importance, will be to help to do what is very necessary—to prevent the prisoner becoming an outlaw of society, and to keep him in touch as far as we can with the world outside and to make his life in prison as natural as we can in the circumstances.
  Here is the list of the improvements that we have been adopting during recent months. There is, first of all, the development in the earnings system. I spoke last year upon the introduction of the earnings system in the convict prisons. I am glad to be able to make a further and a very satisfactory report upon the earnings system. Not only is it answering very well where it has already been introduced, but we are introducing it into the local prisons, where the sentences are shorter and where, consequently, the difficulties are in some ways greater, but in the cases where we have introduced it, it is answering very satisfactorily. We are finding that it is creating a much better spirit within the prison walls. It is giving the prisoners an interest in their work, but, most important of all, it is helping to maintain their self-respect and to make them think that people are taking an interest in what they are actually doing.
  Next, we have been introducing a new system of hours under which there is more of what is called associated labour, that is, labour in which the prisoners meet together in the prisons. That, again, is helping to break down the evils that are very likely to arise from a system of too
  3156
  great solitude. We have arranged for prisoners to be employed in association on Saturday afternoons, where local conditions permit. We are allowing young prisoners on remand or awaiting trial, to smoke. We have arranged for a temporary transfer of certain convicts to local prisons for the purpose of receiving visits from their friends. The definite object of this change is to keep the prisoner in touch with his family outside, so that when he comes out of prison he is not an outlaw out of touch with the world at large. The scheme only came into operation towards the end of last year, but it is working very well. We have been reorganising the physical training in our prisons. Hitherto, there has been an age limit.
  Mr. A. Jenkins: In regard to the visits of relatives and friends, is it still the practice that there is a kind of barrier between the visitor and the prisoner? There is usually, I understand, a barrier of glass.
  Sir S. Hoare: I do not know the details, which I will give later on, but I think I am right in saying that we have substantially improved matters in that respect. With regard to physical training, it has hitherto been open only to prisoners below a certain age. We are now extending the limitation and giving opportunities for physical training on a much wider basis to prisoners of older ages. We realise how important it is that they should be kept physically fit. We have been looking into the question of prison libraries and have been able to make an increased grant towards the libraries. We have been able to arrange for periodicals to come into the prison libraries on a bigger scale, to get the prison libraries catalogued, and generally to make the library side of prison life a good deal better than it has been in the past. We have also been able to arrange in certain prisons, and particularly in the Borstal institutions, for cinemas, and I should like to express thanks to all the people concerned who have provided the prisons and the Borstal institutions with the necessary apparatus.
  Coming to a new class of change, we have been reviewing the question of prisoners' clothes, particularly women's clothes. Any hon. Member who visits Holloway will find that great changes have been made in that respect. They are not only better looking but better

  3157
  fitting clothes. My advisers rightly take the view that it adds tremendously to the self-respect of a woman prisoner if she feels that she is not looking a guy and that her clothes fit her. With regard to the question of lighting, unfortunately, our prison buildings are very old in many cases, and it is very difficult to adapt these old buildings to modern requirements, but within the possibilities we are trying to get better lighting in the cells. Obviously, an improvement in lighting will enable the prisoner to read much more easily. We have to do these things gradually, because our funds are limited, but it is our definite policy to improve cell lighting in the prisons generally.
  Lastly, there is the very important question of food. The difficulty of serving food in prisons must be obvious to every hon. Member. The difficulty is that of serving food hot in the individual cells, particularly when we remember that some of the prisons, particularly the older prisons, cover a very large area and are so inconveniently arranged so far as the kitchen accommodation is concerned. We have been consulting experts who know most about these problems and we are experimenting now with a system of food containers, which enables the prisoners to collect the containers, instead of the food being carried to the cells until, though it may be good, it arrives at the cells so cold that it is almost uneatable.
  Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the prison population take their meals in solitude in the cells and what percentage have meals in association? Is it necessary to preserve the system of solitary meals?
  Sir S. Hoare: I cannot give the hon. Member the figures offhand, but I am sure he will see the difficulty. One of our great difficulties is that we are dealing in prison with such a great variety of human beings and we have to be very careful in the classification to guard against the worst criminals corrupting less criminal prisoners. Because of that fact we have to maintain generally the cell system. When our prisons are better classified and we have a more modern system of prison buildings, the question of association will be much easier than it is at the present time. One word more about the clothes of prisoners. We are trying an experiment which was suggested to me by the hon.
  3158
  Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), of allowing prisoners at Maidstone—I am quoting Maidstone because Maidstone is one of the prisons where we are making the experiment—when interviewing their friends to wear their ordinary clothes. It was pointed out to me that many prisoners feel very much degraded if when their friends come to see them they see them in their prison clothes. The experiment is still a new one, and I do not want to generalise upon it, but we are hoping that it will succeed.
  It may be asked, after I have given this long list of small changes, what is in our minds? Why have we done it? Is it simply the result of men and women of our generation being more soft-hearted than our predecessors, and instinctively having a greater dislike for pain and suffering than former generations? In other words, is it little more than the expression of a sentimental feeling of benevolence towards human beings generally? I should like to say categorically that so far as my advisers are concerned and so far as I am concerned, it is nothing of the kind. In making these changes we are engaged upon the reforms that I hope to introduce in the autumn, not merely from sentimental reasons, but because we feel that it is the commonsense plan. We are dealing with a series of concrete problems and we are dealing with them not because the theorists or the sentimentalists say that on general grounds this is the right way to deal with human beings generally, but because the people who know most about these things say that this is a successful way of keeping down crime and of preventing people who get into prison from coming back to prison.
  I have two very interesting comments in my possession respecting the changes of the last few months. I am taking them not from my advisers at the Home Office, who might be biased and might be anxious, as we all are, to make the most of the changes that we are introducing. The first of the comments is from a man who only recently came out of prison after serving a serious sentence. The other is taken from the report of the Governor of one of our difficult prisons. This is what the ex-prisoner says about the earnings scheme:
  "To the thinking man, the matter does not rest merely with the advantage of being able to have a smoke. It is a scheme which is going to prove more far-reaching than that.

  3159
  I will try and explain what I mean. First of all, the time goes much quicker because the individual knows he is doing something useful, and he has to do so much before he can earn this great privilege, that he has not time to brood on his wrongs, fancied or otherwise, so that the psychological effect, to begin with, is great and good. The very fact that a man is earning something, however little, has the tendency to put him in a better frame of mind and, in my humble opinion, this will have a good influence on his attitude to the community when he is released from here. These efforts at prison reform are really all for the good of the community, and I can say in all honesty that in this prison, those in authority are doing their utmost, as far as lies within their power, to promulgate reform methods. I feel certain that the effect of this treatment will be the direct cause of a large number of the men leaving here with the determination to become better citizens."
  Here are a few sentences from the report of the Governor of one of our most difficult prisons. I will not name it, but I am perfectly ready to show any hon. Member the full report if he is interested enough to wish to see it.
  "During these five months"—
  That is the five months to the beginning of this year—
  "greater changes in administration have been made than during the five previous years; indeed, the comparative period might be truthfully and considerably extended. The earnings scheme has justified every optimistic prophecy, and the co-operation of these supposedly difficult prisoners has been remarkable. As an instance of this I have been compelled to issue an order that men in piece-rate shops are not to be permitted to work during their exercise period. I cannot but think that everyone at this prison is entitled to look back upon the work of these last months with some satisfaction. The whole atmosphere of the prison has improved to a marked extent, and now approaches normality."
  Those are two opinions, neither of them solicited by us; the first of a prison governor and the second of an ex-prisoner, and they show that all these small changes which we have introduced during the last 12 months have had a cumulative and real effect on prison life. They are helping to make prison life more human, and are helping to keep the men and women in prison in closer touch with the world outside, so as to make it more likely that when their sentence is over both men and women will become good citizens and find their place in society, instead of, as is often the case, becoming outcasts and going further and further down hill. I have given the House this description of what has been going on in our present
  3160
  administration, but I should not like to sit down without saying something about an almost equally important problem, and that is the problem of our prison buildings. One of our greatest difficulties today is that our present buildings are so out of date. There has not been a new prison built for 50 years, and some of the prisons still in use date back a century and more. We have tried our best with the money at our disposal to improve the buildings, and anyone who has gone round the prisons will congratulate the prison administrators on their attempt to make the best of a bad job.
  While it is the fact that no new prison has been built for 50 years, it will be realised that during that period the whole outlook of the country has changed towards penal questions. We have gathered together a much greater body of experience of how to deal with crime and delinquency, but time after time we are held up by the difficulty of trying to introduce these reforms into buildings which are so much out of date. My time at the Home Office has unfortunately coincided with the moment when it is difficult to get money for these services. In the nature of things we have to face a huge expenditure on re-armament, and it is very difficult to find money for the big and comprehensive building programme which I should like to see undertaken. I am glad, however, to be able to tell the House that we have formed a programme for the future. We wish to have a housing programme for prisoners just as we have a housing programme for other classes of the community. We have approved the first steps in this big and more comprehensive programme.
  It seemed to me that there were two points at which we ought to begin this new housing programme. One point was at Pentonville, where we have a prison which was built nearly 100 years ago, and which is situated in a very thickly populated district of London. The other point where we ought to begin is a new women's prison. If any hon. Members have visited Holloway, they will agree with me that you could not have a building much more unsuited than Holloway for ordinary women prisoners. Take the unfortunate class of woman prisoner to whom I alluded at the beginning of my speech—the habitual inebriates, of whom there are a good many in Holloway. Most of them are

  3161
  old ladies. Could anything be more incongruous than a prison built on the model of Windsor Castle, with great walls all round it? None of these old ladies could even climb over the seats in this House, let alone escape from the great and semi-mediaeval walls of Holloway. My first move, therefore, was to take the necessary steps for building a new women's prison for the women at Holloway. The kind of prison I had in mind is more in the nature of a camp in the country, with the women living, as Borstal boys and girls live, in small house communities, with a good deal of open-air work and many activities to keep them interested.
  The first step, therefore, which I am able to announce is that we are now going to start, as soon as we can get a suitable site, the building of a new women's prison on these lines, which will take most, if not all, of the women from Holloway. Holloway will then be closed as a women's prison, and the men from Pentonville will go either to Holloway or to Wandsworth or possibly Wormwood Scrubs. As a result of building a new women's prison, we shall be able to get rid of Pentonville altogether, and at the present moment—I do not think I am divulging any secret—there are negotiations in progress between the Prison Commissioners and the London County Council with a view to the Pentonville site being taken over for a housing scheme for North-East London. Another result of these changes will be taking the women out of Aylesbury and putting them into this new women's prison. We shall probably use Aylesbury, which is a much more modern building, as a men's prison. We shall also, as a result of these changes, want another Borstal for girls, and although I cannot announce it to-day, I think that as a result of the proposed legislation being passed, we shall find that we shall want a further boys' Borstal. Looking further ahead—I want to give the House a picture of our programme—I should like to see the discontinuance of the prisons at Reading and at Oxford. The site of the prison at Reading is very much needed for municipal improvements in the town of Reading, and the site of Oxford Prison is very much needed in connection, so I am told, with the new Nuffield College. These schemes must depend on conditions in the future when we are in a
  3162
  position to build the new women's prison, which will enable us to make the further changes I have indicated.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a women's prison on a country site and closing the prisons at Reading and Oxford. I presume he has taken into consideration the possibility that this will not prevent visitors coming to see them?
  Sir S. Hoare: The right hon. Gentleman will see that it is inevitable if we are to carry out the plan of greater classification than we have now, but it is a point which we must bear in mind, and it may be that we shall be able to afford greater facilities to visitors to go to these prisons and for their friends and relations to see the prisoners. I have left myself very little time to discuss the other questions which have been raised. As far as industrial diseases are concerned, my Noble Friend will reply. Let me say a few words about the very important question of approved schools, which are an essential part of the questions we are discussing this afternoon. They provide one of the ways of dealing with the young. There are probation, approved schools, and Borstal treatment for dealing with the young, and an interesting fact is that every year magistrates and social workers realise more and more the advantages of these various alternatives and are applying them much more than they did a few years ago.
  In the case of probation, I think the country as a whole is becoming far more seized of its great advantages than it was a few years ago. The changes which have recently taken place in the approved schools are really two. We have drawn the attention of magistrates to the advantages of not sending the very young to the schools if it can be avoided. We take the view that for the very young children under 10 years of age, in nine cases out of 10 it is much better to find foster parents than to keep them in a home. So far as the older boys and girls are concerned, the difficulty is the dearth of accommodation. We have induced local authorities in recent years to build more of these approved schools. I think we have had 19 in the last two years, but even so the accommodation is insufficient, and I would ask hon. Members to keep an eye on this important question in their

  3163
  own constituencies and to encourage their own local authorities to find suitable sites and provide this much needed accommodation.
  One further change we have made in recent months is that we have sent out a circular to encourage local authorities to place the older boys and girls with foster parents, and not only to board-out children under 10 years of age. We did that for this reason. We took the view that in a number of these cases the problem was to tide over a difficult time, such as the breaking-up of the home, or some domestic difficulty of that sort, rather than to send the boy or girl, for a long period, to a distant school. The experiment has not been in operation for more than a few months, but at present it seems to be working well. The local authorities are finding suitable homes for a number of these boys and girls. They are able to give them advice as to their mode of life and so on. This avoids taking the boy or girl, perhaps for two or three years, away from home surroundings altogether.
  I have covered a wide field in the many questions on which I have said a word or two this afternoon, but I am afraid that a number of specific questions are left which I may not have answered in detail. I hope, however, that what I have said will show the House the spirit in which my advisers and I are approaching those detailed questions. I believe that a Debate such as this will go to show that there is a general body of support for the line we are taking. It is very important that this fact should be known to the country outside. One of our difficulties is not that there are not progressive people who are anxious to see changes introduced and adopted, but that there is still an appalling amount of ignorance in the country about any question connected with penal administration. The usefulness of a Debate such as this will be to show up that ignorance and to tear off the veil of mystery which has often surrounded these prison questions. I welcome, for instance, the visits which hon. Members and other public workers have paid to prisons during the last 12 months, for that all helps to dissipate that ignorant atmosphere of melodrama which has collected around many of these questions. I thank the House for having listened to a long catalogue of details this afternoon. As
  3164
  I have said, a Debate of this kind will be very helpful to me and my advisers in our day-to-day work of prison administration.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Montague: As Member for the constituency in which Pentonville Prison is situated, I wish to say that the decision of the Home Office in regard to Pentonville Prison is the termination of a long agitation, and I am sure that decision will be welcomed by my constituents.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. Marshall: I am sure there are no two opinions about the usefulness of this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) raised many problems in his opening speech, and he showed a very enlightened attitude towards them. I think every hon. Member will desire to pay a tribute to the Home Secretary for the enlightened and progressive way in which he has approached, and is approaching, the questions connected with his Department. I do not intend to try to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his dissertation on prison reform, for there are many hon. Members who are better qualified than I am to deal with that matter. I wish to deal with a special matter concerning industrial diseases. I rather wish that the Home Secretary had given some indication of the attitude of his Department towards this important matter, but I realise that he had so many subjects to deal with that he had perforce to leave some out of his speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton asked whether the Home Office are satisfied with the administration of the industrial diseases schemes, and there has not yet been any answer to that question. I want to refer particularly to the silicosis scheme. If the Home Office are satisfied with the administration or the scope of that scheme, then they are the only people in the country who are. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a line in which William Blake talked about labouring the minute particular. I shall try to do that in the few remarks that I make. I want to say generally, with regard to the Metal Industries Silicosis Order, that the whole scheme is too narrow in its scope, since it has never included a great number of workers. Silicosis is the only industrial disease within that scheme for

  3165
  which a worker can claim compensation, and all the allied diseases, such as pulmonary tuberculosis and many other respiratory diseases, are excluded. If the present eliminatory process, which is caused by the introduction of certain new tools in the grinding industry, goes on, in a few years time the scheme will not be worth the paper on which it is written, because very few workers will come under it.
  I will try to give the House a picture of the situation in this respect in one city in which there are many of these workers. I believe that the whole centre of the silicosis scheme, that is, the metal-grinding industry, is based upon the metal grinders of Sheffield. It is estimated by the Medical Officer of Health of Sheffield that there are about 4,600 grinders in the city—I will not say they are all covered by the scheme—and 3,635 cutlery grinders. To give the House some idea of what these people do, there are, for instance, table-blade grinders, file grinders, saw grinders, jobbing grinders, wool shear grinders, edge tool grinders, scythe grinders, scissor grinders, and spring knife grinders. I think hon. Members will agree that these men are very skilled and worthy men. They are men whose products are of popular use and go into every household in the country. Their crafts are not new crafts, but very old ones, and I do not think that even the Government can advance the excuse that it is a new industry, and that they have not had time in which to investigate all the ramifications of the trade.
  These men have always been subject to a very heavy incidence of respiratory diseases. The old Sheffield grinders used to say at once time that in a certain number of years they would "drop off their perch." They used that old Sheffield phrase knowing full well that in the ordinary course of events they would contract some lung disease that would ultimately bring about total incapacity to work and in many cases death. Among these grinders the death rate from respiratory tuberculosis is, even now, four times the rate for all persons over 15 in Sheffield. That is the case despite the fact that the new abrasive wheel, which was to bring about such a revolution in the industry, has been in operation in many of the cutlery factories in Sheffield for some 25 years. In spite of that,
  3166
  there has been very little diminution in the incidence of the disease among the grinders of Sheffield. The 4,600 grinders in Sheffield, excluding cutlers, represent 1/120th, or less than three-quarters of one per cent., of the population. I think the House will realise the terrible incidence of this disease when I say that those 4,600 men provide 6 per cent. of all the cases of infectious tuberculosis in the city.
  Let me quote a few comparisons with other trades, which are given in the report of the Medical Officer of Health of Sheffield, Dr. Rennie, who is one of the greatest authorities in the country on respiratory diseases. Cases of tuberculosis among the 4,600 grinders numbered 149. There are 9,744 miners in the city. I think it will be agreed that mining is a very dangerous occupation. I have listened to many speeches in which my hon. Friends have put forward the claims of miners and explained the dangers of mining and the incidence of disease in that industry. When I say that even mining is not as dangerous as metal grinding, from the point of view of respiratory diseases, I think hon. Members will get some idea of the terrible scourge which afflicts these men. Among the 9,744 miners in the city, there were 31 cases of tuberculosis. Stone masons and stone-getters are men among whom it is always thought that there is a very great incidence of lung trouble. There are 1,200 of these workers in the city of Sheffield and 20 cases of tuberculosis among them. From those comparisons, I think hon. Members will agree that there is no question that this heavy incidence of respiratory diseases among the grinders of Sheffield is due to their work. During the last 40 years, in spite of the introduction of the new abrasive wheel, there has been very little diminution in the incidence of the disease among these workers. I can give actual figures.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: May I ask the hon. Member whether he can suggest some way of avoiding it?
  Mr. Marshall: I am dealing at the moment with the desirability of bringing into the silicosis scheme these men who are now excluded by the restrictive clauses. If the hon. Member so desires I can, later, give him the opinion of one of the greatest experts in the country. The cardinal defect of the scheme is that

  3167
  it proceeds on the assumption that silicosis is the only disease from which these people suffer. But that is only one complaint. Phthisis, fibrosis and tuberculosis are all rampant among grinders. Among the general population there has been a marked decrease of these diseases in the last 40 years, but the decrease among grinders has been much less than the decrease among the general population.
  Turning to the scheme itself, I think I can show the desirability of enlarging it so as to cover these respiratory diseases which, beyond doubt, arise out of the conditions and the nature of the work done by these men. The people who drafted the scheme seem to have been concerned, not so much with the disease as with the tool used by the men in their work. I have some figures here of which I ask the Noble Lord to take particular note. When the silicosis scheme came into operation a census was taken among men working in these trades—table blade grinders and the other sections I have already mentioned. That census did not include all who worked in the industry but it was fairly representative. It covered about 1,678 men working in about 10 different grinding processes. Owing to the restrictive clauses of the scheme, only 399 of these would be able to make a claim under the scheme. Paragraph 2 in the scheme excluded 687 men who were working on the abrasive wheel. I have already shown that there is very little diminution in pulmonary diseases among grinders, but the scheme excludes men who have worked for three years on the abrasive wheel. A man may have worked on sandstone for 10 years and may during that period have inhaled silica dust which will ultimately bring about total incapacity, but if his employer introduces the abrasive wheel, then as soon as the man has worked for three years on that wheel, he has no claim for compensation. He is outside the scheme. If that is to be called "a compensation scheme" then I do not understand the term at all.
  Again, 134 file grinders were excluded under paragraph 2 (b). These file grinders were excluded because safeguards had been provided in their case. The stone had been covered as much as possible and the man had to keep the file which he was grinding immersed in water. As long as these conditions were
  3168
  conformed to, these file-grinders could not claim under the scheme. Further, the definition of "grindstone" in the scheme resulted in the exclusion of 52 men, while 371 out-workers were excluded under Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. That Section defines the term "workman" and under it the out-worker who works casually is not regarded as a workman and, whatever disease he may contract, he cannot claim compensation. I suggest that that matter requires alteration, and I hope the Noble Lord will pay some attention to the facts which I have stated.
  As regards deaths from silicosis, the number of deaths in Sheffield certified as being due to silicosis was 34 in a certain period, and in the same period, the number of successful claims for disablement—owing to the various defects I have indicated—was only 11, while only three successful claims could be made in respect of death. I do not want to weary the House by a long speech on this subject, but I feel it is time that the Home Secretary instituted a thoroughgoing investigation of this matter with a view to enlarging the scope of the Order and bringing in these men who suffer from these diseases and who can prove that the disease arises out of their employment. The silicosis scheme is too narrow in its operation, and if this Debate has done nothing else but give us an opportunity of raising this matter, and of trying to bring home its seriousness to the Home Secretary, it will not have been in vain.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Nicolson: I am sure we have all listened with great interest to the details which have been given by the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall). The House is always impressed when a Member tells us details of which he has personal experience, and even more impressed when an hon. Member is able to speak with such lucidity and moderation of things about which he feels deeply. I shall not follow him in the field which he has chosen. I want to ask my Noble Friend certain specific questions not covered by the speech of the Home Secretary, and I hope he will realise that I am putting these questions solely with a desire for information, and not in any spirit of criticism. I have no desire to criticise the Home Office for its administration for which I have the highest admiration. I should like to take this

  3169
  opportunity of paying a special tribute to the Aliens Department which, during recent months has been under a heavy strain of work. It has been overwhelmed with applications and, as hon. Members know who have had contact with the officials of that branch on refugee problems, they have dealt with those applications, while maintaining their duty towards their own regulations, not in a spirit of hard mechanism but with commendable humanity, enormous patience, and, I think, very great charity. I think the House ought to pay a tribute to those hard-worked officials at this very difficult time of strain in their Department.
  When I first joined the Civil Service, which I regret to say was 30 years ago, the Home Office was regarded by the other Departments of State as a rather static Department. It was regarded as one of the oldest Departments and was thought to be, if I may say so, more or less obsolete. At its best, it was regarded as a sort of Ministry of the Interior, as a sort of Gestapo or Ogpu, the main function of which was to maintain law and order. If we personified it at all, we personified it in the shape of an elderly policeman moving with great dignity but not much rapidity in the execution of that sole function of maintaining law and order. Even at that date we were incorrect in so doing, because the Factories Acts had brought the Home Office into constant and extensive contact with the actual lives of the people of the country. Since then the conception of the Home Office as a static organisation has become completely obsolete. The Home Office is to-day one of the most dynamic Departments of State. It is a Department of great and increasing social service. I think the picture of the policeman must be superseded to-day by the picture of a young doctor anxious by every means in his power to gain experience of, and to improve, the mental and physical health of the people in the district in which he lives.
  Some would go even further and say that the picture of the young doctor was in its turn being superseded by the picture of a young octopus whose tentacles are stretching out and begning to embrace all the administrative functions of the State. We can see one tentacle stretching out at this moment so that it gets its suckers ino the comparatively ancient brickwork of the Board of Education.
  3170
  Another tentacle stretches out and with infinite tact, but great firmness, entwines itself round the sturdy limbs of the local authorities. Still a third is creeping along and getting hold of that young sapling, the Ministry of Health. Oviously, in probation schemes and in approved schools the Home Office is assuming educative functions. Obviously, in other respects it is usurping the functions of the Ministry of Health and in one way and another, I think, there is danger of overlapping between the functions of the Home Office and those of the Ministries which are specifically dedicated to education and health. I do not imagine that the Home Office are unaware of this tendency, but I should like the Noble Lord to give us an assurance that they realise that overlapping means duplication of labour and therefore waste of labour; that it may mean rivalry between Departments; that it may mean competition, and competition between Government Departments does not mean increased efficiency, but always means increased costs.
  There are certain more specific points about which I should like to ask the Noble Lord. First, with reference to juvenile delinquents. The Home Secretary spoke at some length and in considerable detail about child delinquents and I think he agreed, as I agree, with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that we must not be too depressed by the statistics on that subject. It is true that they seem very alarming at present, but when statistics disclose unpleasant facts it is very often not because the facts are really much worse than before but because the method of gathering the statistics has become much better than before. The second point to be remembered is, as the report itself notes, that the rising generation, the children now under 14, are an infinitely better generation than either my own generation or that which followed mine. They have far more energy, more ambition, more enterprise. Therefore, a little delinquency is only the froth on the tide of a very strong rising generation. I think we must expect a little delinquency to go with that very large increase in the enterprise and energy of the new generation. All the same it is a serious problem, and I am not quite clear exactly how it stands at present. My recollection was—and the Noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that some time ago the Secretary of State gave us an assurance that

  3171
  a special inquiry would be made into this very problem of the increase in child delinquency. I am not now clear whether he meant that the report we now have would shortly be issued after a 10 years' interval or whether something more specific was being done. That is a point on which I should like to have further information from the Noble Lord.
  On the question of general penal reform, I think many of us in this House have been disappointed that during this Session a revolutionary Bill has not been brought forward. My right hon. Friend gave us some indication that that might come in the autumn. I think we must recognise that in our present Home Secretary we have someone who combines all the virtues necessary for a real penal reformer. In the first place, he has a great gift for absorbing detail precisely; in the second place, despite his disclaimer of sentimentality, he has very human emotions; and, in the third place, he has a sort of family pride, as it were, in this question of penal reform. It is a question to him of hereditary instinct and tradition, and I did hope that we should, under his guidance and with his enthusiasm, have got much further already than we have done.
  In his speech he covered most of the points of detail on which I would myself have wished to question him, such as the question of clothes and many other details, but some remain. I do not think the country generally realises as yet (though I think the House does) the absolutely vital difference that exists between the first offender and the habitual criminal. I think that if we were to describe what has been the development in thought on penal reform in the last generation, we should call it an approach to some conception of this distinction between the old lag and the new boy, between the habitual offender, the recidivist, and the first offender. I think we would say that out of that conception quite different ideas have grown up. In the first place, we are beginning, I think, to regard crime not as a sort of checker board with black and white squares—virtue white, and crime black—but more or less as a sort of grey tweed in which the strands are curiously intermingled with chance, opportunity, character, environment, and heredity. In the second place, I think we have come to realise this, that crime is not, as it used
  3172
  to be, so much an outrage upon society as a reflection upon society, and that, therefore, the incidence of responsibility, the incidence of justice, the incidence of criticism, has shifted. We are getting less and less to say that a man is a wicked man when he has committed a crime, and more and more to say that there must be something wrong with ourselves if these conditions can continue unmodified and unimproved. This feeling that responsibility for the first offender is our most important responsibility is increasing enormously. I trust that the Home Secretary will, in the new Penal Reform Bill that he is considering, concentrate upon that and on certain smaller points which I should wish to ask him in that connection, and they are these.
  The Borstal system first. I have visited many Borstal institutes. I have had Borstal boys to stay in my own house, and nothing that I can say would be too much in praise of the Borstal system as it exists to-day. As far as I can make out there is no difference whatsoever between a Borstal institute to-day and Wellington College when I was a boy. In fact, I think that, if anything, the Borstal boys are a little more comfortable and enlightened than we were in my school days. But there is one terrible mechanical error, and it is this. Borstal boys, when they are sentenced, are taken to Wormwood Scrubs for a certain period—I think it is six weeks—in order to be classified. I am all for classification. I believe indeed that it ought to go very much farther than it does, and that it ought to be carried out by trained psychologists. At present you put bulldogs and greyhounds into the same kennel, and call it classification. But, above all, their classification ought not to be carried out at Wormwood Scrubs. It is quite wrong to take a lad who has stolen a bicycle, or who may have just run away with it and forgotten to put it back, and put him in that sinister and terrifying place and allow him to see the criminals, the prisoners, walking round and round and to feel that the stigma of the prison, the mark of Cain, has been put upon him. You destroy the whole effect of Borstal if you begin it by branding the boy with this great broad arrow which is Wormwood Scrubs, and I do beg the Home Secretary—I know there are difficulties in the way—to do something to render it quite impossible that these first

  3173
  offenders, these young boys, should be shut up in Wormwood Scrubs while they are being classified. That surely is a simple thing that ought to be done.
  The second thing is with regard to the earning system. The Home Secretary did indicate, in the first place, that the system had been a success and, secondly, that it was being extended, or that he hoped to extend it, to local prisons. I shall be very much obliged if the Noble Lord, when he replies, will give us some idea how many local prisons have adopted this system, and if he will also indicate, if he can, whether in fact it does mean that the earning system not only restores their respect, as I think it does, but that it does mean that they can buy luxuries with the earned money, and that they are allowed to smoke. I think it is essential that if a man has earned a certain amount of money by the earning system, he should be allowed to spend it on cigarettes and to smoke them at certain hours. I think it is a great pity to deprive him of that great pleasure, although many people may call it a luxury and not a necessity.
  Finally, there is this question of aid on discharge. If I am right in thinking—and I think the House agrees—that the whole purpose of our penal system to-day is to try as far as possible to render the prisoner a better man when he goes out than when he went in, to make him fitter for the difficulties of life rather than less fit, we are all agreed that the care of the Home Office ought not to end at the prison gate. I know there is the Prisoners' Aid Society, and we all know what wonderful work it does, but it is a private society, and I think the Home Office ought to consider this question of aid on discharge. They ought to think whether they cannot do something more about finding employment; more than that, they ought to find a discharged prisoner something to live on during the interval between his discharge and his being able to get employment. The Prisoners' Aid Society simply cannot carry the whole of that burden, and as it is a definite part of penal reform, the Home Office ought, I think, to be able to give us an assurance that that matter also will be taken under their wing.
  I think the House feels that we have all got a different attitude to-day towards penal reform; and that, apart from any
  3174
  party question, the present Home Secretary is really enlightened and active on the subject, and is the very person who will carry it to a successful conclusion.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. McEntee: I want to speak of something rather different from what has been said already. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is not present at the moment, because I want to raise a matter in which he and I, in regard to some questions and answers, differed somewhat a week or so ago. The question that I want to deal with is one with regard to the Receiver's Department of the Metropolitan Police, and particularly in regard to buildings carried out by that Department. On Thursday, 14th July, I asked a question of the Home Secretary in regard to the cost of certain buildings being put up under the direction of the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police, and I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that local authorities in London were carrying out buildings for the housing of working-class people at from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 8d. per foot cube, that blocks of residential flats, such as are called luxury flats, the most expensive type of flats, were being built in London at the present time at from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 3d. per foot cube, and that police buildings for married men were being built at 1s. 7d. per foot cube. I then asked whether he could explain why section houses for single police constables were costing 2s. 2d. in Putney, 2s. 4·55d. in Judd Street, and 2s. 5·92d. at Kenning-ton Lane.
  The extraordinary answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to me on that occasion makes it imperative that I should take some action in regard to it, and this is my only opportunity of doing so. The answer that he gave really was extraordinary, and it seems to me that the people responsible for that answer are either grossly ignorant of costing in regard to buildings or that they are deliberately trying to mislead this House. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The accommodation provided in a section house includes much that is not provided and is unnecessary in married quarters"—
  which, of course, everybody knows—
  "such as common and recreation rooms, gymnasia, canteens, etc."

  3175
  Anybody who has the remotest knowledge of building knows very well, and the people who framed that answer know very well, that the considerations mentioned in that answer ought to cheapen the section houses and not to make them dearer. It must be obvious to everybody that if you have a room or a hall this size, and if you are measuring the cost per foot cube, you have to measure only the outside walls, and there is no cost in the centre, whereas, if you have a building of this size, with all kinds of walls and divisions in it, such as you get in flats and buildings with small rooms, the cost must be greater. For anybody to try and put it over Members of this House that the fact that the buildings concerned have gymnasia, recreation rooms, and canteens is an element in increasing the cost, is sheer nonsense, and, as I say, it indicates either ignorance of building costs or a desire to mislead the Members of the House. The Home Secretary went on:
  "Much of the general accommodation in a section house is for the use not merely of the residents but for all the local police."
  What has that to do with it? Nothing in the world, and to put that in an answer to a question is an attempt to mislead the Home Secretary or the House or both. I hope that we are not going to be subjected to that kind of answer when we ask questions, because if we are the public will have something to say to the Department which is responsible. The Home Secretary said further:
  "Moreover, as regards the three section houses mentioned, account must be taken of the recent increase in building costs which was reflected in the tenders for these schemes. If account is taken of all the factors there is no reason for regarding the cost of the section houses in question as excessive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1938; col. 1510, Vol. 338.]
  In view of the examples I have given, that is no answer, and the people who framed it know that it is no answer. It is an attempt to mislead the House. I hope we shall have an inquiry by the Home Secretary into the question of these building costs, which are a sheer waste of public money. I and other hon. Members have put down questions with regard to the costs of administration and building which are incurred by the Receiver's Department. We have a right to do it not only because public money voted by this House is being
  3176
  expended in large sums by the Department, but because public money collected from the ratepayers in the Metropolitan area is also being spent by it. When we ask questions whether any opportunity is given to the local authorities to ascertain how the money is being spent, we are told that they have no right of inquiry. They have simply to pay. I asked the Home Secretary whether he had had representations from the local authorities in regard to the wasteful expenditure of this public money—I say it deliberately—but the only reply I could get was that the Home Secretary's Department, which is in effect the Receiver's Department, is responsible and that local authorities have no right of inquiry, and he could not concede any such right to them. I hope this matter will be inquired into, because I want the Department to know that Members of this House cannot be put off by the kind of answer which is given through the Home Secretary by the Department.
  On the same day I put a question seeking information with regard to the expenditure against loan under the 1934 Act by the Receiver's Department. I got a reply which, for sheer audacity, is amazing. It was:
  "I would refer the hon. Member to the information given on this matter in the accounts of the Metropolitan Police Fund presented annually to Parliament, and I will send him copies for the last three years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1938; col. 1509, Vol. 338.]
  I had all these copies and I have one in my hand now. It shows that in 1937 there was a balance of £187,644 left over from 1936, and one would imagine that it would have been transferred to the accounts of 1938. I am not an accountant, and I have submitted these accounts to several people who are accountants. Every one of them said that nobody on earth could understand them, that they had no relation to accountancy at all, and that, so far as they could be understood, they showed that the money that had been left over from one year was not accounted for in the next year. The amount I mentioned is shown as having been the balance at the end of 1937. In the 1938 accounts it is not shown as a balance carried forward. It does show it, strange to say, as an expenditure of that year, and apparently it is expended in two years in succession. At the end of that year there was a balance of £305,000. How

  3177
  was that money expended against loan when there was no expenditure against loan? I hope that the Home Secretary will give me the information for which I ask. I thank him for sending me the three year's accounts, but they show me nothing except that the money is there, and that it does not appear to have been expended. I want to know how it has been expended.
  I wish to say a word with regard to the building of prisons. I have spent a good deal of my time in prisons, not as a prisoner, but as one working there. I have also spent a good deal of time in asylums, not as a lunatic, but as one working in them. It has always been one of my boasts that although I have spent a long time in prison I have maintained my character, and although I have spent a long time in asylums I have maintained my sanity. I would like to compliment the Home Secretary on the excellent reference in his speech to prison buildings, particularly to the one which is to be done away with at Holloway. When I have visited Holloway I have been struck, as apparently the Home Secretary was, with the fact that it is hopelessly out of date and in an entirely wrong place to house anybody, particularly women. I hope that it will soon be done away with, and that the right hon. Gentleman will transfer some of the money which is now being wasted deliberately and shamefully by one section of the Department to the excellent purpose which he has now suggested of reforming prison buildings and bringing them up to date and of building new prisons for the better accommodation of prisoners.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Morgan: I would like to concentrate on a point which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the Home Secretary, namely, approved schools. In the last few years there has been a tremendous improvement in the conduct and the product of those schools, and I think that everybody in the House will agree that all those who are sent to them need the best possible type of instruction that can be given. They want, too, the best possible type of teachers. This is emphasised in the Henderson Report, which says:
  "More than ever before, these schools need to attract to their service men and women of
  3178
  sound qualifications and wide culture. In order to attract such men and women the conditions of service in these schools need to be more satisfactory."
  I am not without some knowledge of these schools, and I wish to draw attention to that point. They have done some excellent work and they have now reorganised these schools much as the elementary schools have been organised into a trinity of schools—junior schools up to 13, intermediate schools up to 15, and senior schools up to 18. Of these three types the intermediate one requires the best type of instructors, who need not only a high degree of training in schoolroom education, but special vocational training and a certain knowledge of business methods. I want to ask whether we have the right type of teachers in those schools, and to suggest that something should be done by the Home Office to attract the right type.
  An hon. Member spoke of the overlapping of the work of the Home Office and the Board of Education. I would like to see greater co-operation between the Home Office and the Board of Education in regard to these schools. What could be done almost instantly to bring about an improvement in the personnel of the teaching staff would be a co-operative movement between the Home Office, the Board of Education and the local authorities. Instead of these schools being shut up in watertight compartments they ought to be brought into line with Board of Education schools generally, and I should like to see teachers being transferred and retransferred from the approved schools to the ordinary schools and vice versa. It is not a good thing for teachers in either school to have their experience confined to one type of school. If this is to be brought about we want to get a lightening of the conditions.
  The pay of the teachers has been greatly improved, but some of their burdens are rather irksome. They are called upon to work very long hours, for they have not only their teaching hours but long hours of supervision. In this report it is recommended that the hours of supervision duty, that is, minding the young people after their educational hours, should not exceed 21 hours. One of the reasons for some of these people not taking on this important duty of training the probationer pupils is that they do not like the long hours. If something could be done

  3179
  to eliminate them it would make the calling much more attractive. I do not want to say a word against the work of this excellent body of teachers, but one cannot get away from the fact that unless we get men and women of a high standard of education, some knowledge of psychology and of wide culture, we shall not bring about that big reform we all want to see among these young people who made the first step, it may be quite innocently, the wrong way. Their reformation is a great national task.
  I would like to draw attention to the question of the tenure of these teachers. I have had recent instances where the relations of the teachers and the domestic members of the staff have been rather strained. The Home Office will not be surprised at my reference to this matter because I have been in touch with them by correspondence. I had rather an alarming case not two years ago where, in one of these schools, there was internal friction between the scholastic staff and the house staff, the matron and her husband on the one side and the schoolmaster and his wife on the other, which led to most regretable incidents. That is in the knowledge of the Home Office. This sort of friction ought to cease. With some more enlightened form of governing the schools we could avoid some of those troubles.
  Teachers tell me that one of their great difficulties is that if they have a complaint they have no right of being heard at an inquiry. Most local authorities would allow a teacher who has a grievance, or is likely to be dismissed, to state his case before a tribunal and to be accompanied, if necessary, by a friend whom he could consult, but in approved schools matters are handled rather more arbitrarily and the dismissal of teachers seems to rest with the head master alone or, sometimes, with the secretary. I think the governors ought to refer the matter to the Home Office. Let there be a statement of any grievances which may exist, and let the teachers concerned have the opportunity of putting their case before the authorities.
  I do not know whether in these approved schools they have a system, such as is found at some of our bigger schools, of the students having their own courts, but I was rather alarmed not very long
  3180
  ago to learn that one boy at an approved school had taken upon himself the liberty of writing direct to the Home Office about the action of one of the teachers. There must have been something very wrong in the school for that to be allowed. In a subsequent investigation at the same approved school I found the unedifying spectacle of the boys taking sides for and against different masters and ranged either on the side of the secretary or the headmaster. I hope that a speedy end will be put to such proceedings.
  Generally speaking, I believe that very good work is being done by approved schools. Anyone who walks across to the Home Office can see some of the finest work that schoolboys have ever turned out in the engineering line. But we cannot train all these boys to become engineers, and very righly we are training some of them in farm work, and it would be interesting if the Noble Lord would say how many of the boys do take up agricultural pursuits. Further, although I do not want these schools to be a training ground for the Army, Navy and the Air Force, it would be interesting to know how many of the boys do enter our great Services. I ask that question for this reason. Only this week I inquired of the Secretary of State for War why it was that boys who had been on probation were very often turned down when they applied to join the Army, even after they had been recommended by the probation officer and, in one case, after a bench of magistrates had said the best thing the boy could do would be to join the Army, because that boy had made only one slip and had no stained character.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): That they should be refused permission to join the Army has nothing to do with the Home Office.
  Mr. Morgan: But I should think the Home Office could say that after undergoing these redemptionary measures the boys should be able, on leaving schools, to go into any profession or occupation without let or hindrance.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Banfield: I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Home Secretary, but he scarcely dealt with the

  3181
  points which I wish ultimately to bring before the House. Before I come to them, however, I have one or two remarks to make on the Home Secretary's speech. He showed that he was very anxious to do something for prison reform, and while I was listening to him it occurred to me that it would make a tremendous difference to the unfortunate people in prison if we ensured that there were really good cooks to prepare the food for them. There is an old saying that "God sent the meat and the Devil sent the cooks," and as one who has done cooking in his time I have found in all sorts of institutions, while the food itself has been good, that nine times out of ten it has been spoiled in the cooking. I was a member of a board of guardians for many years and looked into this question in the poor law institutions, and I found that by good cooking it was possible not only actually to save money but to add to the comfort of the inmates. If the Home Secretary really wants to make prisoners as happy as they can be—which I suppose is not very happy—he should give special attention to this point.
  Those who listened to the Home Secretary must have realised how times have changed as regards the treatment of prisoners. The old-fashioned idea was to treat them rough and tell them nothing. To-day we treat them as kindly as possible, and apart altogether from sentiment—which I do not think is of very much use in these matters—if we could get people to realise that the purpose of sending offenders to prison is not simply to punish them but to reform them, so that they may have a new chance in life, we should get some very good results. There is one more point in connection with this matter. Since the introduction of the Young Persons Act, 1932, there has been too much disposition among magistrates to take boys and girls away from their parents and send them into approved schools. That is a step in the wrong direction. We seem to have magistrates—and the introduction of women magistrates, with all due respect to them, has been no help in this matter—who are obsessed in many cases with the idea that if a child does some trifling wrong and is brought before the court the parents have not proper control of it and that the child must be sent into one of these schools. Although in certain cases it may be necessary for children to be
  3182
  taken from home I beg the Home Secretary to remember that very often a bad home is better than an approved school, that nothing really does take the place of home, and that a great responsibility rests upon those benches of magistrates who lightheartedly, without due consideration and thought, send a child away from its parents.
  If some of us had done no more in the way of breaking the law than have these little children who are sent to approved schools we should not have very much for which to blame ourselves. The number of these young persons who are sent away increases year after year. Thirty-four per cent. of those who have never been previously convicted are sent to prison. In my experience as a magistrate the probation system has proved its worth over and over again, and it is wrong that 34 out of every 100 young people should be sent to prison for a first offence, because that is against the tendency of the time, it is not good justice, and it is very bad humanity indeed.
  Next I want to deal with dermatitis. It is an industrial disease of which most people know very little, but it is one of those objectionable diseases which occur in the baking trade, and somehow or other it is increasing instead of decreasing. I want to pay a sincere tribute to the Home Office in respect of this matter. Some years ago, before I was a Member of Parliament, I drew the attention of the Home Office to this disease. They were sympathetic, as they always are in these matters, and on my representations they issued what they called a Washing Facilities Order for the baking industry. I am satisfied that it was a wise Order and has been the means of saving many men from getting dermatitis, but the difficulty in the baking industry is that although the Home Office may make Orders the employers please themselves in great measure as to whether they carry them out, and the visits of inspectors have not achieved a rigid observance of those Orders. I wish to impress this upon the Home Secretary because in a food trade dermatitis is one of the worst diseases there could be. It is a horrible thing in its way and we must do our best to abolish it altogether.
  A few years ago I was successful in getting the Ministry of Health, in conjunction with the Home Office, to make an inquiry into the cause of this disease,

  3183
  but it remains a matter of mystery. No one knows very much about it, except that certain things may cause it in a certain way. I hope that the Washing Facilities Order will be rigidly enforced. I cannot imagine anything worse than to have an employer complying with the Order by hanging up one towel to last six men for one week. That is enough to make even a decent man like myself use strong language. Therefore, I hope the Home Office will do its best to see that the Order is enforced. I always have a great deal of sympathy with Home Office inspectors. They do their duty under very great difficulties, and we have nowhere near enough of them. They use tact, and they use discretion, and when they do take cases under the Factory Act into court I say here without any hesitation that very often they find benches of magistrates who absolutely refuse to do their duty. There is nothing more likely to kill an inspector's enthusiasm for his work than to take a clear case into court, very often after warning the employer two or three times; the bench know the employer, because everyone knows everyone else in a provincial town—they know Mr. So-and-so because he goes to the same chapel or something of that kind; they hear the inspector, and the solicitor, who is a local man too, says, "We plead guilty, but really the persons concerned begged and prayed of this good kind employer to be allowed to work five, six or seven hours when they should not be at work and it was almost impossible not to accede to their request." The bench fines the employer 5s. with costs, and suggests that the inspector might be better employed than in harassing employers in that way. It is a serious matter and I think the Home Office might do something to impress upon magistrates the absolute necessity of enforcing orders under the Factory Act.
  A new Act came into force on 1st July. See what happens when Parliament does things and does not quite understand how they work. This Act gives women and young persons a 48-hour week. It also says that women and young persons may work 100 or 150 hours overtime as the case may be. Only last week a girl employed by a big firm in Manchester said, "The new Factory Act says that we are to have a 48-hour week." The employer, who I suppose has been working them 60,
  3184
  65 or 70, says, "If that is what the Factory Act says I shall reduce your wages by 5s." The Bill makes provision for overtime but makes no provision for the payment of overtime, with the result that these girls may be faced with the fact that it is to their interest to break the law as much as they possibly can. That is the kind of thing that a man like myself meets in his everyday work as a trade union secretary.
  I believe the Home Office has a great tradition. I believe it keeps in touch with ordinary people and endeavours to make the social legislation that is passed here really effective. But it is no use disguising the fact that there are not nearly enough inspectors, and that smaller employers particularly take no notice of many of the regulations, that they have sympathetic magistrates and that with the best will in the world we cannot get that enforcement of the law that we think we are entitled to get as things are at the moment. There are 264 inspectors and 277,000 shops and factories to be inspected, an average of one inspector to every 1,000 shops and factories. What can be done with a position of that kind?
  A good deal of this kind of work is delegated to local authorities. I speak with long and bitter experience of what happens in the case of local authorities which have duties delegated to them under the Factories and Workshops Act. There cannot be the slightest doubt that in scores of cases these duties are not looked upon as of any particular importance. A sanitary inspector is told to report upon the bakehouses in his locality. He runs round them and says, "Have you lime-washed this place this year?" He is told, "Yes," and he reports to the Health Committee that everything in the garden is quite all right. It was not the intention of Parliament that things should be done in that way, particularly in bakehouses. Cleanliness is even better than godliness when it comes to places where food is produced. Sometimes I feel thankful that a good many people are quite in ignorance of the conditions that exist in these places.
  I hope the Home Office will do its best to see, amongst other things, that the new law restricting underground bakehouses is carried out to the full. They ought to have been done away with. It is a disgrace to Parliament that after all these

  3185
  years we have still these underground holes and cellars where food is produced, but if Parliament says, as it has said, they are to go on, I hope that something more than lime-washing will be done within the next 12 months, and that the Home Office will carry out its pledge that these places shall be made as sanitary as places above ground. The fact that they are below the level of the street makes it almost impossible to do that, but I hope that some really high standard will be required and, if it is not reached, it would be far better if they were shut up. The Home Secretary mentioned the necessity for attention to detail. Someone said that genius is a capacity for taking pains—a capacity for doing the little things. In this Home Office work it is the little things that really count. They make the wheels go round and in many cases they make life worth living. If that is the policy of the Home Office, I hope they will continue with the good work.
  7.10 p.m.
  Captain Heilgers: One always listens to the hon. Member with interest, as he speaks with sincerity of the things which have come within his experience. On one occasion I changed my vote after I had listened to him speaking, and not many speakers in this House have caused me to do that. I agree with what he said about the undesirability of boys and girls being sent by benches of magistrates to approved schools at too early an age, or in fact being sent at all. As one of those who signed the manifesto urging various measures of penal reform last Session. I assure the Home Secretary that I will give him my most enthusiastic support for his reforms and I thank him for his splendid and understanding speech.
  To-night, however, I wish to call attention to the Foreign Enlistment Act and its application to the Spanish conflict. It is woefully inadequate for its purpose. The Prime Minister said yesterday it was a matter for profound regret that it was impossible to see the prospect of a speedy termination of the Spanish war. That makes an effective Foreign Enlistment Act all the more necessary. It is over two years since the Home Secretary announced that the Act would be put into operation, but there has not been a single prosecution. It was originally passed in 1870, to-day it is completely out of date and
  3186
  quite unable to deal with the present situation. There is some doubt whether it can be applied in the case of a civil war, and it appears to be impossible to use it to stop the enlistment of a volunteer, or to stop the action of any body of individuals assisting that volunteer. The reason is that there must be a contract of service completed before any action can be taken, and it is usual for a volunteer to go to Spain before he signs any form of enlistment. It is, therefore, impossible to catch your bird before he gets to Spain.
  There is still traffic in human lives going on between this country and Spain, and it is because of the anxieties and sufferings of certain constituents of mine that the matter has been so forcibly brought to my notice and that I raise the question. I am not so much concerned with the young men who enlist. I appreciate their adventurous spirit, and very likely many of us might have done the same. I am concerned with the activities of those who send them. The case of a burglar and a receiver offers a very similar comparison. The burglar takes a sporting chance but the receiver is always a man for whom people have little respect. Those who send them are the receivers. In January last a young marine engineering student, aged 18, named Hector Leigh Coop, heard a speech by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson)—I should mention that any Member to whom I refer has been warned that I was going to raise this matter.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman informed Members of the matters that he proposed to raise?
  Captain Heilgers: I have warned all those who wrote back and asked me. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and others have been informed. The hon. Member for Jarrow has not been informed. I wrote and told her I should be raising a matter concerning her.
  Mr. Bevan: I saw the letter that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wrote but he did not inform Members of the matters to which he proposed to refer, so they have had no opportunity of making inquiries.
  Captain Heilgers: The answer to that is that the other Members have made inquiries of me, and the hon. Member

  3187
  for Jarrow could quite easily have done the same. I am sorry; I agree that it might have been more desirable. At any rate, I did inform the hon. Lady and give her a chance. This constituent of mine wrote to the hon. Member for Jarrow and asked her when and where he could enlist for Spain and he received the reply from the hon. Member for Jarrow telling him to write to the Communist party. He wrote to the Communist party and was told to apply in Manchester where he would be welcomed. He applied in Manchester to the Communist party, but at first when he inquired on the telephone, they turned him down and refused to have anything to do with him. Later, when he went in person, they arranged for him to go to London and to report to the International Brigade Dependants and Wounded Aid Committee, at 1, Litchfield Street, London. When he got there he was given 7s. 6d. and told to report at a stated time and to come back later. He reported later and was then told to report at Victoria Station, where he was given money—not a ticket—to buy a week-end ticket to Paris. He went across to Paris with some other men, and, after a short time in Paris, he left with 30 men for Carcasonne in the South of France. They stayed for a few days in that district and then made a march over the Pyrenees in company with other men of all nations in connection with the International Brigade. He tells me that it was a very stiff march in which they lost several men.
  The next point in this story is that when they got over the Pyrenees to Figueras in Spain they were asked for the first time to sign any document. Mr. Coop signed a further document at Albacete and at one other place as well. He tells me that there were many arguments among the men as to when and where they were actually enlisted, but there is no doubt that they were not enlisted until they got to Spain and that there was therefore no breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The next development was on 28th April when the father received a letter from the International Brigade Committee expressing regret that his son was missing. At that point the parents asked for my help. The Foreign Office endeavoured to find out something about this young man. Mr.
  3188
  Coop, Senior, then wrote a strong letter of protest to the committee to which they replied with a letter of sympathy. They added this proviso, however:
  "We would like to say that we have no knowledge about your son having gone to Spain or of any method adopted to recruit him."
  I submit, considering that the young man had been sent to Litchfield Street, given 7s. 6d. for his expenses, told what to do and instructed by this committee, that for them to write back and say that they had no knowledge of his being sent to Spain was a complete misrepresentation of the truth.
  Earl Winterton: This really does not appear to be a matter for the Home Office, but one for the Attorney-General. If my hon. and gallant Friend is saying that any person in the Communist party is guilty of a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, I suggest that he should send the particulars to the Attorney-General.
  Miss Rathbone: I was not able to hear the beginning of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member. If his implication is that some illegal action was done by those who have anything to do with the body for assisting the International Brigade, I would point out that the society was started long before there was any legislation against sending men to Spain, that it was started by someone who is not a member of the Communist party, but is a very well-known member of the Socialist party and that by far the greater number of the Englishmen who went out to Spain did so before the Spring of 1937 when there had been no declaration in Parliament against their going to Spain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may not know that international lawyers are very much divided on the point whether the Foreign Enlistment Act really applies to people who go to Spain, and that an international lawyer lecturing in Cambridge said that considerable risks would be run by anybody who tried to dispute an order in Parliament against anybody enlisting.
  Captain Heilgers: I mentioned at the beginning of my speech when the hon. Lady was not in the House that I was dealing with the question of the inadequacy of the Act to control enlistment of people for Spain. As regards what was said by my Noble Friend, that this is a matter for the Attorney-General, I agree, but there is no reason why this matter

  3189
  should not be raised in the House. I was referring to the so-called benevolent committee. The House ought to know who are the people who are sending these young men out to Spain. The Secretary is Mrs. Charlotte Haldane who, I understand, is the wife of Professor Haldane.
  Mr. Gallacher: May I rise to a point of Order? May I direct attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member is taking advantage of his position in the House to mention people who have nothing to do with the accusation he is making, and that it is not possible for them to defend themselves?
  Mr. Bevan: On a different point of Order. Is it not an extraordinary step for a Member to take when he is, apparently, of the opinion that a violation of the law has occurred, to raise the matter in the House first of all so as to create the maximum of prejudice without first of all having sent the matter to the Attorney-General?
  Mr. Speaker: We are now on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, when any matter can be raised.
  Mr. James Griffiths: If the hon. and gallant Member intends to send the matter to the Attorney-General and to ask him to take action, would it not be wiser for the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to disclose here the facts of the accusation and so possibly prejudice the case, but to send the facts to the Attorney-General?
  Captain Heilgers: I have no intention of sending the case to the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Griffiths: Then it is a mare's nest and there has been no violation of the law.
  Captain Heilgers: Let me read from their notepaper the names of some of the patrons of the committee. They are: the hon. Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). There are about 12 others who are outside the House, and perhaps I will not read
  3190
  their names. I think that if I can prove that this society, which purports to deal with benevolent activities in connection with the pensioners and wounded of the International Brigade, is really sending people to Spain, those who have any share in its administration ought to bear a very heavy responsibility. In the case of my constituent, the news that he was missing was an error. His section were all blown up, except himself, and he escaped and got to another Spanish battalion. Eventually he went to Barcelona. I should mention that first of all he wrote to his parents and said:
  "Being under 18, can't you possibly get me out of this?"
  His father wrote to Valencia and tried to get him out. His representation was in vain. The young man got to Barcelona with seven other people who were members of the International Brigade and after some stratagem they got on board a British ship. Six of them were discovered, after search, and taken off the ship and shot on the dockside. My constituent and a Canadian were more lucky. My constituent being a marine engineering student, knew where to hide and he got away to Greece and on the English ship.
  Mr. A. Jenkins: Did I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say that six of the men were taken off the boat and were shot on the dock side?
  Captain Heilgers: Yes, that is my information from my constituent. He understood that a ship was leaving for home, but it got fresh orders to go to Russia and collect tanks. The ship stopped off the Island of Zea in Greece, whence he was able to swim ashore with his companion. He was then taken to Piraeus, the Port of Athens, and imprisoned as a stowaway, but thanks to the Foreign Office, he was finally rescued and sent back home.
  I must now take the House back to another part of the story. The father, after the anguish that he and Mrs. Coop had gone through while this young man was missing, or thought to be missing, took a step, for which we cannot blame him, in his eagerness to prevent other parents suffering what he and Mrs. Coop had gone through. He found in a trunk a copy of the letter that the hon. Member for Jarrow had written to his son and he took exactly the same procedure. He

  3191
  wrote to the hon. Member for Jarrow and, giving the name of J. Smith, said that he wanted to enlist for Spain. He got a letter back from the hon. Member for Jarrow saying that he had better apply to the Communist party. After that, he was referred by the Communist party, who had passed his letter on, to this society in Litchfield Street, and Litchfield Street asked him whether it would be possible for him to get to Norwich to interview a certain Mr. Cornforth. Mr. Cornforth then wrote to Mr. Coop, and on his notepaper was: "Communist Party of Great Britain. Eastern Counties District Committee." Mr. Coop wrote on a Friday and Mr. Cornforth suggested that on the following Tuesday he would come and interview Mr. Coop at Bury St. Edmunds. Mr. Coop was not ready at the time, because he had no one to pose as a willing candidate for Spain. He therefore put Mr. Cornforth off for two or three weeks.
  In the meantime his son arrived home from Greece and proved willing to pose as the candidate for Spain. The interview took place on 14th July, in a certain place where there was a partition between two rooms. Mr. Coop, senior, took advice as to how to conduct the interview, and was told that if he were in the next room with a typist and took down the conversation which took place, he would be in a position to produce reliable evidence, especially if he presented himself at the end of the interview to Mr. Cornforth. That is what actually happened. At the end of the interview, Mr. Coop, senior, and his typist presented themselves to Mr. Cornforth as he was leaving.
  At the interview Mr. Cornforth started the conversation by saying that he had not got much time, as he had to go to Chelmsford. Mr. Coop, junior, who was posing as Mr. Smith, asked about getting to Spain. I must say, in fairness to Mr. Cornforth, that the direct inducement did not appear to come from him. He said that the International Brigade were not sending out so many people now as there were so many wounded that their funds might not stand up to it. He also said that when the International Brigade was started there was no proper Spanish Army but that the Spanish Army to-day was under one central general headquarters and that any English person who went there would belong to the Spanish Army.
  3192
  Consequently, if he went there he would be in the Army and under Army rules, and would not be able to get back until the end of the war. He further said:
  "If you go to Spain, you will have to go through the International Brigade in London. They will ask you various questions and tell you what to do. I will give you a letter saying you will go to Spain."
  He gave a letter to Mr. Smith—or Mr. Coop, junior—saying what he should do. He told him:
  "The whole thing is illegal. Do not talk to anyone else about it. You had much better not tell anyone at all. Do not take much luggage, but see that you have good socks and good shoes."
  Mr. Bevan: Who wrote this—Phillips Oppenheim?
  Captain Heilgers: It might be a matter for wonder, but it is true, unfortunately. He gave Mr. Coop the following letter:
  "Comrade J. Smith, from Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, got into touch with me via 16, King Street, He wants to see Robson. I have seen him, and he appears to me to be completely genuine and quite O.K."
  The address on the envelope was:
  "International Brigade Dependants' Aid Committee, 1, Lichfield Street."
  That is the end of my story. I submit that this shows that, both in January and at the present time, the Foreign Enlistment Act is being ignored, that it is being evaded by a body of which seven hon. Members of this House are patrons. I suggest that it is most desirable, in view of the fact that we are looking for a settlement in Spain, that every possible hindrance should be put in the way of further recruitment for either side in Spain. The Act is palpably inadequate and out of date, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is high time that the law should be strengthened, and that this illegal traffic of human life to Spain, which is resulting in so many adventurous young men losing their lives and causing so many parents anguish and distress, should be ended once and for all, and that we should have an adequate Foreign Enlistment Act.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Tomlinson: I will not attempt to follow the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, because I have no intention of detaining the House for more than a few minutes, but I have one or two points to put to the Noble Lord, which I hope he will be able to answer, on

  3193
  another question which has been before the House and the country for many years, and which affects some people in Lancashire very considerably. It relates to those who are suffering from the effects of dust in the card room. This disease has never been defined and has never been admitted into the category of industrial diseases, but it has been causing a great deal of trouble to a large body of workpeople in Lancashire for many years. I think that this discomfort due to the inhalation of cotton dust was first discovered when automatic processes of cotton spinning came into use. In 1863, Dr. James Leech wrote in the "Lancet":
  "The strippers, grinders, and card-room hands suffer from a spasmodic cough, sore throat, expectoration of blood, pneumonia, and confirmed asthma, with compression of the chest. A carder seldom lives in the card room beyond 40 years of age, and many have to give up work much younger."
  That was in the early days of the cotton industry. No doubt improvements took place. It was thought that the discomfort due to the inhalation of dust would be largely abolished with the introduction of machinery which was intended to clarify the atmosphere in which this work was carried on, and, since the installation of modern ventilation plant, the evil effects of card-room dust have certainly diminished, except that we still find that in many old mills, where extractors have been put in, there are extractors which do not extract, and as a consequence there is very often a polluted atmosphere, even though modern machinery is being used.
  It seems strange, but it was not until 1924, when the late Mr. Arthur Henderson was Home Secretary, that a visit to Lancashire took place at the joint invitation of the employers' and operatives' associations in the cotton industry. Dust in card-rooms was one of the subjects then raised, and from that time, now 14 years ago, this subject has been constantly before the Home Office; and the Home Office, I am bound to say, have given a good deal of time and attention to it. But, in spite of all their time and attention, and of the reports which have been presented upon it, and which, I think, have proved conclusively, both by figures from the trade itself and by doctors' reports, that the incidence of this disease is due to the work in which these people are engaged, nevertheless
  3194
  they have not devised a scheme whereby compensation in any form is paid to the sufferer. The consequence of this has been, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) this afternoon, that the people suffering from this disease, which they have contracted in the card-room, automatically at a given age come on to the health insurance section. They become first of all sick for their 26 weeks, and then automatically fall into the realm of the disabled. Many of these people have been drawing disablement benefit for a long period of years, and will draw disablement benefit until they die. Three weeks ago I received a letter from a resident in a neighbouring constituency—a man who had been engaged in the card-room for 30 years and had then been compelled, owing to this disease, to give up. He wrote to me pleading that something might be done in order that the 7s. 6d. which he received as disablement benefit from his approved society might be augmented in order that he could live.
  The medical explanation of what takes place in the sufferer as a result of the inhalation of this dust has varied very little over a long period of years. I have here rather a long explanation of what happens to the patient who becomes a victim of this inhalation. It was written in 1863. I will not trouble the House by reading it, but I suggest that in the report dealing with dust in card-rooms in the cotton industry, and in the report of the Industrial Health Research Board which deals with sickness among operatives in Lancashire cotton mills, it will be found, 70 years after the first report was written, that the description then given of the symptoms is almost exactly the same as that which is given now. We have been told time and again by representatives of the Home Office—and this report was printed in 1932, after the Departmental Committee had been set up and had carried out a great deal of work—that the difficulty of dealing with this question were in the main due to the fact that it was not possible to determine just where the line of demarcation could be drawn between the individual who contracted the disease in the card-room and the individual who might contract a similar disease outside. But the committee, according to their findings, were confident that it was there that the disease began and developed. They admitted

  3195
  that at a certain stage it became incurable, and, therefore, they said that it ought not to pass the wit of man to devise some scheme whereby the victims of this disease could be brought under the workmen's compensation law. Sir Thomas Legge, in his book on "Industrial Maladies," sums up the problem as it stands before us at the present time. He says:
  "Owing to the difficulty of distinguishing the respiratory disease which occurs in cotton card-room workers from that which occurs in workers in other processes of the cotton industry and in the general population, it would not appear to be possible to define it in such a way as to make it conform with the requirements necessary for scheduling it under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the ordinary way, although the Departmental Committee are satisfied that it is due to the workers' employment, and its incidence in these workers is two or three times as great as in certain other processes in the cotton industry. But, surely, with good will on the part of those concerned, it should not be beyond the bounds of human possibility to devise a method, such as has already been done for dealing with silicosis and asbestosis, but less complicated, whereby those at least who are seriously or permanently incapacitated by the card-room dust should obtain some measure of compensation."
  After that expression of opinion, a committee was set up and is now functioning. At least, I am given to understand that it is functioning, though people who are looking to that committee, and have been looking to it for some years, for assistance, cannot believe that it is functioning, because one of the effects of its functioning on those who are suffering would be some relief from their suffering, and as yet they have looked for that relief in vain. I hope that, as a result of the raising of the question this afternoon, it will be possible to make a move in the direction of bringing some relief to these very deserving people. Anyone who reads the medical description of the effects on the body of the inhalation of dust, which include contraction of the chest, leading to stooping and eventually to wasting away, will be able to see, in the vast majority of Lancashire cotton operatives who have gone through this process, the reason for their appearance, which so often inspires pity in the hearts of people who do not understand what is taking place. On the Terrace of the House of Commons the other day I had a friend from Lancashire who has been working in that atmosphere.I had to leave him out there and spend a lot of
  3196
  time here in the House, but I wanted to send him some refreshment, and it was only necessary for me, in describing him to the attendant whom I asked to serve him, to tell him to look for the man who looked most ready for the grave. He found the man from Lancashire who was one of the consequences of having to work in an atmosphere of that kind. He looked just as so many of our people look who have been compelled to spend their lives in that atmosphere.
  These people have time and again appealed, at conferences and elsewhere, that the cry which they have sent out should be heard. Only last Saturday at the Card Room Workers' Amalgamation quarterly meeting, one elderly man, who for years has been drawing 7s. 6d. a week as disablement benefit, asked the officials whether they had received any information from the Home Office that would give any hope in this direction. The Home Office are convinced, and have been convinced for a long time, that there is a case. Indeed, they were instrumental in calling together the employers and the employés in the industry in the hope that they would be able to hammer out a scheme whereby some assistance could be given to these deserving people. But, as has happened time and again on questions of compensation, the gap between what the employers were prepared to offer and the least that the workers would be prepared to accept was so great that it was impossible to bridge it.
  We have heard in Debates in this House of the value of voluntary agreements. I believe in voluntary agreements when they can be made and adequately enforced, but we have been waiting so long for voluntary agreements that the people are now looking to the Home Office, hoping that the Home Office will bring them within a scheme. I hope the Noble Lord will be able to give us some information about the committee which I understand is now sitting, and upon the decision of which the fate of these people rests. Especially would I plead for those who are totally incapacitated. There are very often difficulties in coming to an agreement when the vested interests of one class and only the health of another are in the balance. The health of the individual counts for very little when vested interests are at stake.
  I also am interested in the manufacturing section of the cotton industry

  3197
  and in the working of the Acts of Parliament which come under the Home Office inspectors. I would not say a word against the work the inspectors are doing, but their numbers are quite inadequate for the task they have to perform. I have heard questions asked in this House about the mines inspectors, and whether the managers know when the inspector is coming. Whether they know or not in the mines I cannot say, but I am sure, after fairly long experience, that the managers know when they are coming to the mills. The only value of an inspector visiting a mill is that the management should not know.
  Let me give an example. There is an agreement for a 48-hour working week, and, under the Factories Act, the women and young people can be protected through the work of the factory inspector. In Lancashire there has been a practice for a long number of years, by which the employer, in order to obtain a little more out of the employés, will run the engine five minutes more than he should. It is not a healthy practice. This takes place often in the early morning, at breakfast time, at the lunch hour, and again at half-past five; so, in the course of the whole week, it is possible for the employer to gain two and a-half to three hours, and it is not infrequent for such a thing to be done. What I object to most is that five to seven minutes may be taken from the dinner hour. I know that a factory inspector can have these people fined, but in some mysterious way, when the inspector is coming, all the managements develop a desire to be honest and the workpeople get a full hour. I wish there was an inspector in every town every day. I am not suggesting that he informs the employers; but there is a greater unanimity among the employers than among the workpeople, and when he goes to one mill all the employers in the district know that lie is there. I would not like to say that the telephone becomes busy.
  The second point is with regard to the particulars inspectors who were appointed to carry out this Act of Parliament. I have here a little book which is necessary in order that these badly-paid people can compile their wages. When a piece of cloth is put into the hands of an individual who understands this list, he can tell what the weaver should receive for
  3198
  weaving 100 yards. There is not one operative in 200 who can reckon up the price he should be paid. That is the particular occupation of the trade union secretary in the district, and it would be a good test for Members of this House to perform it. Inasmuch as these particulars determine the price that the weaver should be paid for the manufacture of the cloth, it is most essential that the particulars inspectors, whose duty it is to see that the right particulars are put on the tally board which indicates to the worker the type of cloth that is being woven, should be sufficient in number.
  I have come into contact with manufacturers—I would not say they are a majority—who, in order to pay the workers less than they are entitled to, will take advantage of the fact that the workers cannot reckon up these lists. They do this sometimes to get an unfair advantage over their competitors. I ask the Noble Lord to look into the possibility of the inspector himself being in a position to take action when the particulars given are not accurate. At present the law throws the onus on the weaver himself. Everyone knows the difficulty of such action being taken, other than through a trade union, by an individual receiving 18s. a week, and the difficulty of a trade union getting an individual to go into a law court and prove such a case. If the inspector, who knows what the particulars should be, was in a position to say that a man has been violating the law and to take him into court, that would be of great advantage to the workers. If the two questions of dust in card rooms and a more adequate number of inspectors were dealt with, the Home Office would have gone a long way towards easing the burden of the workers in that industry.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) has spoken about silicosis, and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) has put up a remarkable case for the workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. I want for a few moments to speak on a subject about which I, along with other Members belonging to my industry, have been very persistent in inquiring—miners' nystagmus. I am very pleased the Home Secretary is now in his place, but I am

  3199
  sorry the Noble Lord has to have something to eat, for I wish they were both on that bench. The late Home Secretary, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, appointed a committee on 23rd October, 1935, to make inquiries into the question of industrial diseases, and the first paragraph of their terms of reference reads:
  "To be a committee to inquire into the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, including any orders or regulations made thereunder in relation to workmen affected by miners' nystagmus and to make any recommendations, whether by way of amending the law or otherwise, as, having regard to the special character or effects of the disease, or any special circumstances connected therewith, they may think desirable."
  This committee was appointed on 23rd October, 1935, and reported to this House in January, 1938. We waited for that report for two years and nine months. When the report was issued we looked at the recommendations. I am very pleased that the Home Secretary stated that the Noble Lord would make a statement to-night regarding the findings of this committee—I think the Home Secretary stated that. But what is disturbing Members on these benches and making us feel rather uneasy is the fact that after this committee had reported, and when we were expecting something almost immediately, the Prime Minister appointed another committee to go into the entire compensation law as it affects the workers. I hope the Home Secretary or the Noble Lord will make a definite statement to-night that, so far as industrial diseases are concerned, they are going on with legislation on the lines of these recommendations, and are not going to delay.
  The hon. Member for Farnworth referred to cases affecting his own industry, but I do not think there is any other industry in this country which suffers so much as the mining industry from the consequences of industrial diseases. I have the report for 1936 on the question of compensation, and in that year, including diseases, there were 180,000 men injured in the mining industry. That is one in every four; or nearly one in every four—23.62 per cent., to be precise. Almost every man in the mining industry meets with an accident every four years, or if one man does not it means that another man meets with two. But I want to come to the question of industrial
  3200
  diseases. I met a man the other Saturday night, and he said to me, "George, what are they going to do with us chaps? I have been on compensation for 11 years with nystagmus." He had been drawing 22s. 6d. a week for 11 years. But he also drew a little bit from the public assistance committee, and I am going to tell the House that out of these 180,000 that I spoke about the majority, almost in the first week after they are injured, are applying to the public assistance committee for relief, because they are on the point of starvation. I have sat on public assistance committees and seen these men coming, a dozen a week, and making application, because they have nothing coming in. They have been living on the starvation line, and immediately their wages cease they have to come to us.
  I feel it is necessary to emphasise the fact to the Home Secretary that we do not want this House to sit with its feet on the fender while these men are dying. Do not wait until the Prime Minister's committee bring in their recommendations. We are anxious that something should be done for those who are suffering from industrial diseases. These are the Government compensation statistics for 1936, and it states on page 9:
  "The number of disease disablement cases was 19,339, inchding 11,640 new cases and 7,699 cases continued from previous years.… The outstanding cases included 4,361 which had lasted one year or more and 687 (of which 653 were in the mining industry) which had lasted 10 years or over."
  The vast majority of the industrial diseases which are scheduled are inside our industry. I will not discuss the manner of settlement, because I am desirous of bringing the case a bit nearer home to the Home Secretary. On page 10 we read:
  "As in previous years the bulk of the disablement cases occurred in the mining industry. The majority were due to miner's nystagmus, beat hand and beat knee. Cases of miner's nystagmus accounted for 39·9 per cent. of the total number.'
  On page 11 there are some more startling figures.
  "There were 1,522 new cases and 6,202 continued cases of miner's nystagmus in 1936."
  All the outstanding cases were of over 12 months' duration. I would say to the Home Secretary that a man who contracts miner's nystagmus is just like Cain; he is branded as though with a hot iron. He cannot get work at any other pit. When

  3201
  a man has once had nystagmus it is difficult for him to get back to work. It is possible to be cured, because one of the best supporters I have ever had in my life has been working at the coal face for the last 10 years, although he was previously off work with nystagmus for 7½years. But there are a lot of mineowners, once they know that a man has had nystagmus, who will not set him on again. There are coalowners who will give such a man work again, but in the majority of cases, men who have suffered from nystagmus cannot get a job, even when they have been declared fit. They often have to walk from one place to another in search of work, and sometimes they get into such a serious mental condition that I have known men in my own coalfield commit suicide. I hear an hon. Member say, "Good Heavens."
  In 1932 there were 8,523 old cases, and 1,962 new cases, and in 1933 there were 8,068 old cases, that is cases of more than 12 months' duration. These men receive only a little compensation and have to seek public assistance. They often have to sell their furniture or go to the pawnshop. No wonder they suffer from a severe mental strain. These are not figures that I have concocted but Government figures. They show a total of something like 8,000 cases of nystagmus in the British Isles. The number of cases of men—this does not only include miner's nystagmus but all accidents—who have been on compensation for more than five years, is 5,398. These men are drawing possibly half their wages and a bit of public assistance. There are 6,361 cases of men who have been injured for more than 10 years.
  Men are in the trenches every day in the mining industry. At the present time three men are killed every day and scores are injured. I am speaking not from a book but from practical experience of conditions which I encounter every week-end in my division, and I appeal to the Home Secretary to tell the Noble Lord when he gets up to reply to say that he does not intend to wait or to waste any time, but to get to business at once; that when we return from the holidays he will introduce legislation so as to give some hope to these men, their wives and their children, many of whom have to wear borrowed clothes or clothing bought from the second-hand stall in the market place.
  3202
  I have seen these people at the secondhand stall in the market place on a Saturday afternoon buying whatever clothing they can afford. This is not in Germany or in Italy, but in Yorkshire, the British Isles, and I ask the Home Secretary to give all the consideration possible to this matter.
  8 p.m.
  Mr. Hollins: I was greatly interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and I want to emphasis to some extent the point he raised with regard to the inadequacy of compensation with respect to industrial diseases. As far as the pottery industry, which I represent, is concerned, when the silicosis Order was brought into operation in 1928, unfortunately, the industry fell on evil times and there was a decline in trade with the inevitable result that our people had a terribly low wage, and, instead of receiving the usual small maximum of 30s., they received only 15s., 20s. or 25s. in compensation. I mention that in order to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact, so that when the committee meets he will bear in mind the serious effect that bad trade has on compensation payments.
  I now want to come on to points with regard to our particular industry. I had not the pleasure of hearing the references made earlier to-day to silicosis in some other trade, but I know the terrible tragedy of the position in the pottery industry. We have during the last four years averaged 52 deaths per annum, and in addition there have been hundreds of cases of disability, total or partial incapacitation. That tragic position cannot be removed unless there is a drastic alteration in the construction of the factories, and we cannot get that drastic alteration unless there is adequate inspection. I have raised this matter on two occasions and have had very unsatisfactory answers concerning the very inadequate number of inspectors who have to cover the Potteries and all operations in the Midlands area. In answer to a question which I put to the Home Secretary, I was informed that there were four inspectors on the staff at Stoke-on-Trent.
  I have made some inquiries as to the staffing at Stoke-on-Trent. There is a chief who is so taken up with research work, with making returns to the Home Office and with special investigations

  3203
  which he may have to make occasionally at the factories, that he has very little time at all to carry out anything like a periodical examination of the factories. We have a second in command, but he is entirely engaged in research work at the North Staffordshire Technical College. He gives no time to the factories. Then there is a lady inspector who, I know from my own knowledge, is doing very excellent work and pays periodic visits to the factories. A fourth member of the staff is learning the job. Therefore, we have only one effective inspector, the lady inspector, on the staff at Stoke-on-Trent. If the staff were trebled there could not be an adequate inspection of the 250 to 300 factories in our area. In addition to our 250 to 300 factories in Stoke-on-Trent there is the Midland area, with all the workshops and other factories. Many of these factories being 100 or 150 years old, although some are not so old, the construction is of the worst type and unless the inspectors know the run of what are called the rabbit warrens of these factories they can never properly inspect them.
  There ought to be systematic examination from one end of the factories to the other. Instead of the periodical examinations being made, the inspectors usually go only when they are asked to go to a factory. Sometimes they are asked by the trades union to go to a certain factory because of a complaint. The inspector should make periodical visits whether required or not, and he should make the visit when it is not known that the visit is to be made; when it is not known at the lodge at the gates that he is going. It is a tragic record that there should be 52 deaths in our industry in a year and hundreds of incapacity cases, but no alteration can be attempted so far as I can see unless we get a tightening up of the regulations, which needs adequate inspection, and drastic reconstruction of our factories.
  Having mentioned that point, I want to refer to another question, which I put to the Home Secretary some time ago, with regard to the limitation of the period within which claims can be made in connection with lead poisoning. One cannot always make a point clear in a question, and I want to put it as clearly as I can now. So far as lead poisoning is concerned, the effects are not shown in many
  3204
  cases until years after the person has ceased work. The lead continues to permeate the whole system, because it has been absorbed, and ultimately it develops all kinds of symptoms, such as kidney trouble, nervous complaints and other things too numerous to mention. A partial promise was made by the Home Secretary that the question would be gone into. I have support from other parts of the House in my appeal, and I hope that the inquiry will not be long delayed. I mentioned in my question that there might be a limit of five years. Other hon. Members differ from me and say that there ought to be no limit. I agree with them that if justice is to be done to the lead-poisoned worker there should be no limit in respect of a claim, because we do not know when the effects will develop.
  I had intended to raise another question in the House, and I am taking this opportunity of raising it. We have a monthly examination of our lead workers by the certifying surgeons. One case came to my knowledge this week in regard to this question. After the examination of the workers has been made by the certifying surgeon the certifying surgeon makes an entry in a book provided at the factory and marks the worker A.1, B.1, and so on. The workers themselves have access to the book, but foolishly enough they never refer to it to see how they have been marked. The employers, however, have a look at the book and note those who are marked B.1 and not A.1. When they note a worker who is marked B.1 some of the employers take the first opportunity of getting rid of that worker. I will quote a case in point. Six persons were examined by the certifying surgeon at a certain factory within the last 12 months. The next time the certifying surgeon went to that factory all those six persons were missing, simply because of the fact that they had not been marked A.1, but B.1, and the employer was getting rid of his responsibilities.
  There is one particular difficulty in regard to the period for claims for lead poisoning being limited. The employers get rid of their responsibilities before the lead poisoning can develop. The point is whether the Home Secretary would consider bringing into operation for the lead workers a scheme similar to that now in operation in connection with the medical board wth regard to silicosis. I can only

  3205
  speak of my own industry where a man who works in the skilled processes is allowed, after a periodical examination, to say to the medical board "I do not want a certificate issued but I want to continue working." If a man has silicosis, it is an economic position which confronts him. The man may be earning £3 or £4 per week, but if a certificate is issued he is compelled to leave the industry. Although he may be capable of earning £3 or £4 a week, if he accepts the certificate he has to go, and he gets a maximum of 30s. but if he has been unfortunate enough to have had a bad year of trade he gets something less than 30s.
  We have a clause in our scheme which states that the skilled operatives shall have the opportunity of refusing the certificate. After the periodic examination the worker is supplied with a small register and the employer is supplied with a copy, but nothing is stated in that register as to whether the man has silicosis, or if he has silicosis how serious the condition is. All that is mentioned in the register are the words "no action," which means that no certificate is being issued. One point we took up with the Home Office was that it is undesirable that the employer should have the inside information and to know how the worker was affected. That arrangement is working very well. I suggest that a similar register might be established for the lead workers, and that there should be no indication as to the position in regard to the worker as in the case of the medical board.
  Only this week I heard of the case of a worker who was marked B.1. At the time she was working her notice for some alleged fault at her work, but a promise had been made to the girl that the notice would be withdrawn at the end of the week. The examination took place last Wednesday, and she was told to finish on Saturday. She was marked on the register a B.1 lead worker. Had she been marked as an A.1 worker that girl would have been at work now. I appeal to the Home Secretary that he should consider the points that I have made, that he should take into consideration an increase of inspectorate staff in the Potteries area, and that he should consider bringing in so far as the lead-workers are concerned the method regarding the certifying surgeons' examina-
  3206
  tions that is now in vogue in regard to silicosis under a medical board
  8.22 p.m.
  Viscountess Astor: I add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) in regard to this appallingly horrible disease. For years in the House of Commons we have been talking about it and different Governments have been saying that they would do their best about it. There can be nothing more horrible than for workers to enter an occupation knowing that they may get this disease. If they could feel that everything was being done to prevent the disease, they would go in cheerfully. Inspection is not enough, and never has been enough. I cannot go into the question of the factories, but one of my friends who is interested has told me that the conditions are absolutely heartbreaking. I saw something of the disease during the War. I saw some soldiers who had lead poisoning which had developed later. I have also seen the effects of silicosis.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is one of the best we have ever had, and has shown ever since he has been in his office so much diligence, keenness and ability, will go seriously into the question of silicosis and lead poisoning. Action has been too long delayed. It ought not to rest with hon. Members who represent districts where these diseases occur, to bring forward the grievance. It ought to be a question for the whole House of Commons. It affects the nation. In my own division it does not affect us, but being interested in social questions and social reform I am deeply concerned about it, and I regard it as one of the reforms which would be well worthy of a National Government. Therefore, I hope my right hon. Friend will be as diligent about this matter as he has been about prison reform.
  I congratulate him on the great work he has done since he has been in his present office. All who heard his speech to-day were grateful to him for what he is doing in connection with the prisons. I was very pleased to hear it stated for the first time that our prisons are old. They are. Some of them are centuries old. It was a great joy to me to hear that the first new prison is to be a women's prison. [Interruption.] The Home Office report shows that the most

  3207
  law-abiding section of the community are the women. They are far more law-abiding than any other, and it is right it should be so.
  Mr. De Chair: Because they are more artful, and keep out of prison.
  Viscountess Astor: Naturally they are more law-abiding, and if you want one of the reasons, you have only to go to the churches and chapels, where you will find more women than men. They are certainly more spiritually-minded than men, and if our churches and chapels are any evidence at all, it is clear that the people who are trying to get into the Kingdom of Heaven are the women. They are far ahead of the men, whose only chance of ever getting there is to have good women about them. The only chance of keeping men spiritually-minded is to have good women about them. I was very glad to hear the prison reforms mentioned by the Home Secretary. In regard to wage-earning, a prison governor friend of mine has told me that it has already had an enormous effect on the inmates of the prisons.
  I do not propose to talk about juvenile delinquents, but I was glad to hear that the children of this generation are not worse than those of former generations. They are not worse. The tragedy about this matter is that they are problem children, because they come from problem homes. There is nothing more pathetic in the world than to see the juvenile victims of unsatisfactory homes which are not confined to any one class. Not long ago I was in one of the remand homes and saw a little boy who was not more than 10 or 12 years of age. I asked him what was the matter and why he was there; and he said, "Uncontrollable, Miss." He was uncontrollable. And if you want to find out the reason you will find that it was because his parents themselves were not able to control themselves and thus not in a condition to control the child. It is a positive blessing that these children come within the law and under the conditions which now obtain in remand homes. There is a chance of reform; and I am deeply grateful to the Home Secretary for the vital, personal and minute interest he is taking in our prison system.
  I want to say a word or two about factory inspectors. It is no good making
  3208
  factory laws unless you have plenty of inspectors. It is a waste of time. It is no good inspectors going round when they are asked to do so—that is not the way. We should have enough inspectors to see that the laws are obeyed. If we had enough inspectors we should get people into the habit of keeping the laws. When we passed the Shops Act in 1934 we thought we had taken a great step forward, and so we had, but there is too much evidence to show that these laws are being evaded right and left. The reason is that we have not enough inspectors. I want the Home Secretary to put into effect Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Shops Act, under which he can make regulations as to the working hours of young persons.
  I want the Shops Acts to be effective, and they are not effective now. They are being got round in the most amazing and cute ways. I do not want to weary the House by making a speech on this subject, but we thought that by regulating the hours of juveniles we were going to give them a chance for recreation and evening studies. What is happening? I have been looking into this matter and have obtained a good deal of information on the subject, which I will pass on to the Home Secretary. I think the House should know some of the facts. A boy in a London dairy works these hours: Monday, 8.30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Tuesday, 8.30 to 7 p.m.; Wednesday, 8.30 a.m. to 7.0 p.m.; Thursday, 8.30 a.m. to 1 p.m.; Fridays, 8.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m.; and Saturday, 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. He has three-quarters of an hour for dinner and half an hour for tea, which makes a 54-hour week. Another boy works every day from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. except on Thursdays, when he finishes at 1 o'clock, and with the time allowance for dinner and tea he, also, works 54 hours per week. It shows clearly that there is a great need for more inspectors. Some people keep within the law by giving the boys time off in the middle of the day. What is the good of that? They only loaf about the streets. But these people are within the regulations. That is not what the House of Commons meant when they passed the Act. We meant that these boys should have a regular working week and should not be kept late at night in this way. Local authorities have not got a sufficient staff of inspectors.

  3209
  There is another point. When cases under the Act come before the magistrates they do not inflict sufficient fines. I asked an inspector why magistrates did not give them more, and he said, "They are not giving them what they could give under the law." I think that they should impose the maximum fine. It is not a technical offence to overwork a child: it is a crime against humanity. I think it is a terrible thing. I do not say that it is done in many cases, but it is being done in too many cases. All parties in the House welcomed the Shops Act and we want it to be put into effect. Unless it is, these evasions will go on for ever. It is such a farce to talk about £2,000,000 for playing fields and for keeping people fit. I do not care if there are only 1,000 young people, no child should be allowed to be worked in this way. The House of Commons did not want it, and the people who are acting in this way are committing a crime against humanity. I am sure that the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows all about it. He has a good heart, and I am sure I shall have the right answer. If I send him cases, I am sure he will promise me to look into them.
  Earl Winterton: Certainly.
  Viscountess Astor: And I hope he will put into force regulations under Section 2 of the Act which, so far, have not been put into operation. I feel great confidence in the Home Office under the present Secretary of State and the Noble Lord. I have known the Noble Lord for a long time. He has been a long time in the House and has a good record of social reform. If he is shown a wrong, I am sure he will try to put it right. I do not want to deal with the question of lead poisoning and silicosis, but there is so much that could be prevented that is not prevented that I sometimes want to become as violent as some hon. Members opposite. I hope we shall receive a satisfactory answer to-night and that the Shops Act will be applied. I hope that the Home Secretary will look into the question of silicosis and lead poisoning, and that if there is anything that can be done, he will promise us that it will be done, so that we may stop the preventible cases, which are heartrending, tragic, and, I think, unnecessary, if we are awake in preventing them.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Jenkins: The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) always makes an interesting speech when she addresses the House, but I can never relate her speeches to the votes which she records in the Division Lobby. If she intends to follow her speeches, she always seems to me to go into the wrong Lobby. To-night, she has spoken with great sympathy about the victims of silicosis, nystagmus, and lead poisoning, and the unfortunate children who are employed more hours than they ought to be. There is one thing that the Noble Lady could do in the matter of silicosis, nystagmus, and lead poisoning. It is a thing which she has had many opportunities of doing. She could go into the Division Lobby in support of adequate compensation for the victims of these diseases when that matter is raised in the House.
  Viscountess Astor: It is prevention that I want.
  Mr. Jenkins: The Noble Lady has never done that. She must be aware, after all the discussions that we have had on the subject in the House, that the victims of silicosis know that they are dying, that their wives are dependent upon them, and that their children will be in grave risk of becoming juvenile dilinquents, and yet they have to live on a maximum of 30s. a week. Indeed, they may get very much less, for at the present time the average weekly compensation in this country is 25s. The Noble Lady must be conscious of the fact that whenever one of those poor people is unable to work as a consequence of the disease, they get only this paltry compensation, which has to be supplemented by the public assistance committee, thus placing them from that time onwards on the basis of the Poor Law.
  Viscountess Astor: What I have always pleaded for during the last 19 years has been prevention. As to what the hon. Member says about my not voting on his side, he must remember that I am not a Socialist. If I were a Socialist, I should be on the other side of the House. I am a social reformer, not a Socialist. The hon. Member must not attack me because I do not vote with him on one particular thing.
  Mr. Jenkins: The Noble Lady admits my point. She has never voted for adequate compensation for these people. As to the prevention of these diseases, obviously everybody will do all that is in his power. I should be glad if more definite steps had already been taken. One knows very well what the employers do in certain circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has spoken about nystagmus, and has told us that a man is branded as Cain when he gets nystagmus. That is true. According to the law of England at the present time, this is what happens. Suppose that a man gets nystagmus in a certain colliery after working there for 25 or 30 years. He is then dependent upon this paltry compensation for a short period. If and when he recovers, he goes to another colliery, and one of the questions which is asked of a man who applies for work in a colliery is, "Have you ever suffered from nystagmus?" If a man replies, "Yes," he does not get a job. If he says, "No," and the company later proves that he has had nystagmus, he has no claim for compensation. The decision is vested in the courts.
  Not long ago there was a case where a man told an untruth because of his desire to get work and to get off unemployment benefit or assistance. He went to a colliery, and when he was interrogated as to whether or not he had suffered from nystagmus, he said that he had not. A note was made of his reply. Later on, it was proved that he had suffered from it. After a period of work, he made a further claim, for a second attack of nystagmus, contracted while he was in the employment of the new company, and his claim was resisted and the matter went to the court, which decided that he was not entitled to compensation in respect of the nystagmus because of the fact that he had said that he had never suffered from it. The Noble Lady must be aware of these things. It only needs a Debate of this sort to demonstrate the very large number of grievances which exist among the poor people of the country in regard to these industrial diseases. The attitude adopted by the Noble Lady tends to disturb me a little, because I know perfectly well that she will not try to right the wrong when she has an opportunity of doing so. When a man has nystagmus, lead poisoning, or silicosis,
  3212
  when he is condemned to death because of his having rendered excellent industrial service to the country, the Noble Lady should go into the Division Lobby in favour of such a man having adequate compensation, just as a member of the upper classes who has lost property gets adequate compensation. That is always done. It is the practice of the House, as the Noble Lady knows.
  I plead for a far greater measure of justice for these people who suffer so badly and so long. I have seen these dreadful silicotic cases. In tuberculosis cases, there is a tendency for the patient to feel, as he is getting nearer to death, that he is getting better, but in the case of these diseases, it is a continual gasping for breath, because the contraction which has taken place in a man is such that he cannot consume sufficient oxygen to live. Those are the circumstances in which the man dies. There are many men living in those conditions, and we must do everything we can to help them. I hope that the Noble Lord will give considerable attention to this matter. First, we ought to see that there is adequate compensation for the people who are now suffering, and that their wives and dependants shall not suffer as a consequence of the men having contracted this disease. Secondly, every possible scientific step should be taken to prevent people from suffering from it in future. I did not intend to say much about industrial diseases to-night. but I was rather attracted to that subject by the Noble Lady.
  I want to say a few words concerning prison life in this country. In the first place, I wish to express the very great pleasure which I had in listening to the admirable speech of the Home Secretary, a magnificent review in which he explained what was necessary, but unfortunately, towards the end of his speech, he said that we are living in such critical financial times that he really cannot put that into operation. It is funny how an excuse of that sort can be so often provided. But that was the submission of the Home Secretary in his speech, and I am quite sure that he believed it. Prison life has been unbearable for the people who have been the victims of it. There are Members of the House who have had some experience, and who know some of the conditions inside the prisons.

  3213
  I think there is a good deal of truth in the statement by Mr. Beverley Nichols in his book "Cry Havoc" that, in order to be able to understand and to legislate for the unemployed, it is necessary to live in the circumstances of the unemployed. It is necessary to experience the real thing. Sometimes, I feel that perhaps it is necessary to live in the conditions of a prison in order to be able properly to understand what it is like. Things have improved, and that is all to the good, for I can imagine nothing more soul-destroying that the old type of prison that we used to have in this country. Make no mistake about it, many of those conditions still exist. There is still the lack of contact with the outside world, to which the Home Secretary referred to-day, the absence of newspapers and of any knowledge of modern life and the deadening work which one knows to be worthless.
  I know the case of a young man of magnificent brain, who was in prison as a result of industrial disturbances. I saw him spend a considerable time sewing up a hole in a mail-bag. He did the work with great diligence and was rather proud of it when he had finished. A certain warder of the old type, now probably in retirement—I am told the modern type of warder is not like that—came along and this young man, who was merely anxious to do the work well and who has since made good in the world, said to him, "Sir, I have mended this bag; I hope you will think it has been well done." The warder looked at it and immediately tore a hole in the bag three times as large as the hole which the young man had repaired and said, "Sew that up!" From that day until the end of his imprisonment that young man never again put a needle in a bag. He made the motions, but he never did the work. That is the type of waste that goes on. I hope that some day that young man may come to this House—so resentful was he of his treatment. I could relate many instances of that kind, but I hope I shall have an opportunity some day of talking to the Home Secretary about these matters.
  The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon referred to the buildings. They are wretched. They are built to keep out the sun, to make life the next thing to unbearable and their effect is to create a very bad type of mind. Consider the
  3214
  present prison population. It is made up of boys, of grown men, of first offenders, of old lags, of brilliant brains and of feeble brains. But they are all together. We mass them together; we walk them round the prison yard together; we try to make them uniform. Some will resist that treatment, others will succumb to it but in the end you get a type which is extremely difficult. I remember one case of a very bright young man who was assistant manager of a branch bank. Because of certain reasons which he described to me, he took £100 from the bank. At quarter sessions he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. At the end of four months he was told by a highly-placed official in the prison: "You cannot hope to get back to the status which you formerly held. You have committed a crime against society, and the best that you can hope for is to get a pick and shovel and earn your living as a navvy." That young man was completely destroyed. That is the kind of thing which goes on now and it is all wrong. According to what the Home Secretary said to-day, it may be 20 or even 30 years before those splendid ideals to which he referred can be put into operation.
  Sir S. Hoare: I hope not.
  Mr. Jenkins: It is too long to leave them for even five years. I suggest that something might be done by closing some of the old castle-like prisons which now stand on extremely valuable sites, and taking sites of much less value for new buildings.
  Sir S. Hoare: Just what I am going to do.
  Mr. Jenkins: I had hoped that that would have been done some years ago. I remember that it was said that for a certain prison a certain company offered £1,000,000 for the site.
  Sir S. Hoare: I wish they would do it now.
  Mr. Jenkins: It is still there, and the site is still very valuable, and if sites could be disposed of for sums that would more than meet the cost of rebuilding, there should be no need to wait a long time until these things are put into operation.
  I wish to refer to the readiness with which some magistrates send young people

  3215
  to prison, and more frequently to approved schools. I have a case of a man who was seriously injured in a colliery and was left dependent on his compensation. His home was very poor. One of his boys who was a bright lad went into a little shop and took a few coppers. He was bound over. The boy, after some six or eight months, took a bicycle—he did not steal it—and rode to the seaside. The bench of magistrates said that the boy had broken his undertaking and could not be trusted, and they sent him to an approved school for an indefinite period. He has been there for a long time, his parents are anxious to get him out, but all the pressure that we have tried to exercise has been of no avail.
  The standard which a boy has to reach in an approved school in order to get release is much higher than the standard which the average boy outside is required to observe. The standard is frequently set too high to enable these boys to regain their freedom. The Home Secretary referred to the possibility of local authorities boarding out these boys in order to keep them near their homes. That is certainly a far better idea than sending them to distant approved schools. I think if it were possible to exercise some sort of supervision over these boys, many of them would not relapse and would cease to give any trouble. I liked the view expressed earlier by an hon. Member to the effect that society no longer regarded crime in the same light as formerly. There is a growing recognition that crime has something to do with one's environment and the condition of one's life. Frequently people make slips, but it does not follow that they are definitely bad, and I do ask the Home Secretary to take immediate steps to secure a proper segregation of the various classes of offenders. The prisons should be so arranged that you would not have this jumble of people of different categories, and the whole prison system should be used to make it corrective. It ought to be that, and it ought not to have anything in the nature of punishment about it.
  Many of these people suffer considerably because they are torn away from the outside world. The old practice used to be to get the Saturday's news read out out in the chapel on Wednesday morning, which was an absurdity. Why is it that
  3216
  the great majority of prisoners, if not all, should not be supplied with newspapers? Give them as much freedom as you can. I am sure the whole system will benefit very substantially if we adopt an attitude that will convey to these people that we want to give them as much liberty as we can, that we want to make them better men and not bad men; but under the present system many of them get the idea that they are bad, that they cannot again get a reasonable status in society, that they must be worse as a consequence of their imprisonment, and that society is against them. That idea must be destroyed entirely, and if we could convey to these people that our purpose is to make them better men and women, and to restore them, not only to their former, but to a higher, standard of civilisation, I think the prison system might be an advantage to them.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: I should like to join with the last speaker in the hope that he has expressed, and at the same time to give voice to my gratitude to the Home Secretary for the work which he is accomplishing in the direction which the hon. Member desires. Anyone who has followed, in the last year or so, the work that is going on in the prisons will know what a valuable impetus the Home Secretary has given within the existing system, to the work of penal reform, which the Prison Commissioners themselves have so much at heart. He has shown repeatedly, in public speeches in different parts of the country, his deep interest in this question and his knowledge of it, and already this afternoon the House has had an opportunity of hearing from him some of the reforms that he is carrying out, which are, I am convinced, only an earnest of greater reforms to which we can look forward in the next Session of Parliament, when he brings in his long awaited Penal Reform Bill. He himself will no doubt realise that one of the great obstacles that lie in his way is in the existing prison buildings, and I am very glad that he has been able to inform the House that he is making arrangements for the discontinuance of that hideous prison at Pentonville and its utilisation for much-needed housing purposes, for the transference of the prisoners to much more suitable prisons, and for the building of a new women's prison in better conditions and better designed than

  3217
  any prison that we yet have. That, I am sure, is just a beginning of changes that he will wish to see carried out on a far wider scale, and I hope he will be able to hold the whole House, without consideration of party, behind him in this very great endeavour for the gradual, steady reconstruction of our prison system.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us of other changes that have brought new hope into our prisons—the bringing in, for instance, of the system of allowing a small sum of money to be earned by the prison workers, and especially the interesting way in which it is carried through by collective work, in which the individual gets, not a personal gain, but a group gain. It gives a stimulus to industrious work and encourages an esprit de corps among a group of prisoners working together, not each for himself, but each for the group, thus increasing their sense of group loyalty, which is one of the things which, not prisoners alone, but all of us, need. I think we can feel very grateful for that very valuable reform which has already been introduced into many prisons and that the Home Secretary intends to introduce it into all of them.
  I am also very glad that he is giving further facilities to some of the long-sentence prisoners for intercourse with their families. One of the most terrible things from which all prisoners have to suffer is their cutting off from all the best influences of home life, all the opportunities that ought to give them the chance to develop the best that is in them, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not see his way to make a very large increase in the facilities for correspondence. Less than a year ago I was visiting one of the largest prisons in the United States of America, an institution far larger than any of our prisons. I found there that the prisoners were allowed two letters a week, and the Governor said, "I make no objection to their writing or receiving more than that." I do not think a great many prisoners would want even as much as that, but if, instead of one letter a month, they were able to have one a week, it would make an enormous difference. The one letter a month is a very heavy penalty to those who have dear ones with whom they want to keep in touch. A man has to decide whether he will write to his mother or to his betrothed—there are all kinds of difficult choices—and we ought to wish
  3218
  to encourage the keeping-up of the family tie and the ties of friendship. I believe it would mean a little more labour for the prison staff, but it would be labour well repaid, because it would be encouraging the best side of the prisoner's life; and I hope the Home Secretary may see his way to a reform of that kind, which could be carried out without any legislative action. I give that only as one instance out of many reforms that I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have under review.
  There is one other point that I hope he may take into consideration. I have found that a great number of magistrates who send people to prison have no personal acquaintance with the prisons which they are entitled to visit. Some magistrates do not even know that they are entitled to visit prisons. I believe that no magistrate ought actually to sit on the bench and to send people to prison until he has at least once visited a prison and found out what it is to which he is sending people. I would ask whether the Home Secretary could not, in a circular to magistrates, suggest that it is their duty at least once to visit a prison to which their bench sends prisoners, so that, from personal knowledge, they may have some idea of what a prison sentence means. I believe that that would be very valuable for the magistrates and that it might make a difference in some cases in the sentences which they pass.
  I think we may feel that throughout the work of the Home Secretary he has in mind the ideal to which the hon. Member who preceded me referred. I know that it is in the minds of the Prison Commissioners. They have expressed it already in one of their reports. They want the prisoner to have the opportunity to go out of prison a better citizen than he was when he went in. That should be the aim of our legislation and of our administration. We can do it by restoring, so far as it is possible, a man's self-respect. That was destroyed by the old prison system. There are still in prison life things that tend to lower self-respect, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary and to the Prison Commissioners that they have already done so much to remove that side of prison life. It is needful, too, that the prisoner should keep in touch with all that is best in his own family life and that he should have the sense of community made strong within

  3219
  him through the sense of comradeship and fellowship. I am glad that in some of the reforms to which the Home Secretary has alluded there will be an opportunity for the expression of that sense of comradeship. The whole House and the country are grateful for the outlook of the Home Secretary and the spirit in which he is going about his work.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: While I welcome the reforms that have been mentioned by the Home Secretary, I feel that it is necessary to say that we are very far from solving this problem of prisons and prisoners. One thing that most people discuss when they talk about prisoners is the necessity of making some provision for them when they come out of prison and of trying to find them employment. That is a very desirable impulse on the part of those interested, but we have to take into account the fact that there are millions of people not in prison who cannot get work and who, because of the very circumstances of being unable to get employment, are continually facing temptation. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has spoken of the terrible conditions that afflict many thousands of miners and their families. Let us consider for a moment the effect that such conditions must have on the young people who are growing up among them, who see what is happening to their fathers and mothers, and who have all kinds of temptations thrown in their way. There is a play in London now in which the central figure is a young lad with great musical genius who would have to spend years of hard struggle and privation in order to develop it. He also happened to have a spendid physique and all the qualities of a prize fighter. The temptation is there and he goes into the ring and is destroyed. The great problem for many of our people is to get money; that represents security. The biggest problem associated with prison reform is to provide security. When we can provide security we shall advance towards a stage when prisons can be a memory of the past.
  The Home Secretary says that there has not been a prison built in this country for the past 50 years. When he is talking about this country he is talking about benighted England; Scotland does not
  3220
  come under his purview. When we had a discussion on the Scottish Estimates some English Members said. "I wish we could get rid of these Scotsmen and that they had a Parliament of their own." I told the English Members that if we once went away and left them, it would be a case of "God help them." If the Home Secretary is going to renovate or rebuild any prisons he should not do so without visiting Scotland and seeing Saughton Prison. It is built in an entirely different manner from any other prison. It is erected in two-storey flats of red sandstone. There are no walls and it stands in open grounds. It has not miserable little square panes in the windows, but big wide sash windows. There are, too, electric light and spring beds. There are many weaknesses about the prison conditions there, but the buildings themselves are something entirely different from anything that existed before. I can recommend all those interested to go and see it. I can recommend it the more because I helped to build it.
  Another prison that is worth visiting is Wakefield. It is an old prison, but changes have been made in it. They have knocked away the wall between two cells and the enlarged cells are used as small communal dining rooms. That is one of the solutions of the problem of cold food about which the Home Secretary spoke. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) asks me if there is a milk bar. I am sorry to say that there is not. It would be a good thing if there were milk bars in all the prisons and in certain other places as well. In these enlarged cells groups of 12 prisoners dine in common, and two of the 12 are responsible for bringing the food to the dining room. This replaces the old system of a truck coming round with a warder and a prisoner and going from cell to cell, so that by the time it gets to the last cell the food is cold. The camp at Wakefield is one of the finest experiments that has ever been made. There are well constructed wooden huts, like nothing associated with a prison, erected on a big estate. Ten prisoners live in each of the huts, which are beautifully set out, well decorated inside and with many conveniences. There are no bars to the windows and no locks to the doors, and no warders wandering round at night. The men work out on the estate, but there are no warders about and they do not run away. When the whistle

  3221
  blows the men come in for their meals. It is a wonderful experiment.
  I want the Home Secretary and the Noble Lord to pay attention to the fundamental difference between Wakefield and the other prisons. Let anyone visit Wakefield and go around with the governor or one of the officers, or get an opportunity of talking with any of the prisoners, and he will learn that in Wakefield they have the absolute minimum of rules and regulations, but every prisoner is expected to keep them. The prisoners are in groups, and each group is anxious that nothing should be done which would lead to a curtailment of privileges. Every prisoner knows that he is expected to keep the rules and regulations, and he keeps them. In short, they are getting very fine results. On the other hand, in Wandsworth, or Pentonville, or Holloway prisons there is every conceivable rule and regulation, and from the moment the prisoner goes in he gets to understand that he is expected to break the rules whenever he gets an opportunity. The warders adopt the attitude that every prisoner, at every opportunity, will break the rules, and so the warders are always watching the prisoners, the prisoners are watching the warders, and the warders are watching one another. There are many warders anxious to show the greatest consideration to prisoners who are yet afraid to go beyond the rules lest some other warder will report them.
  I have had experience of prisons in Scotland and in England. The Deputy Governor of Wandsworth Gaol was a very progressive fellow. He used to come into my cell every other night to have a talk about prisons and prison reform. I used to put all kinds of ideas into his head. He went from there to Wakefield, and he is the governor who introduced the reforms into Wakefield. I am glad to know that he is now a Prison Commissioner. He is an intelligent and progressive gentleman. One practice that existed in Wandsworth—I do not know whether it is being carried on in any other place—was that young fellows from 20 to 25 who were in prison there were kept separate. They were known as "spots," because they had a black spot sewn on to the arm of the jacket. They had a certain section of the prison to themselves, and they moved about as a band, but they were always in a certain association with the older prisoners, and those
  3222
  lads, because of that association, wanted to show off to the older prisoners. Time and time again the deputy governor and warders would discuss with me the problem of these "spots." What a problem the "spots" were. They did not know what to do with them. I remember saying to the deputy governor in my cell one night that I felt Shakespeare must have been at one time a prison warder, because in Macbeth he declaims "Out damned spot." The problem of the "spots" was a very serious one, and I hope every measure will be taken to ensure that the younger prisoners will not be given any opportunity of associating with the older criminals, which can only encourage bad tendencies in the lads.
  When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Home Secretary he was not so receptive of ideas as the present Home Secretary seems to be. I remember that one day I suggested to him that as one means of avoiding the expense to which the relatives of prisoners were put when they wanted to visit them was that the prisoners should have an opportunity of going home to visit their relatives. There was such a burst of laughter in the House when I suggested that, possibly once a quarter, the prisoners should be allowed to visit their relatives; but now we have at least got to the stage when prisoners are being sent to gaol near their homes in order to facilitate visits from their relatives. Unfortunately, prisoners in the south of England who have relatives in Scotland can be sent north only as far as Durham, because there is no prison nearer to Scotland, and as there is an English Prison Commission and a Scottish Prison Commission there is difficulty about getting the prisoners across the Border. If a prisoner in the south of England has relatives in Edinburgh, instead of sending him to Edinburgh they send him to Durham, and his relatives have to go to Durham. But I would still suggest that in many cases it might be a good thing for the prisoner if he were not only sent to a prison near where his relatives lived, but were sent for a week-end to his relatives home. However, that is something for the future.
  When I suggested that prisoners should be allowed to wear their own clothes when they meet their relatives, I also suggested that prisoners should be allowed to

  3223
  wear their own clothes at the week-ends and on Sundays—they mostly go to chapel—but the argument used against me was that it would introduce class distinctions into prison, because some have good clothes and others poor clothes. If a man has tattered clothing and is to be in prison for two, three or five years, is that rotten clothing to be kept in store and given to him when he goes out? If people go into prison with good clothes, all right; if they go in with bad clothing, they should be supplied with a suit of clothes to wear at week-ends. In a prison like Wakefield, where they are out on Saturday afternoons watching football and cricket—within the prison grounds—it would be desirable for them to have their own clothes. It would give them the feeling that those who were responsible for them were taking an interest in them and were anxious to help.
  I have here a letter dealing with certain matters in connection with prisons which ends up with the words "Your old friend," and then the name of the writer. The writer was my prison warder on the two occasions when I was in Calton Jail, Edinburgh, and he is my old friend, because while I was in prison he was a friend in every way. I do not mean that he did not keep all the rules and regulations—I did too—but he adopted an attitude towards prisoners which gave them the feeling that there was someone who was not trying to take advantage of them because they were in a difficult position. If they were allowed to wear their own clothes at the week-ends it would be a big advantage from the point of view of giving them self-respect and a renewal of their dignity. We have had the desirable reform of small payments being given to prisoners for the work they do. Often when they have gone into prison they have had no experience in the work, and the warders have had the responsibility of training them. Anyone who visits Wandsworth Prison can see the valuable work which is being done in the shops there. I think some of that work should be shown in public, to let those interested in prison reform see what is going on.
  Not only should prisoners be encouraged to write letters every week, but they should be encouraged to write books. I wrote a book when I was in Wandsworth. It is said in this House that the greatest speeches are those that are never
  3224
  delivered. I can say that the greatest book that has been written is one that has never been published. I made application to take it away, but it is not permitted. You can fill up all the notebooks you like with quotations from other books and bring them out with you, but if you do anything original in the way of writing you are not allowed to take it out. I commend to the Home Secretary the importance of encouraging people to write. It is a very good way of getting them interested in reading, and the more they read the greater the advantage to them and to the community as a whole. I commend to the Home Secretary the task of rebuilding the prisons as rapidly as possible with a minimum of rules and regulations, and doing away with the old system under which it is a case of watching all the time for a chance to make the prisoner feel the greatest possible humiliation. Let us look forward to a better system which will ensure that those who are for the time being in the custody of the authorities will be helped in every possible way and will come out ready to take their place in society without any feeling of shame or humiliation.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ritson: If the hon. Member is as persuasive with the Home Secretary as he was with the governor of that prison, we may look forward to his becoming the leader of the Communist party. He would adorn any party, and I am sure my hon. Friend would give him a great welcome as one of the greatest converts he had ever made. Some people look upon my hon. Friend as a prisoner at large. Whether we agree with his policy or not, he has character, courage and determination which are a credit to him. I have had an experience different from his. He has been in prison. I used to take people there, and in the journeys backward and forward I learned a lot. I am pleased to say that the Home Secretary has blazed the trail, not towards making more prisoners but towards making better citizens of prisoners. When I spoke on this subject before I pleaded with the Home Secretary to keep young prisoners apart from the old rogues who are continually there. There is always a mischievous desire to try to outdo the other fellow. They ought to be segregated. We do it as far as we can in lunatic asylums, where the mind is supposed to be gone. Many men's lives

  3225
  have been ruined when they were boys by giving them prison experience. If they had been dealt with by a compassionate magistrate, and perhaps boarded out, I am convinced that they would never have become members of the criminal class.
  I mentioned once before the case of a boy who stole a book and got two months. Although he was not allowed to have a certificate from the Board of Education, he passed with flying colours because his professor did not mind going into the cell and giving him lessons night after night. The Board of Education said: "No, you have blotted your copybook. You must be punished because you stole and you get two months." When we wanted to send him out of the country, where his record would not be known, again the authorities said he could not leave the country because he had been convicted of a crime. It is a treble punishment for one offence. There is a First Offenders Act and, as far as possible, no young man should be sent to prison for a first offence. I have had a long and varied experience, and I am glad I have had it, because the school of hard experience is the greatest educator. I would rather board some children out with kindly strangers than let them continue at home with their parents, who have never looked after them at all. I am not greatly in favour of the Borstal institution. Some of the boys seem to come out worse than they went in. The intention is good and Borstal is a good deal better than gaol. When a man goes to gaol he is hallmarked for life, and he is not altogether clear when he has been to Borstal. Not many employers will employ a lad who has been in Borstal, and no employer will employ a man who has been in gaol except for rough work or because he wants cheap labour.
  I am pleased that the men in prison are to have a decent library. I am a great believer in the Bible, but when you get all Bible you are apt to become rather solid on things. You need variety. I never looked down on a person who had been to prison. I was friends with prisoners, if they were in any way decent at all when they came out. One thing about which prisoners complained when they came out was not having had a variety of reading matter. It has been of great benefit in mental hospitals, with the administration of which I have been connected for many years, to provide a
  3226
  variety of books. The variety would surprise people, and so would the keenness of the inmates to read the books. If that is good for mental cases, it is a good thing also for men who have been in prison. There are books to give inspiration such as men need in prison, if they are not to be looked down upon for ever. Another thing that I could never understand was why they should keep a man in the dark in prison. Would any hon. Member of this House who had been strong and vigorous both mentally and physically find any inspiration at being kept in a cell in the dark, hour after hour? I hope that the Home Secretary will get enlightenment on this matter and will give more artificial light by which the men can read.
  In regard to smoking, I am unfortunately a smoker and I have just about smoked myself through my clothes. It is a consolation to be allowed to smoke, especially to heavy smokers such as some of the men who go to prison. I remember being told how one prisoner had reported another for smoking and I had to go and see what he was doing and stop him. I found what this man was smoking. We used to whitewash the wall without troubling to scratch off the old whitewash and the whitewash used to get thick enough to be almost a wall by itself. This prisoner had taken a piece of this porous lime and, obtaining a match in some way had lit the lime and had sucked away at it till his heart was content. That shows what a man will do for a smoke. They used to smuggle in old clay-pipe heads. Some of us may have seen miners smoking, as they have been doing since the days of Cain, clay pipes strong enough to kill at 500 yards. The men used to break them up and chew them to get a taste of the nicotine. That shows the cruelty caused to men whose whole beings are desiring nicotine. We ought to allow prisoners the comfort of having a smoke.
  My hon. Friend spoke about dermatitis and appealed to the Home Office. He drew rather a vivid picture. I wonder whether the general public know that, in spite of the Home Office, the rules as described by my hon. Friend are not being carried out by employers, that one towel has to serve a number of men for a whole week. Imagine people working dough with that skin disease upon them. Do the people who eat the food know

  3227
  what is taking place? I am convinced that if the Home Office were to apply the power that they possess they would earn the thanks of the public as well as of the victims. I pay a compliment to the inspectors. I never believe that all Government officials are wrong, and we should encourage officials who have tried to do their job. What disgusts me is what happens sometimes when they take their cases before the magistrates. I remember some years ago when I was sitting on the bench learning that in certain cases we never fined people who had broken the law for not putting on insurance stamps, but only ordered that they should put on the stamps that they had missed. That meant that men had evaded the law and had cost the State much money to trace them, and that the only thing you could do was to make them do what they ought to have done at the beginning.
  I noticed that one inspector was nervous when he was putting the case, and on going into the whole matter I found that nobody had ever been convicted for that sort of offence. The inspector was worried and anxious. When cases of the kind described by my hon. Friend come before magistrates you sometimes find these people, because a Government inspector has taken action, saying: "Let these Government men mind their own business." That is not fair to the Home Office or to the public, and it is most of all unfair to the inspector, who has to serve two masters, one of whom is sitting on the bench. It is scandalous, and we have had the same thing again and again in the coal trade as regards inspectors of mines, where the very life of the workers has been concerned because of lack of air or of attention to water by owners. Employers have come before some benches of magistrates and have been fined 5s. or £1. What is it to them? It is like my buying the "Evening Standard." I know that the Home Secretary would like to see these things carried out, and magistrates ought to remember that, while they have a duty to correct things, they have also a duty to protect things. In any case in which food becomes contaminated as a result of skin disease or any other disease because someone is not carrying out the Act, the magistrates have a duty to the State to punish those who are responsible.
  3228
  I hope the Home Secretary will go on with his good work of reform in the construction of gaols. If I might dare to make a suggestion, there are many big castles some of which to-day could be got for a mere song, because people cannot afford to live in them on account of the rates and taxes. One hon. Member of this House who owns such a castle told me that he has sold it for the stone, which is being used for road-making. There are many very nice buildings that could easily, with the aid of a good architect, be so reconstructed that they could be used for gaols, and they would have the advantage of being in the open country. I know of nothing more likely to give a man a clear vision and a desire to lead a good life than to give him the opportunity of breathing the fresh air of God, especially when he has been living in the slums all his life. Many a child has the gutter for his only playground. How can you expect him to grow up into a spiritually-minded man at the age of 21 or 22? If you want to encourage children to higher things, take them out into the country, where the freshness of Nature will rebuild and restore them. It is possible to give a prisoner a love for things that are beautiful. I know a man who served 35 years in prison but who has done wonderfully well, simply because the police gave him an opportunity to become a member of their band. He has become a wonderful musician, and is now a bandmaster. Prisoners can come to love music, to love flowers, to love companionship. Let us not give the cold hand, the "frozen mitt," to these people. There is not one of us who does not need to thank God for the help of some guiding hand in the past, and it is our duty in the future to give our hand to those with whom we are dealing to-night.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. John: We have had a very interest-discussion, covering a very wide range of subjects, from prison reform to industrial diseases, and, if the Noble Lord will give us as favourable a reply on the questions which have been put to him on industrial diseases as that which we had from the Home Secretary on the question of prison reform, we on this side will be very well satisfied with having initiated the Debate. The Home Secretary has suggested that certain reforms are to be introduced in the very near future. We all know that in the past, and, indeed, it is often the

  3229
  case to-day, two ideas have been fighting one another for supremacy. The one is that, the severer the punishment, the greater is the deterrent, and the other is that reformative measures are much more beneficial than punishment. We know, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, that his ideas are of the latter class.
  There has been practical unanimity this afternoon in all quarters of the House with regard to the need for prison reform and with regard to the methods which are being adopted in order to bring about that reform. I do not know whether there will be the same unanimity when the Noble Lord replies with regard to industrial diseases. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) raised the question of the report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into questions arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, especially in connection with nystagmus. The Departmental Committee has been sitting for a considerable time. It was appointed in 1935, and issued a report in January of this year. I should like to ask the Noble Lord whether he is in a position to say what is going to be done with that report. It contains many recommendations; do the Government intend to implement those recommendations? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), I hope we shall not have to wait until the promise of the Prime Minister is fufilled to appoint a Departmental Committee to make a general survey of the whole question of the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
  There are at the present time many difficulties with regard to nystagmus which call for immediate reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) referred to a very serious one, namely, that, if a miner suffers, or even if there is a suspicion that he suffers, from nystagmus, he is unable to get employment at any other pit. It is true that attempts have recently been made to get the employers to waive that policy and to agree that in future a workman who suffers from nystagmus shall not be deterred from being re-employed, but I am afraid that, while one or two employers may be got to waive their right in that respect and change their policy, practically 70 or 80 per cent. will refuse to re-employ a man who suffers from
  3230
  nystagmus. Another question that requires immediate attention is the question of the change from a medical referee to the establishment of a medical board. The medical referee at the present time is the judge, the jury, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords all in one.
  A man may be certified by his own doctor to be suffering from nystagmus, and he may also be certified by the certifying surgeon to be suffering from nystagmus. Then he goes to the medical referee, and the medical referee certifies that he is not suffering from nystagmus. There are two opinions against the medical referee, but his decision is final so far as the applicant is concerned. Even the British Medical Association say that this is too much responsibility for one man, and that there ought to be at least three men, formng a board who could have a discussion on the general situation, look at the various angles of the disease, and see how it affects the individual. I hope the recommendations of this Committee are not going to be delayed unduly. Consider the effect of the delay on the individual applicant himself. He is certified to be suffering from nystagmus; the certifying surgeon certifies that he is not; the only thing left for the individual is for him, or his trade union, to make an application to the county court. But the county court probably will not be sitting for six, eight or 10 weeks. The individual has to wait in a state of uncertainty as to whether he is to receive compensation or not. This long delay is not in the best interests of the applicant. For that reason, a medical board should supplant the medical referee.
  Another industrial disease that has been referred to is silicosis. We have heard to-night about the ravages of this and other diseases on the health and life of the workers of this country. Indeed, so important has the effect of silicosis on the workers of this country become in the recent past that the Medical Research Council deemed it necessary to request the Pulmonary Diseases Committee to make an intensive investigation into silicosis and its effect on the workers. I know that this is a very delicate and scientific subject, and that it requires a great deal of careful handling. Not only have the medical profession been making an inquiry into the causes of silicosis and its effect upon the workmen from the medical point of view, but a committee

  3231
  of mining experts has also been appointed to investigate the effect on miners, both on the surface and underground. I know this requires very careful study, but the committee has been in existence now for 18 months and, if the rumours are correct, it is not anticipated that it will report again for another 12 or 18 months. I want to impress on the Noble Lord the need for this committee reporting as quickly as possible.
  A great deal has been said about workmen in various industries this afternoon, but there is another class of workers who suffer, in proportion to the number employed, as much as any other workers in this country from the effects of silicosis. They are the North Wales quarrymen. Recently, there was a committee appointed to inquire into the anti-tuberculosis services in Wales. The chairman of that committee was the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). In the course of the inquiry the committee went to Blaenau Festiniog in North Wales, and startling revelations were made in evidence with regard to the condition of the quarrymen at these slate quarries as a consequence of tuberculosis. The death rate from tuberculosis and silicosis was so high that an appeal was made to the Welsh Memorial Association to make investigations. A clinic was established, an X-ray plant was installed, and it was disclosed that a large number of the quarrymen were suffering from silicosis. In the examination it was ascertained that 80 per cent. were definitely suffering from silicosis, and that a very high percentage of that 80 per cent. were suffering both from silicosis and tuberculosis. Here is an extract from the evidence of the tuberculosis physician:
  "I am convinced that if every quarryman of 40 years of age and over were X-rayed the majority would have silicosis."
  In conclusion, he said:
  "I am of opinion that a great many of the quarrymen working at the Festiniog mines today are suffering from silicosis to such a degree as to make it dangerous for them to continue at work in the industry and that the solution of the persistently high tuberculosis death rate of the male population of the Festiniog area lies in the tackling of this vital question of the injurious effects of an unhealthy industry."
  Further evidence was given that in practically every post-mortem that had been conducted the medical officer of health
  3232
  for Blaenau Festiniog said that he found—to use his own words—"the lungs choked with dust." He said that
  "in one instance a man was working on the wagon in the mill and he coughed up blood; he was taken home and he had another attack of haemorrhage during the night and died the next day. The coroner ordered a post-mortem. The man's lungs were like two bricks."
  So serious was the condition of the quarrymen in North Wales, according to the report of the medical officer of health in 1931, that the Canadian Government became interested in the subject, and in 1932 they sent eight doctors over to make an investigation into the cause of silicosis in North Wales. The purpose of the Canadian Government, in addition to obtaining knowledge of the disease, was to prevent immigrants into Canada who were suffering from silicosis or tuberculosis. But surely it was of equal importance to the Home Office in this country to make inquiries into the matter. Not only have the Home Office not made inquiries into the condition of the quarrymen of North Wales, but the quarrymen of North Wales, although those men are suffering from silicosis to the extent of 80 per cent. of those examined, do not come under the silicosis order. Their dependants are not entitled to any compensation. Probably the reply of the Noble Lord may be that these are slate quarries. Whether they are slate quarries or not, the fact remains that the men are certified as suffering from silicosis and therefore, when they die, their dependants are entitled to compensation.
  What happens at the present time? We heard this afternoon about the fate of those in receipt of compensation that the average amount of compensation paid is about 25s. a week. In this case they do not get 25s.; they do not get anything at all. They are not recognised as being entitled to compensation, and they are left to the cold mercy of either the approved society or of the public assistance committee. That is one reason why I should like to get an early report from the Medical Research Council. If the reply of the Home Office is that these are slate quarries, and consequently they cannot come under the Silicosis Order, the fact remains that these people are dying from a disease that has an industrial origin. They are dying from the effects of their occupation. We can call it what we like. We can call it anthracosis or whatever we like, but the fact remains

  3233
  that men are dying consequent upon inhalation of dust while following their occupation, and compensation ought to be paid.
  The Medical Research Council is to inquire into all these cases, and the various diseases, and we should like an early report upon this particular question. If it is a new disease that is not yet scheduled, the sooner it is scheduled the better, so that sufferers may be entitled to compensation. There is another phase of the Silicosis Order which ought to receive very serious attention on the part of the Home Secretary, and that is the three years' time limit. The position is that an individual who has not been certified within three years of the last day that he worked in the process loses entitlement to compensation. Here is a case that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) gave to me the other day respecting a man who had died in his constituency, having formerly lived in mine. The headings are:
  "Death After Silicosis.
  Had Not Worked Since 1930.
  After working for 35 years in a South Wales coal mine, a man who had since been living in Wednesfield died on 15th April from pneumonia following silicosis which he had contracted while at work. He was David Edmund Evans. … The deputy district coroner for Staffordshire remarked that the cause of death was one with which the Minister of Health was well acquainted. Steps were now being taken to prevent it, but Evans had contracted the disease at an earlier period."
  The assistant pathologist at the Royal Hospital, Wolverhampton, performed the post mortem examination and found in the lungs some black characteristic of silicosis, and said that the man must have contracted the disease by coming into contact with silica, which must have been in the rock he was mining. That man had not worked since 1930, but because he was not certified within three years from the last period that he worked in the process, he was not entitled to compensation while he was alive, and his wife and children are not now entitled to compensation. I have a letter from them. They are in very sad circumstances. I have another case which is only indicative of a large number of others. The other day a man died from silicosis. Eight months previous the medical board had refused to certify him. When a post mortem took place, his death was certified as being
  3234
  due absolutely to silicosis, but because of the failure or the refusal of the medical board to certify the man his widow and children were unable to claim compensation.
  I want to put before the Home Secretary the serious need of an amendment of the law and the abolition of the three years time limit. A time limit should not be the deciding factor in the payment of compensation; it should be decided by the actual cause of death. If it could be proved that a man suffered from silicosis regardless of whether the period was three years, 10 years or 15 years, then compensation should be paid. Why do not the medical board certify? The test is too high. The medical board must be satisfied that the individual is suffering to such an extent as to make it injurious for him to continue his occupation. It is very rarely that anyone comes up to that particular test. In fact, the number of refusals in a certain district is 45 per cent. of the total applications, and if one takes the number of refusals throughout the country, it is over 50 per cent. There must be something wrong with a medical board that refuses 50 per cent. of the applications for compensation. These are the points that I want to emphasise. There should be a medical board to deal with the question of industrial diseases, including nystagmus.
  There has been talk about dermatitis, I want the same principle to extend to dermatitis. I know of a case reported from the Midlands in which a man was suffering from it. His own medical attendant certified that he was suffering from dermatitis, having industrial origin. The man was sent to hospital, where he was examined by two other doctors and a skin specialist. The skin specialist certified that he was suffering from dermatitis which had industrial origin, and he placed that statement on the record at the man's bedside. He was seen by the employer's doctor, who again certified that he was suffering from dermatitis, having industrial origin. Then he was sent to the medical referee who, notwithstanding the fact that four doctors had already certified that this individual was suffering from dermatitis, having industrial origin, turned the case down. Surely, that is a very concrete example which shows the need of a medical board having to decide these particular cases, and that it should

  3235
  not be left to one individual. It is too much of a responsibility for one individual.
  I should like to know what the Government are going to do with the report on nystagmus, and whether they will seriously consider the advisability of amending the Order as it applies to silicosis. I should also like to know that they intend to press forward the work of this medical research council. Industrial diseases are on the increase. A question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) whether it was possible to ascertain to what extent the vibration of machines affects the nervous system, not only on the surface but underground. We have pneumatic drills on the roads and there are pneumatic drills which have been introduced into the mines. We should like to know to what extent rheumatism is an occupational disease. It is more prevalent among the cotton workers and the miners than any other section of industrial workers, and it is argued that that is because of the quick change of temperature from cold to hot and from hot to cold. To what extent can rheumatism be diagnosed as an occupational disease? There are diseases which are not well known from which the workers of this country are suffering, and it would be a distinct advantage to the workers and the community at large that this medical research board should extend its investigations into that field of inquiry.
  A good deal is being said at the present time in regard to physical fitness. We have "Keep fit" classes and welfare schemes all over the country, in order that we may keep the nation fit. The health of the nation very largely is decided in the workshops of the nation, in the occupational characteristics of the nation. Therefore, I should like there to be more co-ordination between the Mines Department and the Home Office on the lines of preventive measures. The Home Office are doing a great deal of good work in this direction. They have exhibitions from time to time showing the good work that is being done, but I do not want their good work to end in exhibitions. I want the preventive measures that are introduced at the Home Office and the Mines Department to be made a direct part of the history of the industries of this country, and I should very
  3236
  much like to know that in future there will be more co-ordination between these two Departments, not only in regard to the adoption of preventive measures but the imposition of them upon industry.
  10.19 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I should like, on behalf of my right hon. Friend with whom, as the House knows, I am now associated at the Home Office, to thank the House, and especially hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the friendly references that they have made to him personally and to his administration. I should like, further, to acknowledge on my own behalf the indebtedness which I feel I owe to hon. and right hon. Members opposite for having notified in advance to the Department the points that they were going to raise. The House will appreciate that I have been only five weeks at the Home Office, and during that time I have been engaged on a very poignant task in regard to refugees, and it has, therefore, been of great help and benefit to me to be supplied in advance with a list of the subjects which hon. and right hon. Members intended to raise. Perhaps I may be permitted one further personal reference. I should like to say that the particular subjects with which I am going to deal to-night, and with which I have been asked to deal, are subjects in which, although I have had no previous expert experience, I take the greatest interest, because I happen to have been chairman for over 30 years of a hospital which has been a pioneer in a certain branch of medical work. I have always thought that if I had not been a politician I should have liked to be a medical research worker. I used to visualise myself as engaged in medical research work and as eventually finding my name in the Coronation honours list as a reward for my services.
  Before I deal with the questions relating to industrial diseases, with which I propose to deal particularly this evening, let me say a word in reply to some of the points which have been raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House in regard to other aspects of Home Office administration.
  We have indeed had a most interesting series of speeches. We have had speeches from hon. Members who have had long experience as workers and who are now

  3237
  holding high positions in the trade union world. We have had a speech from an hon. Member who was once in the police force but who is now a distinguished official in the trade union movement, and I am sure the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will not regard it as impertinent on my part if I say that we have had a speech from the point of view of a former prisoner. The hon. Member for the city of Durham (Mr. Ritson) in an eloquent speech and the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) asked questions as to the prisons into which the wage-earning system had been introduced. Amongst the prisons at which it is at present in operation are Maidstone, Holloway and Liverpool, and it is proposed to extend it to three more prisons in the autumn. I should like to add that the earnings connote smoking.
  The hon. Member for West Leicester asked a question regarding the system whereby boys sentenced to Borstal detention have been taken in the first instance to Wormwood Scrubs, and he asked that the system should be abolished. The difficulty at the moment, I understand, is the difficulty of finding sufficient space. The boys who go there before being drafted to a Borstal institution are carefully segregated from the rest of the prisoners, and my right hon. Friend will bear the point in mind. The Government make a contribution to the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society of 2s. per head, plus a supplementary contribution of £1,500 a year. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) referred to the question of the staffing of approved schools. He will excuse me if I do not deal with the matter at any length, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is fully aware of the great importance of selecting suitable staff for approved schools, and he fully agrees with the hon. Member that the staff should be constituted of fully qualified men of the right type. As regards enlistments from approved schools, in 1936, 195 entered the Army but the numbers entering the Navy and the Air Force were much smaller being under a dozen for the two Services combined.
  Mr. Morgan: How many went into agriculture?
  Earl Winterton: We have not the specific returns for agriculture, but I will make inquiry into that matter. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr.
  3238
  McEntee), who is not now in his place, made a criticism of a somewhat serious character on the subject of the cost of the erection of new police quarters in the Metropolitan Police area. The first answer I will make to the hon. Gentleman's charges, or suggestions, is that the comparative cost of section houses and flats is a very technical matter into which I am afraid I cannot try to go, but my right hon. Friend will take note of what was said by the hon. Member and will go into the question further and if it appears desirable he will communicate with the hon. Member. The cost of engineering services was, I understand, included in the cubic foot costs quoted by my right hon. Friend in reply to a question, to the terms of the answer to which the hon. Member for West Walthamstow took exception. It was suggested in the question that the cost of the section houses compared with the cost of high-class flats, but hostel accommodation is more comparable with section houses than are blocks of flats, and it is understood than such accommodation recently provided in London has cost some 2s. 3d. per cubic foot. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is prepared to go further into this matter if the hon. Member wishes to have further information. I would add that the first four section houses were necessarily, to some extent, experimental. It will be realised that there is a desire to provide for the Metropolitan Police, in the newer houses, better accommodation than is provided at the present time.
  Before coming to the question of industrial diseases, I will say a word or two on the very thorny question of juvenile delinquency, a subject in which many hon. Members are interested, and in which I know the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) takes a great interest. As the hon. Member for Westhoughton pointed out, it is true that there has been a considerable rise in the numbers dealt with by the juvenile courts. As I think the hon. Gentleman pointed out, one of the causes of this increase in the number of cases is the greater use now being made of the courts as a result of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933. I think there is no question that cases are now brought before the juvenile courts which were not brought before them previously. However, the question of juvenile delinquency

  3239
  is a most difficult and complicated one, as I think all magistrates, and indeed all hon. Members, will agree. For that reason, an inquiry is to be instituted into the increase in the numbers appearing before the courts. I may announce that it has been decided that the inquiry shall take the form of a careful investigation into one thousand cases coming before Metropolitan juvenile courts and also into all cases coming before the juvenile courts of six large provincial towns during a period of six months, the towns being Manchester, Leeds, Hull, Cardiff, Nottingham and Sheffield. I think hon. Members will agree that that will be a comprehensive inquiry.
  I turn now to the question of the inspection of factories, the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and the question of accidents coming under the factory inspectorate. The hon. Gentleman opposite complained that there had been, on more than one occasion, delay in producing the report of the Inspector of Factories. It is true that although the report has been presented, formally, to Parliament, it is not actually presented in printed form yet. The hon. Gentleman, in a vein of good-natured chaff, suggested that in some way I was responsible and was what he called "a drag on the wheel." He said that when I was at the India Office he found equal difficulty in getting any information out of me. I regret that that should be his impression. It is not my recollection and I hope I may add that in the home circle, I have the reputation of giving as much information as anybody wants to hear. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not my fault, nor is it the fault of the Home Secretary that the report is not available.
  Seriously, we appreciate the desirability, if possible, of getting out this report before the end of July; but this year the Home Office has, I will not say been overburdened, but has had a great many extra duties placed upon its shoulders for a variety of reasons, among others the air-raid precautions schemes and the bringing into force of the new Factories Act. These have placed additional burdens upon the Department and upon the factory inspectorate and the work has been much greater this year than in previous years. I must not make a definite promise but I will say that my
  3240
  right hon. Friends will bear in mind the desire of the House that the report should be published earlier than usual. I have read the report very carefully and I see no reason why I should not mention certain matters in it. There is nothing very novel about the report of the inspector. It contains the results and conclusions arrived at by the inspectors and these are very much the same as those recorded in the previous year.
  Let me deal, however, with the report which the House has actually seen, namely, the report for 1936. Speaking with some diffidence in the presence of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have greater experience of this matter than I have, I take the view that there is much in that report of a hopeful nature. I instance one thing in particular and that is the increase of welfare work, not only in the big but in the small factories, compared with a few years ago. Welfare work of a voluntary character in the factories and voluntary co-operation between employers and employed, is much greater than it was. Of course we have to consider the whole question of the factory laws and factory inspection in the light of the fact that the new Factories Act came into operation this year. It is obviously too early yet to judge the effect of the Measure.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Noble Lord tell us something about the ratio of accidents among juveniles in 1937 compared with 1936?
  Earl Winterton: I intend to say something about that in a moment. The report to which I have been referring points out that in a time of increased industrial activity there is always liable to be an increased accident rate. That is almost inevitable for this reason that at such a time more people are employed than were employed in the previous experience of the particular industry concerned, and there is also greater pressure of work. This applies not merely to adults but also to juveniles. I think it must be admitted that the number of accidents among juveniles is greater than the Home Secretary or the House as a whole wishes to see and hon. Gentlemen no doubt would like to know what is being done about it. In the first place, the Department is continuing the intensive study of juvenile accidents and their causes with a view to giving employers what further help they can in reducing the number. The in-

  3241
  spectors report calls attention to the fact that insufficient care was taken in many factories by the firms and managers to see that young boys and girls coming into the factory were, so to speak, made accustomed to the work which they had to do.
  In other words, sufficient care was not taken to deal with the psychological aspect of the case. Although the machines themselves may be of a perfectly safe character, and although there may be nothing about them which requires special precautions, the mere fact that a boy or girl is working in unaccustomed surroundings makes it necessary that the employer should take a fatherly interest in his or her welfare. That is what the Home Office Wishes to impress upon employers, and it will be remembered that under the new Factories Act there is special provision laid down on the subject of the proper instruction of these juveniles in their work. One of the actual provisions is that the Act requires that juveniles working at dangerous machines must be properly trained and instructed, and there is a very valuable strengthening of the provisions as to the cleaning of machinery by young persons.
  I turn to one or two other matters arising out of the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories. I think one hon. Gentleman raised the question of eye accidents. There is a Section in the new Factories Act which specifically requires goggles or screens in the case of processes which are specified by the Secretary of State as involving a special risk of injury to the eyes, and the Home Office and the factory inspectorate would like to see a more general use of these goggles, especially where screening is impracticable. There seems to have been reluctance in some forms of industry, on the part of both employers and employed, to make use of them. I might also mention that there has been opened recently at the Royal Eye Hospital a special exhibition of eye protecting devices, to which I would call the attention of the House.
  The question of lighting in factories has also been raised. There was a special committee appointed some months ago, under the chairmanship of the Chief Inspector of Factories, to advise on this matter, and I think I am safe in saying that the report will be ready some time during October.
  3242
  The very interesting point was raised of what is sometimes known by the appellation of shuttle-kissing, and for the benefit of those hon. Members who are not familiar with what it is, I might explain that it is the practice of cotton weavers to thread their shuttles by mouth suction. Section 50 of the Factories Act empowers the Secretary of State to make such special regulations for curtailing the practice as appear to him to be reasonably practicable. A conference was summoned by the Superintending Inspector of Factories at Manchester on 9th December of last year to deal with this question, and as a result of that conference a joint committee was formed to inquire into the matter. The committee held its first meeting on 6th April, and it was felt that the real way to make progress was to conduct experiments at the mills themselves, under every-day practical conditions, and that is being done.
  Questions were asked about the strength of the factory inspectorate. The passage of the Factories Act has naturally meant that it is necessary to have a larger inspectorate, and the House will be interested to know that for that and other reasons a scheme has been sanctioned which will have the effect of increasing the strength of the inspectorate by 62, or about 23 per cent., over a period of three years. That will be a very substantial increase.
  Questions were asked about lead poisoning. In 1937 the number of cases of lead poisoning was the lowest in any year since notification of the disease was made compulsory, and this followed a previously low record in 1936. The figures for the pottery industry, to which reference was particularly made, were 15 in 1937, 18 in 1936, and 18 in 1935. In the painting of buildings there has been a more general compliance with the lead paint regulations made in 1927.
  I come to the most important subject with which I have to deal, namely, the question of silicosis, and after that I shall say a word about nystagmus. My right hon. Friend and I appreciate fully the great interest which is taken in this matter, not only by hon. Members opposite, but by all who have the welfare of the workers in certain industries at heart. It is a most difficult question. I have not, unfortunately, the technical knowledge that some hon. Members have,

  3243
  but I hope to be able to present a picture which will show how alive my right hon. Friend and I and the officials of the Home Office are to this matter, and to report the progress that is being made. I need not give a description of the method by which silicosis is dealt with for compensation purposes, but I would like to say a word about the incidence of the disease. It is, of course, difficult to get out figures showing how many cases of silicosis are being caused at this moment, because, as has been pointed out in more than one speech, the disease is one of slow development. Taking the disablement cases certified by the Medical Board, the figure for the refractories industries is less than five in each of the last five years except one, when there were seven. The figures for sandstone quarrying have gone down from 53 in 1933 to 26 in 1937. The figures for the potteries have fallen in the same five years from 70 to 41 and the figures for stonemason's outside the sandstone industry have fallen from 72 to 56. The figures for metal grinding are comparatively small—13 in 1933 and eight in 1937.
  Mr. Kelly: Has the Noble Lord the figures for the asbestos industry?
  Earl Winterton: I will give them later on. There are special regulations for factories in the metal grinding and pottery industries. As regards prevention in coalmining and sandstone quarrying, that is a matter for the Mines Department with which I am not competent to deal. As regards stonemasons outside sandstone quarrying, cases have arisen in building operations or builders' yards, and the recent valuable extension of the Factories Act to cover builders' yards and building operations where there is no mechanical power will enable the question of further regulations to be taken up.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Does the Minister say that the Home Office are not responsible for the compensation of silicosis cases?
  Earl Winterton: No, I never suggested that. The Home Office are responsible. I said that the prevention of silicosis in mines was a matter for the Mines Department. I will say a word in a moment about research work. The hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Marshall) said, as I understood it,
  3244
  that there were a number of grinders in Sheffield suffering from silicosis who were unable to get compensation and he asked whether anything could be done for them. I understand that he has in mind those who are employed on processes now within the compensation scheme but who ceased to be employed on those processes before the first scheme was agreed to in 1927, and he may also have had in mind those who, I understand, are known as "little masters," that is those who work on their own behalf. I am afraid there are very great legislative difficulties about bringing the latter class under the Act. In fact, it is clear that it would involve an extension of the principles of the Act to bring in people in this or other trades who are working for themselves. For instance, there might be equal reason for including smallholders and others who are liable to suffer from certain diseases arising from the circumstances of their work. As I have already said, silicosis is a disease of slow development, and no doubt it seems hard that workmen still employed in grinding after June, 1927, may get compensation if they become affected while workmen not employed after that date are outside the scheme, but it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make the scheme retrospective. Somebody asked a question about asbestosis and—
  Mr. Marshall: Can the Noble Lord give the House any hope that the men in the metal grinding industry, many of whom die, sometimes, from a mixture of silicosis and tuberculosis, diseases which undoubtedly arise out of their work, will be brought within the silicosis scheme or any other scheme for compensation for industrial diseases?
  Earl Winterton: Perhaps it would be convenient if I mentioned that the matter is obviously intertwined with two matters one of which is under consideration and other of which is really in the position almost of being sub judice. As the House will be aware, a committee has been appointed by the Medical Research Council—I have been asked several questions upon it as representing the Lord President's Department in this House—which is inquiring into the incidence of pulmonary diseases other than that which can be definitely diagnosed as silicosis, and the report of that committee will, I fear, not be available before the middle

  3245
  of next year. The question which the hon. Member put is mixed up with the whole question of workmen's compensation, about which I am going to say a word in a moment.
  Another point which I should like to deal with in connection with silicosis is that of periodical medical examinations which was brought up in the course of the Debate to-day and has been mentioned in former Debates. I am sorry if I am dealing with this question in rather a ragged manner, but the House will appreciate that there are so many points arising out of it. The Home Office have recently placed before representatives of the employers and trade unions for their comments revised proposals for amending the scheme, and they include the extension of examinations to workers employed in certain additional processes in the pottery industry particularly in connection with the manufacture of earthenware. The question of multiplying the number of examinations is by no means a simple one but the proposals have been worked out with this point in mind and include a provision for decreasing the frequency of some of the examinations.
  In conclusion I should like to say a word about this committee about which I have been asked many questions. I am now speaking in my capacity as representing the Lord President.
  Mr. Grenfell: Is it contemplated in the instructions that are to be issued that, where men have been actually disabled from silicosis but are not certified, there will be an extension of the time limit beyond three years? The Noble Lord says the progress of the disease is slow. Is it possible that it is so low that sufficient evidence to satisfy the medical board does not appear in three years? Could they not be examined periodically beyond the three years?
  Earl Winterton: It is an important point but difficult.
  Mr. John: The reply that the Noble Lord has just given is identical with that given by the Parliamentary Secretary three months ago. Has anything been done since?
  Earl Winterton: What I was referring to were the revised proposals which have been placed before representatives of the
  3246
  employers and the trade unions. My answer to that is that nothing can be done until an answer has been obtained from them.
  Mr. John: Have any further steps been taken since the Parliamentary Secretary gave that reply?
  Earl Winterton: I think the hon. Member does not appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply referred to earlier proposals which had been placed before the associations of the employers and the employed. We have not yet received the replies to the revised proposals which will enable us to take action. My right hon. Friend will undertake to see that they are asked to accelerate their replies.
  Mr. John: The reply is that both sides were to make suggestions and the Home Secretary was considering what was to be the next step. I am asking what are the results of the consideration.
  Earl Winterton: We have not yet received the final replies, but I will undertake that the matter will be looked into at once and dealt with.
  A question was asked about silicosis in the North Wales slate mines. The Home Office has no evidence to show that the silicosis compensation scheme ought to be extended to slate workers, but the Mines Department, through their inspectors, are inquiring further into the working conditions. It is really for them to do so. The question whether a further medical inquiry should be undertaken can be considered in the light of the results.
  I am well aware that there has been on the part of some hon. Members opposite an apprehension that the inquiry being made under the auspices of the Medical Research Committee into certain diseases of a pneumonic character in mines has been unduly delayed. I represent the Lord President's Department and I have gone into the matter personally. I realise the great importance of getting the results of the inquiry as soon as possible, but it will be difficult, if not impossible, to do so before the middle of next year. There have been 5,000 separate cases investigated, but it will be necessary to examine the workers at another colliery. I hope the report will be out next year. I will do all I can to accelerate it.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: May I put this to the Noble Lord as one of the reasons why we are pressing for the report? It is not that we want to deny to the medical men ample time to go into this very important matter but because of our experience that when a report of this kind is issued and orders are eventually made based upon the reports, an enormous mass of anomalies arises. With his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, perhaps the Noble Lord would be able to look into this matter. Here, week by week and month by month, are men in my own division being told by medical men that what they are suffering from is not silicosis. The report may declare that here is an industrial disease and they may call it pnuemo-choreosis. They may decide to change the name and it may be said: "We cannot make a new silicosis order." When the new order comes forward as was the case under previous orders saying that as from a certain date everybody who comes within the terms of the order shall be dealt with we shall doubtless get hundreds of people who lie outside not covered by the new order. I want the doctors to have full time to do their job but after they have made their report if it is in favour of a change, as I think it is bound to be, will the right hon. Gentleman give full consideration to the desirability in the name of elementary justice of making such an order retrospective?
  Earl Winterton: That is a very important point to which I could not give an answer off-hand.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: No, we want only consideration of it.
  Earl Winterton: My right hon. Friend will give full consideration to it and I will undertake to represent to the Lord President's Department the need for all possible acceleration. I do not think it is fair to blame the doctors for the length of time taken on what must be intricate examinations.
  The last point upon which I wish to touch is the important one of miners' nystagmus.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Before the Noble Lord goes on to the question of miners nystagmus would he say whether he has any hope to offer to the people in the card rooms of Lancashire, on the questions which have been raised?
  Earl Winterton: I will say a word about the card room disease in a moment but I should like to speak about miners' nystagmus now. The report of the Stewart Committee was presented in January of this year and it contained some very important recommendations, to be found upon page 107. I need not quote the recommendations to the House because hon. Members will probably be familiar with them. Question have been asked in this Debate and in ordinary questions whether or not it was proposed to implement the report in advance of the Royal Commission's Report, announced upon the whole question of workmen's compensation. I must give the answer to-night that implementation of a portion or of the whole of this particular report can neither be promised nor precluded by me to-night. There is a good deal to be said for dealing with the question of whether any alterations may be required—I think it is generally agreed that they will be required—on the report of the Royal Commission for dealing with them as a whole. Whether there shall be alterations to the law in respect of some parts of workmen's compensation in advance of alterations in the law necessitated by the report of the Royal Commission is a question which has not yet been decided. Obviously, the report of the Departmental Committee on Miners' Nystagmus is of the greatest importance, and will have to be taken into consideration when general legislation is forthcoming.
  Mr. Buchanan: How long will the Royal Commission take?
  Earl Winterton: We cannot say; it is a question of time and convenience. It may be—
  Mr. Buchanan: We know that these commissions sometimes meet for years.
  Earl Winterton: I do not think it will be a question of years.
  With regard to the card-room operatives, I listened with great interest and considerable sympathy to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), though I cannot, on the advice given to me, find myself in agreement with all the points that he urged. He suggested, and others have suggested, that some compensation should be paid by employers to card-room and certain other operatives disabled by respiratory illness

  3249
  which is generally known as card-room disease, where it is found to be sufficiently prevalent and can be attributed to the dust. The question, however, is an extremely difficult one from a medical point of view, owing to the difficulty of ascertaining whether the workman is suffering from, say, bronchitis or asthma due to dust or due to natural causes. A committee was appointed last year to go into the matter further, and questions have been asked as to what progress has been made. I understand that the present position is that the committee have heard evidence and have carried out various statistical investigations, and they have now reached the stage of considering their report. The statistical work in particular took a long time, but my right hon. Friend, the Home Office and the committee are fully alive to the desirability of their reporting as soon as they properly can, and no doubt the attention which has been called to the matter in the course of the Debate will accelerate the decision.
  I should like to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that we very much appreciate the spirit in which this matter has been approached to-night by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have endeavoured in our two speeches to deal with the, main points raised, and, if any have been omitted, they will be carefully considered. I should like, in conclusion, to make this observation. I cannot help being struck, as others who have listened to the Debate must have been struck, by the contrast between our proceedings here and the proceedings that presumably take place when the Vote of a roughly similar department in other countries—the Ministry of the Interior—is under consideration. It is a fact that in most countries the functions of the Ministry of the Interior are mainly concerned with the maintenance of law and order, and in a growing number of countries with the prevention of opinion hostile to the régime. In this country we can with pride contrast with that the beneficent activity of our Home Office, under whatever political mastership it may be. More and more, as time goes on, under the process of what one may call steady evolution, the Home Office, while maintaining its primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order with the assistance of the local police forces, is concerned with the whole
  3250
  community, and with the reform of the evil-doer rather than merely with his punishment. It is an Office which guides, advises and directs. Through its agency a great many abuses have been abolished, and I hope that a great many more will be abolished in the next ten years. I make bold to suggest that as an institution, under whatever political mastership it may be, it is one that is so typically British that all of us in all quarters of the House may be proud of it.
  Mr. Kelly: I understood the Noble Lord was going to deal with the asbestos question.
  Earl Winterton: I am sorry I had not got the figures when the question was asked; I now have them. Certificates of disablement were granted by the medical board as follows: in 1934, seven, with two deaths; 1935, four, with one death; 1936, four with one death; 1937, three.
  Mr. Kelly: How many were laid off? Deaths are not the only thing.
  Earl Winterton: I am not sure I have the figures of those laid off, but I will see if I can get them for the hon. Member.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. Leonard: I regret that the arrangements as to time prevented me from speaking before the Noble Lord, but I do not complain as what I have to say does not entail any reply to-night. I have been asked to put before the Home Secretary two points. One was dealt with in the Noble Lord's speech, so I need not refer to it. The other deals with the question of dermatitis. We have heard, and rightly heard, details of this problem in one or two industries, but I have been asked to press upon the Home Secretary the fact that another trade, cabinetmaking—a reasonably healthy trade—is subject to dermatitis. I refer to the polishing side of the trade. The old system of french polishing is nearly a thing of the past and chemicals in an ever-increasing complexity are appearing as polishes and carrying increased risks of dermatitis. There exists in the trade the opinion that the inspectoring of the trade is not so effective as it might be. I would therefore ask the Home Secretary to cut a section in the visits of his inspectors and see if a little more time can be given to this trade while not desirous of injuring others. Another question relates to

  3251
  prisoners who report on the sick list. There are doctors in the prisons who have the duty of examining them. But I am informed that there is a practice—perhaps a necessary practice—of doctors being assisted by warders, who are designated nurse warders and they have the duty of determining whether a prisoner reporting sick is sufficiently ill for the doctor to be called that day or not, I suggest that the lapse of time between a prisoner reporting sick and the doctor being called, should not be longer than a day and in no case should a week-end slapse. I trust that these two points will be looked into.
  Sir S. Hoare indicated assent.
  11.9 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan: I would ask whether the Home Secretary could, without breaking any Cabinet rule, indicate to the Scottish Office the nature of the reforms he has carried out. I know I cannot ask him to reply on that point, because he has no responsibility, but I would like him to do what I have asked, so that we in Scotland shall not be in any way behind England. With regard to factory inspectors, there are a number of cases where accidents happen, but, instead of being sent to hospital, the girls are paid full wages and are simply put into places to rest. The result is that these are never recorded as accidents, because the people never lose time off work. They are revealed only if compensation claims are made. Will the right hon. Gentleman not see that in these places the inspectorate is tightened up, as sometimes serious accidents occur.
  I never thought when I came into this House that the right hon. Gentleman would ever make such a benevolent speech on prisons as he has made to-day. Let me say as a younger man than he, that I trust the House of Commons will never be ashamed of allowing sentiment to move it, and that he will not be ashamed of the sentiments he has expressed, nor need to apologise for them. I thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have always regarded as a case-hardened Tory, marked for him a considerable advance.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  FIRE BRIGADES BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Lloyd.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  FIRE BRIGADES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Provision of fire services.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 11, leave out from "fire" to the first "of," in line 22, and insert:
    "by securing—
    (a) the services for their borough or district."
    11.12 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is the first of a series of Amendments of a drafting character which have been inserted in agreement with the local authorities. They were afraid that it might be possible to bring actions against them on certain technical points, and, in consultation with legal experts, these Amendments have been inserted in order to prevent that.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will this involve local authorities having their own complete fire brigade system, or will local authorities who cannot afford that be able to ask for the assistance of other local authorities in the event of emergency?
    Mr. Lloyd: This does not raise that question at all. It is only to prevent unjustifiable legal action.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 5, line 4, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Repeal of certain enactments requiring owners and occupiers to defray expenses of fire brigades.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 1, leave out the Clause, and insert:

    NEW CLAUSE A.—(No payments to be made by owners and occupiers in respect of fire services.)
    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 local fire services or any fire

    3253
    services provided in pursuance of arrangements made under sub-section (5) of Section one of this Act or in pursuance of a scheme made under this Act, and all enactments under which fire authorities may require payments to be made by the owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur in respect of the expenses of a fire brigade in attending the fires shall cease to have effect:
    Provided that this section so far as it relates to the powers of fire authorities under any enactment mentioned in Part 11 of the Third Schedule to this Act or under any-enactment incorporating or applying with or without modifications Section thirty-three of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, to require payments in respect of the expenses of fire brigades in attending fires outside the borough or district of the authority by whom the brigade is maintained, shall not come into operation until the expiration of a period of two years from the passing of this Act.
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is proposed in fulfilment of the understanding that, if the negotiations with the insurers and with the eight towns with powers to charge for "in-district" services, should reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion, the Government would move in another place Amendments to restore the provision in the original Bill abrogating all charges for fire brigade services on owners or occupiers of property, whether charges in respect of services rendered within a fire authority's own district or charges made when the brigades are sent outside. Under this arrangement these eight authorities will each receive 27 times the amount of their current annual receipts in respect of in-district charges, calculated on the basis of their average receipts in the last two years. The total sum required has not been precisely ascertained but it will be about £320,000. The insurance interests have undertaken to make a contribution amounting to £600,000, from which the £320,000 will be paid to the eight local authorities, leaving a sum of the order of £280,000 available for research, and for assisting the provision and equipment of regional training centres for firemen and fire brigade recruits and other purposes of general advantage to the Fire Brigade Service.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]

    CLAUSE 9 (Schemes for co-ordination of fire services).
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 29, after "scheme" insert:
    "and to any other person appearing to the Commission to be specially concerned."
    Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment raises the question of of those factory owners whose premises may constitute a special risk, and where a fire brigade is maintained.
    Lords Amendment: In line 36, leave out "they shall be in accordance therewith," and insert:
    "the scheme shall apply those scales with or without modifications."
    Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]

    CLAUSE 14.—(Powers of fire brigades and police in extinguishing fires.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 38, at the end, insert:
    "(2) Any person who wilfully obstructs or interferes with any member of a fire brigade engaged in operations for the extinction of a fire or the protection or rescue of any person or property from fire shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds"
    Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This new Sub-section makes it an offence wilfully to obstruct any member of a fire brigade engaged in operations for the extinction of fire.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 14, line 15, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 22, at the end, insert new Clause B:
    Power to exempt trailers used for fire services from traffic restrictions.
    "The Minister of Transport may by regulations provide that in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified by the

    3255
    regulations, vehicles used for fire brigade purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of Section eighteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which restricts the number of trailers to be drawn by motor vehicles) and the provisions of the said Act as to regulations made there-under shall apply in like manner to regulations made under this Section."
    Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This new Clause meets a point which arises in connection with air raid fire precautions schemes. Sometimes it may be necessary for a lorry or car to tow two trailers, say two trailer fire pumps or a fire pump and a water tank trailer. This may have to be done not only in war time but in the course of peace time training and practices, and is not admissible under the existing law. It will be desirable for safety conditions to be laid down in detail and it is accordingly proposed to deal with the point by way of regulations to be made by the Minister of Transport.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 15, line 11, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Definition of fire-brigade duties for purposes of Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, and this Act.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 6, at the end, insert:
    "and would, if he did not exercise his option under this Sub-section, be subject to the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925."
    Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It is a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 19, line 1, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Provisions as to orders of Secretary of State.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 23, at the end, 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
    3256
    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 tire authorities with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable."
    Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The only change of substance is in the concluding words, which provide that before any order is made for prescribing standards of efficiency, there shall be consultation with any individual fire authorities with whom consultation appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 20, line 19, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Provisions as to London.)
    Lords Amendment: Leave out lines 21 and 22, and insert:
    "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 Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section one to other fire authorities and the references in Sub-section (4) thereof to a tire 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 Sub-section (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."
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is an Amendment of a drafting character which is necessitated by the fact that the London County Council Fire Brigade operate under a separate Act. It has been agreed to by the London County Council.
    Question put, and agreed to.—[Special entry.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 21, line 42, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Application to Scotland.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 7, at the beginning, insert:
    "For any reference to the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, there shall be substituted a reference to the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937; for any reference to the Local Government Officers' Superannuation (Transfer Value) Rules, 1930, there shall be substituted a reference to the Local Government Officers' Superannuation (Transfer Value) (Scotland) Rules, 1924."
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment and the next three Amendments raise a question of Privilege.
    11.24 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the next three Amendments enable the provisions of the Clause to be applied to Scotland.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 23, line 30, agreed to.—[Special entries.]
    Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 36, at the end, insert:
    "Provided that, where the county council of any county have resolved, in pursuance of Sub-section (5) of this Section, that the powers thereby conferred shall be exercised in respect of one or more parts only of the county, the expenditure incurred by the county council for the purposes of this Act in respect of any such part shall be defrayed out of a rate levied only in that part."
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 27.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 25, line 6, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Short title, extent and repeals.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 7, leave out from "that" to the end of the Clause, and insert:

    "(a) the repeal of the enactments mentioned in Part 11 of the said Schedule and of any enactment incorporating or apply-
    3258
    ing, with or without modifications, Section thirty-three of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, shall not take effect until the expiration of a period of two years from the passing of this Act; and

    (b) the repeal of such of the enactments mentioned in the said Schedule as relate to the functions of parish authorities shall not take effect, as respects any such authority, until those functions cease to be exercisable by that authority."

    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment and the next ten Amendments raise a question of Privilege.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 29, line 14, agreed to.—[Special entries.]

  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 26, in the third column, after "eight" insert "except Sub-sections (4) and (5)."
  Mr. Speaker: This Amendment and the next six Amendments raise a question of Privilege.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 29, line 44, agreed to.—[Special entries.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 48, in the third column, leave out "forty-seven," and insert "forty-six."
  Mr. Speaker: This Amendment and the next two Amendments raise a question of Privilege, being consequential on the new Clause A.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 30, line 6, agreed to.—[Special entries.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 8, in the third column, after "twenty-four," insert "of the Order contained in the Schedule."
  Mr. Speaker: This Amendment and the next Amendment raise a question of Privilege, being consequential on other Amendments.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]
  Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 30, line 10, agreed to.—[Special entry.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 12, at the end add:

  PART II.

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED AS FROM TWO YEARS AFTER THE PASSING OF THIS ACT.

  Session and Chapter

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  10 & 11 Vict. c.89.

  The Town Police Clauses Act, 1847.

  Section thirty-three.

  25 & 26 Vict. c. cciii.

  Aberdeen Police and Waterworks Act, 1862.

  Section one-hundred and fifty-seven and Section one-hundred and fifty-eight so far as relating to fires beyond the limits of the Act.

  25 & 26 Vict. c. ccv.

  The Salford Improvement Act, 1862.

  Section two-hundred and seventy-three.

  28 & 29 Vict. c. 90.

  The Metropolitian Fire Brigade Act, 1865.

  In Section thirty the words from "In such case' to "summary manner.'

  29 & 30 Vict. c. li.

  The Tynemouth Improvement Act, 1866.

  Section forty-six.

  29 & 30 Vict. c. cclxxiii.

  The Glasgow Police Act, 1866.

  Section one hundred and sixty-seven, and Section one hundred and sixty-eight so far as relating to fires beyond the City.

  38 & 39 Vict. c. 55.

  The Public Health Act, 1875.

  Paragraph (2) of Section one hundred and seventy-one so far as it incorporates Section thirty-three of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847.

  45 & 46 Vict.c. clxxxv.

  The Dundee Police and Improvement Consolidation Act, 1882.

  Section two hundred and thirty-five in so far as it incorporates Section three hundred and forty-seven of the General Police and Improvement (Scotland land) Act, 1862.

  55 & 56 Vict.c. 55.

  The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892.

  Section two hundred and ninety-eight.

  8 Edw. 7.c.62.

  The local Government (Scotland) Act, 1908.

  Subsections (4) and (5) of Section eight.

  9 Edw. 7. c. cxxix.

  The Greenock Corporation Act, 1909.

  Section three hundred and eighty-four in so far as relating to Section two hundred and ninety-eight of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal

  20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. clxxvii.

  The Glasgow Corporation Act, 1930.

  Section thirty-nine in so far as it relates to Sections one hundred and sixty-seven and one hundred and sixty-eight of the Glasgow Police Act, 1866.

  22 & 23 Geo. 5. c.xlvi.

  The Dundee Corporation Order Conrmation Act, 1932.

  Section forty-nine of the Order contained in the Schedule in so far as it relates to Section three hundred and forty-seven of the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862.

  24 & 25 Geo. 5. c. v.

  The Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1933.

  Subsections (1) and (3) of Section one hundred and forty of the Order contained in the Schedule.

  25 & 26 Geo. 5 c. ii.

  The Aberdeen Corporation Order Conformation Act, 1934.

  Section one hundred and twenty-four of the Order contained in the Schedule in so far as it relates to Sections one hundred and fifty-seven and one hundred and fifty-eight of the Aberdeen Police and Waterworks Act, 1862."

  Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege, being consequential on other Amendments.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special entry.]

  BACON INDUSTRY BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  BACON INDUSTRY BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Relations between marketing boards and Development Board.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 38, leave out "Any" and insert "The."
    11.27 p.m.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, "That

    3261
    this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the next four Amendments are drafting Amendments.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 22, line 15, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Requirements as to manner of exercise of power to determine form of long contracts.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 25, after "has," insert "duly."
    11.28 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is the first of a series of Amendments to Clauses 22, 23, 24 and 26, for the purpose of providing in certain circumstances for the payment of a premium to the producer of pigs when the pigs are transferred from the factory of his choice to another factory. This matter was debated at great length in the House, and we came to the conclusion that this premium should be payable. These Amendments are designed to provide for the position which might arise when there are several factories owned by the same curer. The Amendments down to the Amendment in page 31, line 38, are consequential Amendments.
    11.29 p.m.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: I must say that the Government are asking the House to accept these Amendments almost at the point of a pistol. It is very late in the Session, and if we were to delay in accepting the Amendments, it would probably wreck the Bill. I am very surprised that the Government have accepted this Amendment from the Lords. The position, as the Minister says, was fully debated in the Standing Committee and on the Report stage of the Bill and the curers, at any rate, have accepted the general principle involved but if my information is correct, the situation which has now arisen is one which was strongly resisted by the constituents of Bacon Marketing Board and by the board itself, and as I understand it, when the consultations were proceeding, the Ministry was not in controversy with the view of the Bacon Marketing Board. Yet, for some reason, the Ministry suddenly gave way to the clamour for this additional impost upon the curers.
    3262
    The position now is that whereas it was agreed in the House of Commons that if a pig was to have been sent to a curer nominated by the pig producer, and if by any chance the pig was sent to some place other than the place which the producer nominated, the producer was then to receive a premium of sixpence in respect of that pig. I always thought that he was getting the sixpence for nothing else but his injured feelings. But now, under this Amendment, even though the pig will still go to the curer, with whom the producer has contracted, he is to be given a special premium if the pig is not sent to a particular factory owned by that curer. In that case he still gets sixpence for his injured feelings. It may be argued that the sixpence is to be paid because the pig has to travel further, but that cannot be substantiated because under the arbitration award, the pig producer is offered compensation for any wastage in weight which occurs as a result of the change. There is no case in that at all, and this proposal seems to be just another imposition, made in another place, upon that section of industry which has been left with an exceedingly narrow margin upon which to work the Government's scheme. I know at this stage in the Session and in these circumstances, after half-past Eleven o'clock at night on the last effective day but one before the Recess, it is impossible to divide the House on this, but I resent strongly the weakness of the Minister, in giving way to this preposterous Amendment.
    11.33 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I understand that the Bacon Board themselves raised no objection—
    Mr. Alexander: That is not so.
    Mr. Morrison: I am told that it is so. The right hon. Gentleman's information may be different from mine on that point, but the House will appreciate the fact that this Amendment only applies to those large companies which have several factories. The basis for the premium was that a producer might like to send his pigs to a particular factory in a particular locality, where he would be satisfied that he could inspect the grading and make sure of fair treatment. The Bill, as originally framed, referred to the curer and not to the premises whereas what matters to the producer is whether his pig is moved from one set of premises to

    3263
    another set of premises where he cannot look after it. It was thought to be a reasonable extension of the principle to which we had agreed, to provide that where there was a large company with factories in different parts of the country, this premium should be equally payable in respect of a change from one factory to another.
    Mr. Alexander: May I ask a plain, straight question? Is it not a fact that right up to the moment when the Ministry themselves gave way on this question in another place, the Bacon Board resisted this Amendment, with the officials of the Ministry? I am informed on the best authority that that is so. It may be that at this late stage they feel that they cannot go on with their opposition, but none the less, I resent the action of the Minister.
    Mr. Morrison: My information does not agree with that of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think we can usefully try to carry the matter any further now.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments in page 31, line 38, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 33.—(General safeguards.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 3, leave out "the third section of Part IV," and insert "section eighteen."
    11.35 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the remaining Amendments are all either drafting or consequential on the Amendments to which this House has already agreed.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the urban district of Billericay, which was presented on the 7th day of July, 1938, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Epsom and Ewell, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1938, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the urban district of Cheshunt, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1938, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the urban district of Kettering, which was presented on the 14th day of July, 1938, be approved."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

  COAST PROTECTION BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  IRAN (OPIUM EXPORT).
  IRAN (OPIUM EXPORT).
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  BOMBING OF BRITISH SHIPS.
  BOMBING OF BRITISH SHIPS.
  SILICOSIS.
  SILICOSIS.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  GOVERNMENT SECURITIES AND BORROWING.
  GOVERNMENT SECURITIES AND BORROWING.
  LAND TAX ASSESSMENT.
  LAND TAX ASSESSMENT.
  UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS, LONDON (TRAFFIC CONTROL).
  UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS, LONDON (TRAFFIC CONTROL).
  OMNIBUS STOPPING-PLACES, LONDON.
  OMNIBUS STOPPING-PLACES, LONDON.
  MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE.
  MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, LEICESTER.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, LEICESTER.
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (COLOURED LIGHTS).
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (COLOURED LIGHTS).
  TRUNK ROADS, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  TRUNK ROADS, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  WEST COAST ROAD, CUMBERLAND.
  WEST COAST ROAD, CUMBERLAND.
  WESTERN AVENUE, ACTON.
  WESTERN AVENUE, ACTON.
  ROAD SAFETY PROPOSALS, DEPTFORD.
  ROAD SAFETY PROPOSALS, DEPTFORD.
  LAND ACQUISITION (COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS).
  LAND ACQUISITION (COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS).
  SKERTON BRIDGE, LANCASTER.
  SKERTON BRIDGE, LANCASTER.
  RIVER TAY ROAD-BRIDGE.
  RIVER TAY ROAD-BRIDGE.
  LONDON-BIRMINGHAM MOTORWAY.
  LONDON-BIRMINGHAM MOTORWAY.
  LANCASHIRE ROADS.
  LANCASHIRE ROADS.
  EUSTON RAILWAY STATION (RECONSTRUCTION).
  EUSTON RAILWAY STATION (RECONSTRUCTION).
  DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES (PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE).
  DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES (PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
LAND ACQUISITION.
  CHERTSEY.
  CHERTSEY.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE, LANCASHIRE.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE, LANCASHIRE.
  YORK
  YORK
  WOKING.
  WOKING.
  COMPULSORY PURCHASES (EDUCATION).
  COMPULSORY PURCHASES (EDUCATION).
  RATING AND VALUATION (NORTH RIDING).
  RATING AND VALUATION (NORTH RIDING).
POST OFFICE.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT STAFF.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT STAFF.
  CANCELLATION STAMPS (ADVERTISING).
  CANCELLATION STAMPS (ADVERTISING).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  SOUTH WALES.
  SOUTH WALES.
  STALYBRIDGE AND HYDE.
  STALYBRIDGE AND HYDE.
  LANCASHIRE (COTTON INDUSTRY).
  LANCASHIRE (COTTON INDUSTRY).
  MINEWORKERS, LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE.
  MINEWORKERS, LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE.
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
  BASUTOLAND (LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT).
  BASUTOLAND (LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT).
  BETTING AND LOTTERIES ACT.
  BETTING AND LOTTERIES ACT.
  ALIENS (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS).
  ALIENS (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS).
  EX-POLICE INSPECTOR J. SYME.
  EX-POLICE INSPECTOR J. SYME.
  HOLLOWAY PRISON.
  HOLLOWAY PRISON.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (GREENOCK REGISTRATION).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (GREENOCK REGISTRATION).
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS (LONDON WALL).
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS (LONDON WALL).
AGRICULTURE.
  FINANCIAL RESULT.
  FINANCIAL RESULT.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  RIGHT-OF-WAY DISPUTE, SHENINGTON.
  RIGHT-OF-WAY DISPUTE, SHENINGTON.
  SOLICITORS' ACCOUNTS RULES.
  SOLICITORS' ACCOUNTS RULES.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  ACCIDENTS AND INQUIRIES.
  ACCIDENTS AND INQUIRIES.
  FACTORIES, LANCASHIRE.
  FACTORIES, LANCASHIRE.
  AERODROME SITE, CHELTENHAM.
  AERODROME SITE, CHELTENHAM.
CIVIL AVIATION.
  FAIRLOP AIRPORT.
  FAIRLOP AIRPORT.
  HEAVY OIL AEROPLANE ENGINES.
  HEAVY OIL AEROPLANE ENGINES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  MEDITERRANEAN (ATTACKS ON BRITISH SHIPS).
  MEDITERRANEAN (ATTACKS ON BRITISH SHIPS).
  DESTROYERS (ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS' MESSES).
  DESTROYERS (ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS' MESSES).
  WAR MEMORIALS, FRANCE AND FLANDERS (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  WAR MEMORIALS, FRANCE AND FLANDERS (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  PALESTINE (TEL AVIV PORT REVENUES).
  PALESTINE (TEL AVIV PORT REVENUES).

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Ashburton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PERTH AND KINROSS EDUCATIONAL TRUST SCHEME, 1936:

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King:
  "I have received your Address praying that I will withhold my approval to the Combined County of Perth and Kinross Educational Trust Scheme, 1936, in so far as it may affect or refer to the MacDougall Bursary Fund. In conformity with your Lordships' advice and with advice which I have received from the other House, I will withhold my approval from the Scheme."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl whether he can make any statement about the business of the House.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who has been detained elsewhere, may I give the following notice about business? The Government propose that Parliament shall reassemble after the Summer Recess on Tuesday, November 1. It is expected that Parliament will be prorogued during that week and that His Majesty will open the new Session on Tuesday, November 8. The Motion for the adjournment for the Summer Recess, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has already announced, will be made on Friday. It will contain the usual provision to empower the Lord Chancellor, on representations being made by the Government, to call your Lordships' House together at an earlier date if such a course should appear necessary in the public interest. There is no business on the Paper for tomorrow
1204
(Thursday) and the House will probably not meet to-morrow. The House will meet on Friday at eleven o'clock to consider the Appropriation Bill and for the holding of a Royal Commission. Then the Motion for the Summer Recess will be moved.

NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
PENZANCE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MID-STAFFORDSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they have ordered, "That if in the next Session of Parliament, a Bill shall be presented, entitled 'A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Mid-Staffordshire Joint Hospital District,' then, provided such Bill shall be the same in every respect as the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Mid-Staffordshire Joint Hospital District) Bill as passed by this House during the present Session, such Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and to have been ordered to be read the third time, and shall be recorded in the Votes as having been read the first and second time and as having been ordered to be read the third time, and that no new fees shall be charged."
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RATING AND VALUATION (AIR-RAID WORKS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RATING AND VALUATION (AIR-RAID WORKS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
HOLIDAYS WITH PAY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask your Lordships' leave to postpone my Motion for Papers in regard to the serious state of British interests in China resulting from the war, until after the
1206
Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Snell. I am doing this at the desire of the noble Earl the Leader of the House and of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and for the convenience of debate, in order to enable my noble friend Viscount Halifax to reply not only to my Motion but to that of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, and to the Motion moved yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. As I understand it, the result of your Lordships agreeing to this will be that the Motion by the Lord Bishop of Chichester will be taken first and the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, will reply. Lord Snell will next move his Motion, and after him the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, will speak as Leader of the Liberals. Then I am to speak to the Motion which stands in my name without actually moving it. The debate then can roam over the general question of international relations and over the question of China, which stands in my name. With that explanation, I beg to ask your Lordships' leave to carry out that arrangement.
Moved, That leave be given to the Viscount Elibank to postpone his Motion until after the Motion of the Lord Snell.—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REFUGEE PROBLEMS.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the serious international problems created by the plight of post-War refugees, and to ask for information as to the outcome of the Evian Conference, and the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the refugee question generally; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have asked leave to call attention to the serious international problems created by the plight of post-War refugees, for two reasons: first, the increasing gravity and importance of the subject; and secondly, the recent holding of the Evian Conference, which is to be resumed next week. My Motion deals with refugees in general terms. The scale of the post-War refugee problem, including refugees from Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Spain and many other places, is one of the most extraordinary

1207
phenomena of post-War years. The whole subject, including the great work of Dr. Nansen, has been brilliantly and most thoroughly treated by the Report, the preliminary Report of Sir John Hope Simpson, which was published by Chatham House. Sir John Hope Simpson points out that amongst other causes or concomitants of the refugee situation is the pandemic national exclusiveness now current, as both causing expulsion from a territory and militating against absorption in any other territory. He also calls attention to the general exchange of rigidity of population for the pre-War fluidity, and of a closed economy within the nation for a comparatively free economy.
But, while we recognise the immense variety of refugees, and the complications and difficulties which that variety causes, there is a particular department of the problem which, by common consent, is more urgent than any other at the present time. It is that which was caused by the inauguration of the National-Socialist State in 1933 and its extension to Austria last March. I wish to avoid rhetorical language in speaking of the actual facts and the overriding cause of the German refugee problem, but it is necessary to call attention to the basic element—namely, the figment of an Aryan race. The word "Aryan" has some relation to language but has no relation to biology, and it is a pure fantasy for which there is no scientific justification whatever. But the result of this fantasy is that those who are called non-Aryan, especially those of the Jewish race, cannot be counted as Germans, cannot be members of the German State, and must be deprived of every part in the German State and in many cases expelled.
I think your Lordships will agree that there is something terrifying in this attack on a tiny minority of non-Aryan people in the country. The total population of Germany is 66,000,000. Taking the Jews only, for the moment: at the beginning of 1933 there were just over half a million of Jews—that is, less than 1 per cent. of the whole population. It is not denied, of course, that, as in any section of any population, there were some unsatisfactory elements, but for the most part the Jew was a healthy, industrious and wealth-producing partner in the common
1208
life. It is, however, important to notice that the question is not only a Jewish question. There are and will be religious and political refugees, and in particular I wish to emphasize the importance of what are called the non-Aryan Christians—that is to say, the Christians who, according to this racial theory, lack German blood. They are of various categories. Those Christians with three Jewish grandparents or one Jewish parent are disqualified as though they were Jews. There are other categories which are less disqualified, but for some posts it is required that a man be possessed of full German blood back to 1800.
The non-Aryan Christians are worse sufferers than the Jews. While the Jews have the great Jewish community behind them, the non-Aryan Christians are neither German nor Jews from this point of view, and their claims on their fellow-Christians throughout the world have not, I am sorry to say, been brought home in the way they should be brought home to the Christian Churches. Their number is large, but there are no full statistics and accuracy is therefore impossible. I am told, however, that 500,000 is a modest estimate.
The persecution of the non-Aryans of all kinds has become increasingly severe. It began with a disorderly victimisation in 1933; it was continued in a kind of codification in the Nuremberg laws of 1935. But, since the Anschluss with Austria, the events of five years in Germany have been concentrated into five weeks in that country, and it would be difficult to exaggerate the terror for racial and political nonconformists in Vienna during the last few months. I know and have seen those who have lately lived in Vienna as well as those who have been there as visitors, and the situation is so cruel that it is commonly said, not by S.S. and S.A. men but by Governors and Ministers of State, that all must go and go at once, that if non-Aryans cannot find a country that will receive them there is always the Danube, and there are plenty of cemeteries to be filled by December.
I do not argue that this is against the spirit of Christianity, because such an argument would presuppose some sympathy with the Christian religion; but I speak as an Anglo-Saxon simply, and in terms of the

1209
ideals of honour and courage which are held in common by Northern people. I cannot understand—and I know many Germans—how our own kinsmen of the German race can lower themselves to such a level of dishonour and cowardice as to attack a defenceless people in the way that the National Socialists have attacked the non-Aryans. I do not think there is any period in civilised German history where German rulers have acted in such a spirit. Such conduct must remain a blot on the honour of the German race.
I happened to be staying in Germany in 1935 when the Nuremberg laws were passed, and National Socialist friends told me that they would not work out quite as badly as I feared, for under the Nuremberg laws the non-Aryans would become a minority, with the rights of a minority, and as a minority would be entitled to protection. I would only say, in comment on that, that it is strange that a nation which oppresses a minority within its own territories in this way should be so zealous in claiming rights for a minority in another State—namely, in Czechoslovakia, which could not by any stretch of imagination be thought to have grievances comparable with the grievances of the non-Aryans in Germany.
I have already said that the question is a limited one, and it is limited in my mind, at this moment, as an urgent question of the existing or potential refugees from Germany and Austria, that is to say, those German or Austrian refugees, whatever their religion, to whom residence in Austria or Germany has become impossible or intolerable. The question which we have to ask is, what can we do to help them? The League of Nations has, as your Lordships know, taken an active interest in the welfare of the refugees all these years, and the two High Commissioners, Mr. James McDonald and Mr. Malcolm, have done excellent work for which everyone is grateful, but the High Commissioners and the League of Nations are powerless to deal with the source of the problem, and the functions of the High Commissioner have been lately defined as mainly juridical. There have also been, and there are, private organisations, the Society of Friends, the Academic Assistance Committee, and some smaller committees,
1210
and I would especially speak of the unparalleled generosity of the Jews. But the plight of the refugees in Austria and Germany is quite beyond the resources of private organisations, especially now that Austria has been added.
It is vital that the Governments of the world should act, and act together, if the work is to be done. That is why the initiative of President Roosevelt and the American Government is so welcome, and it is expected that the Permanent Organisation which commences next week in London will have the full support of the Governments. The Evian Conference was a beginning, and there are certain tangible gains already manifested. First, the United States is publicly committed to an active part in international work for the care of refugees. Secondly, the Inter-Governmental Committee is competent to deal with the refugees before they have left Germany and Austria, and therefore is in a position to convert the exodus from a disorderly flight into a planned migration. Thirdly, Inter-Governmental machinery has been set up with a specific task, whereas previously, for the most part, the refugees service was incidental to the general work of the League of Nations, and the direct responsibility of the Governments was not immediately engaged.
But this beginning must surely be vigorously followed up, if the gains are to be of use, by positive and energetic action by the Governments concerned. Those who have given the deepest and longest thought to the refugee problem are of one mind on the point that there must be German collaboration, that there must be, naturally, a willingness to allow machinery to work in Germany for all grades of refugees, the non-Jewish as well as the Jewish. The fundamental point may be put in this way, that the refugee problem of Austria and Germany cannot be solved unless the non-German Governments can secure some concessions from the German Government, by which the refugees can take a proportion of their property with them into emigration. At present the German Government both expels its unwanted subjects and robs them of their goods. That is an action that cannot be justified on any ground of morality or honour. Thirty nations came together at Evian to try to devise plans by which the "involuntary migrants

1211
from Germany" can establish themselves elsewhere. It is surely asking little of Germany that she should co-operate in these plans, to the extent of allowing those migrants to take with them some property which will give them a fair chance of starting life anew in a fresh country.
I would ask for the very particular attention of His Majesty's Government to this point. I would ask that His Majesty's Government should declare at the proper time in unmistakable terms that it regards this as one of the items calling for settlement in any plan of general appeasement in Europe, and I would make an emphatic point of German co-operation here. The American initiative was responsible for the Conference at Evian. The French Government offered hospitality to the Conference and has already sheltered an immense number of refugees. The Committee meets in London next week. It is not too much to say that on the constructive and practical co-operation of the British Government at this stage the future of the Austrian and Germany refugees in a very large measure depends.
Everyone is grateful to the Government for what they have already done and for the concessions or arrangements announced by Lord Winterton at Evian. I note especially (1) the decision of the Government to ratify the Convention of 1938 defining the juridical position of the refugees; (2) the promise to endeavour to absorb the refugees already in England; (3) the promise to allow a limited number of fresh refugees from Austria; and (4) the promise of consideration for settlement of refugees on the land in certain East African Colonies. I also take the opportunity of expressing gratitude for the notably humane and sympathetic administration of the laws regarding aliens by the Home Office officials. But by themselves these things only touch the fringe. Something more ample is required, something to indicate what new things the British Government are prepared to do. It is not an exaggeration to say that in this particular department all eyes are on Britain. If the British Government give a generous lead and show that they really mean to find a solution, the British Government will get far more from America than America has yet offered, and many
1212
other countries of Europe will respond accordingly.
What does giving a lead involve? There are two points on which I hope the Government will be ready to declare their willingness to go further on present lines: first, increasing facilities for training and apprenticeship of younger Germans and Austrians in this country; and, second, more precision regarding the distance to which the British Government are prepared to go in opening the door in Colonial territory, something more than a purely general statement about Kenya or Northern Rhodesia. Are the Government prepared to facilitate the settlement, not of a few hundreds but—what I am told on excellent authority, Northern Rhodesia is able to bear in the way of European settlers—a considerable number of thousands—50,000 or 100,000? The question of Palestine is a different question and a very difficult question, no doubt. That also comes into the picture.
But there is another point, which I believe to be a very important point for non-German Governments generally. In my humble opinion the passing out of Germany of an appreciable stream of industrious, intelligent, able-bodied Germans ought to be a great positive gain to other countries. They could bring in new wealth and new work, and they could help to check the alarming fall in the net reproduction rate from which the principal countries of Western and Northern Europe are suffering, as also the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The refugees can be considered as a special kind of migration. I should like to quote a passage from a leading economist who has written upon population trends and international migration. He says:
"There are, of course, only two ways of increasing the population in a given area. People may move in, or those already there may have large families. We know, however, that even in the New World, where the opportunities for additional workers are undoubtedly most promising (if we take a fairly long view), the population is already barely reproducing itself. Using the measure suggested by Dr. Kuczynski in the present volume, we know that mothers in Australia and New Zealand are not producing enough girl children to keep up the number of future mothers, and that they are barely doing so in the United States, and that in Canada only those of French extraction are reproducing themselves at that rate. Unless the trend of the birth-rate is reversed, migration alone will make possible the development—in so far as it depends upon a larger labour force

1213
—of these regions which offer the human race—both those who settle and those who trade with them—a better life."
The noble Duke who represents the Dominions in this House last Wednesday called attention to the serious fall in the birth-rate of this country, and he said that unless the present tendencies are reversed there must be a sharp drop in the total population. And I quote from the Report of the Oversea Settlement Board:
"Both in the United Kingdom and the Dominions the birth-rate of the British stock shows a downward trend, and the population is growing older in its composition. The seriousness of this situation is obvious from the point of view of the social and economic life of the community and of defence."
That, I suggest, is a good reason in itself for facilitating migration into this country of suitable younger men and women of an assimilable stock, and I do not hesitate to say that a reinforcement of our population from younger able-bodied refugees of both sexes from Germany and Austria on a pretty large scale would be to the great advantage of this country. The argument that the number of immigrants necessarily increases unemployment is not to be sustained. A well known economist says that:
"The notion that a bare reduction of the number of residents would serve to reduce the number of unemployed, and an increase to increase unemployment has always been regarded as crude in the extreme by those who have given any thought to the problem involved."
And I am informed on excellent authority that the existing German refugees in this country have provided employment for a number of British workmen at least quite as large as the number of refugees.
I realise that the manner of bringing them in needs care, and that there must be a proportion between the Jewish and non-Jewish sections, but there is no reason, I suggest, why a real opening of the doors should not be welcomed by the public provided it is made clear by the Government that it is part of a farsighted and therefore patriotic policy. After all, these Germans are good men and good women—they are not vagabonds. I would also point out that a reinforcement of British stock by foreigners has been part of the tradition of British policy until comparatively recent years, and I hope we shall not yield to any racial heresy which may prevent us from renewing it. Any one who will take
1214
the trouble to read such a work as Cunningham's History of Alien Immigrants into England, knows how great is the British debt. He says:
"It is clear that for the whole of our textile manufactures, for our shipping, for numberless improvements in mining, in the hardware trades, and in agriculture, and for everything connected with the organisation of business we are deeply indebted to the alien immigrants. Their influence on other sides of life is less easy to assess and trace; but it is none the less real."
And may I add as regards the origin and character of the non-Aryans, when we remember that the largest part of European civilisation is derived from non-Aryan sources, it is impossible to pretend that the so-called non-Aryans are not a part of European humanity.
My last request to the Government concerns consultation with the Dominions. I realise that the whole responsibility for migration into the Dominions is a matter for each self-governing Dominion itself, but the change in the centres of pressure of population throughout the world is of deepest significance for the British Commonwealth. Russia's population is growing rapidly—175,000,000—and the net reproduction rate is enormous. Other countries in Southern Europe are growing, and there is pressure from Asia. But the birth-rate in the Dominions is falling rapidly. The population composition is steadily ageing, and if the position is to be strengthened by migration from suitable stock—I quote the Report of the Oversea Settlement Board—there is no time to be lost. Last Wednesday, several members of your Lordships' House recalled an extract from that Report dealing with reinforcement by foreign settlers, not as separate colonies—that would be hopeless—but by absorption:
"The incorporation of assimilable settlers, whether of Northern or other European extraction, would itself be not only a source of permanent enrichment to the life of the Dominions, but would at the same time increase their capacity for absorbing migrants from this country. It should, moreover, lead to increased trade between the countries from which the migrants go and the countries in which they settle, and should thereby make a contribution towards what we regard as the urgent need of the world to-day, the more open door to trade and population."
Whatever may be thought of certain sweeping statements concerning great empty spaces, it is commonly agreed that each of the overseas Dominions is capable of supporting a substantially larger popu-

1215
lation than at present. Professor Carr-Saunders, a specialist in world population, estimates a population based on corresponding rainfall areas in the Western States of America of 29,000,000 in Australia. I may be told that this is quite unreasonable. The present population is 6,500,000. It may well take a century (and why not?) to quadruple it. But the population of England and Wales was quadrupled in little over a century. It was 9,000,000 in 1801. If anyone living then had been told that it would be 41,000,000 in 1938, he would have said it was incredible. I should like to quote from the present Prime Minister, who as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech in another place in 1935, referring to the birth-rate, said:
"I have a feeling that the time will not be far distant when the countries of the British Empire will be crying out for more citizens of the right breed and when we in this country will not be able to supply the demand."
Finally, there was a dinner at the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House on June 21 at which the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, made an important speech. He was followed by a very distinguished Cabinet Minister from Australia, the Right Hon. R. G. Menzies. In his speech Mr. Menzies spoke of the importance of the representatives of the Dominions keeping in constant touch with one another, and said that the Foreign Secretary is the guiding hand in foreign policy for the British Commonwealth. He said that foreign affairs were not European but world affairs, and there should be one voice of the British people and not six voices. I call special attention to these words in his speech:
"From time to time there is a great deal to be said for the English statesman who said, many years ago, that he had 'called the New World in to redress the balance of the Old.' I should like to think the people in these islands more frequently turned their eyes outward to that New World and said to themselves more frequently, 'What is the consequence in the affairs of the world of this new British world which is to be found in all the Seven Seas?'"
I suggest that one great world matter in which this new British world, found in all the Seven Seas, may redress the balance of the Old World is this problem of the refugees.
Accordingly my request to the Government is to ask whether they will announce
1216
at the proper time that they have decided to call the Evian representatives into consultation, either before or at the next meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee in London, so that the Committee can be informed in some detail as to what share the British Empire will take in receiving refugees from Germany and Austria. The whole problem of refugee work is vast and difficult, and I realise that its handling requires immense care and immense patience, but I claim that it may be solved if the Governments of the world will act. On the British Government, in particular, because of its position in the world, lies a great responsibility. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate in his sympathetic and cogent speech has taken a comprehensive survey of this wide question. For my own part I propose to limit myself to only a section of it. During the last two or three years I have been closely connected with one of the voluntary organisations which have been endeavouring to cope with this problem, and I will offer to your Lordships a few observations based upon that experience. I think, however, I shall be speaking in the name of all the voluntary organisations in this country and elsewhere when I express the gratitude which we all feel to the President of the United States for his initiative in summoning the Conference at Evian, and also to Mr. Myron Taylor, the principal American delegate, for the energy and efficiency with which he conveyed that initiative at Evian. Further, we feel a great debt to Lord Winterton, the principal Government delegate, for his efficient and useful service.
The chief value of the Evian Conference perhaps is this, that it has brought out clearly before all the world the fact that this question of the refugees is not merely a matter of domestic moment to Germany, but is also of importance to all countries which may be directly or indirectly affected by the flood of humanity that has been poured out from Central Europe. At the beginning, when the persecution started in Germany five years ago, there was a headlong flight of about 50,000 people who threw themselves upon the hospitality of the neighbouring countries, and since then there has been a more gradual emigration of about 100,000 people from Germany. Now the events in

1217
Vienna have pressed out a further great body of people. Indeed, the German administrators in Vienna seem to have deliberately endeavoured to create a feeling of panic and terror among the Jewish population in Vienna and the smaller population in the Provinces, in order to compel a speedy emigration and to arouse such feelings of sympathy in the rest of the world that the emigrants will be accepted. Hundreds, indeed thousands, of arrests have been made in the last few weeks, quite indiscriminately, amongst the Jewish population of Vienna. People have been in prison for short periods or sent to concentration camps, and pledges have been extracted from them that they will leave Austria within a fixed number of months, or even of weeks. The Consulates of Britain, the United States and other countries have been surrounded by crowds of hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of people in the streets clamouring for visas to enable them to escape from this terror.
This, as I say, and indeed it is obvious, constitutes not merely a local problem but affects all the countries of the world that may be countries to which these people would go, for they are placed in this dilemma: are they to harden their hearts and shut their doors against these people who are seeking refuge, which will be contrary to their own feelings of humanity; or, on the other hand, are they to throw open widely their doors and allow in perhaps a great flood of indiscriminate emigration, numbering tens or hundreds of thousands, with perhaps serious effects upon the economic situation of their own people? It is quite true, as the right reverend Prelate has said, that emigration, if it is gradual and if it is of persons carefully selected, would not embarrass but would enrich the country which accepted it. It may not cause increased unemployment, but may diminish existing unemployment. As the right reverend Prelate has said, here in England this present emigration has unquestionably given fresh employment in certain trades to British people. Exact statistics are difficult to obtain, but an answer given by the Government in another place some time ago shows that undoubtedly immigrants from Germany have succeeded in founding a number of new industries that have employed British people certainly to the extent of thousands, though how many thousands
1218
it is difficult to ascertain. And similar information points to a like result in Holland, where some statistics have been obtained.
Furthermore, among these refugees are a number of men of eminence in science, in medicine and in other walks of life who are of value to the countries to which they go. There has been some discussion recently whether this country would be wise to open its doors to doctors from Vienna. Well, it is well known that some of these men have world-wide reputations. People from all over the world go to specialists, sometimes in Germany or Austria or Switzerland. Many of these belong to the Jewish race, and if we can attract some of these people to London surely that is not a disadvantage to London. Rather it will be of value to our population in improving the facilities given here for the highest skill in medical and surgical science. Do not let us, out of excessive patriotism, he like the character in the play who said that he had so much confidence in his own doctor that he would rather die under his care than be cured by anyone else.
And, indeed, all through history there are many examples of countries deriving great advantage from immigration of this character. One of the chief dates in the history of European civilisation is 1453, when Constantinople was captured by the Turks, with the result that men of learning and of science were driven out of the Byzantine Empire to other countries, to give an immense stimulus to the progress of human thought and human activity. To-day, by a strange coincidence, some of those who are now being driven out of Germany have gone back to Turkey, where they have been welcomed in the universities and in the professions. And so we have the converse of the movement of five centuries ago. To India also, and other parts of the British Empire, individuals have gone, and to the advantage of those countries. Here, also, a number of emigrants have come who will be of great service to this community. I would endorse what has been said by the right reverend Prelate as to the sympathetic attitude that has been adopted by the present Home Secretary, and by the Home Office generally, in dealing with the difficult problems that arise in this connection.

1219
But after all, my Lords, those who can be accepted in these various categories in European countries are only a fraction of the whole body who are being driven out from Central Europe. We must consider in addition other ways of handling the problem. Of course the principal and simplest remedy would be if the persecution were to be stopped, but that perhaps is too much to hope for. Germany in this matter has quite deliberately and consciously stepped down to a lower level of civilisation. We have the strange phenomenon of the publication of that newspaper Der Stürmer, which brings so much disgrace, not upon the Jews, but upon Germany, the publication of which is not only permitted but is officially encouraged, special frames being placed in the various towns for its exhibition in order that the public may read it freely. The publisher, Herr Streicher, has been given the place of honour at the right hand of Herr Hitler at important public ceremonies in Germany. Indeed, it is not only the Jewish community in Germany and Austria which is subject to persecution. As the right reverend Prelate said, there are the so-called non-Aryans who number some hundreds of thousands, and there are those like Pastor Niemöller who stand up for religious liberty and free expression of the faith which they hold, who also are subject to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
I have been reading lately a book which some of your Lordships may have seen, called Germany Speaks, which contains statements, by many of the leaders of different departments of the German State, of the Nazi point of view. While it has a section in which it points out that Germany under the new régime has respect for the principle of law, and that courts function and are bound by the Statutes of the country, it does not mention, it says no word of the concentration camps and of the arbitrary arrests and imprisonment without trial. Pastor Niemöller, for example, having been acquitted and released by the court of law to which he was subjected and before which he had open trial, was immediately re-arrested without charge and without trial and has been in prison ever since. In those circumstances we cannot hope or expect that persecution will stop at the source. The only remedy is emigration, so far as that can be effectively organised.
1220
About forty thousand of the Jews who have left Germany have gone to Palestine, but in Palestine now, owing to events with which we are all too unhappily familiar, there is a refuge for only an exceedingly small number.
This is not the occasion on which your Lordships would desire a general discussion of the Palestine situation. Perhaps such a discussion might be desirable a little later in the year, when the Report of the Boundary Commission has been published and the political situation has thereby been clarified. May I be permitted, however, to make a very few observations with regard to the present situation in Palestine? I revisited that country last March and came away with a somewhat pessimistic impression. I felt it my duty to communicate to the Secretary of State for the Colonies my view that the situation there was very bad—which was obvious—and that it was not likely to show improvement but more likely to deteriorate. That, unhappily, has proved to be the case in recent months. I fear that the present situation offers little prospect of early improvement. When this matter was debated in your Lordships' House a year ago on the Report of the Peel Commission, I ventured to express my view that the main recommendation of that Commission for partition was a wrong one and would not bring peace to Palestine. I very much regret that it should have been precipitately adopted by the Government without any opportunity being given for either of the two great communities concerned to express their views and say whether they were prepared to accept or reject that solution. The results during the past year have been most lamentable.
For my own part, I am still convinced that the present policy is not one that will be successful, and I still adhere to the alternative which I ventured to lay before your Lordships' House in some detail a year ago. I am convinced that it is essential that both sides should make some sacrifice—that the Jews should realise that in the presence of Arab opposition they cannot obtain 100 per cent. of their demands, and that the Arabs must realise that they cannot stop the movement to establish a Jewish home in Palestine, but may be able and are entitled to safeguard their own legitimate position. An accommodation therefore is called for between the two sides. Mean-

1221
time there is great loss and great suffering in that country. British soldiers and policemen are called upon to sacrifice their lives and abominable crimes bring death and mutilation to many innocent people. The whole situation in the Eastern Mediterranean is adversely affected by the present situation. In this connection the result has been almost, though not entirely, to close that outlet for the persecuted Jews from Germany and Austria.
I have had opportunities of seeing many of these persons—manufacturers, merchants, shopkeepers, doctors, architects, scientists, men of irreproachable character, intelligent, efficient, who had added to the resources and welfare of the community to which they belonged. Now their families are broken up, their sources of livelihood are closed, an honourable existence is denied to them, and they are cast upon the world, forced out indiscriminately. In the endeavour to cope with this situation, the Committee with which I am connected and its allied organisations have raised in this country by voluntary subscription a sum which now exceeds £1,000,000. In other countries similar organisations and other sources have collected further sums, the combined total being estimated at more than £5,000,000 during the past five years. In addition to that sum these people have been able to bring out some of their own resources, and many of them have received financial help from friends and relatives in America or in other countries, so that in general the sum that has been raised is very considerable. All this has been done during the last five years.
These moneys, so far as voluntary organisations are concerned, have been devoted, first, to urgent questions of relief in Germany, in Austria or in countries of immediate refuge; to retraining people for other occupations where they belong to professions already crowded in which there is no demand for their services, and to the expenses of emigration, and of settlement on the land or in industry in other countries. Many people ask why an effort should not be made to bring out the people wholesale by the hundred thousand and plant them in some one country. Many countries have been suggested in different parts of the world. No doubt here and there some measure of
1222
collective emigration might be permitted, but our experience is that the cost of such measures is enormous and renders these schemes impracticable. To settle a family on the land in a country which is not already prepared for colonisation costs on the average at least £700 per family and even more than that. Consequently, if you have £1,000,000 you can only settle fourteen hundred families or thereabouts. No doubt something can be done in this direction. The right reverend Prelate mentioned Kenya and Northern Rhodesia. These schemes have been and are being carefully explored, and I believe something can be done in that direction; but I fear his estimate that it may be a matter of fifty thousand or of one hundred thousand is, on account of the cost, excessive. You would need many, many millions for an undertaking of that character.
At the most the immigration into countries of Europe or land settlement in other countries can only deal with hundreds of cases, whereas our problem is a question of hundreds of thousands of cases. Consequently the conclusion to which those of us who have been devoting our time and attention to the problem in the last few years have come is that the main resource must be found in the possessions of these people themselves. A good many of them fortunately have been in fairly comfortable circumstances. They are eager now to find new lives in other countries. If only they were allowed to take with them the property that belongs to them, they would be able to make homes and new livelihoods for themselves in other countries. The poorer classes could be helped partly by them and partly also by voluntary organisations in other lands. The main difficulty of the situation arises from the fact that in Germany that is precisely what has been stopped.
At first people who left the country were permitted to take 75 per cent. of their property, leaving behind 25 per cent. as a special tax. Then the proportion that they were allowed to take out was reduced to 30 per cent., and then to 10 per cent., and now in effect it is reduced to nothing at all. First they are stripped of their possessions, and then, in effect, they are ejected from the country. Those

1223
countries to which the emigrants may go are surely entitled to protest against a policy such as this. Indeed, the Conference at Evian, in its final act there, included this paragraph:
"Considering that if countries of refuge or settlement are to co-operate in finding an orderly solution of the problem before the Committee they should have the collaboration of the country of origin, and are therefore persuaded that it will make its contribution by enabling involuntary emigrants to take with them their property and possessions and emigrate in an orderly manner."
That at least may be demanded. If persecution is not to be stopped, at all events let the conditions be such as to enable people to leave in an orderly fashion and with some prospect of being able to be accepted in other countries and to make a livelihood there.
The matter was well summed up in a sentence in a leading article in The Times a few days ago:
"A policy of merciless confiscation is unworthy of a great country, and the unloading of forced migrants in a destitute condition is an offence against humanity and the community of nations."
If that concession should be made by Germany, then perhaps this problem can be solved. If it is not made, I am bound to say that in my judgment the problem is absolutely insoluble. The Evian Conference, I think, came to a wise conclusion in providing for the establishment of an organisation to be set up here in London to continue its work and to give it practical application. I should have preferred that this organisation should have been under the auspices of the League of Nations had it been practicable; but in view of the fact that America is supplying the initiative and driving-power in this matter, and that Germany is the country with which it will be necessary to have negotiations, and in view of the fact that neither America nor Germany is a Member of the League, it must reluctantly be admitted that some fresh organisation is necessary. I think that all of us who are concerned in this matter are glad to know that the new organisation will have a distinguished American as its chairman, and an American, also of experience and capacity, as its director.
That is all that I wish to address to your Lordships. Strangely and unexpectedly in this modern age, the spirit of persecution has again lifted its
1224
monstrous head. Governments and peoples of nations where justice is still regarded as a supreme principle, and good will among men as an object worthy of pursuit, if they cannot stop the persecution that is now proceeding, may at least do much to soften and palliate its most cruel effects.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, I have asked permission to be included in the list of those who address your Lordships on this subject this afternoon for a quite specific reason, which I will explain in one moment. But first I think it worth while noting the significance of the fact that this debate on the Motion of the right reverend Prelate precedes a debate on the wider issues of foreign policy. I for one believe that this subject of the persecution of the Jews in particular and the problem of refugees in general may well turn out to be one of the most influential topics governing the whole subject of the pacification of Europe. It is quite right and proper that the debate should be used for the purpose of submitting to His Majesty's Government constructive proposals, both with regard to finance and with regard to the technique of migration, so far as these unhappy refugees are concerned. But I venture to hope that it will not be thought unseemly if I use the occasion of this debate for a slightly different purpose.
The Evian Conference, as was quoted by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, referred to the necessity of some collaboration in this matter from what are called the countries of origin. I venture to hope that it will not be thought improper if I use the debate in your Lordships' House to make an appeal to the German Government that they will consider to what extent it is possible to modify their procedure in this matter and to collaborate so far as the solution of this terrible problem is concerned. I venture to make that appeal, because I happen to be among those in this country who for nearly thirty years have been under the indictment of being pro-German. I make the appeal not merely on humanitarian grounds; I make it for reasons of political wisdom. I believe that this issue will have repercussions in the very near future upon the negotiations towards a new peace settlement that are taking place in Europe.

1225
If this country and Germany should ever drift apart again and should ever find themselves upon the brink of war, I personally do not believe it will be due to some breach of contract or breach of law. It will be due to our discovery in the course of the negotiations that there is a disparity of outlook between our two countries, so far as humanity and cruelty are concerned, and because of the discovery of that disparity of outlook there will be an absence of confidence which will make it exceedingly difficult to carry through to success those negotiations which both Germany and this country so ardently desire.
It is for that reason, the reason of political wisdom, that I venture to urge the German Government to respond to the Evian Conference, and become a collaborator in solving this terrible problem. One has no right, when appealing to Germany, to forget that this problem of the post-War refugee is by no manner of means confined to troubles which have originated in Germany. Russia, a country which we believed was building up a new social order, based upon social idealism, has been the country which has been foremost in bringing back into Europe the evils of persecution and has been one of the principal obstructors of attempts to deal with the problem of refugees.
I look back to the various stages of Anglo-German relationships. I can remember that before the War some of us were admiring and extolling the culture and achievements of the German people. I can remember that we pointed to the geographical position of Germany, situated as she was in the very centre of Europe, and we realised that that geographical disability had affected her history in the past, and must affect it in the future. We realised that Britain, situated as she was, protected by the sea, had been able, because of that security, early to achieve mature political wisdom, and to gather round herself a commonwealth of free peoples. We realised that Germany had desired what we in this country had desired, but had faded in that achievement. Consequently, when the War came I can well remember that under the leadership of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald some of us protested against the proposition that the sole responsibility
1226
for that War rested upon the German nation. In 1916 we pleaded for a peace by negotiation, rather than a peace by a knock-out blow, and at the time of the Versailles Treaty we protested, not merely against the terms included in the Treaty, but against the manner in which the Treaty was being negotiated, for we realised that you could not build up the peace of Europe upon the foundation of a humiliated nation. Thereafter when the War was over we pleaded for the inclusion of Germany from the beginning in the family of the League of Nations, instead of five years afterwards, as was the case; and at stage after stage of the Disarmament Conference, in your Lordships' House, some of us begged most earnestly for the end of the discrimination and of the inequalities that were imposed upon the German people. Finally, even when Herr Hitler introduced into Germany a régime which some of us found difficult to understand, and which if I may say so was contrary to our British way of looking at the art of government, we have continued to plead for good will and understanding between Germany and this country.
I have ventured to say these few words about the past, simply in order that I may shape my contentions with regard to appealing to Germany about the present. I believe that if Germany continues the policy which she is now pursuing with regard to the Jews and other refugees she will bring about an impediment to that peace which we all desire to see established. The moment at which she is carrying on that policy is strangely unfortunate. During the last few years there has grown up amongst every grade of opinion in this country a longing for conciliation with Germany. The British people have realised, and realised with some measure of shame, their part in the responsibility for the last few tragic years, and just at that moment, when good will was apparent, Germany has seen fit to impede that growing good will by this new barrier of misunderstanding. America was the principal agent in bringing about the calling of the Evian Conference. That reveals the attitude of American opinion, and it will be indeed a misfortune if American and British opinion should be driven away again from Germany.
Germany is not only impeding friendship but bringing dishonour upon herself.

1227
Perhaps there I should check myself, because no country has a record, so far as minorities are concerned, which is entirely a clean one. Even our own nation, not in the remote past but as recently as the period of the Black and Tans in Ireland, has upon its record incidents of which it is ashamed, and I have already referred to Russia as the country standing for social idealism which again has a record much to be deplored. It does seem to me infinitely tragic that Germany should start upon a course of persecution which is dishonourable. Why do I venture to use that word "honour"? It is because it is a word which to a German means a very great deal. Germany is peculiarly sensitive in her conception of honour, but the persecution which she is now carrying on has a peculiar quality of wickedness about it. We all understand that every Government, every nation, will at times impose suffering and persecution upon its political opponents, particularly upon opponents who may seem to it to be guilty of a violent and seditious policy. Persecution of political opponents is something common to all countries. I have myself known what it is to be the guest of His Majesty's Government in this country for quite a considerable period of my life, and therefore I have reason to understand that all Governments see fit at a certain time to consider certain members of the community to be out of order. But the persecution which is being carried on in Germany is not that of persecuting opinion, but of persecuting blood.
I have known myself, as a guest of the German Government, what it is to be taken through the lovely countryside in Germany, and then to feel the profound discomfort which comes from seeing those placards of hatred against the Jews which encounter you as you pass through that country. Some of us have known in Germany, even when we have been the guests of the German Government, what it is to have in our hands the hand of a little German child, a child which in school has been compelled to sit upon benches separate from its school-fellows, an object of contempt, for no other reason than that it is the child of its Jewish parents. I cannot conceive anything more cruel than to try to stir up hatred between child and parent. That is not a persecution of opinion, that is not an attempt
1228
to put down sedition, that is persecution of blood, from which there is no escape; and, for a child to be brought under that form of persecution, I think must stir the heart of anyone who has passed through that experience in Germany.
Germany has said that British democracy is degenerate. Well, I for one was never more proud of British democracy than when Professor Freud, that great scientist, aged and infirm, became an exile from his country and was welcomed within our shores. There was taken to him as an invalid the register of the Royal Society in order that he might inscribe his name therein, an act which I believe has never been carried through in this country except for members of our Royal Family; and thus degenerate democracy linked an exiled and distinguished Jewish scientist with members of our own Royal Family. That seemed to me a cause of pride, and not a sign of degeneracy. I hope I have not spoken too unrestraintedly, but this whole attitude of the Germans, with whom we are so longing to see a peace settlement, is affecting issue after issue which comes directly within the purview of any settlement that will have to be made.
Take the question of German Colonies. I think most British people realise that when those Colonies were taken from Germany they were taken not strictly in accordance either with the spirit or the letter of the Fourteen Points of President Wilson. I believe that most schools of thought would be eager and anxious to bring about some readjustment of the Colonial problem as part of an all-round peace settlement. But do not our German friends realise that just as we have become conscious of an old wrong they now confront us with the dilemma of facing a new wrong, and that we cannot overlook the consequences upon native populations in those Colonial areas when we see the tragic evils which are being perpetrated in Germany so far as German minorities like the Jews are concerned. And so I have ventured to use this debate to plead that there may be some response from Germany to the desire of the Evian Conference for collaboration.
May I say, in conclusion, one word so far as our own Government are concerned? I join in the words of gratitude which have been addressed to the

1229
Government, not only for their efforts at the Evian Conference, but for the humanity of administration which all of us who have had contact with the Home Office know to exist under the guidance of the present Home Secretary. I feel quite confident of this, that this new problem of our time, the refugee problem, is going to grow in scale rather than to diminish. I have my doubts—and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will forgive my expressing them to one who is so much more experienced than myself—as to whether so vast a problem is likely to be solved by what is called infiltration. I believe that we are going to be faced not only with the problem of refugees from Germany and Austria, as we have been in the past from Russia, but possibly by a problem extending into other countries in South-East and Central-Eastern Europe, and the scale may become immense. I cannot therefore but feel that it will have to be dealt with as a problem of resettlement rather than as a problem of infiltration, and that there will have to be set up a conference or committee representing the Governments of many nations, who will deal with this subject from the point of view of settlement rather than from the point of view of infiltration.
But whatever may be the rights and wrongs of that complicated issue, the British Empire is vitally involved. We cannot avoid our history. We are the owners, directly and indirectly, in this Commonwealth of ours of one quarter of the whole of the earth's surface, and we cannot continue to talk about law and the protection of law and of law-abiding procedure and remain in possession of a quarter of the earth's surface, unless we begin to think of how we can collaborate internationally to use that vast area to meet a problem such as that which we are discussing this afternoon. It must impose sacrifice upon us in some shape or form. We, the British Commonwealth, will be compelled, as I think, to share some part of the suffering which at present rests upon the shoulders of the unhappy Jews and other minorities. The Jewish people are returning right back to the centre of the world stage, and I believe that that problem of the Jew is going to affect the geography of the British Empire, the economic prosperity of the Empire, and also the morality of our Empire.
1230
The Jewish people are a people to whom civilisation owes an enormous debt of gratitude. They are a people who can bring, with their genius, great gifts in return for great understanding; and I feel that, far from our losing as an Empire, we should gain in the end by restoring to the Jew the dignity which he ought to possess by liberating his spirit with some measure of happiness after these centuries of persecution. And I believe that if the Empire will respond, despite all the difficulties, we shall have cast our bread upon the waters and it will be returned to us a thousandfold. I hope I have not spoken too unrestrainedly in making that appeal both to the Government of Germany and to our own Government.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should have hesitated to follow in this debate my noble friend Lord Samuel who has given so much time, experience and wisdom to seeking a solution of this problem, if it had not been that perhaps I too in a different way have had contacts which may enable me to make some small contribution to your Lordships' debate. In any event, I confess that I should have found it difficult to be silent in a debate upon this particular topic. For, after all, the reason why this problem of refugees is occupying your Lordships' minds to-day is to found in the propagation of a doctrine, systematically conceived and ruthlessly applied, which seeks to degrade Jews without distinction below the status of citizens of their country, and almost to expel them from the category of human beings. The Jewish community in this country has, as my noble friend has pointed out, striven to make its own contribution to the work of alleviation, and it has been my task to be Chairman of the special appeal which was made earlier in this year on behalf of Austrian Jewry. Ever since that fact became known in such little as survives of the Jewish Press in Germany and Austria, I am not exaggerating when I say that it has been with dread that I have turned at each post to my letters, knowing as I do that infallibly there will be amongst them appeals as poignant as they are genuine, to most of which, unfortunately, we are impotent to reply.
I do not propose to harrow your Lordships or take up time by giving individual instances. As to the circumstances which have produced this situation I say no

1231
more than this, that an ancient, proud, and gifted community such as was that of Vienna does not clamour to be uprooted in a state bordering upon destitution from what has been its home for generations unless conditions of life in that country have been made intolerable. Further than that, if perhaps Jews may claim one virtue for themselves, it is that they have a strong sense of family life. Yet you have now the spectacle of parents begging that their children may be taken away from them, realising that they themselves cannot get out of the country, begging that their children may be taken away, that their family life may be shattered, so that at least their children may be enabled to start a fresh life, albeit in a strange land where they will lack the guidance and protection of their parents just at the age when they are most in need of them.
Your Lordships will not perhaps wonder if those of us who are intimately concerned with this problem feel sometimes that it is, perhaps to a disproportionate extent, over-clouding and obsessing our lives. But there are brighter spots. Reference has been made to the attitude of the Home Office in this matter, and I only desire from my own personal experience to add a word of gratitude. Realising as we do that the paramount duty of that Office is to preserve the interests of the people of this country, at the same time we deeply appreciate their efforts, consistent with that duty, to adopt a sympathetic attitude to those who apply to them. May I also, in all sincerity and humility, say that we have been deeply and gratefully moved by the action of the most reverend Primate in setting aside a recent Sunday, with a gesture transcending all barriers of creed, to be a day of intercession for those who are persecuted? Memory of action of that kind does not quickly pass.
And then there is Evian itself, and the humanity and idealism which promoted its calling together. May I say one word—and it will be a very brief one—on one aspect of Evian? There were not a few countries, largely South American ones, which laid emphasis upon their willingness only to take such immigrants as were prepared to work upon the land, and there may have been some amongst your Lordships who thought that that restriction would operate largely to exclude those
1232
who were Jews. If illustration were required of the inaccuracy of that view, it would not be necessary to look further than Palestine, where some 25,000 Jews are actively working on the land and, together with their dependants, constitute an aggregate of 56,000 persons directly dependent on the land for their livelihood, or almost one in seven of the Jewish population of that country. Nor is it confined to Palestine. In addition to agricultural communities in Poland, Rumania, and Czechoslovakia, there have been established by a body with which I happen to be connected, acting as trustees and administrators of a large sum of money left now many years ago by a Jewish philanthropist, seven colonies in the Argentine Republic where there are now some 15,000 persons—Jewish immigrants into the Argentine—working on the land, and some 10,000 engaged in supplying the needs of these colonies, staffing the co-operatives, and generally indirectly connected with that work. Something like half of the colonists have, in the course of years, purchased their own land and are independent landowners to-day.
With the repayment that they have made it has been possible to establish other persons on the land, and it is not too much to say that these colonies, established as they were in remote and virgin territory, have been a striking success and give no little hope and promise for the application of such schemes as we have had adumbrated for Kenya or Northern Rhodesia. We have striven with all our power to see that there should come out from Germany and from Austria, not untrained and haphazard refugees, but trained and organised emigrants. But the cost of establishing families upon the land is enormous. In the Argentine experiment to which I have just referred the cost of one family is little under £800—half for the purchase of the land and half for the provision of the necessary livestock and implements. These figures are, as has been pointed out already, obviously far beyond the sphere of any private benevolence; nor can we in fairness ask those Powers who were represented at Evian themselves to furnish the necessary funds.
Therefore I come back to the only solution that presents itself again to me, the solution of persuading, even now, the German Government to reverse their policy of confiscation, and thereby to

1233
withdraw the officially authorised presumption upon which that confiscation is based—namely, that any money in Jewish hands must have been criminally acquired. It is perhaps singular that during past generations the taint upon that money has escaped all those non-Jews in Germany and Austria who have worked happily for Jewish employers and who have benefited from Jewish charity. Evian has in my view realised all but the most extravagant hopes. It was admittedly only a beginning; it could be nothing else; but it has already had the result of establishing this permament Committee in London. It has, I believe, built enduring foundations of hope in many countries, and it has at least demonstrated that the conscience of mankind neither slumbers nor sleeps.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I speak with some discomfort this afternoon because I am aware chat a great many of your Lordships are anxious to get to the further stage in this afternoon's proceedings which has been arranged by those in authority. I am not unaware of the difficulties of arranging business in your Lordships' House, but I am inclined to think that we are supercharged, so to speak, this afternoon in those aspects of international affairs which we are assembled to consider. It is only my knowledge that the discomfort of the refugees is greater even than our discomfort this afternoon that leads me to intervene in this debate. I shall, however, confine myself entirely to the subject of the Motion and not stray into other international matters which will be dealt with subsequently in this House. The Lord Bishop of Chichester, I think, does deserve gratitude for the very moving way in which he spoke this afternoon in bringing forward his Motion, and I would join with those who have thanked him as well as with those who have expressed gratitude to President Roosevelt for yet another humanitarian move in a distracted world.
The reason for my intervention is that I happen to be the only member of your Lordships' House who attended the Evian Conference. I propose to confine myself, therefore, mainly to the actual occurences in that Conference in order that we may see what the Government have done in co-operation with other Governments, and what they still might
1234
do to further the problem before us. That Conference, as has already been pointed out, was attended by representatives of about thirty Governments, and, in addition, a large number of private organisations sent delegations. The object of the Conference was to deal with Jews and non-Aryans who are still in Germany and Austria but who are being compelled to leave. The attempt was made to secure that that should be the only consideration of the Conference, and that those who have already left Germany and the other types of refugees who have been referred to should continue to be the object of the organisations already in existence, such as the Nansen Office dealing with Russians and Assyrians and Armenian refugees, and the League High Commissioner for refugees who deals with non-Jews and Jews who have left Germany.
That High Commissioner's work, which was referred to by the Bishop of Chichester, has been done with very limited resources, and has consequently not been as great a success as we should have hoped. Many of your Lordships will recall the retiring letter of Mr. James G. McDonald, the first High Commissioner. He said his task was hopeless because he had no resources. The Nansen Office, dealing as we have been reminded, with Russians, Assyrians, Armenians and others, has itself deteriorated very seriously since the death of Nansen. There was a very interesting letter by Major Johnson in The Times of July 14. Major Johnson was the League Assistant High Commissioner for Refugees and the Secretary-General of the Nansen International Office for Refugees. He pointed out that after Nansen's death political considerations were allowed to dominate the refugee work, and refugee factions controlled the direction and even the day-to-day administration of the Nansen Office, with the result that Governments antagonistic to those elements insisted on the liquidation of the Office. Now the fact of the matter is that that has gone on, and there has been considerable friction. There is now a proposal to amalgamate the High Commissioner and the Nansen Office.
I am particularly anxious that the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, should deal for a moment or two in his reply with the proposals for this amalgamation. What is needed is a person of the outstanding personality of Dr. Nansen, a person of

1235
international authority who will command the respect of the whole world. Secondly, we want to avoid this refugee control in future; I mean avoid the putting in of the refugees themselves into the various offices in different cities and countries, so that we shall avoid this antagonism which has been referred to by certain Governments who are involved. I think it is most desirable also that we should recognise the temporary character of the work of the High Commissioner and of the Nansen Office, because in the course of nature many of these refugees die, and many of them become absorbed, and, particularly in the countries where most of these refugees are, their children no longer are refugees because they take up the nationality of the country in which they are born. That then is the position with regard to other refugees.
As regards the Evian Conference the difficulty it had to face was that it had to avoid giving support to suggestions or decisions which might encourage a growing pressure on Jews in Poland and Rumania, who might be forced out of those countries if too great ease were shown in receiving masses of refugees. That was one of the factors behind all the deliberations, and it is very necessary to realise in this country the pressure of what I might call potential refugees who will burst out if it is too easy to find a place for mass or large-scale settlement. The other factor that has to be watched is the possibility of such large-scale settlement causing a rise in anti-Semitic feeling in the countries for which the suggestion of settlement is made. There is no secret of the fact that many people are perturbed by the rise of anti-Semitic feeling in a large number of countries at the present moment, and nothing should be done in my opinion to exacerbate or cause a rise in that very dangerous state of mind.
The speeches of most of the delegates were very guarded. They were not exactly optimistic, yet I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that the mere existence of the Conference did raise hopes of increased efforts. The British Government are to be congratulated, I think, on being the only Government which sent a full-fledged Minister as head of their delegation, certainly the only Government
1236
that sent a Cabinet Minister, and I believe he was the only actual Minister who attended. That gave the British delegation a position of considerable advantage in dealing with the problem. Lord Winterton made a very good survey of the general position, and I thought that if it was not exactly constructive at least it was sympathetic. His reference to East Africa was valuable. Perhaps I might remind a previous speaker in this debate that Britain does not own a quarter of the world. It is a common mistake to imagine that we own the Dominions. We do not. The Dominions are autonomous regions of precisely equal sovereignty with Great Britain. We do not own a quarter of the world, and therefore we are not in a position to dictate to the Dominions what they shall do as regards those they desire to receive or not to receive inside their areas.
The problem was first of all the countries immediately bounding on Germany and Austria, what I would christen "transit" countries—countries where a very large number of refugees come in, not for the purpose of settling, but for the purpose of being translated, so to speak, into another country. Particularly, of course, France, Switzerland and Holland are in that category. The next type of country was the highly industrialised country, rather like Great Britain, which is clearly not a country of large-scale immigration, and of course the third category was the countries of settlement, such as the largely undeveloped countries of South America and other parts of the world.
I attended this Conference not for the purpose of supporting quantitative settlement, of large numbers, but of what I may call "qualitative" settlement, which means what has already been referred to by a number of speakers in this debate: the raising of the quality of the refugees so that, instead of being useless persons coming into a country unable to do anything, they shall have been trained and shall be fully capable of contributing something to the industrialisation or the agricultural development of their country. This type of work has another effect, because if these training schools, industrial and agricultural—in which I am particularly interested—are established in large numbers in the countries of what I might call potential emigration, such as

1237
Poland and Rumania, they will have the effect of dealing with the refugee problem at its foundation—namely, of preventing people from becoming refugees. That, after all, is a most important factor, because Poland and Rumania together have some 4,000,000 potential refugees as compared with the mere 500,000 which we have heard is the total in Germany. Therefore the training of these people in the industrialisation which is growing in these countries should, I think, be encouraged by the Government in every way possible by doing what they can to secure support for the organisations which are doing that work, because it kills at the base this potential refugeeism, which will add so enormously to the problem in the world and, in fact, make its solution, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, impossible.
Then, of course, these training schools must be established in countries where the emigrants go—training schools in industry, training schools in agriculture in transit countries such as France, where they have already been established; training schools in the countries to which the refugees will go, such as the Argentine, and training schools, in so far as is possible, in Germany and Austria. Already one such school is doing excellent work in Germany, training in industry these young boys so that they will become welcome immigrants wherever they may end. Sir Neill Malcolm, the High Commissioner, made a very masterly survey to the Evian Conference, and in the course of his remarks he used these words. He said it would be far easier for both the Dominions and other countries to receive considerable numbers of aliens if they were introduced as individuals capable of finding occupation and becoming affiliated. Infiltration was therefore likely to produce better results than a mass migration. That means that the quality of these immigrants is more important than the consideration of quantity, because good quality diminishes the opposition to the immigration of future refugees after the earlier refugees have become valuable settlers in the country.
Finally, in this connection let me say that I consider that the mere existence of the Conference was an indictment of what is going on in Germany and Austria. The human problem has already been referred to, and we were particularly
1238
moved by the stories told to us by the representatives from Vienna, particularly Professor Heinrich von Neumann, that famous specialist, who had himself undergone a suffering almost incredible if he had not told us of it. The problem in these countries has been made worse by the thousands upon thousands who are applying for visas to get out of the country. The American, the British, the French Consulates are overrun with these applicants for visas; so much so that it is interesting to know that the authorities in Vienna have established offices for the issue of forged visas to France for which the refugees are being asked to pay. I do not know whether there are forged visas for this country, but certainly that has been done as regards France.
What can the Government do in this matter? In the first place I should like to ask Lord Plymouth whether it is possible to do anything in connection with the Oversea Settlement Board. I see that the Board, which was appointed in February, 1936, was asked to consider and advise on any matter relating to oversea settlement which may be referred to it by the Secretary of State. Is there any reason why this Oversea Settlement Board should not have referred to it some of the aspects of the problem which we are discussing this afternoon? I hope that we may have some sort of assurance on that matter. Earl Winterton in his speech said that the Government intended to ratify the 1938 Convention. I should just like to ask Lord Plymouth to confirm that that Convention, the gist of which is in Command Paper 5780, will be ratified at the earliest possible date—namely, August 9. One other point: I turn to page 30 of that document and I see this recommendation:
"The Conference recommends that countries which have not yet taken any steps of this kind, should consider the institution of an advisory committee to examine the situation of refugees, or should put into practice an appropriate method of co-operation with private organisations assisting refugees."
I should particularly welcome a statement from the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, as to whether in fact such an advisory committee has been set up or will be set up, and, if so, who will be in charge.
Another point which Lord Winterton raised was in these words. In his speech to the Conference he said:

1239
"Facilities have been freely given to young persons to undertake a course of education or enter industrial enterprises for training or retraining."
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, if the Government, considering this country as a transit country, will in future increase these facilities, and particularly will the Government allow training in agriculture? We heard from Lord Reading a few moments ago that some of the South American countries wanted their recruits to be trained in agriculture. Will the Government do something to ensure the possibility of the training in agriculture in this country of these transit refugees who will arrive here and then leave to settle in some other country?
I should also be interested to have from Lord Plymouth some information as regards the attitude of the Government to certain problems facing the new Inter-Governmental Committee. I would like to know whether the Government have any ideas with regard to the measure of co-operation between that Committee and the League of Nations. I should also like to know whether the Government are consulting with the United States Government so that they may have a common policy on the Inter-Governmental Committee. I believe that to be very important. I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that a separate Committee was inevitable, for the reasons which he gave, and I also agree with him with regard to the possibility of bringing some capital out of Germany.
Let me remind your Lordships of a very touching letter written by a Conservative Member, Commander Locker-Lampson, which appeared in The times a day or two ago. He said:
"The exiles have been stripped and despoiled of their possessions by a policy of plunder. But there is one form of capital of which even Nazi extortion has been unable to rob them—the capital of the creative mind."
That is the capital which makes it advisable and necessary that this country should do all in its power to aid the refugees. Earl Winterton recognised this in his speech when he said the traditional policy of Great Britain
"has been to offer asylum to persons who for political, racial or religious reasons have had to leave their own countries."
And he went on to say:
"The United Kingdom has never yet had cause to regret this policy, and refugees have
1240
often enriched the life and contributed to the prosperity of the British people."
Bearing this in mind, I hope the Government will make a far greater contribution in the future than was outlined at the Evian Conference. I am certain that, if the Government are able to do rather more on these lines, it will not only be a help to the refugees but will have far-reaching results as an example to other countries in the world who may be persuaded by that means to do more in this matter.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the subject which has been raised by the right reverend Prelate is one in which we know he takes the very deepest interest. It is a matter of the very greatest and immediate importance. At all times the people of this country have shown a very great concern in regard to it. I think it will also be admitted that His Majesty's Government have always approached this problem of post-War refugees with the very greatest sympathy and with a whole-hearted desire to do everything they could to assist in its solution within the limits of what appeared to be possible. The difficulties that stand in the way are only too obvious and have been referred to by a number of speakers. I wish to say this before I go any further, that I do not think that anybody who had the privilege of listening to the speeches we have heard this afternoon, could have failed to be very deeply moved by them. Because we feel that this is a difficult problem, and at the same time one with regard to which the people of this country feel very deeply, I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government will give the very closest attention to what has been said by various speakers this afternoon in a desire to help to solve it.
I had thought it possible, after having perused the actual terms of the right reverend Prelate's Resolution, that he might have referred in greater detail to the more general question of the post-War refugees than he actually did. He did make a passing reference to the work of Dr. Nansen in this direction, and quite rightly paid a warm tribute to him with which I, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, would wish to associate myself very closely indeed. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Marley, made reference to

1241
the work that was being done by the League of Nations on this matter and he asked me if I could confirm what he understood to be the position there. I can most certainly do so. The position at present is that both the Nansen Office and the mandate of the High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany and Austria will terminate at the end of this year. As a result of the Soviet Government withdrawing a difficulty which they raised at one time—action which we certainly appreciate—the Council of the League of Nations have proposed that one single organisation should be constituted after the end of this year in order to take the place of the two existing organisations. That matter will come before the Assembly in September, and it will be for the Assembly to reach a final decision and to make final proposals.
But in view of the fact that this aspect of the question has only been lightly touched upon, I feel I can perhaps more profitably make use of the comparatively limited time which I consider to be at my disposal, by referring to the more immediate aspects of the situation and the situation which has been created as the result of what has developed in Germany and Austria mainly in recent months. I think, therefore, that being so, I had better, in the first place, give His Majesty's Government's version of what actually occurred at Evian. I do not think there is much misconception about it, but I think for clarity's sake it would be advisable that I should do that. Your Lordships naturally know that the meeting was called by President Roosevelt to consider the question of emigration from both Germany and Austria. When he made this proposal His Majestys' Government very warmly welcomed the initiative that he had made and expressed themselves as desirous of co-operating most wholeheartedly and fully with work to give effect to that proposal. I think it might be as well if I remind your Lordships of this point.
This invitation to a meeting at Evian was given on three separate conditions. First of all, it was made clear that, as the result, the countries who participated in that meeting should not be asked to modify their existing legislation in regard to the question of immigration. Then there was a second understanding, and that was that the finance of any new action that was taken—that really requires
1242
qualification: financing any new schemes, I think, puts it more correctly—should remain the concern of private organisations, as I think it was almost entirely in the past. Thirdly, the United States Government wished to make it quite clear that it was not their intention or desire to interfere in any way with the work of existing agencies, such as those referred to, who were concerning themselves, under the auspices of the League of Nations, with aspects of this problem. There were actually present represented at this meeting thirty-two delegates from different countries. The Chairman, as we know, was Mr. Myron Taylor from the United States, to whom tribute has already been paid to-day for the extremely sympathetic and efficient way in which he carried out his duties. His Majesty's Government were represented, very ably, as I think it will be recognised, by the Chancellor of the Duchy, Lord Winterton, and Sir M. Palairet. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland sent delegates to the meeting. The Government of the Union of South Africa sent an observer.
The meeting ended on July 15, and, as your Lordships now know, complete agreement was reached on the subjects under discussion. The meeting had two principal objects in view. The first was to put in motion machinery which would in the long run alleviate the gravity of this problem, and it arranged for the regular meeting in the future of representatives from those countries who had sent delegates to Evian. The second object was to enlarge the facilities for the admission of emigrants from Germany and Austria to countries of permanent refuge and settlement. May I be allowed to say a word about the second point first? The meeting appointed a technical sub-committee to exchange in confidence statements on the immigration laws and practices of participating Governments, and to consider statements of the number and types of immigrants which it was prepared to receive and the question of administration. As a result of the deliberation of this committee, the meeting was able to adopt a resolution which noted with satisfaction that the report held out prospects for increased reception of refugees qualifying for admission under the immigration laws and practices of receiving countries; that certain countries had indicated their desire to consider plans for settlement of refugees in their

1243
territories when such plans were presented by an official or private organisations; and that countries bordering on Germany, while unable, in existing circumstances, to make any substantial addition to their present efforts, might continue to make an important contribution to the solution of the problem by affording facilities for vocational, technical, or agricultural training to refugees to whom temporary asylum had been given. The committee recommended that the Governments should continue to study, in a generous spirit, the problems raised in their sub-committee's report.
Then, as Lord Samuel has already pointed out, a general resolution adopted by the Committee, after drawing attention to the serious problem created by involuntary emigration of large numbers from their countries, laid down the principle that if the countries of refuge were to find orderly solution of this problem, they should have the collaboration of the country of origin, and that involuntary emigrants should be enabled to take with them their property and possessions. The right reverend Prelate, as well as other speakers, has laid particular emphasis on this question, and I admit that I am not surprised that he has done so. I think it is quite obvious that unless collaboration in this direction is forthcoming, the problem, already difficult, becomes immeasurably complicated and is possibly rendered insoluble. It is perfectly clear that no thickly-populated country can be expected to accept persons who are deprived of their means of subsistence before they arrive; nor can resources of private societies be expected to make good losses of emigrants. We therefore greatly hope that countries of origin will assist in creating conditions in which emigrants can start life in other countries with some prospect of success. I can assure your Lordships that this particular aspect of the matter will be one which will be constantly kept in mind in dealing with the whole problem by His Majesty's Government.
The resolution then made a series of recommendations. In the first place, it recommended that the persons coming within the scope of the activity of the Committee should be persons who had not yet left their country of origin—Germany, including Austria—but who must emigrate on account of their political opinions, religious beliefs, or racial
1244
origin, and persons so defined who had already left their country of origin but who had not yet established themselves permanently elsewhere. That is a point of importance, because it enlarges the scope of similar activities beyond what they had been before. A second recommendation was to the effect that the Governments participating in the Inter-Governmental Committee should continue to furnish it, for its strictly confidential information, with details regarding such immigrants as each Government might be prepared to receive under its existing laws and practices, and details of these laws and practices. Thirdly, that the Governments of the countries of refuge and settlement should not assume any obligations for the financing of involuntary emigration. A recommendation was also made in regard to the provision of documents for persons desiring to emigrate.
The Committee also recommended the establishment in London of an Inter-Governmental Committee consisting of representatives of Governments who sent delegates to Evian. Broadly speaking, the function of this Committee was to continue and to develop as quickly as possible the work that had been commenced at Evian. This Committee is to have a Director, a man of standing and authority, whose chief duties will be, first of all, to undertake negotiations to improve present conditions of emigration and to replace them by a system of orderly emigration; and, secondly, to approach the Governments of the countries of refuge and settlement with a view to developing opportunities of permanent settlement. It was further laid down that the Committee should co-operate with the refugee services of the League of Nations and the International Labour Office, whose work His Majesty's Government recognise as having been so valuable in the past. As your Lordships know, this Committee is to meet on August 3 here in London.
I would merely like to say, after this short review of what occurred at Evian, that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom accept the recommendations of the Evian meeting, which your Lordships may take to imply an obligation felt by them fully to co-operate and to assist the work of this Committee in the future. I ought now to add that in the course of the meeting the United Kingdom delegate gave some indication

1245
of the contribution which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom might be able to make, both in respect of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies, to the solution of the problem before the Committee. In regard to the Colonies, he referred in particular to the possibilities which might exist in certain of the East African territories for the settlement of a limited number of refugee families. He mentioned the case of Kenya, where plans for the acquisition of land for the purpose of small-scale settlement are actually under consideration at the present time. He made it clear that, whatever plans might ultimately take shape, the process of settlement must in any event be a gradual one, and that there could be no question of mass immigration or of disturbing land allotted for native occupation.
I cannot go into these matters in any detail, but I may say in general terms that the United Kingdom delegate made it quite plain that there was every desire on the part of His Majesty's Government and of the Colonial authorities concerned to render any assistance that might be found practicable. I am not at the moment in a position to give more precise information in regard to the prospects of settlement in East Africa, but, as I said, the matter is under active consideration, not only in regard to Kenya but also in regard to Northern Rhodesia. I think your Lordships, however, will agree that reasonable time must be allowed for the consideration of what obviously is a complicated problem, and one that means very much to the inhabitants of those particular countries.
Then, as the noble Viscount said, the United Kingdom delegate also referred to the question of Jewish immigration into Palestine, and explained why in the opinion of His Majesty's Government that question stood upon a footing of its own and could not usefully be taken into account at the present stage in connection with the general problems before the Evian meeting.
The right reverend Prelate made reference to the position of the Dominions, and laid stress on the importance of the closest co-operation between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Governments of the Dominions. As the right reverend Prelate himself admitted, the question of the admission of
1246
immigrants into the Dominions and of their subsequent employment there is entirely a matter for the Governments of the Dominions concerned, to be considered in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time in the community for which they may be responsible. But I can certainly assure your Lordships that, both in the preparations for the Evian meeting and at the meeting itself, His Majesty's Government have acted in the closest consultation with the Dominion Governments. This close consultation will certainly be continued in regard to the Committee which is to meet shortly in London. I might add that the four Dominion Governments who were represented at the Evian meeting will be asked to send representatives to the London Committee.
Then again, the right reverend Prelate referred to other matters, such as the facilities which are provided for training emigrants in this country, and also the effect upon the general problem of the falling birth-rate in this country and elsewhere. During the course of the discussion of these problems a tribute was paid to the liberal attitude which had been adopted by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in regard to the administration of the immigration laws, and therefore I think it is only right that I should be guarded in my statement in regard to these particular aspects of the problem, which are chiefly the concern of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. I can say, though, that His Majesty's Government are anxious to do everything within their power to assist refugees from Germany, including Austria, who come to this country to enter factories, workshops and business enterprises for the purpose of receiving technical or business training to fit them for emigration to some other country where they can be permanently settled. The noble Lord opposite raised specifically the question of training in agriculture, but I am afraid that at the moment I am not able to say whether facilities of that kind can be provided or not. I will note the point and inquire into it.
A considerable number of refugees have already had a course of training of this kind, and have been successful in finding openings overseas, and His Majesty's Government will continue to afford facilities to refugees of this type. His Majesty's Government are also prepared to agree to the employment of suitable refugees in this

1247
country, but owing to the unemployment situation it is obvious that the number of such persons who can be placed must be limited. I do not wish to pursue that question further. The right reverend Prelate has expressed certain views which for my part I can only say that I accept with a good many reservations, but it is an aspect of the problem which clearly has to be taken into full account in formulating a final policy. The extent to which refugees can find employment must, in the first instance, depend upon the work of the Co-ordinating Committee for Refugees, whose constituent committees must find places in industrial and commercial enterprises which are not already overcrowded and competitive.
The policy of the open door is not one which would commend itself to His Majesty's Government, and I understand that even the voluntary organisations are opposed to the unrestricted admission of refugees from Germany, including Austria. It was with the object of substituting an orderly for a disorderly exodus from Germany and Austria to the United Kingdom that His Majesty's Government set up in May last a system of visa control whereby persons who, for political, racial, or religious reasons wish to come to this country from Germany and Austria, can be admitted in such numbers as circumstances permit and within the ability of the voluntary organisations to deal with the persons so admitted. The number of visas granted in Vienna during May and June reached a total of approximately 2,800, and the most recent advices from the Passport Control Officer in Vienna indicate that the number of visas granted in July has been maintained at the same level as in May and June.
The question of the falling birth-rate and the possible need of encouraging immigration to meet the situation of a smaller population, which the right reverend Prelate raised, is obviously a very large and very complicated one. It certainly raises issues of a much wider character than are contemplated in the terms of the actual Motion, and would, if pursued, undoubtedly carry the debate into fields which are not perhaps immediately relevant to this refugee problem. In the circumstances I merely feel unable to say anything on that aspect of the situation at the present stage.
1248
There are, however, one or two points I wish to emphasize in my closing remarks. First of all, I should like to draw attention to the harmony and good will in which the proceedings at Evian were conducted. There was a complete identity of views and purpose on the part of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and indeed all other delegations as well. I want also to point out a matter which I know the right reverend Prelate feels is of importance. That is that the meeting concerned itself not only with Jewish refugees, but of course with all refugees, both actual and potential, from Germany and Austria. Then great emphasis was laid during the meeting on the fact that, if an orderly solution was to be found, it was essential that the country of origin should enable intending emigrants to take their property and possessions so that they could start life in another country with some prospect of success. It was specifically laid down that there should be the fullest cooperation between the London Committee and its Director on the one hand, and the refugee services of the League of Nations on the other.
I should like to sum up by saying that the Evian meeting was not only able to lay down a method of inter-governmental action which promises practical results, but also was able to record a general willingness on the part of the participating Governments to place a liberal interpretation on their immigration practice with the object of admitting a greater number of refugees from Germany and Austria than they have been prepared to do in the past. This problem of involuntary emigration, even in the case of Austria and Germany, is not one that can be solved in a few days or indeed in a few weeks, but I venture to claim that the results of Evian are a good augury for the future. Undoubtedly the collaboration of the United States Government will lend incalculable prestige and authority to the work of the London Committee. This work, while breaking fresh ground, will at the same time reinforce and supplement the work which the League of Nations has done and intends to continue to do in regard to this problem. I can assure the House that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will, as far as circumstances permit, continue to promote and encourage both in London and in Geneva inter-governmental action

1249
to mitigate the sufferings and unhappiness to which this problem inevitably gives rise.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the sympathetic answer he has given and for the careful consideration which his speech shows of the various aspects of the refugee problem. I am very grateful to him indeed, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a statement as to the foreign relations of this country and the international situation generally; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have placed upon the Order Paper of the House the Question which stands in my name in the belief that before Parliament rises the Government may have some statement to make, and in the hope that what they have to say will send us away comforted and encouraged. A special responsibility falls upon any Opposition in Parliament which has, with a continuous regard for the public good, to subject the policy and the actions of the Government to the closest scrutiny and criticism. There may, however, be occasions when the public good is better served by restraint than by that unfettered and fierce delight which is always associated with Party recrimination. This may be one of those occasions, and as my contribution to the needs of the hour I shall place upon myself an unusual restraint; but I ask the Government not to take advantage of this painful act of self-suppression by withholding from Parliament any information that it has the right to possess.
I should like to begin these remarks on a non-controversial note—a note of extreme satisfaction and pleasure which we associate with the visit of Their Majesties to Paris and to the French people. The nation is indebted to Their Majesties for their triumphant participation in a very great event, the importance of which we cannot at the moment measure. It is unusual to bring the name of His
1250
Majesty into any of our discussions, but I hope I may assume that our common obligation to him on this occasion makes it permissible for me to do so. I should like also in this connection to pay a word of sincere tribute to the French people for the way in which the British King was received among them, with that grace and enthusiasm of which they appear to possess the secret, and for the care and comfort with which they surrounded the visit of our King. I hope, in saying that, I have the approval of the whole House. We will not attempt to-day to measure what the diplomatic results of that visit may be.
I should like to ask His Majesty's Government some questions about foreign affairs. First of all, in relation to Germany. What is the immediate outlook? Are relations between the German nation and ourselves improving? I should like also, with some hesitation, to ask if any particulars can be given of the visit of Herr Wiedemann. I say "hesitation" because a distinguished German visited the noble Viscount in the privacy of his own home, and no one has any right to inquire what conversation took place between the noble Viscount and his guest. At the same time there is a general belief that Herr Wiedemann did not go to Eaton Square to talk about the weather or to exchange ghost stories with the noble Viscount. Therefore, if he does possess any information that will help us to a proper understanding of the European situation, we should be glad to know. We should like to know whether negotiations are going on with the German nation about better conditions.
Your Lordships know that my admiration for the German system of government has never been expressed in language that was extravagant or exaggerated, but whatever misgivings I and my colleagues have in regard to German policy, we are and always have been wholeheartedly in favour of negotiations. We do not want to see the encirclement of Germany; we do not want a world organised without her co-operation; and we do not wish to withhold from her any right which she is entitled to possess. On the contrary, we want her to resume on the basis of equality—not Germany above everybody else in the world but Germany with everybody else in the world—her old place as one of the great creative forces of modern

1251
European culture. In any effort that Germany makes in that direction she will always have the support of the British Labour Party. We feel that she could begin the effort immediately and to her own honour. We do not force our system of government upon her, and we have the right to require that she shall not force hers upon us. Her citizens are always welcome as honoured guests in our midst, but we do not want her Gauleiters using a British visa to spy upon and intimidate law-abiding Germans who live in our own country; and I would venture to ask her, as her contribution towards a real desire for her co-operation and good fortune, to reconsider her anti-Jewish policy, so unworthy in itself and so unworthy of her best traditions.
I should like to ask about Czechoslovakia. Can anything be said about the outlook there? Are the signs encouraging or are they depressing? We read day by day in the newspapers suggestions that a one-sided pressure is being brought to bear by our Government on this problem, that pressure is being brought upon Prague to make every possible concession, and we should like to know that equal pressure is being brought upon Berlin to co-operate in equal measure. If this pressure is not equal, I warn His Majesty's Government that they will not carry the country with them. The current propaganda seems to suggest that all the obduracy, all the provocation, lies on the side of the authorities in Czechoslovakia. I personally do not accept that point of view. In recent interviews that I had in Czechoslovakia with people entitled to speak for their nation, I gathered that there was no concession that the Czechoslovakian Government would withhold for peaceful relationships short of doing a real injury to the future safety of their State.
Now it is true that speeches have been made by both sides that contain phrases that we could sort out and regret, but there have been very few speeches that are perfect. Speeches are always inclined to bear the colour and temper of the place and the time at which they are uttered. For instance, Kettering is a place to which no future Prime Minister will return, and it may be true that speeches have been made both on the German side and the Czechoslovakian side which we had better
1252
not remember. Our responsibility is to try to get the average temper of these people and to try to use it for the good of both. At the same time, before I leave this field, I would like to express my own doubt as to whether any concession that the Czechs can make will satisfy the Governors of the Reich. With such memories of the philosophy of Sturm und Drang that one has, it is difficult to believe that any pact that Germany may make is more than a temporary suspension of a programme of systematic encroachment. We have no right in this country to require of a Czech Government any concession which we ourselves would not give if we were in their position. I personally do not believe that the Jewish minority in Bohemia will welcome it as a day of deliverance if they are transferred from the Czech Government to that of the Prussian Junker.
In this connection, before I pass from it, I would like to ask one or two questions about the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. It is a most interesting experiment. To attempt to build a bridge over the gap that divides two peoples whose tempers are strained must always be a useful and commendable thing. To approach a problem with a balanced and unbiased mind; to advise, to interpret, to clarify; to encourage people when they are depressed, to calm them when they are impatient, is a task that will require all the faculties that a man possesses. It needs patience, it needs endurance, it needs composure, and above all it needs faith—belief that the thing can be done. Lord Runciman is known to all of us and respected by us. He has great experience; he has proved capacity, great power of lucid exposition, great knowledge of affairs and of the ways of men, and we on these Benches wish him well in his mission. But I should like to ask precisely what is his status. Is he, for instance, under any obligation to report to the Government or to any one what he may say and what he may advise? I feel that it is necessary to safeguard ourselves against any official responsibility for any advice he may feel it right to offer. But if he is to act as a bridgebuilder—and a great Londoner once said, "Blessed are the bridge-builders"—I hope he will build a bridge on which there is traffic both ways, and not merely a one-way traffic of concession from Czechoslovakia to Berlin and no con-

1253
cession on the other side. I hope that Parliament itself will be consulted if any problematical solution is arrived at.
I will say almost nothing about China, because of the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. I would merely ask whether His Majesty's Government's decision respecting the proposed loan is final or whether it may be reconsidered, or whether some alternative help, such as an extension of the export credit facilities, will be granted. I should have liked to ask for information about Palestine, but I will only say that the subject gives to many of us increased anxiety, and the day will come, when the House reassembles, when we shall have to ask His Majesty's Government quite definitely what their record is and what their policy is to be. I should like to ask whether Italian propaganda and bribery have been stopped in Palestine and in the near East; and many other questions relating to that I must pass by.
Finally, I want to ask something respecting Spain. What is the present position? Again we view with increasing anxiety the situation in that unhappy land. On the Labour Benches we never feel that His Majesty's Government have treated us with the frankness that this subject demands. We have urged over and over again the right of the Spanish people to obtain the means for their self-defence, and the only reply has been the endless repetition of a formula of words which were intended to enchant but which really increased our distrust. We have learnt in sorrow that words like "intervention" and "non-intervention" are among the most equivocal in the whole vocabulary of diplomacy. We think that our position is about as commendable as that of a strong-bodied man who stands with his hands in his pockets while he sees two bullies beat up a more or less helpless child. The Government look on while this struggle proceeds, seeing this beating-up take place, and at the same time the victim has one arm tied behind his back. We do not consider that to be in accordance with the best traditions of our nation. It is not cricket; it is not even darts; it is altogether, as it seems to us, unworthy of our position.
I am aware how difficult the situation is, but it is our business to escape from difficult situations and not merely wait
1254
for things to happen. The other day, in hours of glorious uncertainty, a young American airman was not able to distinguish the difference between the Atlantic Ocean and the Alleghany Mountains, but he at least had this excuse, that he was alone. His Majesty's Government are not alone. They have had advisers and critics in this matter through the years in which this business has been taking place. I should like to ask, in conclusion, how the matter stands to-day. After two years of frequent and joyful prophecies of the early triumph of foreign mechanism over more or less ill-armed men, there is no sign of these poor men being beaten. They have put up a most heroic resistance against the might of two military nations, and to me at least it has been one of the greatest and the most moving things in modern times, destined, as I believe, to be recorded among the great events of history. I offer to them to-day a humble tribute of homage and respectful admiration. On the other hand, whenever victory comes—if it does come—to those who have sold themselves to the purposes of other nations, they will have the shame in history of having placed their once free country in foreign chains. I have dealt very quickly with many things that I wished to say, in order to save your Lordships' time, and I now beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name, and to move for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the Question which has been asked by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, so briefly and with such conspicuous moderation, covers an amazingly wide field. It almost invites your Lordships, in the well-known line, to "survey man-kind from China to Peru." So far as China is concerned I would like first to recognise the courtesy of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Elibank, in agreeing to transfer as he did his Motion from the place to which it would ordinarily have been entitled. On that subject I would only just refer to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, on the question of a possible loan to China, to which reference was made in another place and a reply made by the Prime Minister. It seems to some of us that the mere fact that such a loan could not be regarded as a gilt-edged security by the Exchequer would not necessarily be an overriding consideration if the political

1255
arguments in its favour were strong. In another place the Prime Minister mentioned other possible forms of assistance which were under consideration. I do not know whether the noble Viscount opposite will be disposed to dot the i's of that statement any more forcibly, but if he can I have no doubt it would be a satisfaction to your Lordships' House.
The other country, Peru, is not in the foreground of the landscape at present, but Czechoslovakia, of which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, spoke, is, and I would pause for a moment to say a word about that. We all, I think, recognise the extreme difficulty and complexity of the subject. The creation of Czechoslovakia by the Peace Treaties was the putting together of a very artificial piece of machinery. Like many delicate articles of that kind it does not stand rough handling, and it has been of late receiving very rough handling. I feel sure that M. Benes, as I think would be agreed by everybody who knows him, is too experienced a statesman to suppose that, although the Western Powers are determined that Czechoslovakia shall receive the fullest measure of justice in the sense that its complete independence continues to be secured not only on paper but in fact, the Western Powers would give a blank cheque to any of his more extreme supporters who might desire to go further in purely Czech interests than he would himself think possible.
I feel sure also—and I was glad to note what fell from the noble Lord with regard to this—that the country generally will welcome the selection of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, as a missionary, if that is the proper word, to Czechoslovakia. Perhaps as a senior colleague of Viscount Runciman in very old days, I may be allowed to express the opinion that his experience both in the offices he has filled and in the management of his private affairs may make him in a case like this, where many material as well as moral issues are concerned, a more fitting emissary than could be found by the intervention of a man acting purely on a system of political theory or one merely versed in the ordinary practice of diplomacy. I am sure, therefore, that the country will join in what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in wishing the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, every
1256
possible success in his expedition. Perhaps I might also be allowed to back the question which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, asked, so far as the noble Viscount is able to answer it, as to the precise nature of Viscount Runciman's mission. We understand that he is not invested in any sense with diplomatic powers, but I suppose it may be presumed that his reports made to His Majesty's Government will be of some use to them as an important guide to any action that they are able to take.
That subject brings me to another quite different reflection which I hope may not be altogether inapposite in this debate. It is sometimes, I think, too freely concluded that British diplomacy depends upon the examination and the management of our relations with foreign countries, either taken singly or in the mass, so that not enough attention is paid to the diplomatic possibilities of assisting good relations between different foreign countries. On that I would touch for a moment on France, regarding which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, made such a graceful and acceptable allusion to the shining success which has attended Their Majesties' visit to Paris. I should like to say a word on what I conceive to be the fact about the relations of France with some other countries. So far as the United States are concerned, as we know there is a friendship which almost amounts to romantic attachment, dating from a record of history, between France and the United States, and I am quite certain that our Foreign Office will do all that is possible to foster that. But when you come to Europe the relations between France and Germany, though, as I believe, in every way scrupulously correct, cannot be expected to be altogether cordial. There are too many historical memories for that. Leaving the late War out of the question altogether, there are hundreds and thousands of French men and French women who remember 1870 and 1871; and, on the other hand, Germany has, I am sure, never been able to get rid of the memory of Napoleonic tradition and has, therefore, tended to take an erroneous view of French character and very often of French ambitions.
Then I come to Italy. There is no reason that I can conceive why the relations between France and Italy should not be in every respect friendly. There are none of those memories of hostility which

1257
I mentioned a moment ago. In 1854, in 1859, and in the late War, French and Italian soldiers fought side by side. Nor is there in fact, in a real sense, any Mediterranean problem which ought to keep these two countries apart. So far as Africa is concerned it is quite true that both we and France went ahead of Italy in acquiring influence and territory in Africa. But that is because, although in those days there was a country of Italy, there was no Italian nation which could vie with other Powers. But since then the Italian Government has got a large and important footing in Africa, and therefore in the absence of anything which could be called a Mediterranean question, such as might cause animosity between the two countries, it remains a puzzle to me why their relations are not more amicable than they are. I venture to think that the noble Viscount opposite, and the Foreign Office, could do no greater service to the peace of Europe than by encouraging in every possible way the establishment of better relations between France and Italy.
I pass for one moment to the kindred subject of the Spanish conflict, which also may be taken as a cause of difference between France and Italy, because I think it may be assumed that the great majority of the French people, though by no means all, are inclined to favour the Government's side more than that of the insurgents, whereas, as we know, the Italian Government look in the opposite direction. That is a cause of difference of opinion, but there is no reason why it should be more than that, and before I sit down I want to make only this one observation about the Spanish conflict. I cannot help feeling that in years to come this Spanish revolt or civil war, whatever you desire to call it, will take an infinitely smaller place in history than it occupies in the thoughts, and more particularly in the Press, of the world at this moment. It is probably not unnatural that it should be so, because the horrors of the war there have been accentuated, as they have been in the war in China, by the diabolical use which science has enabled warring nations to make of modern invention, and therefore the newspapers are full of heartrending accounts of massacre and carnage, not only of soldiers but of harmless civilians.
It is, therefore, not astonishing that the minds of men and women all over the world should be directed towards news of the conflict. But I repeat that in my
1258
opinion it will not in itself, in any history written in the future, take at all the same place as it now occupies. I think in one sense it will be like "a mist that rolls away." Spain, as I firmly believe, will emerge from it, and will in some way work out her own destiny—in a way which I for one shall not see, but not, I believe, a destiny which will make her subservient either to the principles of Rome or to the principles of Moscow. I have an intense belief in the firmness and depth of the Spanish character.
As I say, in what form it will emerge I cannot pretend to predict. But I must just say this, that if I am right in thus attempting to reduce the dimensions of the conflict, that does explain and defend the attitude of His Majesty's Government in going very far—sometimes some of us think too far—in taking action to avoid extension of the war. Because we all agree that if the war were to spread and become in any way general, then it would be a war which in the history of the future would obliterate the memories even of 1914. That, as I say, may be, probably is I think, the defence which His Majesty's Government would advance. Whether in carrying out this policy they have always acted either with complete adhesion to principle, or with circumspection, or with complete evidence of that restrained courage which is the highest mark of statesmanship, I do not pretend to say. History will have to write about that. But in closing what I have to say I would put that forward as suggesting that when the end of the Spanish conflict does come the effect of it will pass away far sooner than many observers of to-day appear to dread.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to preface the few remarks I have to make by saying that I am not in a position now to move the Motion which stands in my name; I can only speak to it, having postponed it until after Lord Snell's Motion. I propose, however, to pass right to the subject of that Motion, and to speak with regard to the State of British interests in China, a matter which has not been touched upon so far by the noble Lords who have spoken. Since February last when I raised the same issue in your Lordships' House matters there have been going from bad to worse, and it is for that reason that I put down a Motion to-day, in the hope of eliciting from His Majesty's

1259
Government a statement as to what they are doing in order to meet that situation.
Your Lordships will expect that I should give you some facts as to what is happening there. On the last occasion the principal theme of my speech was concerned with Shanghai, and in that place things are still very bad. I should like to give one or two instances of that. The inland waterways and creeks radiating from Shanghai normally carry a very large trade in launches and barges of all nationalities. To-day the foreign vessels have been excluded together, and there are plying on those waterways some 160 commercial vessels of Japanese nationality, which are taking all the trade which is to be had. This applies also on the Yangtze River, where British ships have been prevented from going to Nanking and beyond, although Japanese ships are plying there freely. There is another matter, what is called the Whangpoo Conservancy. The Whangpoo Conservancy is an international service which keeps the River Whangpoo continually dredged. The dredgers and equipment of the Conservancy have been seized by the Japanese, that river is gradually silting up, and large vessels are not able to go alongside many of the wharves.
The Japanese, it is understood, envisage a concession of their own lower down the river, and it is probable that they would like to see the foreign Settlement left high and dry. In Hongkew and Yangtse-Poo, which constitute the northern and eastern districts of the International Settlement and contain the most vital parts of Shanghai, that is, the greater part of the mills, factories, go-downs and wharves, these districts are entirely occupied by Japanese, and they are obstructing in every way they can the foreign industry there. The Municipal Council is not allowed to function, the British Tramways Company is prevented from running its trams, whilst on the other hand a fleet of Japanese motor 'buses has been started and is running regularly. Certain British factories have been closed down altogether, whilst a few hundred yards away Japanese mills are found in full operation. And that is happening inside the International Settlement. Then there is another notorious scandal, and that is the quantity of Japanese goods that are entering Shanghai on the pretext of being military cargo,
1260
whereas at the same time these goods are underselling those of foreign competitors. This shows how wide an interpretation is being placed upon the term "military cargo."
Let me turn to North China. In the wool and sheepskin trade in North China, which was entirely in the hands of British firms in the past, competition is now excluded. Japanese firms have taken control of this, and, with the help of the Japanese military authorities, are doing all the trade that there is. Before the War by far the greater part of Chinese coastal and riverine trade was carried by British ships. What is happening to-day? The Japanese are now planning a Corporation which is to control all coast and riverine shipping on monopolistic lines. We find that at Tsingtao, a very important seaport on the east coast of China, no British ships are allowed to go alongside the extensive wharves at all. No passengers or officers of British ships are allowed to land at that port, and no residents in Tsingtao are allowed to visit British ships. On the other hand, Japanese ships are enjoying all facilities, and if any German vessels visit that port they are granted facilities as well. Surely there is a case here where perhaps one or two of His Majesty's men-of-war might visit that port and obtain fair play for our shipping, as well as for the shipping of other nationalities.
Then there is another very important matter. A Federal Reserve Bank was established by the Japanese in connection with their puppet Government in Peking, with a nominal credit in Japan of 100,000,000 yen. The notes of that Reserve Bank are not convertible into yen for, if they were, an intolerable strain, leading to grave inflation, would ensue. The Japanese evidently hope to buy Chinese banknotes with the Federal banknotes and exchange them for sterling so as to exhaust China's foreign exchange and thus provide the Federal Bank with solid backing. Since June, however, the Japanese have been forcing the Chinese to use the Federal Reserve Bank notes only, thus causing infinite confusion, but it clearly foreshadows an attempt to link North China's currency with the yen, as was done in Manchuria. In Manchuria a recent law has made the purchase of any foreign exchange except the yen practically impossible. The maximum foreign exchange obtainable is 1,000

1261
dollars—about £40—and special permission has to be sought even to obtain that.
The effect on British import trade under these conditions can be imagined, and the British in North China are seriously afraid of a similar attempt to impose the Manchurian law in North China. If the notes of the Federal Reserve Bank can be successfully imposed it will be impossible to save merchants' profits and savings in China. Those who have lived in China and made their lives there, and hope to retire to this country and end their days here, will not be able to leave because they will not be able to withdraw their savings. What do the Japanese say? They say that there is no state of war in China at all, that they are doing all these things in order to protect their own interests, that it is merely because the Chinese are resisting what they regard as a natural act on their part that they are using the means and methods they have adopted in order to get their own way. What has actually happened is that the Japanese have placed nearly one million men in China, that these soldiers are marching through the country, decimating it, destroying it with bombs, and taking possession of it when and how they can, and incidentally, through their Press and other organs, are announcing their intention of not ceasing their efforts until they have subjugated China entirely.
While we may deprecate, as we sincerely do, the ruthless manner in which Japan is waging war upon China, and while we may feel nevertheless that we have no status for direct interference, at least I consider we have a right to protect our own interests wherever they are assailed and to take every legitimate measure to that end. If the Japanese will not listen to reason—and we surely have no desire to fight them in the military sense—then I suggest we should concoct other measures to this end. We have, for instance, an economic instrument which we could use and which could become very crippling to Japan. The Japanese are doing a large export trade with the overseas Dominions, India, and our Colonies as well as with this country. I should like to see the Governments of the British Empire arrange a plan under which, unless Japan respects our interests in China, we will, through import duties and other
1262
means, reduce her export trade within the British Empire to a limit which would make her understand that two can play at that game.
We might, for instance—and I throw this suggestion out to His Majesty's Government—give notice of repeal of the Anglo-Japanese Import Duties Act of 1911. Twelve months' notice is required for repeal of this Act, and perhaps His Majesty's Government might consider giving notice of repeal with a view to further consideration of what might happen at the end of that time. In addition, Japan is expanding her commercial shipping in the Orient enormously at the expense of British shipping and trade. This is a matter we should take very seriously in hand by subsidies to British shipping from India to Japan, from Australia, and so on. All these acts of the Japanese in China against us are done in the name of "military necessity." Some of the points I have mentioned show that no military necessity is there at all. Take the case of the Whangpoo Conservancy, the general conduct of municipal affairs in Shanghai, and the position at the port of Tsingtao. I do not wish to stress this matter, but what I do wish to point out is that, whenever we have stood up to the Japanese, they have given in, such as at Tientsin last December and in the very recent case of the seizure of the British steamer "Tatung."
I have very little more to say, but I submit that I have presented a case which has amply justified my raising this matter to-day. I am fully aware that the Government have an immensely difficult and delicate task, and if they have not achieved as much as many of us would have liked, I attribute little blame to them but rather to a set of circumstances over which they have very little control. I nevertheless would urge His Majesty's Government to continue to use every form of diplomatic and other pressure to induce the Japanese to see our point of view. I observe that there are certain conversations which will be taking place very shortly between our Ambassador in Tokyo and General Ugaki, and I would ask the Foreign Secretary, if these conversations come to a head during the time when Parliament is not sitting, in the next two or three months, that he will convey publicly through the Press, or in some

1263
other way, to those who are interested and affected by Chinese affairs, what is happening in regard to them.
There are two Parties in Japan. There is the military Party which would carry all before it irrespective of international complications or international consequences. There is also another Party, the civilian and moderate Party, which has a wider vision and realises some of the disastrous results of the policy which is being pursued by Japan in China to-day. It is in the ultimate intervention by, and predominance of, this second and moderate Party that I place some hope for the future. As Japan becomes more exhausted through excessive outlet of men and money, this moderate Party will come more and more into ascendancy, and I hope its ideas will prevail. It is to that time that I look forward for a resumption of a better feeling between our two nations and to the possibility of financially assisting China's reconstruction and restoration to normal conditions. I do not believe that this is the time when we can make any loan to China. I believe we might be able to consider something in the nature of export credits or something of that kind, but until we know exactly how things are in China I do not see the practicability of supporting a loan to that country.
British interests in the Far East were not created yesterday. We more than any other nation have helped both China and Japan to grow in power and economic development. Our interests and theirs have been interwoven so long that this connection cannot now without serious injury be suddenly snapped asunder. Business men of all three nations realise this, and I venture to suggest that no stone should be left unturned to recreate the spirit of friendliness which in the past was so fruitful in good will and co-operation.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships will allow me to say one word, because I was in Paris last Sunday, to add my testimony to what has already been said as to the enormous enthusiasm with which Their Majesties were received in Paris. My French friends were full of it. They assured me that not only was the official and formal reception great, but
1264
what struck them was the immense and spontaneous enthusiasm of the people in the street. We have the advantage among others in this debate of having had recently an expression of the policy of the Government from the Prime Minister. I believe I am not allowed by the customs of this House to say where that was made. The Prime Minister expressed himself as being a moderate optimist. If he meant that he did not think there was likely to be a European war in the near future I respectfully agree with him. I do not think there has been the slightest real danger of a European war at any time in the last ten or fifteen years, and certainly not recently, not because of any particular action of this country or that country, but simply because those countries which were the only countries that were likely to provoke a war were too exhausted to do so. But if the Prime Minister means that there is a general improvement I have my doubts. As long as the race in armaments continues it does not appear to me that there is any solid improvement in the condition of Europe. I believe, whether armaments produce war or not, that they are an excellent indication of the sentiments and feelings of the countries that spend vast sums in providing them.
But it was not on the general aspect of the matter that I wanted to say a few words, but on the Prime Minister's statement about the League of Nations. He said that there had been no effective and active intervention of the League, for which he was very sorry. He went on to explain that in his view the use of force by the League appeared to be impracticable. Well that seems to me a very serious statement, because if it is true, and if it goes on being true, it means assuredly the decay and possibly the destruction of the League. He added that it was quite true to say that the League had a wide usefulness, and it is on that part of his speech that I want to comment. He thinks that if this wide usefulness is exerted there will be a return of those Members that left the League because, as he thinks, they did not agree to the use of force. With great respect to him, I do not think it had anything to do with that at all. They left the League because they did not agree to the use of international co-operation, and for that reason only. Therefore, I am afraid that I am not hopeful that his policy will

1265
produce a return of those who have left the League, and I feel very strongly that if we are to abandon the League it means simply a return to the old pre-War system, with the consequences which that system brought upon us.
May I just run through the most common questions of the day to see whether in point of fact the Government are taking any action to build up the League again by allowing it to exert itself in cases which do not involve the use of force? Some of their actions seem to me to be excellent, except for the fact that they entirely ignore the whole machinery of Geneva. There is, for instance, the mission of Lord Runciman to Czechoslovakia, a new thing, a new and more active form of intervention in European politics. But I see no harm in that if it is going to produce, or assist in producing peace. The only thing I do venture to press upon the Government is that this talk about Lord Runciman going out, as it were, just as a private individual, and the belief that is apparently being spread that his action will not involve in any respect the responsibility of the Government, seems to me an illusion. It is plain that if he takes action and persuades one of the parties to adopt a proposal which is rejected by the other, that will involve a very serious responsibility on the shoulders of the Government.
Though I do not at all regret that, or disapprove of it, I hope that the Government are looking at it from that point of view, and are not buoying themselves up with the idea that they can send out Lord Runciman and that if he succeeds well and good, and that if he does not succeed then their responsibility will not be increased. I am quite sure that is an illusion. Of course, if it had been possible for him to have gone out as a representative of the League of Nations the situation would have been different. As he goes out as a representative of the Government it is the Government, and the Government alone, that must bear the responsibility of what happens.
I want now to touch upon Spain for a moment. I attended a big meeting in Paris, and I was immensely impressed with the vehemence of the feeling about Spain. I think I was not deceived. It was an almost formidable state of feeling, and I want the Government to look into that and consider it. The object
1266
of their policy, as I understand it, is to avoid the Spanish war extending itself beyond Spain. That is all right; but if they produce a state of feeling in some of the countries, and particularly in France, that they are being asked to hear the intolerable weight of what they regard as unjust treatment of the Government of Spain, that will not contribute to the peace of Europe. It will only, on the contrary, create a very grave danger. I know that the Government are very anxious to put an end to the fighting, which is the only real security we can have, but I understand they do not see any prospect of any mediatory action.
I saw a gentleman to-day who had come back from Spain, not an Englishman, not a Frenchman, but one coming from one of the northern States of Europe. He gave me a most terrible description of the sufferings that are being endured, probably on both sides, though he only saw one. It is really terrible. He seemed to think that in the side that he was on not less than 400,000 children were in danger of starvation, apart from the adult population. When I asked him, "How then does the fighting go on?" he said: "Well, of course, the fighting goes on because, under the conditions in which war is there being waged, if they do not fight they will be shot. If they were to give in, there would be a wholesale slaughter." I am interested to observe a passage in a newspaper with which I do not generally agree, the Evening Standard, which rather confirms that view:
"Truly, the Republican resistance is remarkable, and no doubt it is the resistance of desperation. Those engaged must believe that the fate awaiting them on the day of surrender puts peace proposals out of the question. As for General Franco, his advance is made at heavy cost. Indeed, the question arises, how long can he stand such fearful losses? "
Those few sentences surely give a picture of the kind of horrors that are going on in Spain.
I cannot think that it is either our interest or our duty not to make some desperate effort to put a stop to this state of things. I do not know if this is part of the wide usefulness in which the League might be asked to take a part. I should have thought it was. I should

1267
have thought that proposals from the League, offering on the one hand some kind of guarantee of safety if peace were made, and on the other hand some promise of the effective financial assistance which would be absolutely essential if Spain were to get on its legs again, might produce some result even on minds which are consumed with the blood-lust which I am afraid exists to a great extent in that unhappy country.
Then there is China. My noble friend Lord Elibank has just made a speech in which he has described how terrible it is that a great deal of money is being lost by British concerns and British interests—which mean British financial and commercial interests. That is a very serious matter, no doubt. Still, I cannot think that is the most serious issue that is involved in the Chinese war. If any of your Lordships happens to have read a description of the way in which the Japanese are making war in China, he well think that a loss of even thousands of pounds is relatively a trifle to the incredible horrors that are being perpetrated in that country. I think there are other and stronger reasons for trying to put a stop to the war than those which my noble friend adduced; yet I agree with him in thinking that we have means of action, particularly if we can take it in common with other countries, which would be very powerful to induce the Japanese to reconsider their enterprise. My noble friend is not here, I am afraid, but I rejoice in, and I would congratulate him on, a step which I hope means that he is going to become an active member of the League of Nations Union. At any rate he has represented the view which I hold, certainly, very strongly: that we have not yet exhausted our powers of putting a stop to the Japanese war.
I cannot think that we have a right to sit quietly. We have promised to do everything we can to help them. We profess at intervals that we desire to do that, and yet we do contribute in fact to Japan the means of carrying on the slaughter of the Chinese. I cannot think that that is right. I venture to hope that the Government will reconsider even now their policy in this matter and that they will go to the League of Nations and suggest a definite policy of excluding or diminishing exports from Japan to this country and to the Dominions so long
1268
as the Japanese continue their war. Something has been said about financial help to the Chinese, and there, too, I hope that the Government will find means of doing something. Personally, however, I would much rather see the war stopped by some kind of measures against the Japanese than by giving the Chinese power to fight more vigorously than they are fighting. Both are right, but it seems to me that the pressure on the Japanese is more right and more likely to be effective than the assistance to the Chinese.
I have only one more topic on which I want to say a word, and that is the question of refugees. I confess that I do not take a very hopeful view of the result at Evian. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that those who see in it a great awakening of good will on these subjects are right. But what is it? We are merely creating a new committee of Government representatives, a very large committee, which is to act, we are told, through a smaller committee. I have seen a good deal of these Governmental committees; indeed, I served on one for a considerable time, and I came to the conclusion that of all the useless human devices they were the most useless. Nothing was done. When any proposal was made, the members of the committee immediately said, "We can come to no decision; we must refer to our Government," and nothing was ever done. Under American chairmanship—we had an American, by the way, as High Commissioner—it may be that you will get more results, but I do not see how you can, from the very nature of a Government committee. I should much rather have seen a committee of experts in this matter—there are numbers of them, admirable people—formed to draw up a really good plan of how the whole refugee question ought to be dealt with, its extent now, and the extent it may be expected to assume in the future, how far it can be dealt with by infiltration—and remember, as my noble friend Lord Allen very properly pointed out, there is great danger in carrying infiltration too far—and how far it can be dealt with by some means of mass settlement in less occupied countries.
I hope that something on those lines may yet be developed. I feel that it is rather reckless, after the immense effort which the Government themselves have

1269
made to secure unification of machinery in order to deal with this refugee question, that we are now, having secured the unification of Geneva, going to set up an entirely fresh organisation outside Geneva. That seems to me a very bad plan. It may be inevitable; I know the difficulties; but it seems to me to be simply going back on everything that we have been trying to do and the Government have been trying to do for the last two months. I hope very much that these fears will turn out to be exaggerated or unfounded. Certainly I fully recognise that our only duty now is to do our very utmost to make this plan a success. I confess that I cannot help feeling that in this matter, too, in spite of the excellent reasons that have been referred to against that course, it would have been better to stick to the League and the League machinery. Anyway, that seems to be the Government policy. It is not only in these contentious matters, not only in the question of sanctions, but inevitably, I think, if you say to the League that they are not going to interfere in the major questions, and if that policy is pursued, it means ultimately the destruction and abandonment of the League, which seems to me, I confess, a very grave and serious result.
I still believe that you can make this great experiment, the greatest experiment of the kind that has ever been tried, a success. I am told I am a wild visionary, guilty of midsummer madness (as I was once told) for holding that view, and yet others far better qualified to judge have held the same view. My noble friend Lord Arnold, the other day, was good enough to cite the late Lord Salisbury on the other side. I am quite sure he did it in absolute good faith, and I have no complaint to make of his having done so, but having looked at the passage I am satisfied that he interpreted it altogether wrongly. The late Lord Salisbury on that occasion was dealing with a proposal for a special alliance between this country and another country which was to be carried out secretly, and he rightly pointed out that that would not be a policy which would be likely to receive the support of the country. I then told my noble friend that I was aware of another passage two or three years earlier in which the late Lord Salisbury took a very different line on the question of some organisation to
1270
maintain peace amongst the Powers in Europe. He was speaking of the Concert of Europe, and since the passage is only one of three or four sentences perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read it.
It is not controversial so far as the Government and I are concerned, except that the Government will not do what they say they do. Referring to the Concert of Europe, the late Lord Salisbury said:
"Remember this—that the federation of Europe is the only possible structure of Europe which can save civilisation from the desolating effects of a disastrous war."
He went on to say—and this might have been written yesterday:
"You notice that on all sides the instruments of destruction, the piling up of arms, are becoming larger and larger, the powers of concentration are becoming greater, the instruments of death more active and more numerous and are improved with every year, and each nation is bound for its own safety's sake to take part in this competition. These are the things which are done, so to speak, on the side of war. The one hope that we have to prevent this competition from ending in a terrible effort of mutual destruction which will be fatal to Christian civilisation"—
which did, in fact, happen less than twenty years later, in 1914—
"the one hope we have is that the Powers may be gradually brought together to act in a friendly spirit on all questions of difference which may arise until at last they shall be welded in some international constitution which will give to the world as a result of their great strength"—
collective security, in fact—
"a long spell of unfettered and prosperous trade and continued peace."
That opinion, no doubt, must have been in my mind, though I was not aware of it when I began to take an interest in these subjects. Of course it has been confirmed by great authorities since then—by the late Lord Grey and many others who have given great attention to these subjects. I still remain of opinion that it is the one hope, and that there is no other. If we go back to the old system, as I am afraid the reasoning of the Prime Minister indicates, we are going to have another desolating war which will be the end of Christian civilisation.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, although the fatal hour has arrived I can assure the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I do not intend to say more than a very few sen-

1271
tences. I have not had any definite information with regard to a banquet, but I do not imagine that I shall take up very much time. I always want to agree with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, because he puts things so nicely, but I cannot manage it. His criticism of the Government to-day with regard to non-intervention I thought was unfair. It is all very well to say that non-intervention has failed. The Government never expected that it would succeed. The object of continuing the policy of non-intervention was to prevent a European war, and that, anyhow, it has so far succeeded in doing.
I want to join in the congratulations to the Government on the appointment of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. It is a wise move, an original move, and, judging from my knowledge of Viscount Runciman over many years, I consider the choice is an admirable one. If there is any man with a judicial mind it is Viscount Runciman, and that is what is wanted in this contingency. But I agree with the noble Viscount who has just sat down that we should like to know more of the relationship between Viscount Runciman and His Majesty's Government. I saw that when Viscount Runciman was approached he "gladly accepted." I thought that was wonderful on his part, but I should very much like to know exactly what his position will be, because it is a little bit difficult to think of a private individual intervening in negotiations between two countres. Although it may be successful I do not think that he ought to be placed in too difficult a position. On that question I should like the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to tell us, if he can, whether the Sudeten Germans have agreed to this function that Viscount Runciman is to fulfil, as I understand the Czechoslovakian Government have done, because of course it is a sine qua non that agreement must come from both sides if Viscount Runciman's mission is to be satisfactory.
I must say that I do not consider the Government during the last year or two could have had more difficult situations to deal with. In almost every country difficulties have cropped up in regard to which it is very necessary to keep one's head and to avoid what is so common in the discussion of international affairs,
1272
that is, laying the blame on some particular nation. I think people in discussing foreign affairs are far too apt to do that. My association with foreign affairs may lave been brief and intermittent, but it was sufficient to make me learn the positive lesson that no nation is completely to blame in any situation, especially when you have got a complex situation such as we have to-day when nations are closely drawn to one another. When I hear people inveighing with great violence against His Majesty's Government or any other particular Government, saying they are solely to blame for the situation, I believe that is entirely unfair.
Just one word with regard to Spain. I agree completely with what the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said just now. He very often sums up with the historical view the situation of to-day. When he said that the Spanish situation would not loom so large in the future as it does to-day with all its horrors I am sure he was speaking the truth. These situations arise, and inevitably to-day they arise in a very cruel form. I was reading some correspondence of the early 'seventies—and I really had to rub my eyes—when there was a Spanish Revolution, atrocities in Spain, the autocratic behaviour of Bismarck, his suppression of the Church, troubles in Paris, war in China. It might have been to-day. Spanish Revolutions have taken place two, three, four times in the last century. I do not think it is a good way of managing the affairs of a country to substitute a revolution for a general election, but they do that, and horrible as the time is now that has to pass before the fighting is over, it will pass, and those who want General Franco to win make a very great mistake if they think that the conclusion of the war is going to be the finish. It is not. He has then got to begin to govern Spain, and if he thinks that he makes it easier if he exterminates his fellow countrymen he is in error.
I rose only to put one plea before His Majesty's Government, and I hope the House will be patient if it has heard it before. The nations are arming as they have never armed before in the world's history. The burden laid on the backs of the people in the various countries is borne and accepted because they are deliberately inspired by fear of being attacked with modern weapons of war.

1273
Leading statesmen in all countries know that arms are no remedy and no solution, but leave matters worse than they were; yet the competitive race in armaments continues. His Majesty's Government are honestly anxious for appeasement, conciliation, and negotiation. Do the Government realise that the armaments on which month by month they are learning more strongly to rely, so far from being a help must be a hindrance to any lasting settlement in the long run? Why? Because the extent of your armaments is the exact measure of your mistrust of the people with whom you want to deal. But of course it will be said: "We are not alone; we are doing simply what others are doing." That is the time-honoured excuse for wrongdoing on which the weak always fall back to excuse their vices. Disarmament is not going to come from any simultaneous agreement between the Powers. It is going to come, and it will come some day, from following the example of the nation which first proclaims its distrust and abhorrence of the whole method of warfare, more especially taking into account what that means to-day. Ministers of the Crown here to-day frequently express their distrust and abhorrence of war to us, but they go on just the same. Let them proclaim it to the world, and have the courage to leave off.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord who leads the Opposition for having given to the House an opportunity of taking a general review of foreign affairs before we separate for the Recess, and for having given to me an opportunity of making certain observations in reply to the speeches that have been delivered in the course of the debate. If I am not able to deal with all the points that all your Lordships have raised, it will only be because I am rather conscious that the ground I would have to cover is so wide that I might unduly strain your Lordships' patience.
I will begin, as the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, also began, with the Far East, and say something about the speech which was made by my noble friend Lord Elibank. In the Far East, during the last year, events have been happening that have deceived the hopes of all those who had looked forward to a better era in
1274
the history of the world. Your Lordships are sufficiently familiar with what has been passing. By their acceptance and by their support of the League Resolutions in this matter His Majesty's Government have joined in passing a moral judgment on the conflict in the Far East; but it will also be within your Lordships' recollection that the Conference in Brussels in November last showed fairly clearly that no agreement was to be expected for any proposals which would amount to intervention in the conflict. There is, however, the other aspect of events to which my noble friend alluded, and, although I agree with the noble Viscount opposite that it is truly to be held subsidiary to the main question of the moral right and wrong that is involved, it is nevertheless true that His Majesty's Government have had for more than a century important interests in China. The Japanese Government claim that the action which they are taking is in defence of their interests in China, and we have every right to expect them to recognise that if they have certain interests to protect we have the same, and are not unmindful of our responsibilities, which we have every intention to discharge.
I can assure my noble friend that we are quite ready to consider, and are indeed already considering, the possible action open to us if we do not get that consideration for our interests and rights which we have a right to expect. The noble Viscount spoke of several matters, such as the navigation of the Yangtse and inland waterways, the Whangpoo Conservancy, access to British property in certain districts of Shanghai, and British interests in the railways. All these matters are at the present time under discussion between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, and pending the outcome of these discussions, which quite obviously touch very closely British rights and interests that the Japanese Government have promised to respect, the noble Viscount will not expect me to go into precise details, but I shall bear in mind the wish which he expressed that at the earliest moment the result of these discussions should be made public. Then he spoke of the position at Tsingtao, and with regard to that His Majesty's Government are satisfied that there has in fact been discrimination at Tsingtao,

1275
and on instructions His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has made strong representations on that matter to the Japanese Government. From a recent report it appears that the Ambassador at Tokyo hopes for early remedial action, if indeed this has not already been taken.
Then my noble friend raised two other questions, the evasion of Customs Duties by the Japanese, and the question of the North China currency. With regard to the first, up to now it has only been possible to induce the Japanese to agree that regular Customs Duties at Japanese-controlled wharves should be paid on all Japanese commercial cargoes provided the examiners are of Japanese nationality. With regard to the second, His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the difficulties of the situation and of the dangers that they involve for British trade. The introduction of these Federal Reserve bank-notes would appear to have been a very ill-advised decision from every point of view, including that of the Japanese Government themselves. The Japanese Government have frequently stated that it is not their intention to place any unnecessary obstacle in the way of British trade in the parts of China which they at present occupy, and it is not necessary to point out that any attempt to impose in North China the same kind of restrictions as exist in Manchuria would be entirely inconsistent with those assurances. On the larger question it must be the hope of us all that these hostilities, through which such cruel damage is being done to human life and also to Chinese culture and economic life, may soon end.
Several of your Lordships have referred to the question of a loan to China, on which my right honourable friend spoke in another place, and in regard to which he explained that in present circumstances it had not been found possible by His Majesty's Government to meet the wishes of the Chinese Government for such a loan. He pointed out, moreover, that there was no certainty that the loan would in fact achieve its object of maintaining the Chinese currency during the war. Several of your Lordships have also said that you hoped that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider other proposals that might be advanced, proposals, for example, on the lines, I think my noble friend said, of export
1276
credits. I can readily assure your Lordships that we shall be entirely ready to consider other proposals of that kind on their merits, as and when they are made to us. At the Brussels Conference there was manifested a general desire to offer good offices if and when those might appear to be helpful; and for their part His Majesty's Government will be entirely ready to contribute their effort in every way whenever they can see a hope—of which I confess I do not see much to-day—of profitable result.
I turn for a moment to make a few observations in regard to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who is not here to-day but who kindly excused me from answering him yesterday, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, to-day, with regard to the League of Nations. Almost exactly two years ago I had the honour of making a speech in your Lordships' House on the same subject. At that time the League had by its withdrawal of sanctions against Italy acknowledged its incapacity in that instance to stop a war. As a result of political developments since the foundation of the League it has, I venture to suggest, become clear even to the most loyal League supporters that a system which not only provides a code of international behaviour but which also seeks to enforce that code on the world, cannot possibly be expected to function in all cases successfully unless one primary condition be fulfilled. That condition is that all the principal Powers should wholeheartedly be in it, and that all should be subject to a general system of limitation of armaments.
I remember that on that occasion I repeated two or three quite simple platitudes, which I think it is worth while to remember, and the noble Lord who has just spoken indeed referred to one of them. Until you could get a system under which all nations were in fact prepared to forgo an element of their sovereignty and to accept universal arbitration it was impossible for Lord Davies's court of equity securely to be expected to function satisfactorily; and all that could not happen unless all nations were disarmed and therefore my noble friend Lord Davies's International Force had the field to itself. Moreover, if you had those two things happening on paper, you would not have solved your problem unless every nation believed that every other nation was in fact keeping the

1277
rules. It is not necessary for me to point out—it is obvious to all—how the world to-day is not in fact ready to make those things that are the ideals of us all actually real at this present time. The question accordingly arose (which is the one that I think is constantly between the noble Viscount and myself) whether it was better to preserve on paper a general and wide obligation, although you may know that, when the test comes, it might well not be found capable of fulfilment; or frankly to recognise the facts and make the best of them, not laying greater burdens on nations than nations are in fact willing to sustain.
If that was the situation—and I think it was pretty clear—two years ago, I venture with great respect to suggest that it is much clearer to-day, and the League is in fact now faced with the necessity of taking a decision that will affect its whole future. The noble Viscount who spoke last but one spoke very pessimistically of the future of the League, and if I thought the League was done I should also be a pessimist. But in this matter I am disposed to be more optimistic than he is, and for this reason, that I do not believe it is beyond human ingenuity to devise means whereby the ideals of the League are preserved, and while on the one hand its practical limitations are recognised, as you must recognise them, on the other hand the way is left open to make the fullest use that you can, now and in the future, of its immense potentialities as an instrument of peace.
May I in a few sentences lay down, as I see them, the principles that must underlie such a solution as that? The prime object of the League is to prevent war, but that is a negative way of stating it. The positive way of stating it is that the League should provide means of depriving any State of what it may deem legitimate excuse, if legitimate excuse there can be, for resort to force. Therefore, in the second place, we should do all we can for the establishment of the rule of just law, by a strengthening of the machinery for the examination and adjudication of disputes. And, thirdly, we must find means for removing potential causes of disputes and redressing injustice through the ventilation of grievances and the active pressure of public opinion. We all of us have constantly stated, and I hope constantly think, that human affairs can never remain static. But any
1278
change that may be both natural and right must be effected by peaceful means if the cure is not to be 10,000 times worse than the disease. It is to the attempt to make these principles effective that this country stands pledged, and by that obligation we intend to stand to the limit of our power because we know that on the acceptance of that more excellent way which these principles enshrine the future of the world does in fact depend.
From that I pass quickly to a word—and it is only a word—about Spain. The noble Lord opposite who introduced this debate spoke critically of non-intervention. He spoke of victory being imposed on the defeated side by what he called foreign mechanism. Anyone listening to the noble Lord would have supposed that foreign intervention had been on one side, and one side only, and that of course is far from the truth. The other reflection that I made but with which I do not expect the noble Lord to agree any more than he expected me to agree with him, is that the conclusion of his argument on that point really was that the non-intervention plan was bad, it was unworthy of this country, and it ought to be scrapped. Therefore on the whole, so I concluded, he is in favour of intervention. We are not, and that for the reason that was very fairly stated by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, because as I have said over and over again in this House, if you embark on that policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also recognised, there is no saying where you may not end. So the policy of His Majesty's Government remains to push on with non-intervention. We have received the reply from the Spanish Government, and I hope we shall shortly receive the reply from the authorities at Burgos. We are confident that, with good will on both sides, there need be no great delay in the making of real progress.
I turn from that to say a word or two about a question to which the noble Viscount referred, the question of the possibility of bringing the war to an end. I entirely share the feeling that he has. As one contemplates the Spanish people entering upon a third year of this slaughter, with all the hatred, dissension, and bitterness that it has evoked, there is not one of us who must not hope and pray that in the course, I was going to say of this year, but in the course of early weeks or months, it may be possible for

1279
them to compose their differences and join hands in the building up of the country that, separate, they have so largely shattered. Both sides know that, if at any time it seemed possible for the services of His Majesty's Government to be usefully invoked for the establishment of an armistice, these services are at all times at the disposal of the Spanish people as a whole, and would be most willingly made available to them.
Let me say one word about Anglo-Italian relations, inasmuch as the Anglo-Italian Agreement is, as your Lordships know, closely linked with the Spanish problem. It has been a matter of great regret to His Majesty's Government that the pre-requisite governing the entry of that Agreement into force still remains unfulfilled. It may be arguable that it was a fault in the Agreement itself that its coming into force should have been made dependent on circumstances over which, prima facie, neither Government could exercise full control. The fact, however, remains that this condition, which arose out of the fact that the Agreement was designed as part of a general world appeasement and is a matter on which His Majesty's Government have given definite pledges to Parliament, is not one which His Majesty's Government can abandon. I may point out that, so far as concerns the letters exchanged and the verbal understandings reached at the time of signature, we have carried out our written undertaking to take steps at the League of Nations in regard to the question of Italian sovereignty over Ethiopia. We, on the other hand, have welcomed the good faith of the Italian Government in reducing their garrison in Libya and in abstaining from propaganda. That is a partial answer to a question the noble Lord did not put. We have been gratified, too, by the collaboration of the Italian Government upon the Non-intervention Committee.
On the other hand, we have never concealed our regret—and this is relevant to what fell from the noble Marquess opposite—that the signature of the Anglo-Italian Agreement has not resulted in an improvement in French-Italian relations, for one of the principal objects of our own Agreement was to re-create an atmosphere of international confidence in the Mediterranean, and until French-Italian relations are restored to cordiality this
1280
great purpose obviously cannot be achieved. It may be that there are powerful forces in the world which are unwilling to see the old friendship restored between this country and Italy. Mischievous suggestions have been made that the Agreement is designed to loosen the Berlin-Rome axis. In other quarters it has been hinted that the real object of it is to try and drive a wedge between the French and British Governments. If I may speak quite bluntly, a policy based upon the hope of driving a wedge between Berlin and Rome would be as futile as would be that of attempting to divide Paris and London. I find it very difficult to believe that any serious-minded or responsible person to-day can think in terms of either of these irresponsible hypotheses.
If hostile forces are at work, it is of great importance that neither we nor the Italian Government should be diverted by them from our main object—the bringing into force of our new Agreement. If either of us has doubts or difficulties we can at any time give full and frank expression to them through the normal channels which are available to us. In international as well as in private relations, incalculable harm may be done by the unnatural suppression of suspicions or by reluctance to strain friendship by frank speech. If a friendship is not capable of standing such a strain it is not worthy of the name of friendship. If His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government are able, as we hope, to invoke this spirit of confident patience to bridge the period which must elapse before the Agreement can come into full force, I see no reason why such delay as may be inevitable should at all impair the understanding that it was the principal purpose of the Agreement to restore.
I must turn for a few moments to Czechoslovakia, on which the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, spoke yesterday and in regard to which several of your Lordships have made interesting contributions this afternoon. Through all the developments of recent weeks and months the single purpose of His Majesty's Government has been to impress in all quarters—quite impartially, let me assure Lord Snell—the necessity and urgency of reaching an agreed solution of an issue that might gravely menace the preservation of European peace. The problem is not a

1281
new one, for the historic provinces of Bohemia and Moravia have long been one of the great nerve centres of Europe. It is in these provinces that contact between Slav and German has been most intimate and where the problem of their relationship has been most acute. There was indeed a time in the middle ages when, under the King of Bohemia who became the Emperor Charles IV, a harmonious blending of German and Slav culture and tradition appeared capable of realisation. But that promise was unfulfilled, and to-day the racial sell-consciousness, and the rise of fierce national ideals that our own day has seen, reinforced by the violent clash of philosophies that perplexes the modern world, have now, within the old political frontier of Bohemia, bred the still sharper antagonism which we know.
The problem is, as we all know, to find by peaceful means within the political frontier and without destroying the integrity of the Czechoslovak State, a way to confer substantial rights of self-administration upon the German-speaking population, and with them upon the other populations, such as the Polish and Hungarian, who live within the Czechoslovak borders and possess Czechoslovak citizenship. The problem is a very real one, and of a kind in regard to which we ourselves are not without experience. Accordingly His Majesty's Government, in close accord with the French Government, agreed in response to a request made by the Czechoslovak Government, to take the action that was detailed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday, and His Majesty's Government, as we all know, have been fortunate in enlisting the assistance of Lord Runciman. The noble Lord who spoke last asked me whether I had information as to the acceptance by the Sudeten leaders of the services of Lord Runciman. I am in a position to assure him that they received the idea favourably, and I hope, therefore, so far as we can at present judge, that the way seems to be clear for Lord Runciman to proceed upon his most public-spirited and patriotic mission. We feel that Lord Runciman does indeed bring to his task of independent investigation and mediation many qualities which those who have had the opportunity of working most closely with him are in the best position to appraise. The noble Marquess opposite
1282
spoke of them, and they are sufficiently well known to his fellow-countrymen to secure for him all the good wishes for which the noble Lord who opened the debate asked.
Several of your Lordships have asked what precisely is his status when he goes to Czechoslovakia. His status is one of complete independence of His Majesty's Government, and, with all respect to the noble Viscount, I think that that is not a very difficult status for either him or us to maintain. I have made it quite plain to him, and quite plain also to all those concerned, that he is in no way acting as a representative of or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, nor do we take any responsibility for the suggestions that he may make. His achievement, as I see it, will be to inform public opinion not only in this country but in a great many other countries, and, more important than that, he can as mediator bring the two sides together and explain perhaps where there is misconstruction and conceivably make new suggestions and the like. Perhaps I might, without breach of confidence with Lord Runciman, tell your Lordships what Lord Runciman said after I had so lucidly explained to him what his functions were to be. He said: "I quite understand; you are setting me adrift in a small boat in mid-Atlantic." I said, "That is exactly the position."
There is one other thing I think that I must say before I leave Lord Runciman and it is this. We cannot but feel that any public man of British race and steeped in British experience and thought may have it in his power for this reason to make a contribution of peculiar value. The British people, both at home and in the Dominions, have repeatedly found themselves confronted with the problem of reconciling the unity of the State with the position of men of a different race included within the body politic. The British Commonwealth itself is the outstanding example of the attainment of single unity through great diversity. It may be, and no doubt is, that the particular problem that faces the Czechoslovak Government is not strictly analogous to those with which the British Government have had to deal, but it is of the same order of difficulty, and requires the same kind of genius for its solution. It, therefore, naturally occurs to British thought that the solution of the problem

1283
created by the position of different nationalities within a single State is most likely to be found through the application in some form appropriate to local conditions of the principle of partnership in self-administration, by which our own problems, not totally dissimilar, have been so happily resolved, and that in a form which has, through the contentment so brought to many different races, been the seed of greater strength to the whole community of which they form part.
It is the earnest hope of His Majesty's Government that through the application of some such principles as these the way may be found at once to strengthen the foundations of contentment within the Czechoslovak State and to relieve Europe of a great anxiety. For reasons with which we are all conversant, upon the handling of this problem depend the interests not merely of Czechoslovakia herself but those of peace, and it is this fact which both entitles and compels this country, with others, to be interested in the treatment of it. We recognise the justice and the necessity of change, but it is none the less our desire to see it effected by peaceful means. The lesson of history must surely be that such an achievement would have greater chances of survival than any settlement imposed by force, which must inevitably create more problems than it solves.
Your Lordships will no doubt have seen the recent speech of M. Daladier in which he defined the position of his country in relation to these questions, and repeated the obligation that in certain events would rest upon it to fulfil its undertakings. Of that obligation the French Government can alone be the interpreter and judge, but your Lordships will have noticed with no less interest that M. Daladier asserted in clear terms his refusal to believe in the inevitability of war. By that opinion I would wish definitely to range my own. During the last few days, as your Lordships are aware, there have been certain contacts between His Majesty's Government and the German Government, which His Majesty's Government have warmly welcomed and which lead them to hope that peaceful means will be found to an agreed solution.
The noble Lord who opened the debate asked me whether I thought that I could
1284
properly tell him the matters that were discussed between Captain Wiedemann and myself last Monday week. I do not know that I can go quite as far as that because, as the noble Lord remarked, those discussions were necessarily confidential, but I can tell him, and am glad to tell him, that it was an opportunity that I think we both welcomed of exchanging views on matters of common interest to both our Governments. The effect of our conversation was to show that, however much we differed on some matters of internal interest to both countries, it was evident that both nations were anxious to lose no opportunity of establishing the better relations between the two countries of which the noble Lord opposite spoke.
I do not believe that those responsible for the Government of any country in Europe to-day want war. Every Government must know the great desire for peace among the people of every nation, and every Government must reflect upon what would be the consequences to all the fairest hopes they cherish for the future of the millions that are entrusted to their charge. His Majesty's Government believe that a just and reasonable settlement is capable of attainment if the problem is handled prudently, with a spirit of restraint and a spirit of accommodation on all sides. Here I should like to express a hope. I think that everyone will agree that it is only reasonable that Lord Runciman should be enabled to carry out his delicate mission in an atmosphere of calm and of confidence. I trust, therefore, that all those concerned, both within and without the frontiers of Czechoslovakia, will do all they can to help to create this atmosphere and thus assist Lord Runciman in the difficult task that he is willing to undertake. Above all, if this work of mediation is to proceed smoothly and successfully, it is clear that the less there can be of recrimination or threats in the Press or elsewhere, the better. Since we are pressing the Czechoslovak Government to be generous and conciliatory, we confidently count on Germany to give similar advice, where she may, with a view to avoiding a deadlock, the consequences of which might be incalculable.
A problem which in one form or another has challenged solution for five hundred years cannot be suddenly resolved, and provided always that those who are seek-

1285
ing for a settlement are animated by sincere intentions, it cannot fairly be made a cause of reproach that matters so closely affecting the structure of the State should be handled with due precaution and, as far as may be, with the assent of all concerned. Given such sincere and honest intentions, His Majesty's Government are anxious, as we have tried to prove, to lend any help within our power, and I feel bound to say plainly that public opinion in this country would quickly declare itself against any action which, whether by obstructing reasonable compromise or by rendering impossible its fair consideration, might imperil a settlement and jeopardise the cause of European peace.
May I refer for one moment to a question of some importance that was raised by my noble friend Lord Davies? He spoke of a defensive agreement recently concluded between His Majesty's Government and the French Republic, and asked His Majesty's Government to include some explanatory statement in regard to it. I think there is in Lord Davies's mind some misapprehension which it is important to dispel. But perhaps your Lordships will pardon my making a digression, for it is impossible to speak of France, and of the relations of this country with France, without first saying something of that which is of necessity uppermost in all our minds, and of which the noble Lord opposite spoke first. The whole country, as he said, and the whole British Commonwealth followed the visit of the King and Queen to France last week. That visit must have left on those who were privileged to accompany Their Majesties an impression that will not easily be forgotten. France seemed to prove once more that great power is not incompatible with gaiety and grace. The links forged by geography and history which bind our two countries are, of course, sufficient to account for the closeness of our relations with France, but the visit of last week seemed to add some new quality to this natural intimacy. The warmth of the welcome that was accorded to Their Majesties, a welcome which began from the moment that they set foot on the soil of France, with the many thousands who waited in the fields to see the passage of the Royal train, and which was taken up, as the noble Viscount has said, by the crowds who thronged the streets of
1286
Paris, must, I know, have touched Their Majesties' hearts, as it will have touched the hearts of millions in every part of His Majesty's Dominions.
What may we think to be the larger meaning of which that outward emotion was symbolic, and what seemed to invest it with particular significance? To me it seemed to speak of the deep conviction felt by the people of France that they are at one with us in regard to the ultimate value of individual human life, and that we share with them a common faith in the abiding forces by which human life is illumined and enriched. But, while the feeling between the two countries has received, as it did, such happy and such notable expression, the obligations of this country to France, apart from any that may result from the Covenant of the League of Nations, remain only those assumed in the Treaty of Locarno of 1925, reaffirmed in the Arrangement drawn up in London in March, 1936. The friendship between our two countries does not, however, depend on bits of paper, but rests, as I said, on a real community of thought and of purpose, and that in turn springs from the determination that we both share to join our efforts for the peaceful adjustment of international differences and for the orderly development of international life. Moreover, when nations are conscious of their strength, their efforts for peace are not likely to be misconstrued. France and Great Britain, therefore, remain at one in the determination so to act and work together that justice and reason may be established among nations and that the nightmare of fear may give place to understanding and content.
I apologise for keeping your Lordships so long. I have attempted to make a fleeting review of the more important of the problems by which the Government and the Foreign Secretary are constantly perplexed. If all the unrest and the discontent with which we are confronted are held to be the legacy of the Great War and of the settlement that followed it, which was necessarily negotiated in the warlike atmosphere, that surely must be sufficient proof of the hopelessness and stupidity of war as a solvent of difficulties. But perhaps it is not right to blame too much the framers of the Peace Settlement, for they at least believed that they had provided a machinery for the constant adjustment of the world as they left it

1287
to the shifting strains and stresses of events. Either that machinery, like most human products, was imperfect and waits to be designed anew, or we must all share some measure of blame for the mishandling of it. At the moment the machine, as I have dared to confess, does not wholly work; but that does not mean that the principles on which it was designed were at fault.
In an earlier passage in my speech I tried to give those principles some definition. The one guiding principle is that there should be accepted and, if possible, elaborated some sure system for the reasonable discussion and remedy of grievances without resort to the stupid and disastrous arbitrament of war. That way madness lies. But if every country prepares itself to get or to keep by force what in its own judgment it considers its due, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that there can be little hope for our civilisation. The attempt to impose a complete system for ensuring observance of the law and maintenance of the peace may not have succeeded. There is another method which, if slower, may be more sure: that of building on precedent and practice. That method happens also, I think, to be more traditionally English and in keeping with our principles. Every effort that we can make, each peaceful settlement of difficulty that can be devised, helps to lay the foundation of a structure of law which we shall strive to maintain and which may, in my judgment, prove a stronghold against the many and great dangers with which the world is beset.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Viscount for his very courteous and most important and interesting reply. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I did not move my Motion, but I wish to thank the noble Viscount for the very full and satisfactory and courteous reply that he made to my remarks about China.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, so we shall adjourn until Friday morning, when we shall receive the Appropriation Bill and then await the Royal Commission.
  MALTA.
  MALTA.