Sitting of 31 May 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Surrey County Council Bill [Lords].
Sheffield Gas Bill [Lords].
Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords].
Chichester Corporation Bill [Lords].
Warrington Corporation Water Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Clacton-on-Sea) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cholderton and District Water) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First
Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Torquay) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Calne Water) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

DUMBARTON BURGH (WATER) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
" to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Dumbarton Burgh (Water)," presented by Mr. Colville; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
" to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the West Hartlepool Corporation Act, 1923, relating to West Hartlepool Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin Hudson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    JAPAN,
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Japanese are in the habit of giving towns and villages in Japan the names of well-known foreign manufacturing towns, with a view to misleading the buyers of Japanese products; and what action he intends taking to deal with the matter?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Allegations of the practice described by the hon. Member have occasionally been made in recent years, but, so far as my information goes, no confirmatory evidence has been

    1799
    obtained. If, however, the hon. Member will send me particulars of any specific cases which he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider them.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to state the relations now existing between the owners of the Indian and Japanese textile industries and the average wage paid to the Japanese textile operatives?
    Mr. Stanley: As regards the first part of the question, I am not clear what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. As he is no doubt aware, the importation of Japanese cotton piece goods into India is regulated in relation to Japan's importation of Indian raw cotton under the provisions of the Protocol dated 12th October, 1937, regarding Commercial Relations between India and Japan (Cmd. 5600). According to statistics published by the Bank of Japan, the average daily earnings in the Japanese textile industry (including all allowances other than yearly or half-yearly bonuses) in January, 1938, were 1.408 yen for male textile workers and 0.729 yen for females: that is, at current rates of exchange, about 1s. 7¾d. and 10¼d. respectively.
    Lieut.-Colonel Wickhamasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that exports from the United Kingdom to

    Table showing the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in trade with Germany during the undermentioned periods.

    Period.

    Total Imports consigned from Germany.

    Exports consigned to Germany.

    United Kingdom Produce and Manufactures.

    Imported Merchandise.

    Twelve months ended March:

    £000.

    £000.

    £000

    1936

    …

    …

    …

    …

    30,697

    17,024

    7,260

    1937

    …

    …

    …

    …

    33,134

    19,433

    6,805

    1938

    …

    …

    …

    …

    36,566

    21,817

    7,082

    BALANCE OF TRADE.
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of foreign countries the trade of the United Kingdom with which showed a larger adverse balance in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of last year?
    1800
    Japan have fallen by more than 50 per cent. in the first quarter of this year, as compared with the first quarter of 1937, while imports have not declined; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There has been a heavy fall in Japan's total imports during the period mentioned, owing primarily to the necessity in which the Japanese Government are understood to find themselves of restricting imports to the minimum in present conditions. As at present advised, I can see no action which His Majesty's Government can usefully take to induce Japanese importers to buy more United Kingdom exports.

    GERMANY.
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total imports and exports in tons and value with Germany for the years ended March, 1936, 1937, and 1938?
    Mr. Stanley: Particulars of the aggregate tonnage of merchandise imported and exported are not available, as many commodities are recorded by units of quantity other than weight, while others are recorded by value only. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the value of merchandise imported and exported in trade with Germany during the periods specified.
    Following is the statement:
    Mr. Stanley: Particulars of the value of the trade of the United Kingdom with each of 111 foreign countries and geographical areas during the first quarter of this year and last appear on pages 285 to 290 of the issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for April. Of the 38

    1801
    foreign countries and geographical areas with which the aggregate value of our trade in either quarter amounted to more than £1, 000,000, there has been an increase this year in the excess of imports over exports in respect of 23.
    Mr. Williams: Could my right hon. Friend make representations to these 23 countries pointing out that our adverse balance of trade with them is already too large?
    Mr. Stanley: I dealt with this matter rather fully in the Debate only last week.
    Mr. Hepworthasked the President of the Board of Trade those countries with which there is an adverse balance of trade?
    Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to pages 184 to 193 of the issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation" of the United Kingdom "for January last, from which it will be seen that of the 167 countries and geographical areas separately distinguished therein, there was an excess of imports over exports last year in respect of 94.
    Mr. Louis Smith: Is not my right hon. Friend becoming somewhat alarmed at this rapidly growing adverse balance of trade; and will he give the matter very careful consideration?
    Mr. Stanley: As I said in reply to another supplementary question, we discussed that matter at some length in the Debate on Tuesday, and I then expressed my views on this increasing adverse balance.
    Mr. Lyons: Is this a matter that it would be competent to bring before the Import Duties Advisory Committee?
    Lieut.-Colonel Wickhamasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the adverse balance of trade with the Netherlands has increased in the first quarter of this year as compared with the first quarter of 1937 from £2,600,000 to £3,100,000; and whether he proposes to take any steps to adjust this balance?
    Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer to the answer given on 23rd May to a similar question relating to Belgium by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry).
    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend examine the situation with regard to the imports of milk on the one hand, and dairy products on the other; and does he realise the very great hardship inflicted on British producers in this connection?
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade what increase occurred in the adverse balance of trade with all foreign countries other than the United States of America and the Argentine Republic in the first quarter of this year, as compared with the first quarter of last year?
    Mr. Stanley: The excess of imports over exports of merchandise in the trade of the United Kingdom with all foreign countries other than the United States and the Argentine Republic amounted to £40,738,000 in the first quarter of 1938, compared with £31,219,000 in the corresponding period of 1937, an increase of £ 9,519,000.
    Mr. Paling: Do all these questions and admissions about the adverse balance of trade indicate that the protective duties put on by the Government have not protected us?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

    INDIA.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in 1937 India increased her exports of cotton goods by 115,000,00o yards, mostly to British Empire territories; and what action does His Majesty's Government propose to take to obtain a limitation of these exports, in view of India's attitude towards the Ottawa Agreement and of the fact that tariffs against British textiles into India are 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. ad valorem?
    Mr. Stanley: A large part of the increase in India's recorded exports of cotton piece goods in 1937, as compared with 1936, is due to the fact that India's trade with Burma has been separately recorded as from 1st April, 1937. The expansion in India's exports of cotton piece goods to all other destinations amounted to 63,000,000 yards, of which about half was in respect of exports to British countries. The position enjoyed by India in Empire markets is a consideration to which His Majesty's Government are giving due weight in the negotiations for a new agreement, in

    1803
    which one of their major objectives is a satisfactory settlement in regard to the United Kingdom cotton trade with India.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade particulars of the notification received from the Government of India of their intention to terminate the Ottawa Trade Agreement?
    Mr. Stanley: Notice of denunciation of the Ottawa Agreement was given on behalf of the Government of India on 13th May, 1936, as the result of a resolution passed by the Indian Legislative Assembly on 30th March, 1936. The Government of India at the same time intimated their willingness to enter upon conversations with a view to the conclusion of a new agreement. Such negotiations were subsequently initiated, and it was agreed between the two Governments that the Ottawa Agreement should continue in force subject to termination at three months' notice by either party unless it was replaced by a new agreement.
    Mr. Day: Has the right hon. Gentleman received particulars of any consequential discussions that took place when this decision was arrived at?
    Mr. Stanley: No Sir; the representatives of the Lancashire cotton industry have not yet got back from India.

    INVISIBLE EXPORTS.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade the items and the amounts which form the basis of his estimate of invisible exports in 1937 and in the first quarter of 1938?
    Mr. Stanley: The items and the amounts which form the basis of the estimate of invisible exports in 1937 are set out in detail in the Balance of Payments article in the Board of Trade Journal for 17th February 1938. It is not practicable to furnish any similar estimate of the amounts for the first quarter of 1938.

    INDIAN JUTE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of British capital invested in the Indian jute trade and the average wage paid to the Indian jute producers?
    Mr. Stanley: So far as I am aware, the information asked for in the first part of
    1804
    the question is not available. As regards the second part, I am unable to add to the information regarding wages in the jute industry given in the annual report on the Administration of the Indian Factories Act in Bengal for the year 1933, pages 58 to 69, to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour referred on 12th July, 1937, in his reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Western (Mr. Johnston).
    Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to admit that British capital is interested in the jute trade, and that the wages paid to jute workers in India are very low?
    Mr. Stanley: I cannot give the facts, but it is common knowledge that some British capital is invested in jute mills, and certainly, according to our standards, wages in the jute industry are very low.

    CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, during the last three months, there has been any diminution, in the import and export trade of Czechoslovakia as compared with the three previous months?
    Mr. Stanley: During the three months ended March, 1938, imports of merchandise into Czechoslovakia were valued at 2,216 million Koruné, as compared with 3,017 million in the preceding quarter; the corresponding figures for exports were 2,869 million Koruné in the first quarter of 1938 and 3,362 million in the previous quarter.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is this due to restrictions by the German Government?
    Mr. Stanley: Not so far as I am aware.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is this adverse balance of trade with so many foreign countries due to the fact that you have a Labour Opposition?
    Mr. Mander: Are negotiations proceeding at present with the Government of Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

    GERMAN MOTOR CARS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. Lyonsasked the President of the Board of Trade the values under Section 15 (1) of the Imports Duties Act,

    1805
    1932, of each category of Opel motor cars offered for sale in this country; the rate of duty paid in respect of each such motor car; its selling price in this country, together with its selling price in terms of sterling in its country of origin; and the largest numbers imported into this country at any one date and during any one month, respectively?
    Mr. Stanley: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer given on 26th May by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). The rate of duty chargeable on motor cars consigned from Germany on importation into this country is 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem. I understand that the retail prices of the three models of Opel cars in the United Kingdom are £135, £149 10s. and £180 respectively. The coresponding prices in Germany are 1,795 marks, 2,100 marks and 2,675 marks. The factor which should be employed for converting marks into sterling is a matter of opinion, but if the conversion is made at the old par rate of exchange, namely, 20.43 marks to the £, the sterling equivalent to the German prices would be £87 17S., £ 102 15s. and £130 18s. respectively. With regard to the last part of the question, I have already explained, in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Newport (Sir R. Clarry) and Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), that the Trade Returns of the United Kingdom do not distinguish individual makes of motor cars imported.
    Mr. Lyons: Is it not a fact that this represents a notorious case of dumping goods into this country to the great jeopardy of the motor car trade here; and will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that there is some reasonable protection for the home industry against this kind of dumping?
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is only one case of dumped goods which are competing very unfairly with home manufactures?
    Mr. Stanley: On the general point, I have answered a number of questions, but I would point out that in April of this year the importation of these cars had fallen to practically nothing.
    Mr. Lyons: Is that not simply because the dumping ground at Southampton is
    1806
    unable to accommodate any more until a new place has been built for their reception?
    Mr. Stanley: That is not my information.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to the increased amount of manufactured goods now being imported into this country, which could be manufactured at home?
    Mr. Stanley: The matter is constantly under attention.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Minister find out who are these unemployed people who are buying these motor cars?
    Mr. Mander: Is it not disgraceful that any goods should be imported at all?

    CONGO BASIN TREATIES.
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the intentions of the Congo Basin Treaty are being secured in Central Africa, in view of the inroads made by Japan in the cotton-piece goods markets of that area?
    Mr. Stanley: The Congo Basin Treaties provide for complete commercial equality between the parties and preclude differential treatment in the matter of duties. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that Japan's trade with these territories is contrary to the provisions of the treaties.
    Mr. Burke: In view of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave the House concerning the different rates of pay, is he satisfied that conditions are equal between this country and Japan so far as these markets are concerned?
    Mr. Stanley: It is a question of the legal interpretation of the treaty. Undoubtedly, under the terms of the treaty, that is so.
    Mr. Burke: But are the conditions equal between the two countries at the present time, apart from the legal interpretation? The treaties are trade treaties, Do we get equality of trade?
    Mr. Stanley: This matter is regulated by treaty and we are bound, therefore, by the terms of the treaty. Under the terms of the treaty, there is no inequality between the Japanese trade and ours.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that if the present treaty is creating any disadvantage to British trade it will he revised?
    Mr. Stanley: There is another question on the matter to which I shall reply later. This treaty is only capable of revision by agreement of all the signatories, and cannot be denounced unilaterally by this country.
    Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: If the other countries signatory to the Congo Basin treaty feel that they are driven out of this area by unfair competition, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the whole question?
    Mr. Stanley: The difficulty is that it is incapable of denunciation. If we could get agreement, that certainly would be another matter.
    Mr. Burke: Would it not be worth while calling the other signatories together and asking whether the time has not arrived for denunciation of this treaty?
    Mr. Stanley: Japan is one of the signatories.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Will the Minister bear in mind that all this unfair coin-petition comes from Fascist countries?
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this treaty was signed in 1882? Does he seriously suggest that that binds us for all time?
    Mr. Stanley: I and the Government rely upon the advice of our legal advisers. That legal advice I have given.
    Mr. Gallacher: You cannot stop dog from eating dog.

    UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS).
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to give a report on the trade agreement with the United States of America?
    Mr. Stanley: As I explained in the Debate on the Board of Trade Vote on 24th May, any discussion on trade matters between two such important commercial countries as the United Kingdom and the United States must raise complicated and difficult problems and the negotiations must necessarily be long. I am unable at present to give any indication when the negotiations are likely to be concluded.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the principle on
    1808
    which these negotiations are based? Does he expect the United States to purchase more goods from the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Stanley: That is clearly one of the objects.
    Mr. Mander: Will the report be available before the Summer Adjournment?
    Mr. Stanley: There is no agreement at the present moment.
    Mr. G. Strauss: In view of the long time that has already elapsed, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no serious friction?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

    FILM INDUSTRY (TECHNICIANS' HOURS AND WAGES).
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the hours of labour and the wages of technicians employed in the production of "This Man is News" comply with Section 34 of the Film Act, 1938; and, further, what machinery has been set up to ensure compliance with this Section of the Act?
    Mr. Stanley: I have not received any formal complaint that the company concerned in the production of the film to which the hon. Member refers is not observing fair wages and conditions. As regards the latter part of the question, I do not think that any special machinery is necessary.
    Mr. Williams: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trade union representatives feel that neither the spirit nor the word of Section 34 was observed by this particular company? Is he aware that Gaumont-British have an agreement with the trade unions to apply Section 34, and will he recommend all the companies to take that as a standard model?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the limits of my powers. If a dispute of this kind arises and is not otherwise settled, I refer it to the Industrial Court.
    Mr. Williams: In the meantime, would the right hon. Gentleman suggest to all the producing companies that it would be wise and in the interests of all parties if they could get a standard set of terms and conditions that would apply generally?
    Mr. Stanley: I ought, perhaps, to have notice of that question, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that, although I am glad to assist in any way in preventing any dispute, my powers are limited.

    COASTING VESSELS (CREWS' ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade why the new Board of Trade regulations in respect of crews' accommodation on foreign-going vessels are not being applied to all vessels engaged in the coasting trade within home-trade limits?
    Mr. Stanley: The new Instructions apply to vessels registered in the United Kingdom, whether engaged on foreign-going voyages or in the home and coasting trades. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Instructions.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations are not being complied with in coasting vessels?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman has any cases in mind, I shall be glad to discuss them.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in the meantime?
    Mr. Stanley: It will be easier, if the hon. Gentleman has particular cases, if he will refer them to me, and I will immediately see whether they are substantiated or not.

    BRITISH ARMY.

      BOYS.
      Mr. C. Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for War with regard to the recruits taken on to the regimental strength during the year ended 30th September, 1937, whether it was on attestation or subsequently that it was ascertained that 970 were under 15 years of age, 798 were 15 to 16 years, 233 were 16 to 17 years, and 617 were 17 to 18 years; and in how many of these cases was any application made for their release upon compassionate or other grounds?
      The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The part of the table in the General Annual Report of the British Army for 1937 from which he
      1810
      quotes these figures, relates not to recruits who enlisted as men and were subsequently found to be under 18, but to recruits who enlisted with their parents' consent as boys for training.

      ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT).
      Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War what permission has been granted under paragraph 514a, King's Regulations, for the employment of aliens in the Aldershot Command and elsewhere, and the numbers so employed?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: This year 17 permissions have been given under the regulation in question, including eight in the Aldershot Command.
      Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that large numbers of German domestic servants are employed in officers' households in Aldershot and elsewhere; and am I to understand that this is being done to a large extent without permission?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha.I have answered the question, and given the information for which the hon. Member asked.
      Mr. Mander: Yes; but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very much larger numbers than those he gave are employed, and that often German is heard much more frequently than English in the Aldershot district. Will he not make inquiries?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is a question which should be addressed to the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these German servants could give any more information to Germany than she has now?

      MANOEUVRES.
      Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent it is proposed to put the Army Manoeuvres Act into operation this summer; and whether the Royal Air Force units will co-operate with the Army units in these exercises?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Manoeuvres Acts are being put into operation in three areas. Troops of the Aldershot Command will train in an area comprised of parts of Berkshire, Hampshire and Sussex; another area consisting of parts of Wiltshire and Hampshire will be used by troops of the Southern Command;

      1811
      and a part of Suffolk will be used by troops of the Eastern Command. The Royal Air Force will co-operate in exercises with these troops in the normal way.
      Mr. Day: Have official invitations been sent to foreign attaches to witness these exercises?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: I presume so, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

      UNIFORMS.
      Major Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the uncertainty as to the policy concerning Army uniforms, he will authorise the issue of one simple uniform serviceable in war and comfortable and smart in peacetime?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: The experimental "battle-dress" is being tried on a large scale this year.
      Major Macnamara: In view of the various photographs that have been published and the suggestions that have been made, would my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever uniform is finally decided upon, it will be smart as well as serviceable?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that smartness is largely a question of opinion.

      TATTOOS.
      Major Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement as to his future policy regarding military tattoos?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: There is no present intention of changing the existing policy.

      DRILL.
      Major Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that several kinds of drill are at present in use in the Army, compared with only one in the Navy or Royal Air Force; that some units have two kinds of drill, one for ceremonial and one for routine purposes; that, in addition, a new field-drill is to be learnt; and whether, in view of the short time available for drill in both the Regular and Territorial armies, he will cause to be taught immediately, if possible before the majority of Territorial Army summer camps, one simple smart
      1812
      drill for the whole Army suitable for war and peace purposes?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: While there must be variation between the drill for ceremonial parades and in the field, one simplified form is being experimented with this year.
      Major Macnamara: Is it not the fact that originally drill was practical training, and could not my right hon. Friend implement his promise in the Army Estimates and introduce one form of drill for all purposes?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am not sure that I used that phrase, but the drill is being simplified at this moment.

      SURPLUS HORSES (DISPOSAL).
      Mr. Radfordasked the Secretary of State for War whether with reference to the statement issued by his Department with regard to the disposal of horses no longer needed by the Army, to the effect that a reserve price is fixed sufficiently high to make it unprofitable for them to be bought for export, he has taken into account the possibility of these horses being bought for export to the combatants in Spain and the high prices that may be paid to secure them for this purpose; and will he make a statement?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: So far as I am able to ascertain, no old Army horses are being bought for export to Spain, nor were any horses exported to Spain from the beginning of 1936 up to the end of last month.
      Mr. Radford: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, does he realise that the horses might not be exported from here to Spain, but from here to France, en route to Spain; is he aware that advertisements have appeared in the papers recently for horses and ponies wanted for export, stating that good prices are paid; and does not he agree that the taxpayers of this country are more concerned that our old servants should have decent treatment than that we should receive a small extra amount of money in relief of our taxation?

    TERRITORIAL ARMY.

      ANNUAL CAMPS.
      Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for War how many industrial assurance companies and private firms, respectively, pay full wages or salaries to

      1813
      their employés who belong to the Territorial Army when called upon to attend their annual training camps, when these camps are held apart from their annual holidays; and whether the Government pay full pay under similar conditions to their employés?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is impossible to state the exact number of employers who with such commendable public spirit continue to pay their employés who belong to the Territorial Army while the latter are at annual camp, but the number is considerable. His Majesty's Government set a generous example in this respect by granting to civilian employés who attend annual camp leave with pay, over and above ordinary leave. For instance, 12 extra working days on full pay are allowed to those whose annual leave is 18 days or less, and six days to those whose annual leave is 24 days or more, provided that attendance is for the full fortnight of camp.
      Mr. Thorne: Do I understand from that answer that, if any Territorials working in the various Government Departments are called up for annual training, they are paid full pay besides being paid for their annual holidays?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: The position is as I have stated, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read my answer, which, I think, will cover what he has in mind.

      FIRST LONDON ANTI-AIRCRAFT DIVISION.
      Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether the First London Anti-Aircraft Division is up to strength with regard to guns and searchlights in the event of immediate mobilisation?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave last week on this subject.
      Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reply is not a reply to the question on the Order Paper?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: I answered the question fully last week, and if my hon. Friend will look at my answer she will see that it covers both points.
      Mr. Thurtle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we have an ample supply of 3.7 anti-aircraft guns?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: We have not a full supply of many requisite munitions,
      1814
      and is it the purpose of the rearmament policy of the Government that they may be supplied, but the quantity that we have received is in excess of any statement or estimate that I have seen, and it is in excess also of the forecasts of delivery.
      Miss Ward: Would it not be a wise policy to deny the statement relating to guns that was issued, apparently reputably, after the dinner at which the right hon. Gentleman was present?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think that my hon. Friend is mistaken. No statement was issued. If my hon. Friend is referring to a dinner which was held by one of our hon. Friends downstairs, at which I made a few moments' appearance, no statements were made either by me or anybody else. I very much deplore these constant statements that are made about our anti-aircraft position, because they generally make out our position to be worse than it is, and bring great discouragement to Territorials who are joining the Army in large numbers and for whom we are doing our very best.
      Miss Ward: It did appear in the Press, and would it not be a good thing to repudiate it?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have done so.

    SCOTLAND.

      CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
      Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state what action he proposes for the abolition of birching of young persons in Scotland?
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.
      Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very grave dissatisfaction in many parts of Scotland at the delay on the part of the Government in coming to a decision upon this matter?
      Mr. Colville: I cannot agree that there has been undue delay. It is a matter which requires careful examination, and there will be no undue delay in coming to a decision.

      MILK SUPPLY, ANGUS.
      Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for the county of Augus reported that last quarter six cows were slaughtered out of registered dairies; that only one cow was reported to the authority by the owner; that out of the six cows five were cases of advanced tuberculosis; that after the owner of one dairy had been struck off the list of registered dairies the Milk Marketing Board continued to purchase diseased milk from him; and what action does he propose to enforce the purchasing of pure milk by the Milk Marketing Board?
      Mr. Colville: I have seen the report to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that even advanced tuberculosis in cows can frequently be discovered only on careful veterinary inspection, and in accordance with statutory requirements frequent veterinary inspection of all dairy herds is made. With reference to the last two parts of the question, the dairy referred to had been struck off the register on account of its structural condition, not because cows in it were diseased, and as my hon. Friend informed the hon. Member last week the Milk Marketing Board have now ceased to accept milk from it.
      Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that careful veterinary inspection has taken place in the county of Angus?
      Mr. Colville: The hon. Member will probably be aware that the recent Tuberculosis Order, 1938, requires a dairyman to notify a police constable or veterinary inspector if any of his cows are affected by a chronic cough or show signs of tuberculosis. I hope that that will help the administration.
      Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only one dairyman reported in connection with one of these cows, and what action is to be taken against the other five dairymen who did not report cases of this kind?
      Mr. Colville: The Order to which I refer is a very recent one, and I hope it will produce very good results.

      HERRING INDUSTRY (DRIFTERS).
      Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, upon what ground it was decided not to offer grants to assist in meeting the running expenses
      1816
      of herring drifters; and from what quarters requests and/or recommendations for such grants were received?
      Mr. Colville: I would refer the hon. Member to the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and myself on the Second Reading of the Bill and on the Financial Resolution which explained the reasons why the financial aid to herring fishermen and to the industry proposed by the Government takes the forms contained in the Herring Industry Bill. As regards the second part of the question, a request for grants towards running expenses was made by the deputation from the industry which was received by the Ministers concerned in November last and some similar requests from particular localities have since been received.

      HOUSING.
      Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases during the past year applications from county councils for approval of grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act have been refused by the Department of Health on the ground that indoor water supplies were not provided; in how many cases applications not providing for indoor water supplies were approved; and to what extent the absence of water supplies curtails developments under this Act?
      Mr. Colville: Local authorities have submitted to the Department statements in connection with individual applications for grant under the Acts only since 1st January, 1938. Five of the 673 statements which have been received indicated that the reconstructed dwelling would not have an indoor water supply. In three cases the Department raised no objection to the giving of grant and in two cases they withheld their consent. In the cases covered by the statements referred to, therefore, the absence of water supply has not resulted in any appreciable curtailment of work under the Acts.
      Mr. Stewart: Does the Secretary of State agree that there would be a great extension of the use of this Act if water were available in many of the rural parts of Scotland?
      Mr. Colville: Yes, I agree that a deterrent in going forward with the proposals in the Act is that there is no water available in certain cases.
      Mr. T. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional progress has been made in the building of working-class houses in Scotland as a result of the formation of the council composed of representatives of the building industry and his Department as compared with the year 1935–36?
      Mr. Colville: I am satisfied that the consultations which have been taking place between the representatives of the building industry and of my Department are producing beneficial results, but it is too early to attempt to measure these results in terms of output of houses. The number of houses completed by local authorities in the first four months of 1938 was, however, 5,326 as compared with 4,765 and 3,989 for the corresponding periods of 1936 and 1937 respectively.
      Mr. Gallacher: Is the Department doing anything to try to eliminate the floating factors which run away with £ 70 on each house that is built?

      SMALL DEBT AND EJECTION COURTS, GLASGOW.
      Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that at the Glasgow eviction court and the small debt court the clerk, without reference to the sheriff, grants decree where the person is absent and enforces settlements by way of money payments by weekly instalments without the knowledge of the sheriff; and whether he will state under what statute or regulation this power is granted to the clerk of the court?
      Mr. Colville: The clerk of court is not authorised by any statute or regulation to grant decree or enforce a settlement and he does not do so. The facts are as follow: It has been found convenient for many years that the clerk of court when calling the roll in the courts mentioned, should ascertain from the parties whether the debt is admitted and, if so, what arrangement, if any, can be made for liquidating the debt. The clerk of court does not give a decision, but in cases where there is no appearance or where the parties are agreed on a settlement he records the fact in the court book for signature subsequently by the sheriff-substitute. The decrees are those of the sheriff-substitute and where there is any disputed point between parties, the matter
      1818
      is invariably referred to the sheriff-substitute. The procedure followed does not appear to be open to objection, but if the hon. Member cares to let me have particulars of any instance in which it is alleged that the procedure has proved faulty I shall be glad to make inquiries.
      Mr. Buchanan: Is the Secretary of State aware that the clerk actually gives decrees in the court? It is a well-known practice, happening every day. Will he take steps to see that the sheriff who is there to administer the Jaw himself carries out the law?
      Mr. Colville: My information does not bear out the hon. Member's assertion, but I have made an offer in the last part of my answer, and I hope he will look at it.
      Mr. McGovern: Will the Secretary of State go down without notice and see these courts in operation? It is a public scandal in Glasgow the way people are treated by the clerk.
      Mr. Colville: I have made an offer to examine any evidence which is put before me.
      Mr. McGovern: But will the right hon. Gentleman not get first-hand knowledge by going to the court and seeing that the statements are true?
      Mr. Buchanan: Will the Secretary of State communicate to the clerk that at least he should give to these poor people civility?

      POTATOES.
      Mr. T. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Potato Marketing Board collected and exported an enormous amount of home-grown potatoes, thereby causing an undue rise in the price of potatoes to the home consumer; and will he take steps to prevent similar action in future?
      Mr. Colville: I am informed by the Potato Marketing Board that the quantity of potatoes which they recently sold for export did not exceed 5,000 tons, and my information is that there is no ground for supposing that the transaction caused any rise in the price of potatoes to the home consumers. With regard to the last part of the question, I have no power to intervene in the administration of an

      1819
      agricultural marketing scheme except as provided in Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931.
      Mr. Henderson: Can the Secretary of State say the country to which the larger proportion of this export was sent?
      Mr. Radford: Is not the solution to this question to plant more potatoes and not to cut down exports?
      Mr. Colville: I understand they were exported to Spain.

      MENTAL DEFECTIVES (MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS).
      Mr. T. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Scottish Board of Control refuse the right of the parents of a person certified by the board as a mental deficient and an inmate of an institution under the authority of the board to have an independent medical examination of such certified person; and will he instruct the Scottish Board of Control to grant an independent examination on application being made?
      Mr. Colville: Mental defectives are not certified by the General Board of Control, but the board have a statutory duty to review at stated intervals the cases of all certified defectives. On such occasions the board may obtain a report by one or more independent medical men, and they are bound to order the discharge of a patient at any time if they are of opinion that he is not, or is no longer, a defective. A parent or guardian may apply in writing to the board for the discharge of any defective on the ground that his mental condition does not justify further detention, and the board may, if they think fit, require the applicant to produce a medical certificate in support of the application. I am not aware of any case in which the board have refused to comply with the statutory provisions, but if particulars of any specific case are furnished I will have inquiry made.

      RATING AND VALUATION.
      Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total assessment to rates in each county of Scotland, respectively, of sheds or greenhouses having a superficial area of 100 square feet or less; and how many such structures this assessment represents?
      Mr. Colville: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
      Captain Ramsay: In view of the fact that there is no uniformity of practice and that in various counties in Scotland entirely vexatious assessments are being made, will the Secretary of State have the matter looked into with a view of possible legislation?
      Mr. Colville: That raises a rather wider question.
      Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that legislation has been announced which will have the effect of stabilising the existing valuations in England at their present figure until 1941; that in Scotland these valuations are constantly under review on account of the valuation roll being prepared each year; that since these valuations in both countries form the basis of Schedule A assessment to Income Tax, owners of property and local authorities in Scotland are likely to be prejudiced; and whether, in order to equalise the position, he will consider making some concession to Schedule A taxpayers in Scotland?
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I assume that the legislation to which my hon. Friend refers is the Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Act, 1938, which provides for the postponement until 1st April, 1941, of the coming into force of the new valuation list for rating purposes in England. He is, however, under a misapprehension in supposing that in England the valuations for rating purposes form the basis of the Schedule A assessments. Those latter assessments are separately computed and the next revaluation for that purpose, which will come into force for the year 1941–42, will not be affected by the postponement of the rating revaluation. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not consider that owners of property in Scotland will be prejudiced as compared with owners in England; and I would remind my hon. Friend that while the valuation roll in Scotland is revised annually for rating purposes, there is no similar annual revision for Schedule A. For Schedule A there is, as in England, a revaluation every five years and it is only upon such a revaluation that the revised rating figures will affect the values of properties for Income Tax purposes.
      Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that the right of the taxpayer to have reconsideration of his Schedule A assessment at the end of each financial year, if circumstances so warrant, will not be interfered with by this legislation?
      Captain Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Paper.
      Mr. H. G. Williams: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, despite the passing of the recent Act of Parliament, considerable perturbation has been caused in some areas owing to the issue of a circular by the Ministry of Health urging local authorities to continue the revaluation, and having regard to the recent decision of Parliament to the contrary, will my right hon. and gallant Friend look into this matter, which is causing grave alarm?
      Captain Wallace: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.

      ASSESSORS.
      Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many assessors are employed by each county council in Scotland, respectively, and to whom are these officials responsible and by whom are they paid?
      Mr. Colville: I understand that except in the counties of Dunbarton and Renfrew, in which two and three assessors, respectively, are employed, one assessor is appointed by each county council in Scotland for the purpose of making up the valuation roll in the county, excluding large burghs. The assessor holds office at the pleasure of the county council and his salary is paid by them. In the discharge of his functions it is his duty to act in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, and any entry made by him in the roll is subject to appeal under the Valuation Acts.

      AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
      Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amount expended on air-raid precautions by the Scottish Office up to date?
      Mr. Colville: Pending the issue of the Approval of Expenditure Regulations and the examination of statements of expenditure subsequently submitted by local authorities payment of grants cannot be
      1822
      made to these authorities. In the meantime, however, a considerable amount of training equipment has been issued to local authorities at the expense of the Government, respirators for the majority of the population have been produced and stored and also other air-raid precautions equipment and materials. Two hundred and ninety motor pumping appliances with hose and other necessary equipment have been offered to Scottish local authorities who have submitted schemes of air-raid fire precautions and deliveries are proceeding as supplies become available from the manufacturers. It would be difficult to make any geographical apportionment of the total expenditure involved.
      Mr. Westwood: Will the Secretary of State say when the new regulations dealing with approved expenditure will be issued?
      Mr. Colville: The position is that the draft of the Approval of Expenditure Regulations has been issued to local authorities associations for their observations. Replies have been received from a majority of the Scottish authorities, and as soon as these can be considered, regulations will be issued as early as possible.
      Mr. Davidson: Has any expenditure been made with regard to local distributive centres, where local authorities have agreed to set up local distributive centres for gas masks? Has any expenditure been made in connection with them or is it because no expenditure has been made that these centres are not being set up?
      Mr. Colville: I understand that expenditure has been made in connection with the central store, but that as soon as possible expenditure will be incurred on the other.

      OLD AGE AND WIDOW PENSIONERS.
      Mr. Stephenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider calling a conference of representatives of friendly approved societies in Scotland to discuss the hardships of old age and widow pensioners, the various anomalies in the Pensions Acts, and the possibility of arriving at agreed proposals for increasing the rate of pension and removal of present restrictions?
      Mr. Colville: Approved societies are not concerned in the administration of the

      1823
      Pensions Acts. I do not think, therefore, that a conference such as that suggested by the hon. Member would serve any useful purpose.
      Mr. Stephen: Is the Secretary of State aware that cruel hardship is imposed upon aged people and widows? Is their only hope of amelioration a change of Government?
      Mr. Colville: I do not agree with the hon. Member. The question asks for a conference of particular societies, and I have pointed out that they do not have any functions in connection with this matter.
      Mr. Stephen: Is the Secretary of State prepared to take any steps in order to provide for the amelioration of the hardships which are imposed by the inadequacy of the pension?
      Mr. Buchanan: Is not the Secretary of State aware that approved societies have a great deal to do with the administration in so far as they determine a person's right to an old age pension, and, in view of that fact, would it not be as well to call this conference together?
      Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every organisation in Scotland is in favour of steps being taken in this direction?

      TRADING ESTATES.
      Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding the establishment of further trading estates in Scotland?
      Mr. Colville: In the light of the response to the establishment of the industrial estate at North Hillington the Commissioner for the Special Areas recently purchased three sites in North Lanark-shire. The sites are at Carfin, Chapel-hall and Lark-hall, and comprise about 26, 15 and 11 ½ acres respectively. The planning and lay-out of these sites is being undertaken as rapidly as possible with a view to the erection of factories.
      Mr. Mathers: Is the establishment of other trading estates elsewhere under consideration?
      Mr. Colville: These are the only proposals before me at present.

      ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
      Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what committees or organisations are consulted by his Department at regular periods on the general economic and agricultural development of Scotland?
      Mr. Colville: On matters affecting the general economic development of Scotland, the Scottish Office and the Commissioner for the Special Areas in Scotland are in close contact with the Scottish Development Council and the Scottish Economic Committee; and on agricultural matters the Department of Agriculture for Scotland is in regular consultation with the Scottish Agricultural Advisory Council. With the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of further committees and organisations with which consultation is maintained.
      Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that the general economic position of Scotland has considerably worsened during the last three or four years, and that agricultural development has decreased during the same period, will the Minister consider setting up a separate economic committee to investigate fully the economic and agricultural development of Scotland, which is steadily worsening?
      Mr. Colville: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the steadily worsening position. The Scottish Development Council and the Scottish Economic Committee cover a very wide field in the matters on which they advise.
      Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the period to which I have referred, unemployment and Poor Law relief considerably increased in industrial areas, and that there was less agricultural production in Scotland during that period, and will he not accept those facts as proving that the position is steadily worsening?
      Mr. Colville: I cannot debate this matter at Question Time, but there are other features to be stressed.
      Following is the list:
      The Department of Agriculture for Scotland maintains regular consultation with the Scottish Horticultural Advisory Committee, the Standing Committee of Management of the Plant Registration

      1825
      Station, the Licensing of Bulls Committee, the Scottish Advisory Committee on Pork and Bacon Production, and consults with the principal farming and trade associations as and when the occasion arises. Close association is also maintained by the Department with Agricultural Colleges, Research Institutes, Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, Scottish Country Industries Development Trust, Scottish Women's Rural Institutes. Representatives of local authorities are, of course, consulted by the Scottish Office and by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland from time to time as occasion arises.

      ADMINISTRATION (COMMITTEE' S REPORT).
      Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now make a statement with regard to the Gilmour Report?
      Mr. Colville: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on Tuesday, 24th May, on this subject.
      Mr. Davidson: Does that reply indicate that the right hon. Gentleman has completed his consideration? That has been the constant reply to every question, and as this report has been submitted for a long time, can he indicate when he will be able to give the House any information with regard to this important matter?
      Mr. Colville: I cannot give the hon. Member a date, but I can assure him that this report is under active consideration. It is a matter of importance.

      SPECIAL AREAS.
      Mr. N. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement regarding the industrial undertakings which have been started in the Special Areas in Scotland?
      Mr. Colville: I am informed by the Special Areas Commissioner that since May, 1937, when the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, came into operation leases have been signed by the tenants of 6o new industrial undertakings on the Scottish Industrial Estate at North Hilington, and of these undertakings 17 are actually in production. In other parts of the Special Areas, II undertakings have been offered assistance by the Commissioner under Section 3 of that Act, and of these seven are in production.
      Mr. Dalton: How much additional employment has been afforded?
      Mr. Colville: I cannot give that information.

      GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN LOANS.
      Mr. Emeryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the ample credit balance in favour of Germany on Anglo-German trade, he will, for the protection of British tax revenue arising from post-War commercial loans granted by British investors for the restoration of Germany and Austria, set up an Anglo-German-Austrian exchange clearing, to end the default of cash service by Germany on her obligations to British subjects and to prevent default on Austrian obligations?
      The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I have been asked to reply. I am not at present able to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on 23rd May.
      Commander Locker-Lampson: Does not this involve a very serious repudiation on the part of Germany?

      GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
      Mr. Kirbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now willing to set up an impartial inquiry into the claim of ex-service civil servants to pension rights?
      Captain Wallace: As stated in his reply of 21st October last to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) my right hon. Friend is unable to modify the decision contained in his reply to the question by the hon Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) on 27th July last that no useful purpose would be served by a further inquiry into this question.
      Mr. Kirby: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman clearly understand that by that decision ex-service men who served in the War and who are now serving in the Civil Service are at a financial disadvantage for all time as compared with those who did not serve in the War and who have joined the Civil Service since?
      Captain Wallace: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will look at the reply to which I referred, he will see that the reasons for the decision were very clearly set out.

      OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
      Mr. Tinkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the number of old age pensioners receiving assistance from local authorities has gone up from 214,901 in January, 1937, to 230,652 in January, 1938; and, in view of this increase in numbers, will he reconsider the question of granting an additional 5s. weekly on the present 10s.?
      Captain Wallace: My right hon. Friend is aware of the figures quoted by the hon. Member which are about 10 per cent. of the total number of old age pensioners. I am afraid that, as stated by my predecessor in reply to a question on 24th March, it is not possible to consider the increase suggested.
      Mr. Tinker: Do not these figures show an alarming increase in destitution among aged people, and does the Government intend to rest content while that is happening? Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give no hope that something will be done in regard to this matter in the near future?
      Captain Wallace: As regards the particular point which the hon. Member put, the increase in the number of old age pensioners who are receiving this kind of assistance reflects the fact that there has been an increase in the total number of old age pensioners.
      Mr. Tinker: Even granting that, can the Government give no hope that they will do something in this matter soon?
      Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his colleagues spend a weekend with some of the old age pensioners in order to see how these people live on 10s. a week?
      Mr. Parkerasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that 22 old age pensioners in Saffron Walden public assistance institution have received notice that their pensions are to be reduced as the cost of their maintenance has increased; what is the authority for this action; and is it to
      1828
      become general in all public assistance institutions in the country?
      Captain Wallace: I understand that in accordance with decisions of the local pension committee the rate of pension in payment to 22 inmates of this institution has been reduced, but that appeals to the Minister of Health have been made in a number of these cases. Under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed must be included in the calculation of a pensioner's means. Where the value of provided maintenance, whether in an institution or elsewhere, is such as to bring the means of a pensioner beyond the statutory limit appropriate to his current rate of pension, a question for the reduction or revocation of the pension is raised accordingly.
      Mr. Parker: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this decision will mean that there will be a reduction to the old age pensioners concerned of at least 1s. 6d. a week in pocket money and an increased charge to the rates of 8s. 6d. a person, and what steps does he propose to take to remedy this?
      Captain Wallace: I think the hon. Gentleman is assuming in his supplementary question that the pension is to be reduced from 10s. a week to nothing. I do not think that that is a fact. An appeal is at present pending before the Ministry of Health.
      Mr. G. Griffiths: I intend to raise this matter if my hon. Friend does not, because at the present time there are old age pensioners who have had the whole of their 10s. taken away.

    COAL INDUSTRY.

      SHOT FIRING.
      Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines the number of shots fired in coal mines in 1937 and the number of shots fired per million tons of coal produced; whether there was an increase or reduction on previous years; and whether any efforts are being made to reduce the amount of shot firing in coal mines?
      The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): It is estimated that during 1937 63,000,000 shots were fired in mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or approximately 262,000 shots per million

      1829
      tons of saleable coal produced, but this total includes shots fired in rock or stone as well as those fired in the coal itself. The ratio between total shots fired and production of coal tends to rise. While His Majesty's inspectors encourage the movement which is taking place at some mines towards the partial or complete elimination of shot firing, the conditions are not always suitable for the adoption of alternative methods.
      Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister give closer examination to the fact that with the increase of mechanisation the amount of shot firing in mines seems to increase at the same time, and to double the danger to the miners?
      Captain Crookshank: I think there has been some increase, but, of course, the hon. Gentleman will realise that that has been prominently put before the Royal Commission.

      AMMANFORD COLLIERY.
      Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines whether, as the result of the investigation recently conducted into the environmental conditions and their relation to the incidence of silicosis at the Ammanford Colliery in the anthracite coalfield, and pending the completion of the final report, any interim preventive measures are being recommended for adoption at the colliery?
      Captain Crookshank: As stated by my right hon. and Noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in reply to the hon. Member on 11th April, the investigation into chronic pulmonary disease among coal miners which is being made under the direction of the Medical Research Council, will, it is expected, be extended to at least one further colliery, and the whole of the data will have to be examined before any report can be prepared. A number of preventive measures conforming with the best practice in the light of present knowledge are already in operation at Ammanford Colliery and, pending the results of the investigation as a whole, I am not in a position to recommend the adoption of new or alternative preventive measures.
      Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that some time must still elapse before this report is completed will not the Minister carry out the promise made by his right hon. Friend that if they discover any
      1830
      interim measures which they can recommend they will be placed before the companies?
      Captain Crookshank: That is rather hypothetical. If any new facts emerge they will be given consideration.

      EMPIRE MIGRATION.
      Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the continued large numbers of unemployed in the United Kingdom, he will state in what way the Government are prepared further to encourage and assist migration to the Dominions?
      The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Lord Stanley): His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not regard, and have never regarded, migration to the Dominions as a direct method of alleviating unemployment in this country though the resumption under suitable conditions of migration within the Empire may be expected to lead to increased development and hence to increased trade and employment. His Majesty's Government are at all times ready to co-operate with the Dominion Governments in suitable schemes under the Empire Settlement Acts which would offer good prospects for migration overseas, and it rests with the Dominion Governments to decide when they are in a position to participate in such schemes. The Government have welcomed the recent decision of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to re-open the Assisted Passages Agreement in order to facilitate the movement of certain classes of migration to Australia, and they are co-operating fully with the Commonwealth Government financially and otherwise in these arrangements.
      Mr. Day: Will the Minister consider giving unemployed persons who emigrate to the Dominions any unemployment pay to which they would be entitled if they remained here?
      Mr. Lunn: Have any Dominions ever expressed themselves as prepared to take the unemployed from this country as a cure for unemployment
      Lord Stanley: That has peen answered before.
      Mr. Davidson: Is the Noble Lord aware that a certain section of the unemployed will be emigrating to the Riviera very soon?

      AUSTRALIA (IRON-ORE DEPOSITS).
      Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make a statement on the policy to be adopted by the Australian Commonwealth Government with reference to the iron-ore deposits of the Yampi Sound?
      Lord Stanley: I understand that the position is as follows. The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia made a statement in the Commonwealth Parliament on 19th May that after exhaustive consideration the Commonwealth Government had decided to prohibit the export of iron-ore from Australia as from 1st July next and that a proclamation to this effect would be issued forthwith. The proclamation will apply to all countries. In the course of his statement Mr. Lyons indicated that in the light of a thorough investigation and report made by the Commonwealth Geological Adviser the Commonwealth Government were satisfied that accessible iron-ore deposits capable of economic development were so limited as to compel their conservation for Australian industrial requirements. Mr. Lyons added that a complete detailed survey of Australian iron-ore resources would be made, and that if reassuring features appeared, the Commonwealth Government would be prepared to reconsider the decision now reached. Mr. Lyons also stated that the Commonwealth Government would be prepared to examine and consider equitable claims for reimbursement of expenditure which had actually taken place in connection with the development of operations at Yampi.
      Mr. Smith: Is it the intention of the Government to advocate the policy which has been adopted by the Commonwealth Government, and will they take steps to prevent a London finance company from monopolising these resources in the way they did on the last occasion?
      Lord Stanley: That question certainly ought not to be addressed to me.
      Mr. Moreing: Can my Noble Friend give the House an assurance that no representations were made by His
      1832
      Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth with regard to the exportation of iron-ore from Australia?
      Lord Stanley: This is entirely a matter for the decision of His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth.
      Mr. Moreing: Then it would not be correct for people to say, as is being suggested in Australia to-day, that this decision has been suggested to the Government of Australia by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom?
      Lord Stanley: No such correspondence has ever passed. The decision was taken entirely on the responsibility of His Majesty's Government in Australia.

      WAR-TIME SERVICE.
      Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a White Paper setting forth the measures contemplated by the Government in the event of an outbreak of war?
      The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. Any plans for dealing with the situation that would arise in the event of war will be laid before Parliament if and when the occasion should arise.
      Mr. Attlee: Does not the Prime Minister think it unfortunate in that case that statements should be made by a responsible Minister in the course of a Debate which are liable to arouse grave misapprehensions in the minds of the people?
      The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any such statement.
      Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The Prime Minister is probably aware that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence stated that there was a Conscription Act in draft?
      The Prime Minister: I do not think he said anything of the kind.
      Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT in which the Minister was asked whether there was in existence a Conscription Act, and he replied:
      " I said so as plainly as I could."— Vol. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3oth May, 1938; col. 1778,Vol.336]
      Mr. Mander: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the plans for conscription to which lie has referred will also deal with the conscription of wealth?
      Mr. A. Bevan: Do we understand that the Prime Minister rejects the statement of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence last night?
      The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
      Mr. Buchanan: In view of the conflicting statements and the feeling about this matter should not the Prime Minister take this or another opportunity to make the position clear?
      The Prime Minister: If another opportunity presents itself, and if there is any doubt upon the subject I have no doubt that some Members of the Government will be able to make the situation clear.
      Mr. Attlee: Surely the Prime Minister realises now that there is some doubt about it, for he himself apparently did not know what his colleague said. Ought he not now to take the opportunity of making a statement on this matter?
      The Prime Minister: I do not think that the opportunity to make a statement is in reply to a question. It would be of greater length than can be given in reply to the question.
      Mr. Attlee: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will take an early opportunity when there is a suitable occasion to make a statement?
      The Prime Minister: I understand there is a Question on the Paper in regard to that. Perhaps we had better wait for it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take in the event of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being suspended?
The Prime Minister: We propose to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to conclude the remaining stages of the Air Navigation Bill and to obtain the Committee stage of the Herring Industry Bill. We propose also to take the three outstanding Import Duties Orders, the Motion to approve the Cattle (Import Regulation) Revocation Order, and the Report stage of the Imperial Telegraphs Money Resolution. All these items are exempted Business.
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, 247; Noes, 117.

Division No. 226.]

AYES.

[3.51 p.m.

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

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

Eastwood, J. F.

Albery, Sir Irving

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

Eckersley, P. T.

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

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Emery, J. F.

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

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

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Channon, H.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Apsley, Lord

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Assheton, R.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

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

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

Christie, J. A.

Everard, W. L.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton

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

Findlay, Sir E.

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

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Furness, S. N.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

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

Gluckstein, L. H.

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

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Beechman, N. A.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Bernays, R. H.

Crooke, Sir J. S.

Grant-Ferris, R.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Gratton-Doyle, Sir N.

Bossom, A. C.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Boulton, W. W.

Cross, R. H.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Cruddas, Col. B.

Grimston, R. V.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Hambro, A. V.

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

Davison, Sir W. H.

Hannah, I. C.

Bullock, Capt. M.

De la Bère, R.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Harbord, A.

Butcher, H. W.

Denville, Alfred

Harvey, Sir G.

Butler, R. A.

Doland, G. F.

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

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Cortland, J, R. H.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Carver, Major W. H.

Duggan, H. J.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Cary, R. A.

Dunglass, Lord

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.

Hepworth, J.

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

Shakespeare, G. H.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Higgs, W. F.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Hopkinson, A.

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

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

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

Smithers, Sir W.

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

Moreing, A. C.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

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

Morgan, R. H.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hulbert, N. J.

Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Spens, W. P.

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

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

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

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

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

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Munro, P.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Keeling, E. H.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Patrick, C. M.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

Petherick, M.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Tate, Mavis C.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Pilkington, R.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

Leech, Sir J. W.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Touche, G. C.

Lees-Jones, J.

Radford, E. A.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Leigh, Sir J.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Turton, R. H.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L

Ramsbotham, H.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Lewis, O.

Ramsden, Sir E.

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

Liddall, W. S.

Rankin, Sir R.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Lipson, D. L.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Warrender, Sir V.

Lloyd, G. W.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Wells, S. R.

Loftus, P. C.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Lyons, A. M.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Ropner, Colonel L.

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

M'Connell, Sir J.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

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

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Rowlands, G.

Wise, A. R.

McKie, J. H.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Macnamara, Major J. R. J.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Magnay, T.

Salmon, Sir I.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Maitland, A.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Samuel, M. R. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—s

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

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Captain Hope and Captain Dugdale.

Markham, S. F.

Scott, Lord William

Marsden, Commander A.

Selley, H. R.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Gallacher, W.

McGovern, J.

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

Gardner, B. W.

MacLaren, A.

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

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Maclean, N.

Ammon, C. G.

Grenfell, D. R.

Mander, G. le M.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

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

Marshall, F.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Mathers, G.

Banfield, J. W.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Maxton, J.

Barnes, A. J.

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

Milner, Major J.

Batey, J.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Montague, F.

Bellenger, F. J.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Hardie, Agnes

Muff, G.

Benson, G.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Naylor, T. E.

Bevan, A.

Hayday, A.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Bromfield, W.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Owen, Major G.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Parker, J.

Buchanan, G.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Pearson, A.

Burke, W. A.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

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

Cape, T.

Hopkin, D.

Poole, C. C.

Cluse, W. S.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Price, M. P.

Cove, W. G.

John, W.

Pritt, D. N.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Kelly, W. T.

Ridley, G.

Daggar, G.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Ritson, J.

Dalton, H.

Kirby, B. V.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Lathan, G-

Rothschild, J. A. de

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lawson, J. J.

Seely, Sir H. M

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Leonard, W.

Sexton. T. M.

Day, H.

Leslie, J. R.

Shinwell, E.

Dobbie, W.

Logan, D. G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Lunn, W.

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

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

McEntee, V. La T.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwallty)

McGhee, H. G.

Sorensen, R. W.

1836

1837

Stephen, C.

Viant, S. P.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

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

Walkden, A. G.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Stokes, R. R.

Watkins, F. C.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

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

Watson, W. McL.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Thorne, W.

Westwood, J.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Thurtle, E.

White, H. Graham

Tinker, J. J.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Tomlinson, G.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Mr. Adamson and Mr. Groves

BILL PRESENTED.
  NAVAL DISCIPLINE (AMENDMENT) BILL,
  " to provide for subjecting to naval discipline certain persons who engage with the Admiralty to serve His Majesty in ships and agree to become subject to the Naval Discipline Act; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid," presented by Mr. Shakespeare; supported by Colonel Llewellin; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

HOUSING (RURAL COTTAGES PROTECTION).
Mrs. Tate: I beg to move,
" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the demolition of rural' cottages certified as reconditioned or subject to reconditioning, to amend the Housing Act, 1936, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
The House will remember that under the Housing Act, 1936, local authorities are given power to order the demolition of houses unfit for human habitation, and incapable, with the expenditure of a reasonable sum of money, of being rendered so fit. Alternatively, if a local authority considers that all the houses in a certain area are unfit because of their being, in the words of the Act, "dangerous and injurious to the health of the inhabitants," they may declare it a "Clearance Area" and order the demolition of every house within the area. That gave local authorities valuable power to demolish slum dwellings, and all of us, irrespective of party, hoped and believed that the Act laid sure foundations for better housing for our people and would thus bring a measure of health and happiness to them.
When we considered Part 11, which deals with clearance areas, we envisaged, I think, slum dwellings and houses in such condition and surroundings as to make them really unfit for human habitation. In the countryside to-day a considerable number of cottages, often owner-occupied —sometimes of considerable architectural merit, and frequently in beautiful and
1838
healthful surroundings, which, with the expenditure of a comparatively small amount of money could be rendered desirable homes—are being destroyed in order that local authorities may obtain a generous Government grant towards re-housing the inhabitants in houses much less well built, of no architectural merit, in surroundings the beauty of which they have for ever disfigured, at rents the tenants can ill afford. An Act for which the Ministry of Health is responsible is thus causing acute unhappiness, and, what appears to some of us, wanton destruction.
The Bill I ask leave to introduce this afternoon is designed to allow of a little longer time and rather more thought being taken before a decision is reached to abolish cottages in rural surroundings, and to ensure that simple people know, before an inquiry, why it is that their homes are condemned. It amends the first and third Schedules to the Housing Act, 1936, and provides that the Minister shall not confirm any order comprising any house which is situate in an area of rural character in England and Wales, and is suitable for occupation by agricultural workers or persons of a similar economic position, unless he is satisfied that the owner has been enabled to submit for approval a list of works of improvement which he is willing, at his own expense, to undertake. If the local authority approves of the submitted list of repairs, etc., it shall issue to the owner of the house a certificate that the house is fit for human habitation and will remain so for a period of at least five years, provided it receives reasonable care and maintenance. The repairs and alterations must be carried out within three months.
Under the present law, a local authority can serve a notice of demolition on the owner of any cottage within an area which they have previously defined as a Clearance Area. The owner has no opportunity of submitting any plans for repairs or alterations, nor is he permitted to carry them out. All he can do is to object to

1839
the order. It is true that if he objects, an inquiry must be held, but it is held by the Ministry of Health, and presided over by one of the Ministry's inspectors. In other words, you can appeal only to the body which is interested in destroying the cottage and is urging local authorities to get on with these clearance schemes. Again, under the demolition order procedure, it is true that the owner has the right to appeal to the county court, but he must exercise this right within three weeks, and many small owners are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of such a remedy.
Clause 2, paragraph 3, of my Bill provides that, if the local authority is not satisfied with the list of repairs submitted by the owner, it must submit it to an independent area tribunal. If this tribunal agrees with the owner that these repairs will render the house fit for human habitation, the local authority must then issue a certificate as previously described, and no action for demolition can be taken during the period covered by the certificate. At present, under the clearance schemes, people are robbed of their homes with no right of appeal, even to a court of law. In a large number of cases, owners of cottages have been required by local authorities to execute costly alterations and repairs to their homes, and shortly afterwards have been ordered to demolish the houses at their own expense.
The Bill has the support of many influential societies in the country, including the National Farmers' Union, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Federation of Women's Institutes, the
Tithe League, the Central Landowners' Association, and the Liberty Restoration League.
Mr. Tomlinson: I wish to oppose the Motion, for what I consider to be very good reasons. In the first place, if a Bill of this kind were accepted by the House I think it would undermine the Housing Act, the Slum Clearance Act and a great deal of what I consider to be really valuable work that has been done in the attempt to deal with this problem. In the second place I oppose the Motion because in my judgment the Bill seeks to set up for rural workers a standard of housing to which I have objected for quite a long time. It suggests that, because of their architectural value, houses may be suitable for rural workers to live in. On more than one occasion I have seen houses of this type, which the associations that the hon. Lady has mentioned as being favourable to this Bill have desired to keep in being because of their architectural and their economic value, but always with the object that it was the worker, and particularly the agricultural worker, who should be called upon to live in them. If this Bill is not challenged, and if by accident it should become an Act, it seems to me that we shall undermine an essential and necessary piece of work that was begun when the Slum Clearance Act was passed.
Question put,
" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the demolition of rural cottages certified as reconditioned or subject to reconditioning, to amend the Housing Act, 1936, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 116.

Division No. 227.]

AYES.

[4.10 p.m.

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

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

Crooke, Sir J. S.

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

Bullock, Capt. M.

Groom-Johnson, R. P.

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

Butcher, H. W.

Crowder, J. F. E.

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

Cartland, J. R. H.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Carver, Major W. H.

Davidson, Viscountess

Apsley, Lord

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

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Assheton, R.

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

Davison, Sir W. H.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

De la Bère, R.

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

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Channon, H.

Denville, Alfred

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Doland, G. F.

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

Christie, J. A.

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

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

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

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Beechman, N. A.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Beit, Sir A. L.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Duggan, H. J.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Eastwood, J. F.

Bossom, A. C.

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

Eckersley, P. T.

Boulton, W. W.

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

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Boyce, H. Leslie

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

Emery, J. F.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Lewis, O.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

Liddall, W. S.

Rowlands, G.

Everard, W. L.

Little, Sir E. Graham-

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Findlay, Sir E.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Loftus, P. C.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Furness, S. N.

Lyons, A. M.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Fyfe, D. P. M.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Salmon, Sir I.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Samuel, M. R. A.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Grant-Ferris, R.

McKie, J. H.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Sandys, E. D.

Grenfell, D. R

Macnamara, Major J. R. J.

Scott, Lord William

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Magnay, T.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Maitland, A.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. O. H.

Markham, S. F.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Hambro, A. V.

Marsden, Commander A.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Mathers, G

Smithers, Sir W.

Harbord, A.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Harvey, Sir G.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

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

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

Spens, W. P.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mills, Major J. D. (Now Forest)

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Morgan, R. H.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Hepworth, J.

Morris, O T. (Cardiff, E.)

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Higgs, W. F.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Munro, P.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Hopkinson, A.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Patrick, C. M.

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

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Touche, G. C.

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

Petherick, M.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Hulbert, N. J.

Pilkington, R.

Turton, R. H.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

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

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Procter, Major H. A.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Radford, E. A.

Warrender, Sir V.

Keeling, E. H.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Wells, S. R.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Ramsden, Sir E.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Rankin, Sir R.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

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

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Wise, A. R.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Withers, Sir J. J.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Lees-Jones, J.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Leigh, Sir J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Mrs. Tate and Commander Bower.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Gallacher, W.

MacLaren, A.

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

Gardner, B. W.

Maclean, N.

Adamson, W. M.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mander, G. le M.

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

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Marshall, F.

Ammon, C. G.

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

Maxton, J.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Milner, Major J.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Montague, F.

Banfield, J. W.

Groves, T. E.

Moreing, A. C.

Barnes, A. J.

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

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

Batey, J.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Muff, G.

Bellenger, F. J.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Naylor, T. E.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Hardie, Agnes

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Benson, G.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Owen, Major G.

Bevan, A.

Hayday, A.

Parker, J

Broad, F, A.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Pearson, A.

Bromfield, W.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Poole, C. C.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Price, M. P.

Buchanan, G.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Pritt, D. N.

Burke, W. A.

Hopkin, D.

Ridley, G.

Cape, T.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Ritson, J.

Cluse, W. S.

John, W.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Cove, W. G.

Kelly, W. T.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Daggar, G.

Kirby, B. V.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Dalton, H.

Lathan, G.

Sexton, T. M.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leonard, W.

Shinwell, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Leslie, J. R.

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

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Logan, D. G.

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

Day, H.

Lunn, W.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Dobbie, W.

McEntee, V. La T.

Stephen, C.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

McGhee, H. G.

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

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)

McGovern, J.

Stokes, R. R.

1842

1843

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

Watson, W. McL.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Thorne, W.

Westwood, J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Thurtle, E.

White, H. Graham

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Tinker. J. J.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Viant, S. P.

Wilkinson, Ellen

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Walkden, A. G.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. Ellis

Watkins, F. C.

Williams, T.

(Don Valley) Smith.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Tate, Mr. Guinness, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Turton, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Holds-worth, Mr. Alan Herbert, Mr. Bossom, Mr. Tree, Sir Arnold Wilson, Captain Sir Derrick Gunston, and Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.

HOUSING (RURAL COTTAGES PROTECTION) BILL,
" to restrict the demolition of rural cottages certified as reconditioned or subject to reconditioning, to amend the Housing Act, 1936, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL [LORDS].
Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, in respect of the Food and Drugs Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 125.]

PUBLIC MEETING ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order [22nd March] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Crewe Corporation Bill,
Radcliffe Farnworth and District Gas Bill,
Romford Gas Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
West Surrey Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the Shropshire Worcestershire and Stafford
1844
shire Electric Power Acts and Orders 1903 to 1933." [Shropshire Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power (Consolidation) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the City of Bristol to execute works and to acquire lands; to alter the limits of the Port and Harbour of Bristol and to constitute the Corporation a local lighthouse authority; to confer further powers upon the Corporation and to make further and better provision for the health local government improvement and finance of the City; to authorise the use of certain lands in the City as burial grounds; and for other purposes." [Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with regard to the health improvement and local government of the county of Middlesex, to confer further powers on the Council of that county and the local authorities therein; to make further provision with reference to the Middlesex Quarter Sessions, the superannuation of the officers and servants and the administration of the enactments relating to mental treatment and for other purposes." [Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords.]
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords],
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords],
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills.
Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday, 16th June, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 126.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIALL PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 23rd May.]
  [Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]
  Clause i.—(Increase of subsidies for air transport.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn:On a point of Order. When the Committee was considering this Clause last time, on behalf of my hon. Friends I asked the Government to produce a document, a report which they quoted, and the Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne) said he would give his considered judgment as to whether that report should be produced or not. As the matter is one of considerable Parliamentary interest, I should like to quote, if you will allow me, some of the precedents in support of the claim that that report should be produced. The report concerns the dismissal of the pilots, and is a report made by Government directors to the Secretary of State for Air. It is not necessary for me to say that I shall not deal in any way with the merits of the question, which is entirely irrelevant. The only two things which I have to show are, first, that there is such a report, and, secondly, that the Minister cited, or quoted from it, or used it in support of an argument and then, unless the Minister claims that it is not in the public interest that it should be produced, my claim is that, in accordance with immemorable Parliamentary usage, the report should be produced.
  First, as to the existence of the report. In the Debate on 29th October, the Minister stated that the Government had information and took an interest in this subject, then, after the setting up of the Cadman Committee and their report, on 11th May, the then Under-Secretary of State for Air said that the Government directors, as a result of their interview with the pilots in question, had expressed their opinion, and further he said:
  " We have agreed with the report of the Government Directors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1938; col. 1575, Vol. 335.]
  1866
  Then there were two Debates, on 23rd and 18th May. On the 23rd, the present Under-Secretary of State said quite clearly:
  " At the request of the Government, the Government Directors went into the question as to the reasons for the dismissal and the justification or otherwise for that dismissal. They interviewed five pilots, and I shall not prove to be wrong, because I saw the Government Directors' report myself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 23rd May, 1938; col. 970, Vol. 336.]
  I need not quote all the passages. I have already furnished them to you, Sir Dennis, in support of my argument. He further said:
  " I have seen the Government Directors' report to my right hon. Friend's predecessor."
  He says again, in the same column of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  " They reported to us that the dismissal was justified,"
  and so on. The actual contents of the report are not material. Further he said:
  " I have given the Committee the gist of what the Government Directors have told my right hon. Friend."
  He further said:
  " I have not quoted. I have not the document here,"
  and so on. The Deputy-Chairman said, when I appealed for his ruling:
  " I am unable to say whether the Under-Secretary has or has not quoted substantially from it but I am sure that if he has, he will conform to the ordinary Rules of the House."
  He says further on:
  " He ought to follow the ordinary Rules of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1938; cols. 971–72, Vol. 336.]
  Therefore, my claim is, in the first place, that I have established the fact that there is such a report and that substantial reference has been made to it. The words "citation" and "quotation" I will deal with afterwards. An argument has been founded upon the report and, therefore, in accordance with the very ancient practice in the High Court of Parliament, this report must be produced.
  It is a matter of interest to this House that evidence produced should be produced in full for the examination of this House, which is a court. I will, if the Committee be patient, ask leave to quote in detail the five precedents on which Sir Erskine May founds his rule. The first I will take was in the year 1808 when, on a Debate on the Copenhagen incident, Mr. Canning read from some document and

  1867
  was immediately challenged in the House. He yielded at once to the challenge, and the documents were in fact produced on the 26th of that month. Mr. Adam, who was a very distinguished Member of the House, one of the managers for the impeachment of Warren Hastings and an authority on Procedure, moved to censure Mr. Canning for not producing the document on demand, his argument being that Canning had brought forward evidence for the purpose of influencing the House. Mr. Adam quoted both Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt—he ought to have known about Mr. Fox because he nearly killed him in a duel —in support of his argument. Although Mr. Adam did not press his Resolution, Mr. Canning, in fact, produced the documents 14 days after the request had been made in the House.
  Then, in 1857, Sir Charles Wood cited a letter from Sir Michael Seymour relative to the bombardment of Canton. There are no actual words quoted in Hansard at all, but whether that is because Hansard in those days used the method of oblique oration or whether the words were not quoted I cannot say. Mr. Grosvenor immediately asked whether the letter had been produced. It was a private letter from Sir Michael Seymour, and Sir Charles Wood said that it was a private letter from Sir Michael Seymour to himself, that he would have no objection to reading the passage to which he had referred but he would not lay it before the House because it was a private letter; he would be prepared to show it to any person who might doubt its existence. Lord Palmerston said that if the Minister read in his place any document, whether public or private, he was bound to lay on the Table that which he had read. If he read a portion of a private letter or despatch he might justly be required to lay the whole on the Table. He goes on to say that he could not admit that a Minister, more than any other hon. Member, should be precluded from repeating to the House information which he had received in a private communication. Mr. Disraeli said it was a rule that a Paper used by a Minister in the House became a State Paper, even though it were a private letter, and that neither a public nor a private letter should be used if it could not be laid on the Table. That was a principle which had ever been accepted in the House of Commons.
  1868
  The third instance given by Sir Erskine May is the case of the Debate upon the Longford election, in 1862, Lord Robert Cecil—I think that was the late Marquess of Salisbury—demanded the production of documents upon which the Government had founded their case and Lord Palmerston said:
  " When a Minister of the Crown reads a document and founds upon it an argument or an assertion, that document, if called for, ought to be produced."
  Later, in 1893, Mr. Speaker Peel laid it down that if the Minister referred to public documents or despatches he should lay them before the House but that confidential documents or documents of a private nature passing between officers of a Department and the Department, were not necessarily laid on the Table, especially if the Minister declared that they were of a confidential nature. The last instance and the most recent cited by May is that of the year 1903 in the "ragging" case in the Guards when Mr. St. John Brodrick was Minister for War and made extensive references to the evidence of Colonel Kinloch. Mr. Bromley Davenport asked for production of the evidence, and Lord Hugh Cecil supported the request. Mr. Speaker Gully said:
  "A Minister if he quotes from a document may be called upon to lay the paper before the House, but that is subject to his statement that it would be contrary to the public interest so to do."
  Mr. Brodrick said:
  " I was not quoting from a document, I am most anxious to avoid laying papers."
  He proceeded to cite many reasons of Army discipline for not laying the papers before the House. On the following day, 12th March, Mr. Labouchere raised the question again and Mr. Brodrick laid the papers and they will be found in the Commons' Journals. Mr. Speaker said that unless the public interest were pleaded, the Minister was bound to lay the documents on the Table. Other authorities state clearly that reference to correspondence involves the laying of the whole correspondence before the House. In the present case there is no doubt that the document exists. The Minister may make three objections. He may say he did not quote the words. But in that case the precedent of Sir Charles Wood, and the ruling given by Mr. Speaker Peel and Mr. Brodrick's own plea make that invalid. Secondly, he may say that it

  1869
  is a private document, and certainly Mr. Speaker Peel spoke of documents passing between Departments and officers of those Departments, Lord Palmerston spoke of documents both "public and private" and Mr. Disraeli said that a paper used by a Minister became a State paper even though it were a private letter. Therefore, unless the Minister is prepared to say that the public interest will be damnified by the publication of this report, he ought to lay it on the Table.
  4.34 p.m.
  The Chairman: since the point was raised I have had an opportunity of considering the question very carefully with my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Chairman and of referring to the authorities and precedents and have also taken the advice of those officials of the House whose advice we seek on these occasions. The right hon. Gentleman's case is that this particular document ought to be laid upon the Table by reason of—and we need not quarrel over these words here— the reference made to it by the Under-Secretary. There are two questions of importance arising on any point of this kind. First, the extent of the rule which requires certain documents to be laid. In some of the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted it is quite clear that the documents were actually read or quoted verbatim. That, however, does not arise here. In this case there was no definite quotation or reading from the document. One must admit that there may be questions on which opinions may differ when there is substantial reference to or citation of a document without verbatim quotation and you come to a point where it is rather on the line, as to whether a document is within or without the rule. There are two comparatively recent precedents which, I think, are very important here as they are of a later date than some of those quoted. In 1905, I think it was Mr. Speaker Lowther, or it may have been Mr. Speaker Gully, who gave a ruling when Mr. Redmond demanded that papers that Mr. Long had quoted somewhat extensively should be laid on the Table. Mr. Long's case was that he had not quoted, but only given a summary. Mr. Speaker ruled:
  "A Minister is entitled to summarise correspondence, and if he does not actually quote from it he is not bound to produce."
  1870
  That, I admit, goes rather far. There is a definite ruling that summarising correspondence without actually quoting from it does not bind a Member to produce it.
  In 1913 some figures were quoted by the Home Secretary from a report made to him by an actuary, and it was asked that the whole report should be laid. Mr. Speaker Lowther having examined the report said that if he found that the Home Secretary had quoted from a document the publication of which would affect the argument, he would advise that the document be laid. But if what the Home Secretary read was not from a report but only a summary or a title or heading, then the report need not be laid. Basing my view mainly on these two precedents, and referring very carefully to the whole of the discussion when this point was raised, I have come to the conclusion that the reference or references made by the Under-Secretary to this report did not amount to more than, in the strongest and most special sense of the term, a summary of a certain part. It was a statement to the effect that the report supported him in two matters, namely, that the company were justified in dismissing the pilots, and, secondly, that there was no victimisation. Going beyond that it is very important to observe the emphatic statement made by Erskine May as to the exception to this rule which he gives in these words:
  " It is obvious that as the House deals only with public documents in its proceedings it could not thus incidentally require the production of papers which, if moved for separately, would be refused as beyond its jurisdiction."
  Also:
  " The rule cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda."
  Then there is reference made to the case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman where the Speaker declared the rule applied to public documents only, and again in 1893 when the Speaker ruled that confidential documents or those of a private nature passing between officers of a Department and that Department need not necessarily be laid on the Table, especially if the Minister decides they are of a confidential nature. In this case the document was a report by certain directors of a public company, placed on the board of the company by the Government, and the report was made by these Government-appointed directors to the Minister at his

  1871
  request. It is in my opinion quite obvious that a report in regard to the proceedings of a board of directors of a company by a minority of the board, representing a certain interest, to those on whose behalf they were appointed, must be treated as a private document, and in those circumstances I make no doubt whatever that on both grounds, namely, the extent of the reference to the document and the nature of the document, this document is one which the House cannot insist should be laid on the Table. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Deputy-Chairman agrees with me in this.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: On a point of Order. I wish, Sir Dennis, 'to raise one other point that arises out of your Ruling. The Committee would like your guidance on this matter as well. You said just now that a report to the Government made by two directors forming a minority of a board of a Government-subsidised company was naturally confidential, and as such would not be laid upon the Table even if it was referred to in the course of a Debate. What the Committee showed some anxiety about on the last occasion was the doctrine which was laid down by the Under-Secretary, namely, that in the case of a company subsidised by the Government of this country and having Government directors appointed to the board, the Government had no right to ask these directors to furnish, even confidentially, the reasons that caused the board to take any particular action.
  The Chairman: I do not think that is a point of Order. The hon. Member is raising the question of the powers of the Government in regard to certain persons appointed by them: that is not for the Chair to decide.
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: On a point of Order, Sir Dennis. Dealing with your Ruling, I would ask you for your guidance. I listened very carefully to your Ruling, particularly the part affecting the question of what could be termed a private document. If on any future occasion this House should take up a particular question such as the dismissal of people from a Government-subsidised company, and the Government promised this House to have an inquiry,
  1872
  and if two Government directors acted on behalf of the Government in accordance with that pledge to the House, would that report be considered a private document or one which could be laid before the House?
  The Chairman: That is a hypothetical question, and I think it is most undesirable that the Chair, having given an important Ruling should be asked to deal with hypothetical questions on an entirely different matter.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Benn: One of the three grounds of your Ruling, Sir Dennis, was that the document was confidential and we wish to know whether you can see your way to make that Ruling so narrow that it cannot possibly cover any other cases?
  The Chairman:Every case must depend on its own merits. I do not think I made this Ruling very wide. The main ground which I quoted in support of the view that this must, of necessity, be a private document, was that it was a report by these Government-appointed directors of a board to the Government who had appointed them. I may mention that in the course of the previous Debate the Under-Secretary of State himself referred to this as a private report to the Government.
  Mr. Tinker: May I put this question, through you Sir Dennis, to the Government? Seeing that you have ruled that it is beyond your jurisdiction to require this document to be laid, will the Government relieve the anxiety of hon. Members by themselves bringing forward this document?
  The Chairman: That is not a matter which can be raised as a point of Order. The hon. Member says he wants to make an appeal to the Government through me. Of course every appeal to the Government by hon. Members in the House is supposed to be made through the Chair, but that is a matter for debate or discussion and does not arise on this question of order.
  Mr. Tinker: I am not challenging your Ruling, Sir Dennis. I was, as I say, making an appeal to the Government.
  The Chairman: And I am merely keeping order in Debate and at the moment we are dealing with the question of order.
  Mr. Benn: Do I gather then, that unless the Government say that this is a private and confidential report your Ruling may be affected?
  The Chairman: No, certainly not. I have ruled that in my opinion, for the reasons which I have given, this is a document which need not be laid. If the Government choose to lay it that is entirely a matter for them and has nothing to do with me. I have given a Ruling about which I have no doubt whatever.
  Mr. Benn: Of course, I am not challenging your Ruling, which is accepted by the whole Committee. But you said that in your judgment this was a private document. In this further Ruling, I gather you state that it is a matter for the Government to say whether they will produce the document or not.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, mistaken. In the first place I was not aware that I had given a further Ruling. I did make an additional statement, namely, that the Under-Secretary had called this a private report.
  Mr. Benn: Everything you say, Sir Dennis, is a Ruling when questions are put to you in the Chair. What I meant to ask was, who decides whether this is a private document or not? Is it decided by you or should it be decided by the Government?
  The Chairman: Unfortunately, the Chair has to decide. It is true that in some cases the Chair might be influenced by some view taken by the Government as to whether or not a document is private.
  4.49 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am anxious to make a short statement on this matter, in view of the previous Debate at which, unfortunately, I was not present. I hope the Committee recognise that my absence on that occasion was due to the fact that I was engaged on important business of the Department elsewhere. Otherwise I would have been here to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary. As regards the observation of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), I feel it is quite obvious that if the special relationship between the Government and the Government directors, in all matters in which they are concerned, is to be
  1874
  fully and properly maintained, and if the directors are to deal as effectively as we should desire them to deal with the affairs of the company in which the Government is interested, and if they are to pay due regard to these matters in order that they may be of service to the Government— if all those objects are to be achieved, it is right that these matters should be treated as being of a confidential character. For that reason, apart from the question of order, I do not myself think that it can be regarded as desirable or in the interests of proper and effective relationships between the Government and the Government directors, that a confidential report of this nature should be made public.
  Mr. Benn rose—
  Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed a little further. I am speaking quite generally. I say I do not think it is desirable that documents of this character should be made public.
  Mr. Kelly: Why not, when they affect the lives of these men?
  Sir K. Wood: It was for that general reason that I took up the attitude which I did take up in regard to this matter.
  Mr. Benn: I could understand the right hon. Gentleman saying, "The Chair has ruled that I am not bound to produce this document and I am not going to do so," but I do not think he is entitled to shelter himself behind the Ruling of the Chair, or to argue that on account of your Ruling, Sir Dennis, he is somehow justified in withholding this document. Your Ruling is one to which we bow, but the Minister must not found his argument on that fact.
  The Chairman: May I try to ensure that there is no misapprehension? I called on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to continue the Debate and as far as the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) is concerned, I am afraid I do not see that there is a point of Order in it. A question was raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) which I ruled out as being inappropriate to a discussion on points of Order. I said that it was a question for the Government and I thought that the Secretary of State was dealing with that question.
  Mr. Benn: I do not wish to pursue this matter, but what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is doing is, not offering us any valid reasons for not producing the document, but suggesting that your Ruling, Sir Dennis, has exculpated him from the necessity of doing so, whereas your Ruling is based on the Rules of the House of Commons and has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the production or withholding of the document. You have merely declared that the Rules do not require the right hon. Gentleman to produce the document. Now we are dealing with the question of whether on the merits of the case it ought to be produced.
  The Chairman: Whatever may be the merits of the case the right hon. Gentleman has himself admitted that no one can go behind the Ruling of the Chair, and if it is the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is sheltering himself behind the Ruling which has been given the Secretary of State is quite entitled to do that. It seems now to be a question of whether the Secretary of State chooses, without transgressing the Rules of the House of Commons, to do something which he is not bound to do.
  Mr. Benn: Do we gather, Sir Dennis, that your Ruling is mandatory and that he cannot produce the document.
  The Chairman: No, I think I have made my Ruling clear. It is that the House cannot require production of the document.
  Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the Committee will now allow me to say a few words. I am not endeavouring to shelter myself behind any Ruling of the Chair. I am endeavouring to respond to requests that I should give the reasons why I do not propose to take the course which hon. Gentlemen opposite have appealed to me to take. It was for that reason and no other, that I made the observations which I made earlier and by which I stand. I suggest that if the Committee do me the honour to read my words to-morrow they will find that they are a reasonable statement of the position as I see it, in relation to matters of this kind generally. I have explained why I feel, apart from the Ruling of the Chair, that I must take a certain attitude on this matter, and I have no desire to enter into points of
  1876
  order or of controversy with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because I am not as fond of them as he is.
  I am satisfied that a full examination was made of the case of these men without prejudice and with a desire on the part of the Government directors that the matters raised on a previous occasion should be carefully reviewed. I wish at once to say, in view of certain statements which were made in the closing stages of the previous Debate as regards this investigation by the Government directors, that a representative of the Pilots' Association was present and appeared as a friend through the interviews with the officers. I understand he stated that all the points had been brought forward and that he did not desire to add anything or to bring forward any further matter. I also find that invitations were issued to seven pilots and that five pilots attended. Of the other two, one said he had nothing further to say and did not desire to attend. The other was in employment and said that if the possibility of reemployment arose, he would like to know of it at some future date when he had obtained more flying experience. My hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary has already informed the House of the result of the examination by the Government directors. They found that the termination of the agreements was justified and that the dismissals had no connection with the membership of the Air Line Pilots' Association. In two cases the Government directors made recommendations. They recommended that one of the officers should be considered for employment in the future in the joint service, suggested by the Cadman Committee, between London and Paris. In another case they recommended that the officer in question should be reinstated.
  Mr. Montague: Reinstated as what?
  Sir K. Wood: I am coming to that. He was to be reinstated in some capacity in relation to flying. My hon. and gallant Friend stated fully on the last occasion the difficulty of the directors of the board in the matter of re-employing him. In this connection I am glad to say that the company are now in a position to offer, and did in fact on last Friday offer this officer a vacancy on the technical manager's staff at a salary of £750 a year, with a special allowance for one year. The company offered him that post for a fixed

  1877
  period of three years, and I understand that they have expressed a hope in a letter to the officer that it will prove to be a permanent post. Coming to this matter quite fresh and having had no part in previous controversies, I hope it will be in the officer's interest to accept this post and resume his association with the company with which he was associated for so long. I can assure the Committee that so far as my examination and review are concerned I am satisfied—
  Mr. Mander: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to make a statement about Captain Rogers.
  Sir K. Wood: I am not able to take the matter further so far as that officer is concerned. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made a statement with respect to what the board were prepared to do as to the recommendation concerning that officer, and I can add nothing to that statement. I should like to assure the Committee that after my examination of the matter I am satisfied that the duty that was given to the Government directors was carried out sympathetically and with a desire to arrive at a just conclusion. I have no reason, from my review of the matter, to differ from their conclusion.
  There is another matter which was raised with regard to this company, and that was respecting the ballots which it was determined should be carried out in connection with the choice of the officers as to staff representation. It has been stated in this House that arrangements have been made for secret ballots by the captains and first officers of Imperial Airways. The captains will have the choice of voting either for representation by committees of captains chosen by the captains themselves, on lines similar to the existing captain's committees at Croydon, or representation by the British Air Lines Pilots' Association. The first officers will have the choice of voting either for representation by committees of first officers, chosen by themselves on lines similar to the existing captains' committees, or representation by the British Air Lines Pilots' Association. The ballot is secret, the envelopes will be opened by a member of a well-known firm of chartered accountants and the votes will be counted in the presence of representatives of the company and the British Air Lines Pilots' Association.
  Mr. Montague: Is the distinction which the Secretary of State mentioned the reason why the ballot papers for first officers and superior officers are of different colour?
  Sir K. Wood: I cannot say, but I will inquire. I understand that the Air Line Pilots' Association have been consulted in regard to the arrangements and have intimated that they are in agreement with the procedure proposed. I cannot answer the other matter off-hand, but I will make inquiries. The Committee may rest assured that the ballot is being properly held, and I do not think greater precautions could be taken for ensuring its secrecy and impartiality. I hope that, after these observations, the Committee will feel that so far as we are concerned we have taken all the steps open to us to deal with a difficult matter of this kind.
  The Chairman: Before the Debate proceeds further I think it is incumbent upon me to make one observation. When the Question was first put to the Committee, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill," I gave a Ruling to the effect that I thought a great deal of what the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) had said was out of order, and that the question of pilots could not be discussed at length. I pointed out that I had treated the hon. Member with some leniency and that in regard to what he had said I should permit a reply. I am afraid that my leniency had an effect which I scarcely foresaw, because it developed into a considerable Debate on this particular question. Owing to the delay which has taken place through the adjournment of the Debate, I have been obliged to consider my position, and in all the circumstances of the case I believe that I am right in thinking that it is the wish of hon. Members in all quarters of the House that this matter should be further discussed. I am, therefore, prepared to agree to a continuance of the Debate on the question of the pilots of Imperial Airways, but I would ask the Committee to put it down to my weakness on the previous occasion and not to treat it as a precedent. If they do that, I must ask the Committee to confine the Debate strictly to that particular subject so far as Imperial Airways is concerned, and not to allow the Debate to wander into a discussion of other affairs of Imperial Airways or of any other company.
  Mr. Mander: Would it not be in order to raise the whole question of whether it is right to grant a further sum of £1,500,000, in view of the experience that we have had and the fact that the Cadman Report has not been carried out?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member has referred to a matter which is much more the Question before the Committee than the question of these pilots. As to what will be in order, I think he had better wait and see.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Montague: I can speak again on the question of the Clause standing part only with the consent of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are in Committee."] I desire to follow up the question upon which the vote with respect to Progress was taken on the 23rd instant. The speech of the Secretary of State for Air does not put the Government in any better position than it occupied before. May I refer the Secretary of State to the fact that one of the reasons given by the Under-Secretary—and he said that he had the support of his chief—was that the publication of the report would be disadvantageous to the pilots themselves.
  Sir K. Wood: Who said that?
  Mr. Montague: The Under-Secretary.
  Sir K. Wood: I have not seen that statement. Will the hon. Member quote it?
  Mr. Montague: I must have time to look it up, but certainly the point was raised in discussion, and I think I shall be borne out by several hon. Members who are now present, that the publication of the report was not advisable on those grounds. In that case it is necessary to proceed further. I wonder why the Government are making this matter such a question of secrecy. Why cannot this report be given to the House of Commons? As the Secretary of State has said, the examination by the Government representatives on the board was conducted upon two questions, and the report was twofold—one to the effect that the dismissals were justified and the second to the effect that they had nothing whatever to do with victimisation, on account of the dismissed pilots being members of a new organisation of a trade union character. I wish to address myself to
  1880
  the second point, the question of victimisation.
  With regard to the statement made by the Secretary of State as to the offer of a position to one of the three principal pilots, and the promise of a post to another pilot in about a year's time, I must leave that for the consideration of the pilots themselves. It is not desirable to prejudice them if there is any opportunity for them to obtain the employment that they desire, but that does not alter the fact that there has been, in our opinion, a clear case of victimisation, which carries on, unfortunately, the traditions of Imperial Airways. This is not the first occasion on which much the same kind of tactics has been adopted. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention one previous instance. There was the case where the stewards and ground refreshment staff desired to form a union which would come under the banner of Mr. Bevin's union, the Transport Workers. What was done then was to offer certain of these stewards the opportunity of going somewhere else out of this country. Those tactics were adopted and the antagonism of Imperial Airways to the very idea of trade union organisation smashed that project.
  There is no doubt about the attitude of Imperial Airways on this question of trade union organisation. The Air Line Pilots' Association was formed on 27th June, 1937, and an interview was given to one of the pilots, an official, by the managing director, on the 19th July of that year. At that interview no question was raised about the conduct of any of the pilots. There was no mention of charges of lack of sympathy or continued resistance to authority. The only subject that was concerned with that interview was the reason why this organisation was formed, and a speech that was made by a pilot whose name I need not mention, but it is well known to the Secretary of State. He used these words:
  " I am asking all of you who are here tonight to tell everyone about the Association, and the feeling of the Association. We are not formed together to go on strike. In the first place, it looks nothing more than a trade union and it holds the powers of a trade union, but God forbid that we should ever have to use those powers. If we are ever forced to stop aeroplanes flying, it will not be our fault but the fault of the other side. All we want is proper wages for the work we do."
  That was the speech which was dealt with in the interview granted to that pilot.

  1881
  He was asked questions about it and also questions about the organisation. Imperial Airways have been obsessed with the idea of the possibility of strikes ever since 1924, when there was a strike of pilots, a strike which in our opinion was completely justified by the terrible wages and conditions which were then the rule. The Secretary of State knows that then the wages and hours were much worse than they are to-day. It is not so much a complaint about wages to-day, although there is considerable complaint in respect of hours. After that speech and the formation of the Association it was necessary to point out to the managing director at the interview that the reasons for the formation of the Association were discontent among junior captains, and particularly the Southampton grievance, which had to do with the lengthened probationary period of junior captains who, for the pay of first officers, had to do the duties of acting captains. That is a matter which such an organisation would be a proper authority to ventilate. At that time, whatever their idea may be now, Imperial Airways stood by the principle of individual consideration. They were opposed entirely to anything of the nature of trade unions, even to the Pilots' Association and the Guild of Air Pilots at that time. As a result, a number of questions were brought up, in connection with which the expressions I have quoted were used— that is to say, continued resistance to authority and lack of sympathy with the work of Imperial Airways.
  One of these questions was that of the licensing of an Avro 652, a machine which the pilots detested, at any rate for the kind of work they were called upon to do with it. The Avro 652 had to be put on the licences of 22 pilots in order that, when special charter work was called for, Imperial Airways should be able to have a rota of pilots with that machine on their licence. There was undoubtedly delay. Twenty-two captains were instructed, but quite a number of them did not carry out the flight and landing that was requested until July. They were all late, and one was later than this particular pilot. The excuse was, no doubt, that they were not too anxious about it, because of their feeling about this particular machine. I believe there had been a fatal accident in connection with it at Le Touquet. Their com-
  1882
  plaint was that the machine was not available at the times at which it was justifiable that they should be asked to put in this extra work. So there was another grievance, and a kind of grievance for which, right or wrong, they were entitled to consideration.
  It is a very curious fact that, on 8th October, this captain was told to get into touch with the underwriter and principal surveyor of an aviation insurance company. I have a copy of the letter, which I could quote, sent to him by Imperial Airways. When he went to see this person—a well-known man in aviation circles —he was given the draft of a letter to sign. It is one of the most remarkable documents that I can imagine, because it must be remembered that Imperial Airways were then stating that this and other pilots were in the wrong and opposed to the interests of the company. The letter is couched in language which, I suppose, was thought would be appropriate to the pilot. I will admit that at times he is a little rough-tongued, but that is ancient history, after all. The language in which it is couched reminds me of some of those comic papers that can never refer to a servant girl unless she has a sniff, or a labourer who does not tie up his ankles with string. I think the Committee will be interested in that, because the pilot was sent there to sign it.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): It was not written by Imperial Airways.
  Mr. Montague: No, but the letter instructing the pilot to go to this person was. This is the letter which was supposed to be written by the pilot:
  " Following my talk with you, I do feel that, after 57 years of flying as well as I know how for the company, it isn't fair that I should be treated like this. On the other hand, I don't want my case taken up either by the Guild or by the Association. If I'm right I'm right, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and their taking it up wouldn't alter the facts. I think the real trouble is that perhaps I have sometimes been too ready to argue the toss "—
  this is not the phrase of the pilot, but a phrase written for him to sign—
  " when I have been given an order about something which didn't fit in with my experience. I feel that, because I got a reputation for being a bit wild when I was younger, there has been a tendency to pick on me."
  It goes on to say that he would not fly for any other company, but, if he could

  1883
  get the money, he would give up flying and take a "pub." If that letter had been written by the pilot himself, one might have said that it was colloquial and in accordance with the way in which he would write a letter, but when a letter is concocted in that way and given him to sign after he had been told to go for the purpose, or for some other purpose, it is a pretty clear indication that there was an attempt to get the pilot in question to sign away his adherence to the Air Line Pilots' Association.
  There was another question—the question of a machine which was a very good one for its purpose. I refer to the DH 86 type of aircraft. The pilots asked for modifications before they agreed to fly the Swiss route with this machine, and they desired the company to take off the winter service. The aircraft was originally designed for use by Quantas, the Australian company, and was a machine suitable for that sub-tropical service. But the Budapest service involves, in one part at any rate, going over some low mountains which are snow-capped, and there was serious complaint about the lack of proper de-icing apparatus. It should be mentioned that the prototype aircraft was a DH 86, and that was modified in the DH 86A; but the modifications not only did not satisfy the pilots, but did not satisfy the Government. I myself put a supplementary question last Wednesday, in answer to which it was admitted that the Government are not prepared to allow Imperial Airways this winter to use the DH 86A for that service, so it seems to be pretty evident that the pilots were right in their objections.
  Early in 1937, Imperial Airways endeavoured to persuade their pilots—I make this assertion, frankly, at secondhand, but it is made in a way that convinces me, at any rate; I want, however, to be quite fair to the Secretary of State and everyone concerned—early in 1937, Imperial Airways endeavoured to persuade their pilots to overcome the Air Ministry's ruling that the DH 86 type should not fly at night, and certain captains were asked to attend the conference at the Air Ministry for that purpose. They certainly attended a conference upon that particular machine, and the suggestion is that they were advised by Imperial Airways to do their best to get the
  1884
  Government to reconsider their decision. Owing to the performance of the aircraft and the size of certain European aerodromes through which it would be necessary to take heavy loads, the senior pilots decided that they would not operate this type of aircraft unless certain modifications were carried out. These were promised by Major Mayo, but were not eventually carried out, and have not been carried out to date.
  It was asked whether it was the company's intention to operate the machines in the winter on the Budapest route, and the reply was in the affirmative, so immediately a meeting of the Imperial Airways Pilots' Council was called at Croydon, and it was decided to send a letter and a report to the company. At this point the company refused to accept a general report on DH 86A aircraft from the pilots, and offered to accept the report of a managing operator on the subject, which conflicted with their report. This is the kind of thing that was happening. The report stated that the aircraft was fundamentally unstable and unsuitably designed for the purpose, and that for that reason any amount of modification would not make it more stable. That report was the sort of report that was not wanted by Imperial Airways, but that is the statement which was definitely made. One or two other things were brought up with respect to the first pilot's conduct—the same pilot to whom the letter to which I have referred was given to sign. It is perfectly true that there have been one or two cases where there was some lack of discipline. He lost his temper with a passenger and his wife who, according to him, interfered with his management of the aeroplane on a flight. The Secretary of State seems to think that that is an admission—
  Sir K. Wood: No.
  Mr. Montague: That incident happened six years ago, and he has been an honoured and experienced pilot in the full confidence of Imperial Airways for years since then; and yet that question was raked up against him at the time they were considering his dismissal, and after the formation of the Air Line Pilots' Association. There is another case. He had to fly from Croydon to Cairo to deliver an aircraft. When he wanted to come back to resume his duties, he was

  1885
  told that there was no room in a flying boat for a week, and a steamer passage back to Croydon was denied him. But the official concerned at Cairo said to him that, as a senior captain, he might persuade one of the junior captains to take off petrol in order to accommodate himself. He declined to do that, and was then told that, if he did so, the official would be able to use in it future in order to get extra load on the machine. I would like to know whether Imperial Airways had that report, and whether they were told that that was the kind of thing that created insubordination on the part of this pilot, because he was so enraged by that suggestion that he took steamer and put in his bill to Imperial Airways. How far it went I do not know.
  There is another pilot who was dismissed for redundancy. This is what was written to him:
  " We very much regret to inform you that the reduction in the services that are being operated by Imperial Airways and its associated companies leaves the company with more navigating officers than it can usefully employ."
  This captain was engaged on the Budapest service. That very week, or within two weeks, at the outside, from that dismissal—I think it was the same week— two first officers of Imperial Airways, who had been serving on the same route, were promoted to navigating officers. It is perfectly true that the route was closed down because, owing to the decision of the Government, it had become an uneconomical route, but can the Committee imagine any ordinary firm dismissing for redundancy people of the character of these pilots, who have had the experience and possess the qualifications they do? Surely, redundancy could not have begun when it was necessary to promote other officers who had not the same experience and qualifications.
  There were a number of very serious reports by pilots, and these dissatisfactions on the part of the pilots of Imperial Airways were what led to the formation of the organisation in question. I must refer to some of them. In one case, at Karachi, which is a junction, a tail-plane was found to be unserviceable, and, in order that the east-bound service should operate, it was found necessary to wait for the west-bound aircraft to reach Karachi, when its tail was taken off and put on the other machine, That kind of
  1886
  thing continued every week for two months—taking the tail off and putting it on another machine. The pilots considered that that was not sound—it was a dangerous thing after all that this kind of hand-to-mouth business should go on. These are considerations that an organisation of this character has a right to put collectively to a body like Imperial Airways, which after all is in the nature of a public utility company. What was more serious is this: An operating manager was excluded from 17 clubs— I will not mention his name or even the district, for the reasons I have already mentioned—for drunkenness and actions like insulting women including the wives of pilots. He forced his way into the bedroom of one. That was a serious thing. This man continually wrote reports on the conduct of pilots who were opposed to to him. Those reports were accepted, and the pilots were not able to see them.
  Mr. Radford: Is he still in the employment of the company?
  Mr. Montague: I do not know, but I understand so. These reports were never shown to the pilots. Reports on the working conditions at Karachi show that the conditions are bad:
  " The men work in the airship hangar at Karachi, which in the summer becomes unbearably hot—it is of course of metal construction and ill-ventilated. The floor is bare earth, covered with dust•The dust fills the air, and the men soaked in perspiration and covered with dust are working under very uncomfortable conditions."
  I do not want to take up much time, or I could read it in full. [HON. MEMBERS "Go on."]
  "In the winter of 1936 the military authorities foreclosed on the building used as the engineers' mess. The divisional manager attempted to put the men under canvas on ground adjoining the aerodrome. A disgusting state of affairs in a country like India, and suitable only for native coolies."
  I do not know that I agree entirely with that expression, but that is what they said. These are continuing reports. They were not acted on; but those reports adverse to these pilots were accepted without any question, and the pilots were not allowed to see them. They demanded to see these adverse reports, and because of that demand, because they had no efficient machinery in the Guild of Air Pilots for that purpose, this other 'organisation was formed, and the question arose, of rights of collective bargaining

  1887
  and collective representation. Nine of these pilots—there are 10 altogether—are members of the association. I am referring, however, only to two or three of the pilots, because perhaps in respect of junior pilots the case may be less weak in regard to redundancy—I do not know; but the organisation rather concentrated on these cases. Right up to October of last year an important official of the company was saying, "If a trade union is coming in, I shall get out."
  Mr. Kelly: Who said that?
  Mr. Montague: A very high official of Imperial Airways. He is still there.
  Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member must give that name, surely.
  Mr. Montague: I am quite willing to.
  Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. It is extremely difficult, I submit, to have an intelligent Debate in which statements can be made and not checked. All sorts of fairy stories can be told unless we have names.
  The Chairman: I certainly cannot rule about that. It is not a point of Order. There are many unsatisfactory features in Debates in this House with which the Chair cannot deal.
  Mr. Montague: There is no question about this at all. I will mention the name. It is Major Bracken. He said, "If it is the last thing I do in civil aviation I will smash this organisation. Personal contact is the only way." And the pilots were advised by him to abandon the whole thing and allow the association to become moribund. The pilots were never given any opportunity by him of answering complaints made against them. The majority of the complaints were old complaints raked up. They never would have been raked up but for the formation of the association and the kind of thing said at the inaugural meeting. Copies of a circular were sent to all pilots by the solicitors of Imperial Airways. It said:
  " Our clients, Imperial Airways, Limited, have asked us to reply to your letter to them of the 13th July written on behalf of the British Air Line Pilots' Association. Our clients and we wish to be quite frank with you and to face the facts and issues from the outset. As is probably well known to you, it has frequently happened in other industrial spheres that a letter, written on behalf of a
  1888
  trade union in terms analogous to those contained in yours, has been answered by means of the bare statement that the company concerned prefers to deal direct with its employés. The common history of such cases is that the letter is followed by discussions between the members of the union, attempts at negotiation, calls for direct action by the wilder elements and finally a strike. When all have suffered the disastrous consequences of this final phase, calmer counsels prevail and the more reasonable men eventually discuss with the employer questions which could have been discussed at the outset. That course of events, if followed in British air transport, would endanger the success of air services which are of great importance to the British Empire."
  The pilots considered that letter, copies of which were sent to all navigation officers and first officers, was intended to be intimidating. It did not succeed. There is another letter to which I wish to refer. It is a most amazing production. It was sent to the three pilots with whom we are dealing by a newspaper reporter. I do not say that it was sent by Imperial Airways, but this gentleman's knowledge, like Sam Weller's knowledge of London, was "extensive and peculiar." He wrote:
  " The letter which Imperial Airways have sent to the Guild of Air Pilots, following the very friendly conversations which have taken place, is in my opinion a very generous and hopeful offer. If the hand of friendship is now grasped by the ALPA with the same spirit in which I believe it has been sent, all the difficulties which brought the ALPA into being can be dissolved. I am further of the opinion that as a result of these negotiations you three gentlemen will be able to look forward to resuming your appointments with Imperial Airways."
  Every one knows the gentleman in question. I may mention his name, Mr. Courtenay of the "Evening Standard." We know of his, not relationship but friendship, with Imperial Airways. He continues his letter:
  "Now that Imperial Airways have agreed not only to recognise the Guild as a medium for settling problems but also to recognising any special machinery which the Guild sets up for special problems, your road is clear. The Guild has pointed the way. It proposes to set up an Air Line Pilots' sub-committee. This is obviously intended as a direct and sincere effort to provide a bridge over which BALPA can pass into the Guild, there to function as this sub-committee. This subcommittee will obviously be the special conciliatory machinery which will deal with Imperial Airways and which will settle all the problems which your Association arose to deal with."
  In other words, a third person, a newspaper reporter, is obviously used in an

  1889
  attempt, by considerations of re-employment, to get the Association disbanded and made part of the Guild of Air Pilots.
  I think I have said enough to make it plain that there is good ground for considering that the second part of the report of the Government directors is not correct. They have either been lax in their duties or they have misjudged the whole position. Imperial Airways have been opposed from the start to trade union organisation and representation. They did their best to stop it. Only at the last did they consent to this ballot, which, after all, is an insult to the association, and there is complete evidence that the dismissal of those pilots was a clear case of victimisation. It is not the first example of that sort of thing, and it is certainly in accord with the way trade unionism has been fought by other companies which have not had Government subsidies and have not been responsible, through Government directors, to the British House of Commons. The fact that this company has had a Government subsidy and has been responsible, through Government directors, to the House of Commons only makes the matter worse.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: The hon. Member has given us a very interesting and typical account of a struggle of the kind that has gone on now for a century between the reactionary employer and his employés who wish to associate themselves with a trade union organisation. There is nothing new about it. It is the old, old story, though some of the methods adopted this time may be novel. It is quite intolerable that that kind of thing should be allowed to go on in an organisation which is very largely subsidised by Parliament. One is glad to know that Imperial Airways have been beaten. Pressure of public opinion, pressure from the House of Commons, and pressure from their employés themselves has made it quite clear to them that they cannot go on with the attitude they have taken up.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to publish the report presented to him by the Government directors. It would be a graceful and wise act. It seems to me that when you get the sort of relationship we have now between the House of Commons and a public concern you cannot have them taking up the high line of, "It has nothing to do with you:
  1890
  we resent criticism; we cannot tell you what goes on inside our organisation." If the House of Commons wants information as to what goes on inside Imperial Airways, within limits of course, that information ought to be placed before it; and if it is not possible for that sort of thing to be done there is something wrong in the attitude of the company towards their subsidisers.
  I too have read very carefully the evidence which my hon. Friend has just referred to, and I have heard with some surprise of the conclusion that the Government directors have reached. Probably I have not heard the whole case, but I have heard enough of it to make me think that at any rate there has been a very remarkable coincidence. If it has nothing to do with the Air Line Pilots' Association, it is one of those coincidences that one really cannot believe. It is too good to be true. My general feeling is that there certainly was-victimisation, but at the same time, I do not feel disposed to go any further into the matter. The hon. Member has dealt with it very fully and stated exactly what occurred. I only hope that now something will be done to see that these pilots, whatever the facts may be, whether there was or was not victimisation, are given re-employment. They are gallant fellows. They have rendered great services to their companies and to this country. They have a very fine record. There are really only two of them left, the others are not requiring employment.
  I know that as an act of good will one of the companies associated with this concern will, sooner or later, give them a chance of going back again to work. The offer has been made to one of the pilots of a ground job, and although it is for three years, I presume that it may go on perhaps permanently, though at a very much lower salary than the pilot has been getting in the past. I imagine that he has been getting nearly twice that amount or something very considerably in excess of it, and there was the advantage that it was presumably more or less a permanent job.
  From all that I have heard, the ballot which is taking place just now is being conducted on fair and reasonable lines. Whether it really was necessary for it to take place or not does not matter very much, and it will soon be over. The idea of having a representative of the

  1891
  association present at the count is a very wise one. A certain amount of suspicion has been created by the use of two different coloured papers for the captains and the first officers. It may be that there is nothing in it at all, but it certainly has created a certain amount of suspicion, and many of these persons concerned wonder whether it is an attempt —it may be quite wrong—to see how many men in the different grades are with them or against them.
  There are other points on the broader issue to which I should like to refer in connection with this Measure. I want to put this specific question to the right hon. Gentleman—and I am sure that it must concern many other aerodromes in this country—What is the position of an aerodrome like that at Wolverhampton, which is to be opened on the 25th June, with regard to obtaining an air service running regularly? It is not on a main line; it will probably be a subsidiary line. What should the authorities do? With whom should they get into touch at the Air Ministry or elsewhere in order that they may take whatever steps are necessary to secure the regular running of a line? Perhaps that information can be given at a later stage?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member knows much more about this subject, no doubt, than I do, but I do not see what this has to do with the Clause we are debating.
  Mr. Mander: Out of this increased subsidy of £1,500,000, the sum of £100,000 is to be given to internal air services and no doubt part of this money could be used for running a subsidiary service to Wolverhampton.
  The Chairman: I am not sure that some of these matters which are being dealt with are not too remote. It is true, no doubt, that you can find some connection if you go far enough between aircraft subsidies and the running of trains on any of the big lines, but we cannot discuss such matters.
  Mr. Mander: I will not refer to the matter further, and perhaps a short reply can be given to it. I stress very strongly the point that the House of Commons ought not to be satisfied to pass this Measure until we get much more information from the Government as to what
  1892
  they are going to do to implement the Cadman Report than we have had up to the present. The Bill arises out of the Cadman Report, and depends upon it. The mere providing of extra money will do practically nothing unless other important recommendations are carried out at the same time. We really must ask the Minister to give the House information on a number of points. There still exists—and there is no doubt about it —profound dissatisfaction with, and lack of confidence in, the civil aviation side of the Air Ministry. There are large numbers of people intimately associated with it who do not believe that it is ever going to prosper as long as there is the present organisation there, and they believe that fundamental changes are necessary. It is as well that they should be clearly stated, because I am sure that this is a view which is very widely held.
  There are grave doubts as to the ability of the Air Ministry, as at present constituted, to carry out these additional duties, and whether Imperial Airways or British Airways in their present state are capable of carrying out the duties that are delegated to them. We ought to have information as to the type of men who are to be Government directors in future. It certainly ought not to be a job for ex-Cabinet Ministers. I hope that, as these repeated changes are taking place all the time, ex-Ministers will not simply leave that Bench and go to Imperial Airways or British Airways. What is happening about the appointment of permanent chairmen of Imperial Airways and British Airways, and additional permanent directors on these companies, which is also recommended in the Cadman Report? We have been asking about it week after week and cannot get any information. It is absolutely fundamental. Until we get the right men in that position working full time, the expenditure of this money will not be justified.
  Another recommendation of the Cadman Report is with regard to the position of the managing director of Imperial Airways. That again is fundamental. What has been done about that? Is there to be a change there. I ask specifically for a statement on that point. Is there to be any change in the position of the Director-General of Civil Aviation, and in the Director of Operational Services and Intelligence at the Air Ministry, because that is an important matter. With

  1893
  regard to the European services, I understand that a new Clause is to be called later on, and I wonder whether the remarks that I am contemplating making here would perhaps come rather more relevantly in connection with the new Clause, which, I understand, is to be called.
  The Chairman: I do not know what remarks the hon. Member wishes to make, but I am in some doubt about his recent remarks. I ought to remind him of the observations which I made at the beginning of this Debate, that the Debate on the question of pilots was something outside the ordinary rules, and I cannot permit the discussion of this Clause to develop into a discussion of domestic affairs generally of Imperial Airways or of any other company. The new Clause to which the hon. Member referred is to be called, according to my present intentions.
  Mr. Mander: Perhaps I had better continue my remarks, and, I think, Sir Dennis, you will find them in order, because they will affect entirely the question of how the extra £1,500,000 is to be spent and the particular companies to which it is to be allocated. I wish to draw attention to the capabilities of Imperial and British Airways and certain other companies. There are several other companies who ought to have the right of taking a part of this subsidy which is proposed. If they are not to be given an opportunity, I do not think that we shall be justified in voting this sum. It is all part and parcel of the same scheme. I cannot think that it is right or wise, as the Government are proposing, to hand over the whole of this subsidy for European services to British Airways. They cannot do it. They have not the personnel and experience, and certainly the new services to Vienna, Switzerland, Helsingfors and Berlin, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred the other day, will not be carried out rapidly at all if entrusted to British Airways. The Cad-man Report, in paragraph 36, says:
  " We feel that, if our national prestige is to be maintained, our external air services must be concentrated in a small number of well-founded and substantial organisations, rather than dissipated among a large number of competing companies of indifferent stability."
  The Chairman: I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the Bill, and
  1894
  not merely to the Clause. He is going far beyond anything which could be in order in any way on this particular Bill, which is limited simply to increasing the actual amount of the subsidy under an Act already in existence—the Air Navigation Act, 1936.
  Mr. Benn: This Bill is to increase the subsidy by £1,500,000 under the Air Navigation Act, 1936. The Air Navigation Act, 1936, is the Act under which the agreement is made, but, unfortunately, it is of such a character that it never comes up for discussion in the House. It is put down at all hours, and unless the House moves a negative Resolution it becomes operative. Therefore, possibly the matter might be met if the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking that the matter should be discussed when there is an agreement. These matters must be discussed somewhere.
  The Chairman: I am afraid that it is hardly my business to help the right hon. Gentleman out of his difficulties at the moment. What he says is perfectly true. These questions of agreements are of agreements to be made under the provisions of, and so come under, the Act of 1936, and, as I pointed out, the powers to make these agreements do not come under this Bill.
  Mr. Boothby: Is it out of order now to suggest that some part of this money might be devoted by the Government to other companies in addition to Imperial Airways?
  The Chairman: I deprecate very much being asked a number of questions as to whether something or other will be in order, and I think that in endeavouring to answer these questions it only creates difficulties. I must deal with these questions as the Debate proceeds.
  Sir Stafford Cripps: Clause 1 which we are discussing says:
  " All agreements made in pursuance of Section 1."
  Is it not right to say that that refers to future agreements, because the past agreements have already had the approval of this House, and the moneys allocated to those past agreements have been dealt with? We are now debating the question whether a further sum shall be given, and

  1895
  it will be necessary to have further agreements in order to deal with the allocation of the sums under Section 1 of the Air Navigation Act, 1936. These do not come before the House at all except in the form of being laid on the Table, and unless there is a Resolution annulling them they continue to be in operation. They are in operation before they are laid in this House; they come into operation without being laid on the Table at all. This is a Clause authorising the making of new agreements by the Secretary of State with Imperial Airways for the expenditure of this extra money, and this is the only opportunity before the agreement is laid that this House has of discussing any of the matters which may be dealt with in the agreement. As this is the only Parliamentary opportunity, I submit that we should now be allowed to discuss the contents, probable or desirable, of the agreement.
  The Chairman: I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Member at all. The words in the Clause are:
  " agreements made in pursuance of Section 1 of the Air Navigation Act, 1936."
  It is not an agreement made under this Bill.
  Sir S. Cripps: Those agreements have already been made, and this Bill is authorising further payments. As regards these further payments new agreements must be made.
  The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member but I must adhere to my Ruling that agreements, whether they are past or future, are not agreements which will be made under the Bill when it becomes an Act; they are agreements made under an Act already in existence. I would draw the attention of the hon. and learned Member to the Title of the Bill.
  Sir S. Cripps: I quite agree that the technical machinery for making agreements is laid down in the Air Navigation Act, but it does not authorise the making of future agreements which will have to be made as a result of this Bill. This is a Bill which enables new agreements to be made, because it gives the Secretary of State further moneys, and an agreement will and must be made as a result of this Bill. It will and must be
  1896
  made before it is placed on the Table of the House, and the House will never have another opportunity of discussing the terms of that agreement.
  The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member has put that point to me already and I have already pointed out that the fact that the House may not have some other opportunity has nothing to do with the present case. My business now is to keep the Debate within the Rules of Order in regard to the particular matter which is before the Committee. We are now discussing Clause 1 of a Bill which merely extends the amount of money which may be given under an Act already in existence, enabling the Government to grant certain subsidies.
  Sir S. Cripps: Am I to understand, Sir Dennis, that you are differentiating between extending and the giving of new powers because although it may be called extending if there is £1,500,000 more money, it is, nevertheless, new money, and how this new money is to be expended is not in the least laid down by the Air Navigation Act, 1936, nor could it have been because Parliament had not then in contemplation the expenditure of this money? What we are dealing with now is giving the Government power to spend £1,500,000, and we are going to utilise the machinery of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, for making the arrangements. I submit that this is the only opportunity we have of discussing how this money shall be spent. We are anxious to discuss how we shall dispose of the £1,500,000 which we are now authorising the Government to expend, and I submit that it must be right for us to discuss how the money may be spent by the Government.
  The Chairman: I must still adhere to my original Ruling. The hon. and learned Member knows that there are many cases where Bills are brought in dealing with existing legislative powers by extensions of times or of amounts and so on, upon which the limits of debate are very narrow, but there is no provision in this Bill as to how agreements are to be made or as to the machinery under which the money is to be spent.
  Mr. Benn: I submit that there is a great difference between a Bill to extend existing powers and a Bill to grant new money. The granting of new money is

  1897
  for the purpose of making new contracts. It may be argued that a Bill to extend existing powers cannot be discussed, but in this particular case this is a new grant of money of £1,500,000.
  The Chairman: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will not alter my opinion. This is not in a Parliamentary sense a new grant of money but an addition of an amount to an existing power to spend a limited amount of money, and that is much more to the point.
  Sir S. Cripps: I am sorry to continue but this is so important from the point of Parliamentary procedure that I venture to make one more observation. The existing contracts have been made and Parliament has passed a grant under them. Unless some new Bill is passed, such as the one now before us, there is nothing wherewith the Secretary of State can make any fresh contracts at all. He has no power to do it; he has no money to do it. Therefore, the passing of this Bill is not extending his powers with regard to past contracts made under the Air Navigation Act of 1936. I respectfully agree that if the Bill said that Imperial Airways, under the existing contract of 1936, were to get £1,250,000 instead of the present amount, that would be a mere extension under a contract already passed by Parliament, and that we could not perhaps discuss the terms.
  The Chairman: Under this Clause there is no power given to the Government to make any agreement or any regulations as to how they should do it.
  Sir S. Cripps: The regulations as to how they shall make an agreement are under the Air Navigation Act of 1936.
  The Chairman: Which is why the subject is wholly outside this Bill.
  Sir S. Cripps: I am not suggesting that the Air Navigation Act of 1936 does not lay down the rules as to how agreement may be entered into by agreement, but it does not legalise the actual agreement. The actual agreements were made afterwards, and had to be laid on the Table of the House and if they were not annulled they remained operative. These agreements are passed and done with so far as this Bill is concerned. This Bill is giving the Minister fresh powers to enter into fresh agreements, using the code
  1898
  which he used to enter into agreements under the Act of 1936, thereby giving him power to do something which he could not do before. Let me take an analogy. The Land Clauses Act regulates the whole of the machinery of the acquisition of land, but many Acts are brought before this House which incorporate the Land Clauses Act and give specific powers to buy specific portions of land. One does not discuss the whole of the Land Clauses Act, that is the machinery, but one does discuss the merits of purchasing any particular land, because that is what the particular Measure deals with. I am suggesting that, although we cannot discuss the merits of the code of the Air Navigation Act, under which the Minister enters into agreements, we can discuss the merits of this particular extension and the sort of agreements he is going to enter into. While we cannot discuss the code of the Act of 1936 any more than we can discuss the Land Clauses Act, yet the specific question as to what is to be done with the money to be granted I suggest ought to be a matter for discussion.
  The Chairman: I do not question what the hon. and learned Member says, but the Minister has no power to make agreements under this Bill. I have asked the hon. and learned Member to show me where he is given such power in this Clause.
  Sir S. Cripps: I am sorry; it is my mistake. The Minister cannot make these agreements without the money. He must have two powers to make agreements. He must have the machinery which is in the Act of 1936, and he must have this Bill which gives him a grant of money. With these two he can enter into agreements; but he cannot enter into any agreement without having both.
  The Chairman: I must adhere to the Ruling I have given that the powers conferred by the Air Navigation Act of 1936 cannot be discussed on this Clause. This Clause must be discussed on the comparatively narrow basis that it is a proposal to increase the amount which may be used by the Government under an existing Act, with this exception that the question of Imperial Airways pilots has been permitted to be discussed. I must ask hon. Members to accept my quite definite Ruling that the question as to

  1899
  how agreements are to be made under the Act of 1936 cannot be discussed on this Clause.
  Mr. Benn: This House has always claimed the right to say what is going to be done with the money it grants. I contend that this is a new grant of money for new contracts.
  The Chairman: While the House has the right to say what shall be done with the money it votes it does not follow that it can be discussed on this Clause. That is a matter to be dealt with on Vote of Supply.
  Mr. Mander: May I now say a few words again? I was endeavouring to find out how the Government intended to spend this £1,500,000. I gather that that is a point which one cannot go deeply into, and you, Sir Dennis, have been good enough to remind me that I was asking a number of questions about the organisation of the Air Ministry. I was proposing to continue on that line and to ask this specific point, whether they proposed to spend the whole of this money on British Airways or whether part of it was going to be spent through other existing companies. I was going to give reasons why the latter course is the better of the two.
  6.15 p.m.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is giving me an opportunity of trying once more to explain my views to the Committee. There are certain questions which may legitimately be asked, but the arguments in favour of one answer or another to those questions are not matters which can properly be debated on this Clause. The asking of the questions and the replying to them, indeed, is perhaps a matter of convenience to the Committee rather than something which is strictly within the Rules of Order of Debate. There is a number of these matters on which the Chair usually allows questions to be asked, but I certainly could not allow the questions or the answers to them to be debated.
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. I want to say one or two things—
  The Chairman: I would rather that the hon. Member waited until he was called and then said what he wants to say.
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order—
  The Chairman: As far as I am aware, there is no point of Order arising at the moment.
  Mr. Bevan: I was about to raise one. Is it not proper for the Committee to argue that Imperial Airways are undesirable recipients of this money and that therefore they ought not to receive it?
  The Chairman: Again the hon. Member is endeavouring to put a hypothetical question. If he had been here through the whole of the discussion, I think he would realise the answer to that question.
  Mr. Bevan: I have been here, Sir.
  The Chairman: Then I am afraid the hon. Member possibly did not listen to some of it as carefully as I did.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: In view of your Ruling, Sir, I shall confine myself to putting some questions to the Minister with regard to the way in which the money is to be spent. In the first place, is it proposed that the whole of the money shall be spent through British Airways, apart from that which is handed over to Imperial Airways, or is any portion of it to be allocated to certain existing firms, such as Allied Airways and North Eastern Airways, the first of which is running a service from Newcastle to Norway and the second of which is in a good position to run a service from England to Switzerland, and possibly other places? There is nothing inconsistent with that proposal in the report of the Cadman Committee. I consider that it would be much more effective to make use of existing lines which have had experience, and I believe that we should get ahead much more quickly in that way and that perhaps, in a few years' time, it would be possible to amalgamate all those services into one great company. I suggest that it would be far more effective to make use of existing companies which have proved their capacity. Finally, I believe that fundamental changes in the Air Ministry are necessary in order to get rid of the feeling that unless a company has a friend there, unless it is well in with the people in control of the Civil Aviation side, it will not be able to get any contracts. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give satisfactory replies to the points which I have raised, because unless he can give them, I do not want to vote this money.
  The Chairman: I ought to warn the Committee that I could not allow the Secretary of State to reply in detail to questions about the arrangements in the Air Ministry.
  Mr. Mander: I want only a short reply.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I wish to back up the remarkable speech that was made by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). Before that, however, I would like to make a suggestion with regard to the granting of this extra £1,500,000. I believe that internally between 20 and 30 companies will be eligible for this subsidy and externally, British Airways and Imperial Airways, which are now getting it, and at least five other companies all of which are running services from this country to foreign parts, namely, Allied Airways, Olley Air Services, International Air Freight, North Eastern Airways, and Wrightways. It seems to me to be obvious that once this Bill has been passed there will be a scramble to get the lion's share of the subsidy, and my right hon. Friend will find himself in a very difficult position. I wonder whether it would not be possible to set up some authority, impartial and independent of the House, on the lines of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, which would advise the Government, to which the air lines could apply for the subsidy, and which could parcel out the subsidy as it thought fit. Such an organisation is already in being. I refer to the licensing authority which the House created a few weeks ago, and which is responsible for licensing all internal air lines. Surely, that authority could be made responsible for deciding to which companies the subsidy should go and how much should go to them.
  The Chairman: It is difficult for me to stop the hon. Member before I know what he is going to say, but I must warn him that his argument is going beyond the Clause. This is a matter which could, perhaps, have been raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, but it does not arise now.
  Mr. Perkins: I will not pursue the matter any further, but will see my right hon. Friend outside and discuss it with him. The hon. Member for West Islington made some very serious charges against Imperial Airways. To the best
  1902
  of my belief and knowledge, those charges were not exaggerated by as much as one comma; they are absolutely true; and if the Secretary of State would like to have more information on the subject and would like to prove those charges, if he will refer to the evidence given before the Cadman Committee by the pilots' organisation, he will find that the charges were borne out by facts. If it is not possible for him to obtain that evidence, I have a copy, and I shall be delighted to supply him with it. I would like to remind the Committee of some of the grievances of the pilots which led to the formation of the British Air Line Pilots' Association. The suggestion has been made that some of these men were old grumblers who were always full of grievances against the company. That may be true. I do not know the past history of these men; they may have been real old grumblers in the past; but when hon. Members consider the grievances which the pilots put forward through me last October, I am sure they will realise that the pilots were absolutely justified in forming that association and in bringing their grievances to the notice of the House.
  First of all, they complained about the aeroplane D.H. 86.A. They said that in their view was not suitable for a service to Budapest. I am glad to say that their opinion was recently substantiated by the Secretary of State, or by the Under-Secretary, in answer to a question last week when it was announced that the Government did not propose to subsidise Imperial Airways on this route because they did not consider that the aeroplane D.H. 86.A was a suitable machine for the route. The pilots then complained that their insurances were not adequate, and I am glad to say that since they complained last October, as far as the first officers are concerned, the insurances have been doubled. Therefore, they were right in that respect. They complained about the long hours of flying. In America there is a law which prevents a pilot from flying more than So hours a month. I believe that in this country the limit fixed by the Air Ministry is 125 hours a month. I can give the case of a pilot who flew as much as 170 hours a month. I can give the cases of six men, five of whom were captains and one of whom was a chief officer, who on several occasions flew over 24 hours continuously, stopping only for food and fuel, without

  1903
  any sleep. I am glad to say that since complaints were made in the House last October, that has been stopped, and the pilots are no longer being subjected to that rather unfair work.
  They complained that there were no means by which disputes could be settled. There was a gentleman called the air superintendent who always tucked himself away, and was, in fact, quite inaccessible to the pilots. To a large extent, but not entirely, that has now been settled and captains' committees have been formed at Croydon and Hythe. They complained about the salary cuts suffered by the pilots, at a time when the dividend was increased and the directors' fees were more or less doubled. They complained about the equipment. They believed that the equipment with which they were asked to fly was inferior to the equipment provided by the Dutch and Germans for their pilots. I am glad to say that since last October the Lorenz system has been fitted on the machines on the London-Paris route. Certainly, we are getting on. Lastly there was a complaint, to which the hon. Member for West Islington has referred, about a certain very highly-placed officer in this company who did not hesitate to insult the wives of the pilots and who, in fact, did not hesitate to pay a nocturnal visit. What seems to me to be important about all these grievances is not so much that they exist, and have been going on for some time, as the fact that they have been reported to the board and that the board have done nothing about them. Either the board knew these things were going on, or they did not know; if they did not know, they were misinformed by the managing director; if they knew, they condoned them. They cannot have it both ways.
  Reverting to the point I was trying to make, these pilots had legitimate grievances when the British Air Line Pilots' Association was formed this time last year. That association arose spontaneously. There was no outside pressure of any kind from the Trade Unions Congress or from any other organisation. These men banded themselves together simply to protect themselves against the company. At the very beginning, the three organisers or ringleaders of the new association were promptly dismissed. My right hon.
  1904
  Friend says that he is quite satisfied that it is not a case of victimisation. I think that possibly in one case he is right, but I suggest to him that in two cases I am right, and I may say that I am borne out by the opinion of the Government directors, who have recommended that in effect these two men should be reinstated. But that is past history, it is a very unhappy chapter; and I think the time has come for us to forget the past and to see what we can do to get these three men who were dismissed back to work.
  I do not know whether I shall be within the Rules of Order if I mention these men by name, but I should like to do so because I want to have them on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT. First of all, there was the case of Mr. Lane-Burslem. He was chairman of the British Air Line Pilots' Association. He was dismissed. I am glad to say that he has obtained a position now, and that at the moment he is a test pilot in the De Havilland Aircraft Company. As far as I know, in no circumstances whatever would he go back to Imperial Airways, even if they were to offer him a job. There is then the case of Captain Wilson. The Secretary of State has announced that the company have made an offer to him. I knew of that offer last night, and after I had considered it, I advised him to take it. I do not know whether he will or not, for that is his responsibility, but I have advised him to do so. I would like to thank the Secretary of State, his Department and the Under-Secretary for the very hard work which I know they put in to persuade Imperial Airways to make that offer.
  I come to the third case, that of Captain Rogers. I understand the Government directors recommended that a certain person should be given the opportunity of re-employment in the new London to Paris company when it was formed. I do not know, but I imagine that that person is Captain Rogers. I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he is Captain Rogers, and whether he can give an assurance to the Committee that he will do everything in his power to get Captain Rogers employed when that company is formed. I will go further. Suppose that company is not formed for a year, will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to see that Captain Rogers obtains employment in some flying company in some part of the world? I will

  1905
  make one other observation on the subject of Imperial Airways.
  The suspicion has crept into my mind during the last three months that this company are a law unto themselves. I have a suspicion that they are snapping their fingers at the Government and at this House. It is of some importance to remember that in the Cadman Report this company have been convicted of failing to co-operate with the Air Ministry, of being intolerant of suggestion, and of being unyielding in negotiation; and that their attitude towards their staff left much to be desired. The managing director has been convicted of taking too commercial a view of his responsibilities and of failing to co-operate with the Air Ministry. That has been the attitude of the company in the past. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether that attitude is now changed, and whether, when he now negotiates with this company, he finds them tolerant of suggestion and yielding in negotiation.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I think that the hon. Member was here when the Chairman gave a Ruling as to the scope of the discussion on this Clause. Specific exemption was made in the case of the pilots, but the hon. Member is now going beyond that.
  Mr. Perkins: I only want to express the hope that if my right hon. Friend finds difficulty in dealing with the company in the future he will tell the House so that the House can deal with them.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mr. Muff: I am glad that we have the opportunity of discussing Clause 1 in which His Majesty's Government are scattering largess to the additional sum of £1,500,000 without inquiring too closely where the money is going, because I understand that, so far as this honourable House is concerned, we have to close our eyes and shut our mouths and leave a beneficent Air Minister to deal with this sum. In the 1936 Act the House authorised the Air Minister to encourage municipal aerodromes in various parts of the country, and the Government, with very little cost to the Exchequer—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that in no circumstances will municipal aerodromes arise under this Clause.
  Mr. Muff: I am glad that His Majesty's Government are spending £1,500,000 in
  1906
  order, at any rate, to see that there shall be safe landing of aeroplanes which might fly under civil auspices in this country. I am glad to think that these aeroplanes, when they fly in the empyrean blue will be able to land safely without sacrifice of life and limb. I have no fear that the Government will waste this money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I observe that there are some disciples of the Apostle St. Thomas on this side of the Committee. I want to ask the new Minister and his very efficient Under-Secretary to endeavour to see that this money is not wasted. With regard to the safe landing of aeroplanes in certain of the aerodromes round the country, there is one aerodrome in particular which is patronised by the Dutch company, that is, the aerodrome situated in the East Riding of Yorkshire somewhere near the great city of Kingston-upon-Hull. This Dutch company, which is a highly efficient concern, has abandoned its flying and this aerodrome which was encouraged by a former Minister—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now returning to the point which I informed him was out of order.
  Mr. Muff: Imperial Airways has been mentioned in the Debate. Mention has also been made of British Airways, a company in which the Under-Secretary used to be interested. I do not know whether he is still interested in it.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Muff: These companies and the Dutch company find it highly dangerous to land anywhere because of the lack of night flying facilities. Is all this largess going to the Minister's friends, the Imperial Airways at Croydon, or will he allow other people, like Lazarus, to take the crumbs from under the Air Minister's table and to have some of this money, even if it is only £1,000 a year or so, in order that better night flying facilities can be provided? The only night flying facilities one finds in many places are night-lights in the huts to prevent the staff getting night terror.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Muff: I have finished. I close with the hope, now we have a new broom with

  1907
  an assistant new broom, that there will be a clean sweep and that the Minister will not abolish the Maybury Report.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: I endorse the hope which has just been expressed, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the new broom will be the last to be surprised that the Committee are profoundly uneasy about the situation which has been revealed in two astonishing speeches, one by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). I do not think that in all the 13 years I have sat in the House I have listened to speeches like them. The most formidable charges were hurled across the Floor by the hon. Member for West Islington, which must either be refuted or accepted. They were supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who said he did not think they were exaggerated by as much as a comma. The Committee in these conditions is bound to ask my right hon. Friend what he proposes to do about them. He will do well to remember that we should never have had the Cadman Report had it not been for the influence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. It was the result of his efforts and of the pressure he brought in this House that that Committee was set up. The Cadman Report came as a great shock to hon. Members on all sides and, indeed, to the public. It was a very shocking report.
  I feel that we must ask my right hon. Friend to say something before we pass from this Clause about the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, and especially the speeches of the hon. Member for West Islington and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. I have had on several occasions recently urged my right hon. Friend to act in his administration of the military side of the Air Force up to the traditions and according to the methods of the late Lord Fisher. I am bound to say, after listening to the Debate this afternoon, that he would be well advised to act quickly on one motto of which Lord Fisher was never tired, and that is, so far as Imperial Airways are concerned, to "Sack the lot." I am a little surprised that the managing director should be there still after the Cadman Report, and I do not
  1908
  think he can possibly stay there after the Debate to-day. The right hon. Gentleman has got to be—to use another Fisherism—ruthless, remorseless and relentless in this matter and sack the lot, because nothing short of that will satisfy the Committee unless he is in a position to refute all the charges that have been made this afternoon, charges additional to those in the Cadman Report.
  Another matter I would urge concerns a principle of considerable importance. My right hon. Friend revealed to the Committee that he is in possession of pretty full information regarding the dismissal of these pilots, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary, in the Debate the other night, appeared to lay down as a principle that the Government have no right to ask their own directors to furnish confidential reports giving the reasons which cause the board to take any particular action from time to time. I do not think that is a proposition which will satisfy the Committee. We are coming to a period when the House will be asked to subsidise a large number of public companies in one form and another and to exercise some measure of control. If the Government are given money by this House in order to subsidise a public company, and if they appoint Government directors to the board of that company, the Government have every right to ask those directors to furnish confidentially the reasons which induce the board to take any particular action. I want, for the purposes of accuracy, to quote one or two observations of my hon. and gallant Friend. He said, in answer to one interruption in the Debate on the previous occasion:
  " I do not know, and I submit that no one in this Committee, either a Member of the Government or anyone else, is entitled to ask for the full private domestic reasons as recorded in the minutes of the board of the company."
  In reply to a further interruption, he said:
  " I cannot tell the hon. Lady, because I have not asked and I do not know. There comes a time when the domestic affairs of a company have to be ruled by the company's directors who are responsible for the administration of that company, even when you have on that company's board two Government directors of whom we can ask questions and to whom we can refer matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1938; cols. 971–74, Vol. 336.]
  I submit that that passage lays down the proposition that there is some point at

  1909
  which the Government are no longer entitled to ask their directors for confidential information. That position would never be accepted by a bank which goes to the rescue of a private company.
  I cannot conceive of any bank which goes to the rescue of any private or public company and appoints its own directors upon the board after furnishing money for the company not requiring its nominees on the board to furnish it with full information regarding the affairs of the company. Naturally the information is confidential. In order that a precedent shall not be established which may extend far beyond the Air Ministry, and which I am sure would not meet with the approval of hon. Members on any side of the Committee, I would ask my right hon. Friend or the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make some pronouncement on behalf of the Government upon this important matter. There is one final point which I wish to bring forward. I understand that a decision was reached before the right hon. Gentleman went to the Air Ministry, and I want to know whether he will reconsider the application of Allied Airways for some portion of this money as a subsidy to its service to Norway. I believe the company have a very strong case, and I ask my right hon. Friend to look into the matter.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: I cannot pretend to have any technical knowledge on air matters, but one or two things have been mentioned by the Minister to which the Committee ought to give more attention. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has told us that it is not only desirable that the Government should be furnished with reports by the directors who represent them upon these companies, but also that this House should be able from time to time to call for reports from those directors upon matters which are not confidential. It is useless to suppose that Parliament can exercise any effective control over the behaviour of companies which are receiving subsidies unless it is furnished with information upon which to make up its mind. It is obvious that there are some features of administration upon which the House could not possibly judge, but there is one aspect of the administration in which we are immediately interested, and that is the way in which the employés are treated. The Minister
  1910
  has said that he did not propose to furnish to the House the report made by the directors on the question of the pilots. I cannot understand why not. There can be nothing confidential about that information. A great deal of it has already been mentioned in the House by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) and the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). There is, therefore, no argument that it is not in the public interest that we should not be furnished with that report.
  It is simply begging the question to have directors representing the Government upon those companies and yet for this House, which appoints the directors, and furnishes the money for the subsidy, not to be permitted to have reports from the directors. That is simply an addition to the vast system of bureaucratic control which is being built up in this country, and is leaving the House of Commons stripped of its power. As Parliament is now proceeding to give subsidies at large to very many companies, and the Government are to have directors upon them, unless there is some liaison between those companies and Parliament we shall not have any effective control at all, nor shall we be in receipt of the information which is necessary in order to make up our minds. The very essence of Parliamentary Government is that it is government of the experts by the amateurs. Does the hon. Member object to that view?
  Mr. Holdsworth: I said it was so theoretically.
  Mr. Bevan: It is so practically. In this matter we ought not to have to depend upon the hon. Member for Stroud or the hon. Member for West Islington, who by accident have managed to get elected to this House and who have become experts upon matters connected with the air. It might easily happen that the electorate did not send two experts to the House, and then we should have no means at all, except exterior means, of arriving at information on this matter. If this experiment, which we on this side regard as an undesirable experiment, of giving subsidies to private companies is to be extended, then there must at the same time be an extension of public control over the directors whom the House appoints, because unless there is some form of public control they are simply

  1911
  irresponsible individuals. We are interested in them only in their representative capacity. By the mere appointment of A or B upon the directorate the public are not given any control over the administration, unless that director is subject to instructions from time to time and unless he has to report. The right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon that he thinks it is undesirable to call for reports. He said so this afternoon.
  Sir K Wood: I never said so.
  Mr. Bevan: I hope the hon. Member will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. Even through the obscurity of the right hon. Gentleman it was perfectly clear that he did say that. If he does not say it, then we ask whether he thinks it is desirable that he should have such reports? Does he propose to give instructions that they shall be presented? The level of ineptitude to which the Government have sunk recently is without parallel in this country. We should like to know precisely where they stand in this matter.
  Mr. Pritt: So would they.
  Mr. Bevan: We have been asked to be satisfied because a ballot has been taken of the employés of Imperial Airways. They are being asked whether they want the association or not. It is not put in that form, but they have to select between guild representatives and the association.
  Mr. Perkins: Not guild representatives; they have withdrawn. It is between the Captains' Committee and the association.
  Mr. Bevan: Which I would put in my own way as the difference between a company union and a free association. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he had achieved a miracle of success in his negotiations with these recipients of public funds by persuading them that they ought to have this ballot. We have been told, and it has been disclosed in the evidence before the Cadman Committee, that the pilots themselves have been able to supply very valuable technical information, and to make corrections of technical defects, by virtue of the fact that they have been able to act in an associated manner, in a free manner, and to put evidence before the Cadman Committee. The right hon. Gentleman frowns.
  Sir K. Wood: No.
  Mr. Bevan: I thought he was puzzled.
  Sir K. Wood: Oh, no.
  Mr. Bevan: There is an extremely valuable pilot service in which changes are taking place from time to time. It is of paramount importance that the pilots should feel themselves free to make suggestions or criticisms regarding the instruments with which they have to work, because there is no more valuable correspondence than that which occurs between a man who is engaged in the practical work and the theorist behind it. In this company to be critical of the instruments meant coming into disfavour with the employers. The relationship which existed between Imperial Airways and its pilots was not only not in the public interest but was working to the public injury, because the pilots, we were told, were suborned to give evidence in favour of obsolete instruments, an extremely undesirable state of affairs. A free association of pilots is an essential condition of a healthy and progressive air service, and on those grounds alone it is surely desirable to have this association formed if possible.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that if the ballot goes against the association there will be no association represented in negotiations with Imperial Airways. If a minority of the pilots want the association but the majority do not, there will be no association. Is that correct? I ask that question because this is a very important point. If that had been so at the beginning of the last century there would have been no trade union movement. We have had to build up trade unions not only in face of the conservatism of the employers but also against the traditional conservatism of many workers. It has involved years of work in educating the working classes to see the advantages of associated effort, especially in face of the barrage of a hostile Press and other forms of suggestion. I understand that if Imperial Airways have hand-picked their pilots effectively enough and the majority of them are against forming an association, then no association will be formed. Is this Committee satisfied with that condition of affairs, in view of what has happened? It may be that the association has excellent prospects. We are told that the ballot will he in its

  1913
  favour. But it should not go out from this Committee that we consider it to be a proper condition of affairs that if the majority of employés of a subsidised company do not want a union the advantages of a union are to be withheld from the minority. If that happens these employés of the company will be forced into the position of Yes-men, and they will not be able to make any effective defence of their standard of living. There are many industries in which the minority are organised, and the majority get great benefits from the activities of the minority.
  I consider that the proposals which have so far emanated from the Secretary of State are such as the Committee ought not to be satisfied with, and that this money should not be given to Imperial Airways until improvements are made. It has cast further light upon the growing decrepitude of the Government that it is possible for charges of this sort to be made from that Bench, and yet we shovel out public money to a company who condone the most immoral practices, who have officers who are utterly unfit from any standpoint to be there, and whose conduct has been condemned out of hand, yet who receive from the Secretary of State nothing but inarticulate blandishments.
  7.2 p.m.
  Sir Joseph Nall: I want to refer to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). It seems to me that we should be setting up a hopeless precedent if we accepted the view that on any board on which one or more directors were appointed by the Government those directors should be required to report separately, and presumably secretly, to a Government office without reference to the other members of the board, with whom they ought to share responsibility. What would be the position if any group of shareholders in the company demanded of the other directors that they should report secretly to that group of shareholders? The corporate responsibility of a board in such circumstances would be impossible. In the case of a company like this, where a subsidy is involved, it is right and proper that the Government should nominate or appoint some of those who are responsible as directors for carrying on the business of the undertaking, but the responsibility to the Government for the
  1914
  proper administration of the undertaking, and for the safeguarding against any abuse in the use of public funds devolves upon the whole board, and not upon any single individual. Therefore, if any question of calling to account arises the chairman and the board as a whole should be called to account, and not the individuals whom the Government may appoint. So far from establishing such a precedent as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen suggested, it seems to me that the Secretary of State should insist upon the proper and normal system of the collective responsibility of the board, and call them to account if occasion arises.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am of opinion that this extra grant of money should emphatically be turned down by this Committee. I do not want to be personal, so far as the Ministers are concerned, but when I hear a Member on this side of the House talking about there being new brooms it is necessary to take exception. There is no question of new brooms here. It is a question of new collecting boxes, into which these predatory persons are continually dipping their hands. I should have no objection to the couple of knockabouts who represent the Air Ministry going among the robbers with their own money, if they have it, but I object to their going among the robbers with public money, because it is evident that they are not capable of taking care of it. That is proven by the question raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). But I view the matter somewhat differently from the hon. Member. He is concerned about the reputation of the Government, and he quoted from the Under-Secretary's speech, made a few nights ago—and it was very necessary that he should make that quotation, because later on in that Debate, when the hon. Member referred to what had been said, the Under-Secretary tried to suggest that he had been misrepresented by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, and we get the same thing to-night on the part of the Minister.
  But I am not so much concerned about the rights of the House and the rights of the Government. I am concerned about the attitude of these Ministers. Here is a powerful company, and the Minister comes and tells us we must bow humbly before them. We dare not ask

  1915
  them for detailed information. How can a Minister adopt such an attitude towards a company that is getting public money? How can he ensure that the business to which that money is devoted is going to be properly and effectively conducted? How can the Member for East Aberdeen talk about these Ministers and Lord Fisher in the same breath?
  Mr. Boothby: I do not see why they should not become like Lord Fisher—in time.
  Mr. Gallacher: The days of miracles are done. Never in any circumstances could you imagine it. The Under-Secretary, who has a measure of youth on his side, is the more servile of the two. You can imagine the hon. Gentleman coming here and saying that it would not do to ask this great company for detailed information; it would not do for the hon. Member for East Aberdeen to raise the question of the dismissal of the managing director. If you had anyone like Lord Fisher, instead of a bunch of mysteries, you would not only have had a cleaning out, but you would have had—and this is the important thing, and this is what we have to get— some statement completely withdrawing the unspeakable reflections on these pilots —because there has been no charge against them, only suspicions hinted at. We should have an immediate withdrawal, and those pilots should be unconditionally restored to their positions. Why should not the Committee demand that?
  Why should we allow these pilots to be thrown out? This Committee should exercise the power that the subsidy gives it in order to lay down conditions, which must be of such a character as to satisfy the House of Commons that the purpose for which the money is being spent is being effectively carried out. And nobody can say to-night—neither the Minister nor the Under-Secretary—that as things stand at the moment there is any guarantee that this extra £1,500,000 will not be wasted. We have to take into account the servility of the Minister towards this company, the refusal to clean out those who have been condemned, and, above all, their cowardly and despicable attitude towards these pilots, against whom no charge is made. I demand, and this Committee should
  1916
  demand, of the Minister that not a penny of this extra money should be voted unless we get a statement to-night that the charges against these pilots, which have not been made public, will be completely withdrawn and the pilots unconditionally restored to their positions.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. Davidson: I know that the Committee is anxious for a full reply to this interesting discussion—interesting because so much support has been given to the criticisms of past actions of the Air Ministry. I am not so much concerned now with what has gone on in the past, but I think we should get from the Minister a definite statement as to what exactly will be the duties of the directors who are appointed by the Government because of the subsidy which they are giving. This whole question is raised because of grave errors and miscarriage of justice in the past, because it was recognised by the criticism of experienced Members of this House that there were great faults of management in the civil air industry in the past. We have reached the stage when, as the result of an inquiry caused by the dissatisfaction of Members of this House, a report is submitted recommending an increased subsidy.
  It is no use the Minister giving the House a bland statement or trying to vindicate what are already known as the grave mistakes of the past, but I do ask him to explain as fully as he possibly can exactly what will -be the duties of these two directors who are appointed on this board. It amazes me to hear responsible business men claiming that when public money is used to subsidise a company to the amount of £1,500,000 to £3,000,000 the Government are not entitled to the fullest information possible with regard to the working of that company. The Government with their majority, representing the House of Commons, are subsidising this company, and it is right that those directors should be responsible to the Government, and that the Government should make regular reports.
  Now, what are the questions that affect this Government with regard to any undertaking? With regard to important national undertakings, Government buildings or Government works, one of the most important factors affecting the Government is that of the conditions of the

  1917
  employés. Governments and local authorities have agreed to the principle of fair wages and fair working conditions, which have been forced by the growth of the trade union movement. The general principle accepted in Government workshops, and in Government contracts and undertakings, is the fair-wages clause, giving fair wages and decent conditions. Surely the Members of this House, who are as responsible as any section of directors for the investment of public funds and here represent the people who pay them that money, are entitled to obtain reports affecting the conditions of people employed in those industries.
  Here we have the Minister for one of our most important national services saying that he wants this Committee to agree to an increased subsidy of £1,500,000 for this company. The figure £1,500,000 slips very easily off the tongue in speeches in this House of Commons, but to a company it is a considerable investment, and they should be prepared to see that their employés work under the best possible conditions. The Minister says, also, that he asks us to subsidise this company and other companies to the extent of £3,000,000. He says: "We will put two Government directors there, representing the Government's point of view, to see that the money is not wasted and that the principles of the Government are kept fully before the rest of the members of the board." Yet we have to accept the statement that after the payment of that subsidy and the appointment of those two directors, anything they do and any report issued by those directors must be confidential, and that no Member of this House of Commons is entitled to the information.
  The thing is a sheer farce. It is the beginning of dictatorship. I believe it will appeal very much to the ex-Minister of Health. I have heard him referred to as all sorts of things, as a new broom, and as a new collecting box, but I do not know. We cannot pass judgment on the Secretary of State for Air until he has been in office for at least six months, but if the start he is making is any indication of the lines on which the Air Ministry will be run in the future, we shall soon see a new reshuffle in the Cabinet. I advise all those young Tories on the back benches opposite to keep up their hearts; there is something coming soon. The whole position is indefensible. The
  1918
  Minister tells this House that we have nothing to do with the Government directors. I wonder why we are asked to agree to giving £3,000,000 out of public funds to these companies. Grave errors of mismanagement have cropped up and pilots have been dismissed without any reason being given. An inquiry has been set on foot because of the indignation of Members of the House.
  I give credit to the great agitation which was raised in the House by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). Because of that inquiry the Government directors formulated a report. The Under-Secretary of State scans the report in his spare time, and then comes to the House of Commons and tells us: "I have seen this report. I know what this report contains. In that report it says that the dismissal of these pilots was justified," but we cannot ask him any questions and cannot place the report before us. We cannot ask him to tell us what those directors said because they are a minority, although they were appointed to look after the interests of the Government, of the men and the management of the industry. What have we to do? Have we to claim in future, when subsidies such as these are given, that we must have a majority of the directors so that we shall be able to have a report? The position of the Government is indefensible. It cannot be defended in any way from a sense of fair play and good judgment. If we are to spend public funds, subsidise companies and appoint Government representatives on their boards to look after our interests, surely it is our right as spenders of public money to ask for a full explanation from those directors when obcious mismanagement, errors and unjustifiable dismissals take place. I ask the Minister to give us a clear and unequivocal statement that cannot be twisted or turned so that for once in a while we shall have a plain, honest statement from the Government Front Bench, telling us exactly what are the powers of these Government directors.
  7.22 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: The hon. Gentleman asks me to make a statement that will not be twisted or turned; I will endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman what he wants. If anybody opposite—
  Mr. Gallacher: Not on this side; on your side.
  Sir K. Wood: I will endeavour to answer some of the questions.
  Mr. Davidson: I asked the Minister for a fair statement that could not be twisted or turned. I did not suggest that anybody in this House—if this is the inference he took—would attempt to twist or turn his statement. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he is suggesting to us that his statements—
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's interruption is quite out of order.
  Mr. Davidson: Is is very unworthy, anyway.
  Sir K. Wood: Might I just say a few words—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Gallacher: Quiet, opposite.
  Sir K. Wood: A suggestion was made by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who opened the Debate to-day. He outlined and gave instances of numbers of cases of which he said information had been given concerning officers and others of Imperial Airways. Of course, I am not in a position to controvert or to deal with those statements. The hon. Gentleman made them upon his own responsibility. But in one of his statements there were references to the Air Ministry about which I can say something. For instance, he referred to a conference which was held in the Air Ministry and which I have endeavoured to verify. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that so far as we can trace any such conference it was on a technical matter. The conference was held owing to complaints from another company. Imperial Airways pilots attended—it was a meeting of pilots—and expressed no adverse opinion upon the machine which was under consideration and which was subsequently grounded for night flying after special tests. The statements which I am able to check connect with the work of my own Department, and, in fairness to the names which have been mentioned, it should be said that I have no cognisance of the other matter and that I am concerned this afternoon only with a matter which was dealt with by my predecessor, in regard to these pilots. I understand from my hon. Friend that only one of the three pilots is now out of an appointment. I will do everything I can to help him.
  Mr. Montague: Does the Minister say that there is only one left now?
  Mr. Perkins: One is fixed up as a test pilot with the De Havilland Aircraft Company. One has just had an offer, as was announced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his speech to-day, and the third, Captain Rogers, to whom I referred, is not yet fixed up.
  Sir K. Wood: I should now like to say a word—
  Mr. Gallacher: If these men are now employed again, would not the right hon. Gentleman say something about the statement which was made that their dismissal was thoroughly justified?
  Sir K. Wood: No one has made such a statement. So far as the Government are concerned—
  Mr. Montague: It might be as well if the Minister could say something about the other pilots. There were 10 of them altogether, and five of them were interviewed. Are they re-employed or not, as well as the three principal navigation officers? We do not hear anything about them.
  Sir K. Wood: My hon. Friend will no doubt speak for them. I think he is the president of their association. I want to make a statement on the matter as far as I can. I want it to be clear that we have made no suggestion ourselves at all, about these officers. The hon. Member for West Islington asserted that the Under-Secretary made some such statement, but in fact he made quite a different statement. On 23rd May he said:
  " I have endeavoured to answer the points which have been put to me in the course of the discussion, and in conclusion may I say that I have tried to let no hasty words fall from me which may damage the reputation of these pilots and against whom no charges have been made from this side of the House." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1938; col 978, Vol. 336.]
  Mr. Davidson: What did he say today?
  Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my statement. That is the position. I have been very careful in my turn, as I think hon. Members of the Committee will agree, to say nothing affecting the reputation or the position of these men. Whatever the merits may be of one side or the other I

  1921
  am sure that every Member of this Committee wants to see them employed again. That is my position, and I do not want to say anything this afternoon that will interfere in any way with their position. The question of the attitude of the Government towards the trade union side of this matter was raised by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and many other Members, in the course of the Debate. The Government accept—and I am glad to do so for my part—the recommendations that were made by the Cadman Committee upon this particular matter. Perhaps hon. Members will remember them. The company have accepted the recommendations. This is what the Cadman Committee said in paragraphs 104 and 105:
  " In our view personal contact must now be supplemented by collective representation of employés. The desire for such a change has been expressed to us by representatives of pilots. Imperial Airways, the company employing the largest number of such officers, has stated that it, has no objection to collective bargaining."
  The approach to collective representation and bargaining is, therefore, clear. It is essential, however, that any organisations formed with those objects should be in a position to negotiate authoritatively on behalf of a substantial proportion of the class it claims to represent."
  Following the acceptance of that recommendation by the Government and by the company the ballot is now proceeding. I would not care to give any answer to the question put to me as to what would happen if the ballot were rejected by the Pilots' Association. Speaking without very much consideration of the matter, I would say that so far as the company is concerned they would negotiate with whatever body the people concerned voted for. I should also take it that there was no other association formed in that connection. We must wait for the result of the ballot. Personally I have always taken the view, a view which I think a great many people agree with, that many difficulties will be solved when this matter is properly settled. I welcome the fact that this ballot is taking place, and it will be a great thing if the pilots form such an association as they desire. Many of the difficulties experienced in the past will disappear as soon as the company is able to discuss these matters with an association, as has happened in so many other walks of life.
  1922
  I am not clear just how far. I am able to deal with some of the questions put to me, but I will endeavour to answer those that will be in order. A number of questions have been raised as to how far the recommendations of the Cadman Committee in respect of civil aviation have been carried out. Actually, a large number of the recommendations have been accepted and put into operation. The Government accepted the recommendation that the post of Permanent Under-Secretary should be created.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is just the point where the right hon. Gentleman would not be in order.
  Sir K. Wood: I am sorry I cannot devote myself more fully to that topic. Perhaps I should be in order in asserting that the Government is very interested in this matter of civil aviation. I myself have a very personal interest in it, and I shall do my best to see that as many of the recommendations of the Cadman Committee as the Government have accepted are carried out as promptly as possible. I shall give as much of my time as is left to me, after my duties in this House and at the Air Ministry, to that particular project.
  Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. Would it be in order for the Minister to answer specific questions, such as those relating to the position of the managing director of Imperial Airways? Sir Dennis agreed that we could put certain questions, so long as they were questions, and I understood that replies to them would be permitted.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I heard the question, but I did not think the Minister was dealing with it.
  Sir K. Wood: So far as the recommendations of the Cadman Committee are concerned I do not recall any recommendations concerning the managing director of Imperial Airways.
  Mr. Perkins: Has my right hon. Friend not read the words on page 15 of the Cadman Report where it is said:
  " There should, in our opinion, be an immediate improvement in these respects, and this may well involve some change in directing personnel."
  Sir K. Wood: That does not go so far as the hon. Gentleman indicates. Obviously the board and the chairman ought

  1923
  to direct their attention to the statement which the Cadman Committee made in this respect and endeavour to improve things. I think what the hon. Gentleman has in mind is the question of the general management of the company. During the past few days I have been endeavouring to help in that connection, and I hope we shall soon be able to announce the results. I agree that it is important that that particular recommendation should be carried out. Members will appreciate that it was suggested as necessary that, before the whole-time chairman for British Airways was secured, there should be certain financial re-organisation in the company. I saw the present chairman of the company two or three days ago at the Air Ministry and I discussed this matter with him and he is very anxious to see this done and, in fact, is engaged on that work at present. I myself attach considerable importance to both these changes and I believe a good deal of the friction that has arisen may be avoided in the future. I make no reflections on the existing personnel. I think one of the reasons why the change was recommended was not criticism of persons, but in order that there should be someone who could give his whole time and attention to the affairs of the company. That, I think, applies equally to Imperial Airways and to British Airways.
  The only other matter I am permitted to refer to to-night is the question of the position of Government directors. I would not like to make a statement on this subject off-hand. Obviously such a statement would have to be carefully considered and would probably have to be made by someone other than myself, because this question applies not only to directorships of the particular companies we are discussing this afternoon, but also to many others. It is not generally appreciated that my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in one of his many moments of enthusiasm said to me—he must have been very indignant at the time—that the first thing I should do in relation to these gentlemen would be to "sack the lot." I thought that a rather big suggestion to make. I hope he realises that this is a company which is controlled by shareholders, and that the directors are for the most part
  1924
  elected by the shareholders. These directors are responsible to the shareholders. I do not think Lord Fisher himself would have interfered with a concern which was in the hands of other people. He might have interfered with his own staff and the people under him, but I do not think he would have pushed his way into the board-room of Imperial Airways and sacked the lot.
  Another side of this question, which raises a very interesting point, is that these subsidies are paid to these companies by virtue of a contract. The contract lays down the duties of the company and the services they must perform in return for the sums of money paid to them. In addition to that you must bear in mind the fact that the Government have considerable financial responsibility in the company. But there is not a majority of Government directors, but only two of them. It is not suggested that the Government is to control the affairs of the company. If we wanted to secure control it would be necessary for us to have a majority of directors.
  Mr. Kelly: The directors are always Cabinet Ministers.
  Sir K. Wood: One gets a better view of the real position when one sees it from different aspects, and it is often done successfully in this country, to provide, in addition to the contractual relationship, some direct link between the company and the Government.
  Mr. Davidson: Surely the duty of these two directors would be to dictate Government policy?
  Mr. Boothby: May I say that there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not ask for confidential reports from Government directors for his own personal information.
  Sir K. Wood: It is difficult to lay down a broad rule on this point and I do not think it is my duty to do so. You must take each case on its merits, and if there was any question in which policy was involved obviously the Government would be entitled to obtain from the directors information on a question of that kind. I would safeguard myself by saying that you must consider each individual case on its merits. I hope, as a result of this discussion, that, whilst hon. Members

  1925
  may not feel entirely satisfied, there has been an endeavour to arrive at a proper result. I am glad to say that there is only one of these dismissed officers at present out of employment and I venture to express the hope that he will accept the offer of employment that has been made to him.
  Mr. Montague: One of the officers has been promised employment in the new company that is to work the London to Paris service, which will not come into being for a year. Meanwhile he is out of employment.
  Sir K. Wood: That is the officer to whom I was referring. Except for him all the dismissed officers are in employment at present.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Batey: I have sat for two hours listening to this Debate and when the Minister rose to reply I hoped he would satisfy hon. Members on this side about the questions which have been raised. But, to me, the Minister's reply was most unsatisfactory. He has met none of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). There are two questions which the Committee have to face—one, that of the dismissed pilots, and the other that of the right of combination. But we are no further forward on either of those questions. As regards the dismissed pilots, we are told that one of them has found work with another company, and, as regards another, that Imperial Airways— now that his case has been taken up—are prepared to employ him. But there is a third man in regard to whom the Minister says he is prepared to do his best. That man is still unemployed. Why is that so?
  There was a Debate last week on this question. The directors of Imperial Airways must have read the report and must have seen how annoyed hon. Members were at the dismissal of this man. Yet all that the Minister can say to-night is, "I will do my best to find that man employment." There is nothing in the Minister's words to lead us to believe that Imperial Airways will employ that man, and this Committee ought not to be satisfied with the mere statement that the Minister will do his best. Imperial Airways are in receipt of public money and they ought not to have dealt with these matters in this way. Even if it is only
  1926
  the case of one man, that one man is still unemployed and appears to have no prospect of employment, and he will have the sympathy of every trade unionist and every man and woman in the country associated with trade unionism. The Minister's statement in regard to that man was most lamentable, coming after all the Debates we have had on this subject.
  As to the question of the right of combination, where do we stand? There are some of us here who, as trade unionists, would be prepared to die for the right of combination. We have experienced the need and the benefit of co-operation. One hundred years ago the working men of this country fought for and won the right of combination. Now we are told by this superior company that their pilots are to be allowed to ballot on the question of whether they will belong to what some of us would call a directors' trade union or a real trade union. Such a thing as a ballot of that kind ought never to have been suggested. I would have expected the Minister and hon. Gentlemen opposite to have stood up for the right of these men to combine, without holding any such ballot, with the prospect of the ballot going against them. Some of us have seen ballots taken before and we know how they are taken. [Laughter.] I wonder whether hon. Members opposite are amused because they are opposed to the right of combination, because they want to make it as difficult as possible for men to combine, and because they want to see this ballot going against the right of these men freely to combine?
  The present position of affairs will not satisfy trade unionists. When the question of the right of combination is at stake, we are prepared to fight against anything which endangers that right. The Prime Minister said earlier to-day that he hoped to get this Bill, and the Herring Industry Bill, and some other Orders at to-day's sitting. I would be prepared to keep this Committee sitting until to-morrow morning at breakfact time if necessary on this question. [HON MEMBERS "Oh!"] Yes, I am reaching a stage at which I do not care for all-night sittings, but on this question I would fight the Minister and the Government, and I would keep hon. Members opposite here until breakfast-time to-morrow morning. From my point of view the pity is that we should be discussing the Question, "That Clause 1

  1927
  stand part of the Bill." I understand that Imperial Airways are to get £100,000 of the money that we are voting, and I would like to be able to move an Amendment that they should not get that sum, but it is not possible to do so on the Question before the Committee.
  On the subject of the directors, I was dissatisfied with the Minister's reply. He quoted from the OFFICIAL REPORT what the Under-Secretary said a week ago, but he read quite a different passage of the speech from that to which hon. Members on this side were referring. He did not read the part which we wanted him to read. I do not think the Under-Secretary will deny that he said last week that the Government directors had investigated the dismissal of these men and were satisfied that the company had been justified in dismissing the men. I rely upon that statement. If it is true, then, in my opinion these Government directors ought to be removed from the board of the company. I hope that the last has not yet been heard of this question of the directors. I hope that in some way, and at some time in the near future, we shall be able to raise the question of these two Government directors and force a Division on the question of whether they are fitted to continue in that position in view of the report which they made upon these men. In my opinion this Committee ought not to vote a penny to Imperial Airways until that company is prepared to grant freely the right of combination to their pilots and to reinstate this man. If necessary we shall oppose this Bill at every stage, in order to make our protest against the company's action up to the present.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Tinker: Earlier in the Debate I said I would like the Government to make known the contents of this report. The Minister in reply said that could not be done, but that later on, if it were found necessary, they might make another report. This evening we are asked to vote a certain amount of public money to this company. I have always held that when we grant public money we have the right to demand the investigation of every point connected with the spending of that money. We ought to know how such money is being spent, and we are entitled in this case, I contend, to call on those who represent the Government
  1928
  on this company, to divulge to us information on any point about which we desire to know. I shall never agree to voting public money unless I am sure that if we desire information about the company to which that money is being given, the Government will be able and ready to afford such information.
  We have arrived at a curious position on this Measure. The Under-Secretary was placed in a difficulty the other night. I believe that if he had been occupying the position which he occupied before taking office, he would have been as keen as any of us on the right of Parliament to know everything in connection with the expenditure of public money. He admitted to a certain extent that those were his feelings, but, apparently, it was thought afterwards that he had gone rather too far, and when we pressed the point about this report, the Chairman had to decide that Parliamentary procedure would not allow of the report being divulged. That is the position now, and it is for the Opposition to refuse to allow the Measure to be passed, until they are satisfied that they can demand and get this report. If we acquiesce in this Bill to-night, without making that protest, we sacrifice the right of Parliament to have the fullest investigation into these matters and to have the results of such investigation made known to us. I join therefore with my hon. Friend in opposing this grant, until the representatives of the Government tell us that on all occasions when any report of this kind is demanded, it shall be forthcoming.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Ridley: I make no apology for detaining the Committee in view of the unsatisfactory and inadequate statement of the Minister. After all that has been said in this Committee and in the Cadman Report, I submit that Imperial Airways is an organisation which ought not to be entrusted with the expenditure of public money. More and more, in Parliament, and especially under this Government, the State is becoming the pawnbroker of inefficient private industry, and inefficient private industry is, more and more, becoming a mendicant at the back door of the State. The Minister expressed a desire to say nothing which would affect the reputation of these men and he was excessively cautious to say nothing which would affect the reputation of Imperial Airways. But it must be

  1929
  many years since a document was produced which so emphatically and categorically condemned an organisation, as the Cadman Report condemns Imperial Airways. The Prime Minister, during the Debate on the Cadman Report, on 16th March, said:
  " I am glad also to be able to say that the two companies concerned in civil aviation, Imperial Airways and British Airways, have also signified that they agree, very largely, with those parts of the report which concern their own organisation and administration. I therefore have no hesitation in moving this Motion.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1938; col. 433, Vol. 333.]
  That can mean only that the Prime Minister moved the Motion on the assumption, which now proves to be totally false, that Imperial Airways not only accepted the recommendations but intended to implement them. It is clear, however, from the statement of the Minister, that Imperial Airways have not yet implemented either of the two very serious recommendations in the Cadman Report. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) put a pointed question in regard to recommendation No. 1, as to the appointment of a permanent chairman.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Chairman allowed that question to be asked and an answer to be given, and the matter is not to be further discussed.
  Mr. Ridley: I bow to your Ruling. I was only emphasising the fact that the Minister did not answer the question in a way that justified us in feeling that measure of confidence in the conduct of Emperial Airways which would justify us in agreeing to vote this substantial sum of money. In regard to point No. 2, I cannot believe that Imperial Airways have accepted the recommendation of the Cadman Committee as to the rights of 1:he staff to combine. We have been told that a ballot is to take place, and the Minister regarded that as satisfactory. Every experienced trade unionist knows 1he ballot to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory process in such matters. Why should a gang of employers have the right to require their employés to signify by ballot whether they desire to be represented by a trade union organisation or otherwise? I belong to an organisation which, unhappily, 30 years ago, on the Floor of this House, because it was a minority organisation, had to fight for its very life against the cruellest kind of tyranny and
  1930
  victimisation. Had those men in those days been subject to the process of ballot we should have been defeated on the very principle for which we were fighting.
  The question which was addressed to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was a very pertinent one. If a minority of Imperial Airways pilots signify their desire to be represented by a trade union, Imperial Airways will say that the ballot has negatived the right to be so represented. When the Minister says that nothing can prevent anyone from joining what organisation he likes, he speaks in face of very bitter experience. There are all sorts of things that come in to prevent men doing that. Ask any agricultural labourer whether he is free to join the Agricultural Labourers' Union. Ask any domestic servant whether she is free to join the Transport and General Workers' Union. Ask any typist in any isolated office whether she dare tell her boss that she is a member of a trade union. If the Minister had any knowledge of any real trade union organisation—not the organisation of the profession which he adorns, and from which I suppose he derives very considerable advantage—he would not have made a statement of that sort.
  I can understand the diffidence of the Minister in saying that not only has he the right to know what sort of policy is being pursued by the Government directors but that this House has the right to know. We have made contributions to Imperial Airways of sums of money representing about one-half of the net revenue in any financial year, and we ought surely to have the right to know whether the board as a whole has obstructed what this House regards as a desirable policy. I can close my eyes and almost fancy that we are back in the middle of the nineteenth century in the matter of trade union organisation. A great many hon. Members opposite seem still to believe that trade union organisation can be conducted by patronage. Bitterly, for the last 100 years, predecessors of hon. Members opposite have done their best or their worst to prevent trade union organisation.
  Viscountess Astor: Never.
  Mr. Ridley: I say that they would put us back again in the middle of the nineteenth century. However, I will not be

  1931
  diverted by the discourteous interruption of the Noble Lady, who is now leaving the Chamber, to our great pleasure. Trade union organisation under an inefficient board of directors such as the board of Imperial Airways is not trade union organisation. The Minister, before we leave this Clause, ought to tell us that he has instructed the Government representatives on the board of directors to insist that the pilots and the navigation officers and other employés of Imperial Airways shall be free, completely and absolutely, to join whatever trade union organisation they like, without intimidation and without the fear of those bitter economic consequences that have been experienced by the four or five men who have been mentioned to-night. It is not enough for the Minister to say that they have all, except one, got jobs, and that he will do his best to get that one a job. That is a very decent offer on the part of the Minister, and everybody will be grateful for it, but what matters is not the personal experiences of four or five men, but the principle involved—the fact that Imperial Airways still think they have a free run to hold the threat of the sack over the heads of men merely because they desire to walk erect in the world, to keep their heads high, to live freely with their fellow men and to be associated with a trade union organisation.
  It is a curious thing, which I have noticed through bitter experience, that the employing class does not so much mind the manual worker joining a trade union, but it does not take the same view about the black-coated worker. The black-coated workers owe a deep debt of gratitude to the manual workers for their early courage and sacrifice in regard to trade unionism. The employers object to the black-coated worker being a trade unionist. They have regarded him for so long as their tool, the man who was always willing to succumb to their patronage and pleasantries and to eat corn out of their hands for an extra 2s. 6d. a week. My own organisation has helped in this direction, and the black-coated worker is now beginning to stand up for his rights, just as the manual worker did over half a century ago.
  The Minister ought to say something much more definite and emphatic in regard to what the House must regard as
  1932
  the entirely reprehensible conduct of Imperial Airways in this matter, and to make it clear that this subsidy will be paid upon a new code of conduct, and that the Government nominees on the board will be instructed to see that the board as a whole observes that code of conduct. In the absence of a categorical statement of that kind by the Minister we shall be compelled to vote against the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: Two or three questions of great importance are raised in this Debate, and we are perfectly entitled to ventilate them until we get satisfaction. We are all agreed that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) raised a very important question of precedent, which will very largely be used to guide this House in the future when dealing with matters of this kind. For that reason we are entitled to a satisfactory answer, and I hope that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will keep the Debate going until the Secretary of State for Air has had his dinner and returned to the House. There is the question of the right of men to belong to a trade union. That right has been won for us by our forefathers, against the continued hostility of the classes represented on the other side. It is not a gift. It is something that we have won for ourselves. We have won it in spite of bitter and continued hostility, and we keep it only because we continuously use it against the opposition of hon. Members opposite, and their class. That right is the right of the workman, whether he be a workman who has a black face or a black coat, who has to sell his labour, to organise freely with his fellows for his own self-protection. That right is more essential in these days than ever it was, because in every industry the employers are now so well organised that the un-organised workers have not the slightest chance of getting fair play. They can get fair play only if they are protected by a strong organisation.
  All hon. Members will agree that the right to join freely the trade union of one's own choice ought to be generally acceded, and it should be claimed especially by men who are engaged in dangerous occupations. These pilots are engaged in a dangerous occupation, in pioneer work and in pioneer service. Each

  1933
  time they go into the air they take their lives in their hands. They are risking their lives for the sake of developing this service for the nation. Who has a right to tell these men that they must not do this or that? They are perfectly entitled, as British citizens who are giving great service to the nation, to join the trade union of their own choice. It is one thing to have safety precautions laid down in an Act of Parliament but another thing to see that they are observed. If the Coal Mines Act was observed there would be no explosions. It is because those regulations are not observed that we have accidents. Here is a new service, and the Air Ministry has regulations in regard to it, but it is one thing to have standards in Kingsway and another thing to see that they are observed. The best way to see that standards are observed is through a strong trade union.
  These pilots are to ballot. Why should they be told to ballot as to which union they should belong to? Why should they not have the right to organise without ballot? Who is to conduct the ballot? Who handles the ballot papers? Who sends them out? Who counts the votes? Is the ballot free of any influence? Can we be assured that there will be no influence of any kind exercised on the men when they take part in the ballot? Some of us have had bitter experience of ballots. Hon. Members opposite laughed when my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) referred to ballots. I had some idea what they were laughing about. They think we are able to influence ballots. When men are to ballot in the presence of their employers or the representatives of their employers at times like these, what can we expect? When a man loses a job it is very difficult to get another. We have heard of a highly skilled pilot in this new and developing service having been dismissed eight months since and he is still out of a job, although he has the promise that he may have one 12 months hence. With this experience before them, the men are to ballot in an atmosphere of that sort. As trade unionists we detest this method of asking men to ballot. They ought to have the right to join a trade union without balloting.
  The question has been asked, suppose the ballot goes in favour of a company union? In that case, some of the pilots
  1934
  may desire to join the Pilots' Association. The Secretary of State for Air said, if I understood him rightly, "We have no objection to that." Suppose that the minority of pilots maintain their membership in the Pilots' Association, even though, for various reasons, good or bad —we are inclined to think they may be bad—the decision goes in favour of a company union. We have too much faith in our fellow-countrymen to think that any body of workmen would choose a company union unless there was undue influence, but supposing that the majority should vote for a company union, and the others prefer to stand by the present organisation and build it up as a trade union for the service as a whole, will Imperial Airways recognise such a trade union? If not, there is no recognition of a trade union. The right to join a trade union means nothing unless the trade union is recognised as representative of the workmen who belong to it. Therefore, to tell them they can join is meaningless unless the trade union can speak collectively for its members.
  The Government have the right to give instructions to the Government nominees on the board of the company, and we have a right to ask, will the Air Ministry, will the Government, instruct the Government directors that they must urge and press and compel the company to recognise the union, whatever may be the result of the ballot? Unless that is done, the ballot can be used as we have seen it used so often in the course of our comprehensive and bitter experience in the mining industry. We know something about company unions. After years of bitter struggle we are beginning to wipe them out, and I hope we shall do everything we can to prevent their formation in other industries. We are now pouring out money in subsidies to industries, and we have Government nominees as directors of these companies. The question has been asked whether the Government have the right to ask their directors to present a report on matters that come before the board of directors. We have heard it said to-night that this would be very dangerous. Of course it is dangerous to the interests of private enterprise. What private enterprise wants is money from the Government, and then it wants the Government, having given the money, to run away and leave them to handle it as they like.

  1935
  The Government will appoint these two nominees, and, presumably, will have the right to give them instructions on various matters that come before the board— matters of policy, matters of administration, matters of detail. Of course, the Government cannot instruct them every day, or at every monthly meeting, but there will be important matters of policy on which the Government directors will have to be advised and instructed by the Government. The right of the Government to instruct their nominees is unquestioned. Unless they have the right to ask these directors to present to them a full detailed report of the meetings of the board, how can the Government know whether their directors are carrying out their instructions? The principle of making nominees involves the right to give instructions, and this right involves the right to have access to every document and all the information that is required for the purpose of seeing that those instructions are carried out.
  We are at the beginning, and a matter of great public policy is at stake. Where the Government are giving public money, which has been voted by the House of Commons, to any concern of this kind, our first function is to see that every penny voted is used for the purpose for which it is given, to see that it is well used and well administered. How can we be satisfied that that is so unless we have the right to examine the administration of these companies and to call for reports? Is a ballot taken of employers as to whether they shall have the right to belong to their employers' federations? When subsidies are given to shipowners, is a ballot taken to see whether they do or do not belong to this or that association? The employers have the right to organise, and no men ought to have a ballot imposed on them. These pilots have not asked for it, and who else has the right to ask for it? If they asked for it, they would have a right to do so, but all that they ask is the right to belong to their organisation, and no one is entitled to deny it to them. This ballot is something that has been conceived by the company. They know that they have to give way a little; the Cadman Committee reported that there must be some kind of collective organisation; and they are trying to palm the workmen off with this company union. I hope that these pilots,
  1936
  who are building up this great new service, will refuse to be parties to the ballot—[Interruption.]
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Viscountess Astor: Why must you have complete silence?
  Mr. Griffiths: If the Noble Lady wants to make an interjection, I will give way, but what we object to is noises in the gallery.
  Viscountess Astor: It is really perfectly absurd. When Ministers on the Front Bench are speaking, hon. Members talk the whole time, but, when one of them is speaking, there must be complete silence. It is not the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that I am talking about.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the occupants of the Front Bench who are here now will agree that we listened with scarcely any interruption to the Secretary for Air speaking in a quiet undertone for half an hour. If there had been any interruption he would not have been heard, he spoke so quietly. I was going to say that those who speak from this side have behind us the experience of fighting for the right of combination; we have that right not because it has been given to us, but because we have fought for it, and we will continue to fight for it. I say, "Good luck" to these pilots. I hope that they will stick to their organisation, and that this House will support them in claiming their rights from their employers.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Boyce: During the whole time I have been in this House I have never heard a less convincing argument on the question of joining a trade union than that which has been placed before the Committee by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). What possible reason can there be for refusing to allow men to decide by secret ballot what union they want to join? The Labour party go about the country and say, "We stand for democracy." One of the things about democracy as we know it in this country is that it gives you a free choice in a secret ballot; but when it comes to the question of trade unions, one of which is under the jurisdiction of Transport House, affiliated to the Labour party, and another is not under Transport House and not affiliated to the

  1937
  Labour party, they say, "We will not have a ballot, because we are afraid they will not have a free choice."
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I asked whether they had asked for a ballot themselves. If they want one they have a right to it.
  Mr. Boyce: What possible objection could there be to a free ballot, other than the objection I have referred to? If the pilots are of the opinion of hon. Members opposite they will vote accordingly. If they are exercising their choice freely if simply means they are doing so without any intimidation from the Labour party.
  Sir S. Griggs: Suppose it were a question of whether hon. Members opposite were to join a Conservative club or a Liberal club, would the hon. Member agree that it was reasonable to impose on them a ballot and make them join the club on which the majority decided?
  Mr. Boyce: That is not an analogous case. If you want to exercise your rights as an elector to vote for this House, you have to do so by secret ballot.
  Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member is evading the question. Will he say what is the difference between the example I put to him and the example he gave?
  Mr. Boyce: The point is that in one case it may not be the desire of hon. Members to join any club.
  Sir S. Cripps: Certainly; and that is the case with the pilots.
  Mr. Boyce: A pilot is quite entitled, if a ballot is given, I presume, to destroy his ballot paper if he does not want to vote. But the real gravamen of the case made by the Labour party is that these men are able to decide without intimidation by another section of the community which union they want to join.
  Mr. Montague: Surely they can decide that by joining one or the other? That is the proper procedure.
  Mr. Boyce: Every hon. Member of this House has, within his own knowledge, many instances of intimidation that have come from the Labour party. I do not think there are any hon. Members who have not.
  Sir S. Cripps: I have not.
  Mr. Boyce: But you were kicked out of the Labour party. You have come back again—
  Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member is a little inaccurate in his information. I do not blame him, because he has such a small knowledge generally. What I observed was that I have no information about any intimidation being exercised by the Labour party with regard to joining a trade union. I challenge the hon. Member to give an instance.
  The Chairman: That might be the end of this. It might be debated elsewhere.
  Mr. Boyce: I bow to your Ruling, though it is imposing a heavy sacrifice upon me. I hope the Minister and hon. Members on this side of the House will support the proposal that the men should be given this free choice, and I hope that, in view of what has been said here by the hon. Member for Llanelly and other hon. Members on that side, every precaution will be taken to see that the men who participate shall be given an absolutely free choice as to what union they join.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate until I heard the courageous speech which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). That reminded me, a relatively young man, of what we owe to the Labour party. It was based on the principles that have given birth to the movement which we represent on these benches. The principle contained in it and the spirit in which it was delivered ought to be remembered by every Member of our party, and I would have been failing in my duty did I not play my part in this Debate.
  I must admit that when the original Debate took place I had a certain amount of sympathy with the Under-Secretary. I said to one or two of my hon. Friends that he had inherited a legacy for which he was having to accept responsibility, and that he was in a very difficult position. But I have considerable experience in industrial negotiations. Time after time I have met captains of industry in this country, and I have found that those responsible for running big-scale industry in this country, when they have to face a situation of this character, generally realise that it is a good business proposition to do a thing in a generous way, in order to eliminate all The things that matter are: first, that we establish

  1939
  the principle of collective bargaining for these pilots; secondly, that they should be able to join a trade union which is, in the real sense of the word, a trade union; and thirdly, that the new Secretary of State and Under-Secretary of State shall accept the responsibility before the termination of this Debate. In view of that fact, I hope that they will reconsider the whole position in order to do justice to these pilots.
  There is a side to this issue which has not yet been mentioned, but as one who has had experience in dealing with matters of this kind I realise that it ought to be mentioned. A number of these men, it has been said, have obtained alternative employment and are working on other lines, but the circumstances of their dismissal by Imperial Airways will follow them throughout their lives unless the Secretary of State for Air and the Under-Secretary make a thorough investigation and let it be known to the country at large that they intend to deal with this issue in a big and generous way by saying that what has happened will not be allowed to affect their future in any way at all. We owe a debt to these pilots, and they ought to be given a statement that nothing is held against them, and that whatever has happened in the past is to be regarded as the past. They ought to be given a typewritten statement to that effect in order that, when they apply for employment in the future, they will have a clean character to place before anyone who is interviewing them. I have met a number of these men. A few weeks ago it was my privilege to shake hands with them and look them straight in the face and discuss these questions with them. Men who are used to handling machines of the kind entrusted to these men are of a very fine type and of great character, and no one knows this better than the Under-Secretary himself, with his record of service during the late War. He must realise that it is not being fair to leave these men in their present position. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take notice of this aspect of the situation, in order, even at this late time in the Debate, to use his influence with the Secretary of State so that a statement may be made before the conclusion of the Debate with the object of clearing the character of these men.
  1940
  Does anyone in this Committee believe that the ballot is to be a real ballot?
  Mr. Boyce: Yes, unless you interfere with it.
  Mr. Smith: Does anyone believe that it will be a secret ballot? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I have before me a copy of a circular letter issued by Imperial Airways on their own notepaper. It reads as follows:
  " Imperial Airways Limited, r8th May, 1938. Private and confidential. Dear Sir. With a view to establishing negotiating machinery between navigating personnel and the Company, the Company desire to ascertain the wishes of their captains.
  The original intention was to invite you to choose between (1) the domestic committee; (2) the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators; (3) the British Air Line Pilots Association. The Guild, however, regard the ballots as a domestic matter which concern only the Company and its navigating officers, in which it would be improper for the Guild to intervene directly. They therefore do not wish to be included in the ballot of captains and express the opinion that the properly considered interests of pilots would be best met if our navigating officers were represented by their own elected committee. The ballots have therefore been restricted to (a) domestic committee; (b) the British Air Line Pilots' Asaotion."
  Will you therefore please indicate your preference, by means of a cross on the enclosed ballot paper, and then send it in the enclosed envelope direct to Sir Harold Howitt, Messrs. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company, 11, Ironmonger Lane, London, E.C.2. In the event of your not wishing to vote, will you please forward the ballot paper unmarked so that all voting papers may be accounted for.
  It is intended that the ballot shall be secret, and you are therefore asked not to put any other mark on the ballot paper. The envelopes will be opened by Sir Harold Howitt and the votes will be counted in the presence of a representative of the company and of the British Air Line Pilots' Association.
  In the event of the ballot indicating that captains wish to be represented by an Employés Association rather than a domestic committee, the company naturally reserves the reciprocal right to join any Employers Association.
  I shall be obliged if you will sign and send to me the acknowledgement slip accompanying this letter.
  Yours faithfully,
  For and on behalf of Imperial Airways, Limited."
  Does anyone in this Committee consider that it is a fair way of conducting a ballot when a circular of that kind is sent out?
  Mr. Boyce: Let me inform the hon. Member, if he does not already know, that Messrs. Peate, Marwick, Mitchell and Company are a firm of chartered accountants in the City of London of very high repute, and—I speak with some considerable knowledge of the subject—probably more secret ballots are taken by this firm sending out notices to employers in this way than are taken by any other firm of accountants in the country.
  Mr. Smith: I am not saying anything about that, and I am not making any charges of suspicion against the chartered accountants, but, having had experience of this kind of thing, I have no hesitation in saying that no company which has had any experience of workpeople would intervene in this way. To send out a letter under the heading of the company in this way arouses the suspicions of the workpeople. The very fact that the company send out a circular of this description on their official notepaper is an indication that this is not a fair ballot. The communication even goes further and includes this form, stating:
  " I have received your letter enclosing ballot paper, and I have despatched it to Sir Harold Howitt as requested."
  That means that every person receiving this letter is expected to return this form to indicate the receipt of the letter. Alhough this may not seem much to hon. and right hon. Members who have not had experience of this character, every step taken of this kind undermines confidence and intimidates, with the result that a ballot of this kind cannot be a really democratic ballot.
  Mr. Boyce: Nonsense. They asked them to indicate their choice.
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Smith: This cannot be a fair or democratic ballot or the British way of dealing with things. Even at this late hour I hope the Under-Secretary will reconsider the question and come to a decision worthy of his past. Politically I differ fundamentally with the Under-Secretary of State, but when one considers his record in the last War one has to admit that it is a very fine record. He knows the men with whom we are dealing and for whom we are pleading. We have already won the battle for collective bargaining. We have already won the right to negotiate, and we are pleading that
  1942
  these pilots who do not belong to the class of people for whom we generally speak shall have the same right as other workers in this country, that is the right to join the association they desire. I hope the Under-Secretary will announce that the Government are prepared to reconsider this matter and do justice to these men.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie: It is somewhat amazing that at this time of day we should be pleading for the right of combination for any class of worker in this country. We are convinced that these pilots have been victimised. It is quite true that the right of combination was won over a century ago, but I would remind the Committee that trade unionism is not confined to the horny-handed sons of toil. The strictest trade unions in existence are those of the professional classes. There is the legal profession, 6s. 8d. every time, and you do not find members of the legal profession blackmailing each other. There is the medical profession. We know how well organised they were. They were able to bring the strongest Government of modern days to its knees when the Health Insurance Act was passing through the House of Commons.
  The Chairman: I hope the hon. Member is not going to give us a lecture now on trade unionism.
  Mr. Leslie: I was only endeavouring to demonstrate that there is trade unionism in the professional classes, and I think these air pilots can be put in that category.
  The Chairman: Then I hope the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the application to these pilots.
  Sir S. Cripps: On a point of Order. Is it in order in the course of a Debate when we are discussing the desirability of trade unionism for pilots, to draw analogies from other professional trade unions' rules?
  The Chairman: That is one of the matters which I think I must ask the hon. and learned Member to leave to the Chair.
  Sir S. Cripps: Surely, when you give a Ruling an hon. Member has the right to point it out with a view of seeing whether in the circumstances your Ruling may not be altered?
  The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member did so, and the effect of my reply was that I thought that matters with which I had to deal myself should be left to myself.
  Sir S. Cripps: I am sorry you have put it that way. I understand it is the right of any hon. Member to raise a point of Order in the way I did, I hope with complete courtesy, and ask you to reconsider the decision you have given. I suggest with equal courtesy that the Committee is entitled to know that decision, and whether you have in fact altered your mind as a result of any observations which may have been put before you.
  The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member did not ask me to reconsider my decision. He asked me, if I may say so, a different question altogether.
  Sir S. Cripps: I am sorry I did not make my question clear. May I put it again? Is it not in order, when discussing the desirability of pilots having a trade union organisation, to draw analogies from other professional bodies such as doctors and lawyers?
  The Chairman: That may be so up to a certain point, and that point depends on the discretion of the Chair.
  Mr. Leslie: All I wanted to point out was that if it was good for these professional classes it could not be bad for pilots, who I consider are in the professional class. We have had in this House the Grand Old Man of the Liberal Party declaring that trade unions were the bulwarks of democracy and, on the other hand, the late Lord Balfour, when the Trade Disputes Bill was passing through the House, declaring with perfect truth also that trade unions had done much in lessening labour disputes. If it is right for professional classes to organise, surely it cannot be bad for pilots in the service of this company. I want to know why this ballot? Surely, the pilots have a perfect right to join a trade union if they desire? What right have Imperial Airways to lay it down that they can decide it only after they have taken a ballot, and in the ballot to give them two choices: one, representation by committees of first officers chosen by themselves on similar lines to the existing captains' committee, and two, representation by the British Air Line Pilots' Association.
  1944
  If there is anything which stinks in the nostrils of free man it is the idea of shop councils. I have some experience of what are called shop councils, which are formed by the directors on the one hand and representatives of the Employés on the other. They have periodical meetings which are held simply to ratify what the directors have already decided. The men in reality do not have a free choice or representation as they would if they were in a genuine trade union. I think these men should have the right to belong to the Pilots' Association without any ballot of this kind, and I hope that whoever replies for the Government will decide that the one individual who is still victimised will be immediately reinstated.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I hope the Minister, on reflection, will regard this as an extraordinary Debate and certainly as an extraordinary subject matter for discussion. Well over 100 years ago the anti-combination laws of this country were repealed, and from that time the right of free organisation amongst the workers has been granted by the laws of this country. I wish to join in the protest which has been made against the attitude of Imperial Airways, Limited, whose record up to now has been nothing to boast about. When the exposures were made by the Cadman Committee, I was amazed that the company had permitted such an issue as we are discussing to-night to become public matter in one of the most strongly organised countries in the world as far as the working classes are concerned. I wish also to join in the protest against this ballot that is being staged at the expense of the pilots. Some of my hon. Friends have had considerable, and not on the whole very happy, experience of the subtle forms of intimidation which can be practised when employers are against the organisation of their workers.
  It seems to me as though the position has been staged among these pilots for the same practices to be carried on. Of course, the employers will not shout at their workers that they must not join trade unions. That would be rather too crude a method even for the pre-Victorian mentality which still dominates Imperial Airways. But hon. Members know that such methods can be used as promises of promotion, and that subtle threats can be made that there will be

  1945
  the loss of privileges or the reduction of salaries. We also know that human beings differ very considerably in temperament. Some people can be attracted by subtle suggestions that might be construed as forms of bribery, whereas others would resent very strongly any approaches of that nature.
  My hon. Friends have already said that this ballot is nothing but a form of intimidation against any of these pilots who understand the meaning of trade unionism and what a contribution collective bargaining can make in regard to their conditions of employment. One of the most amazing things about the correspondence associated with the ballot is that the votes must be counted in the presence of a representative of the company. That is the limit of effrontery. Can hon. Members imagine an employer coming into my branch of the Mineworkers' Federation, and saying, "I have come here to-night to see exactly which men are paying contributions to the Mineworkers' Federation"? The fact that Imperial Airways must be represented at the count in that ballot means that the Government, through their (Erectors on that company, are determined to obtrude themselves into an ordinary trade union incident. The fact that we have to make this protest 113 years after the anti-combination laws have been repealed is a most disgraceful situation for the Government to have permitted to exist in connection with Imperial Airways. Hon. Members must assume responsibility for what is taking place.
  I hope that the Minister and the Government will pay attention to the protest that has been made from these benches to-night. I have seen situations of this kind develop very rapidly in other parts of the country. When the organisation of the Employés is prohibited by the employers and when all forms of intimidation are practised, one may anticipate trouble immediately the Employés get into an organisation. These men will organise in a sense of the strongest resentment against the company, which is a failure in the commercial sense and which can exist only through the receipt of huge subsidies from the State. I hope the Government will take a warning from the protest that has been made this evening. Hon. Members on this side will back the pilots in whatever step they may take in future in
  1946
  defence of rights which belong to every workman in this country. Surely, the Minister, with the long experience which he has had in other Government Departments, must know that no industry can develop unless the Employés in it are intelligently and effectively organised. It is only through an organisation that most of these pilots can become articulate; such an organisation would be the instrument by which they would make known to their employers the defects in the service and suggestions for improving it. The Minister knows that industry would never have developed to the degree that it has developed if collective bargaining, determined by trade union organisation, had not become a factor in our industrial history. How can we expect this service to develop other than along those lines?
  Frankly, if I were one of the Government representatives on the company I should do my best to encourage the pilots to make their suggestions collectively as to how the service could be improved and what methods could be adopted in order to increase the standard of safety. I was cradled in trade union organisation, and those hon. Members who belong to the miners' organisation know that we have contributed not a little towards reducing the casualty list in the coal industry. Hon. Members know only too well the casualties that have marred the development of these air services. We want the experience of the pilots translated into suggestions in order that the services may be improved and the casualties reduced, and in order that we may enlarge our knowledge as to the splendid work that these men have done.
  As one who started his work in life by going down into the bowels of the earth—not as thrilling or romantic as the work of these pilots—I admire immensely the splendid and heroic work which the pilots are doing. It is not for these directors, who largely exist upon funds supplied by the State, to throw a challenge to those of us who know the absolute necessity of working-class organisation and trade unions in this country. We will continue to resist such interference in the historical right of a group of workers. I would add my appeal to the Minister to stand no nonsense in this matter, and not to allow a service of this kind to be handicapped and imperilled by an attitude which I can only describe as that of a

  1947
  pre-Victorian mentality. I am inclined to believe that the Minister, with his experience of working-class organisations and the innumerable deputations he has received from them from time to time, and owing to the fact that he has been compelled to appreciate the pooling of knowledge and experience which working-class organisation makes possible, will act in such a way that we shall not have to repeat a protest of this kind. I believe that after this Debate he will put an end to this farcical ballot, which means that if a pilot feels that he would not like to join in it he will, by implication, have on his side the influence of the company in order that he may work on as a non-unionist and a renegade to the interests of his own class. We shall raise on every opportunity any grievance that these pilots may suffer as a result of the farce that is being perpetrated to-day.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. David Adams: Members on this side of the Committee, during the Debates on Defence, must have been strongly convinced that the Government are out of touch with the industrial life of the nation; and the Debate to-day must have convinced even the most careless auditor that that is indeed the fact after what has happened in regard to Imperial Airways. For a Minister to stand up in these days in the House of Commons to defend the conduct of Imperial Airways in their attitude to collective bargaining and the independence of the Employés to choose whatever form that should take, indicates that the Government are out of touch with the industrial age in which we live. I do not say that because of any feeling that we have a Government on which money and privilege in various forms have probably a greater hold than on any other Government of modern times, but because the average employer to-day in any industrial organisation would have advised the Government, as they have indicated again and again at employers' meetings, that trade unionism and the organisation of the workers in particular industries has been one of the greatest factors in the development of the industrial life of the nation and ought to be preserved at all hazards. I have heard that again and again among employers on Tyneside, and I should like to know who are these directors of Imperial Airways who claim the right to in-
  1948
  sist on no interference with their Employés.
  Imagine the Federation of Engineering Employers attempting this sort of thing with any group of engineers. They are too intelligent and too well versed with the present day to attempt any such thing, but assume that they did so; assume that it was done in any of the great industrial organisations. It would not be tolerated for a minute. Black as the Cadman Report was against Imperial Airways in regard to matters of omission and commission, it is clear that that company has learned nothing from the report and have determined to travel in their own way with a sense of independence instead of acting as a company which is receiving heavy subsidies at the hands of the State. I should like to know who these two Government directors are. Are they automata? I have never heard of two directors so lacking in a sense of their obligations to their employer—and this House is their employer. I have served in the capacity of a director of a subsidiary company of a large concern. Is it conceivable that in my position upon a subsidiary company I could please myself whether I made a report to head office or not as these persons do? They claim the right not to report to the Government, not to admit any sense of responsibility. Are they merely to draw their substantial salaries and have an enjoyable existence bereft of a sense of obligation to the community that has placed them there? Imagine the position of a director appointed by one of the banking corporations. There are large numbers of such directors in various industries appointed by the banks which have special financial interests in those concerns. Is it conceivable that such directors should make no report to their banks except at their own free will? A creditors' meeting appoints someone to, look after the financial interests of the creditors. It would be just as reasonable as the conduct of these two directors if such a person determined that he would make no report to the creditors.
  It is high time that the Government ended this completely nonsensical farce. I have never heard in my long experience of trade and industry of two directors who dared to pursue the course that these Government directors pursue in declining to' make their report to the Government. The reason for their action is that the

  1949
  Government have fortified them in their attitude. The Government have indicated that all they have to do is to look after the interests of Imperial Airways and never mind the supreme interests of the House of Commons. We are the employers, we also find the funds, and we demand as public representatives the right to have our interests safeguarded along the lines which I have indicated.
  9.15 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to say a few words upon the Debate in its recent aspect. I would say to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), whose contributions to our Debates are always valued, that so far as I am aware, and I am sure that it is the case, there has been no question whatever of the Government, or my predecessor, or myself, in any way endeavouring to influence the Government directors in their examination into this unfortunate case. I think the Committee will agree that both of them are men of outstanding character, and one of them is particularly interested in the service so far as the pilots are concerned, and I am confident that they were actuated by a desire to see that justice was done and to arrive at a fair conclusion. I think that testimony ought to be given to-night, and I know of no motive—I would tell the Committee if I thought there were—which actuated them in making their report. They occupy practically an independent position. They are on the board as representatives of the Government, nominated as a result of the Government's action, and from the point of view of having base or sordid motives there was nothing to actuate them in that respect.
  I should like the Committee to feel assured that in my opinion, though people may differ from me, they did give a fair examination to the case of these officers. Further, as I said at the beginning of the Debate, a representative of the Association was present throughout the discussions and hearings, and I understand that at the end of each examination he was asked whether there was any point which he desired to put forward. In that respect a full and complete examination was made.
  Mr. Kelly: Why cannot we have the report?
  Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to repeat what I said
  1950
  at the beginning of the proceedings, that obviously—and apart altogether from the merits of this case—if there is to be real advantage derived from the relationship of the Government to the Government directors those directors must be in a position to give confidential reports to the Government. I am sure it is of advantage that they should be able to do so.
  Mr. Buchanan: Why so secret?
  Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who always puts his finger on the spot, asks, "Why so secret?" I do not think anyone can say with reference to the discussion of the case of these officers that there is any secrecy.
  Mr. Buchanan: But we cannot get the real reasons.
  Sir K. Wood: If I were asked for one of the advantages of Parliament in a democratic system I should find an illustration of it in this case, because if ever there has been a thorough examination into the position of certain individuals we have certainly had it in the course of our proceedings during the last few weeks. In conclusion, I would say a few words upon the ballot which is now taking place. I hope hon. Members will appreciate the fact, and that it will weigh with them, that the conduct of the ballot has been arranged with the Air Line Pilots Association, and that they have intimated that they are in agreement with the procedure which was proposed and is now being followed. I think that ought to dispose of any apprehensions expressed by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Montague: Why are there different coloured ballot papers?
  Sir K. Wood: I inquired about that, and I understand that the ballot papers of one colour are for captains and the papers of the other colour for first officers. The object is to facilitate the counting. I do not think there is anything sinister in the fact. That is really the only objection which has so far been advanced, and I do not think it is a very substantial one. The ballot is entirely secret. Nobody signs his name, or anything of that sort.
  Mr. Lathan: Are we to understand that the Air Line Pilots Association desired a ballot? If not, does the Minister agree that the employer has the right to impose a ballot?
  Sir K. Wood: I was dealing with the arrangements for the conduct of the ballot and was endeavouring to satisfy the Committee that, the ballot having once being determined upon, the arrangements were made with the Association and are being carried out in conformity with the agreement mutually arrived at.
  Mr. Lathan: Does the Minister recognise that fundamental questions of human rights and liberties arise? That is what is behind our objection. It is not a question of the methods of procedure or whether they were subsequently arranged in agreement with the association.
  Sir K. Wood: I was endeavouring to deal with some of the points which were made by hon. Members who preceded the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Lathan) as to the ballot itself. I say that if there is to be a ballot the arrangements in this case are generally satisfactory. There is secrecy so far as the papers are concerned. I looked into that point and there are no means of identifying how a particular man votes. The counting of the votes takes place in the presence of a representative of the company and of the association, and the final determination rests with a completely independent individual, one not involved in any way in this controversy, and that is with a member of a firm of chartered accountants. It would be difficult to devise a system which would be more likely to give an impartial result.
  I would only add, in answer to what was said by the hon. Member for the Park Division, that it is my view, and I think it is the general view of the Committee and of the country, that undoubtedly the best results are obtained where there is in existence an association of this character. That has been my experience in other Departments. Some of the best achievements we have been able to obtain—for example, in connection with the Association of Municipal employees—have come about where employés have been associated together. From the point of view of the Government of the day there can be no greater inconvenience than not to have an association of this character, and any influence which I have in matters of this kind will be directed to-day, as it has been in the past, to endeavouring to get together an association of employés commanding the support of the majority of those whom they represent, and able to
  1952
  discuss matters which are appropriate for discussion between employers and employés. That means that the best results are obtained. I hope as the result of this ballot many of the difficulties which have confronted the company and which have been referred to in this House to-day will be on their way to settlement. Therefore, I want the Committee to feel that, so far as I have any influence, it will be used in the direction that I have indicated.
  9.25 p.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that one of the advantages of democracy is that we can in such circumstances as these have a thorough examination and discussion, and he told us that to-night we have had a thorough examination of this problem. Anyone who reads the record of this Debate tomorrow will be able to see what the result of that thorough examination is. The most damning case was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) and no explanation whatsoever was given by the Government. If that is so, then all I can say is that people must draw the conclusion that the accusations are unanswerable, and there is the clearest possible case for some inquiry into the whole circumstances of employment in Imperial Airways. Some of the things which were put forward by my hon. Friend were really quite incredible things to happen in any decent company anywhere in the world, and though they are happening and are not disputed, there is not a word against them from the Government Bench.
  Sir K. Wood: I expressly stated this afternoon that I was obviously not in a position to refute them, and I think the hon. Gentleman himself will appreciate that. He himself stated that things were repeated to him. I must reserve so far as I can the right of the Government to refute them in the future.
  Mr. Montague: I only said on one point that I could not accept responsibility, but, so far as the other points were concerned, I had documentary evidence for every one of them.
  Sir S. Cripps: It is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he must reserve the right of the Government to refute them in future. After all, they were fully aware after the regrettable incident of a few nights ago that this

  1953
  Debate was coming on again. They have had full time in consultation with their directors to know exactly the sort of points that were to be raised, and, if there were any justification, to have the information in order to put it before the House. In these circumstances there is only one thing for this Committee to do, that is to vote against the Government in order to show that we cannot be treated in this way as regards serious matters arising in companies to whom we are paying millions of pounds annually. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the very serious question of directors in this subsidised company. This is one of the problems that arise from the breakdown of capitalism. In the old days people used to say, "You must leave people free to trade as they like—free dealings with their employés, no Government interference, and then this splendid virile growth of capitalism that will flower for the benefit of the whole nation."
  That song has long since ceased to be sung. Now it is, as the Secretary for Mines picturesquely told us not long ago, "the old man with the hat." And in these cases, and where the Government are compelled to come forward and to put up very large sums of money in order to maintain essential services and as a condition of that insist—very rightly if you are going to have subsidies at all—on imposing directors upon it, what on earth is the use of imposing directors if we in this Committee who control the expenditure of the country, or ought to, are told, "Oh, this is too confidential. We cannot let you have a report on this. That would not be right. It might interfere with the ordinary commercial undertakings of the company"? If the company think it might interfere with their ordinary commercial undertakings, let them not have the Government directors, or the million and a half, and let them get on with the job, and let us run a proper nationalised air service instead, where we shall have the control, where we can ask the Minister as regards the conditions of employment, and where we can keep our hand upon the expenditure. But this hermaphroditic type of industry, neither one thing nor the other, brings you into just this sort of difficulty. Here is a great expenditure. Are we or are we not to be able to control it? That is one of the
  1954
  principal points in the course of this Debate.
  There is another point—as regards these pilots. The right hon. Gentleman really takes the view that "This is past and over. No doubt if I had been there before it would have been dealt with reasonably, but as decent people were not there it was not. But I cannot go back on that." Let me remind the House of what the Under-Secretary said about these men on the former occasion. He said:
  "May I repeat that I am making no charges against these pilots, and that to the best of my knowledge no charge has been formulated against them which has been made public, and which has affected their reputation. All that has happened is that they have been dismissed and that, in the opinion of the Government directors, those dismissals were justified.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1938; col. 975, Vol. 336.]
  What does that mean? It means "I, as representing the Government, accept the view that these men were properly dismissed." That means to say that they have been guilty of something, and we have never had any suggestion of what that guilt is. The Star Chamber was a mild procedure compared with this. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would have said in those days, "But the matter has been inquired into by the Star Chamber. Of course you cannot see the proceedings, but I can assure you the President told me himself that the matter had been properly investigated."
  Mr. Pickthorn: The characteristic of the Star Chamber was publicity.
  Sir S. Cripps: What is generally called Star Chamber procedure—
  Mr. Pickthorn: Not by lawyers.
  Sir S. Cripps: Yes, by lawyers. The Star Chamber proceeded upon the basis that these people have had, after all, a fair examination. The Government directors have examined them. True, the Under-Secretary said, "I do not know what their decision was based on. I simply say it was what it was, and that satisfied me." I think the right hon. Gentleman has gone a little deeper, I think he has inquired, but he, like his great predecessor, comes here with sealed lips. We suggest that in those circumstances, with these unanswered accusations, the only proper way to deal with this, not as regards these pilots but as regards the whole atmosphere of employ-

  1955
  ment in Imperial Airways, which is a much bigger question, is to have some further and specific inquiry.
  Let me say one word about the ballot. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that everything is going to be done in due form and order. But why a ballot? Why should these people who have not asked for it be compelled to have a ballot? Why, because they are employed persons, must they be compelled to have a ballot? The right hon. Gentleman has never heard of a ballot of employed persons. It seems a peculiar weapon to be used against employed persons when there is a danger of free trade unionism. Then he says: "What could be fairer than the employers being present with a representative of the union?" What have the employers to do with it? It is no concern of theirs whether these pilots belong to one or other organisation, they are not a party to the proceedings; they are not one of the people whom the pilots will elect. It is not like a Member of Parliament and a candidate attending at the county poll. Imperial Airways have no right of any sort or kind to interfere with these people in what these people choose to do. The only reason for their being present is that they hope to ascertain some information.
  Mr. Boyce: I should imagine that they are obviously present in order to guarantee fair play in the name of the company.
  Sir S. Cripps: I assure the hon. Member that the pilots can dispense with that guarantee without the slightest difficulty. They have not asked for it and they would be just as happy—they would be happier—if those people were not present. Why should the company impose themselves upon the pilots in their ballot? The whole mentality of the hon. Gentleman is that the employer has a right to interfere in these matters. If that is not his mentality why are Imperial Airways going to do it? If they have no right to interfere why are they to be there? The hon. Member cannot answer the question.
  Mr. Boyce: Yes, I certainly can, if the hon. and learned Gentleman gives way. It is not a question of whether the company have a right to be there. They have just as much right as a representative of the Association has to be there.
  Sir S. Cripps: Now, you see, the hon. Member says that they have a right to be there. He is only comparing it with somebody else's right. I am not suggesting that the Association should be there. I am suggesting that when the ballot is counted it should be done by the accountants, and that nobody should be there. We can always trust Messrs. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company. We trust them quite well, because they have carried out work of this kind in the past. Representatives of both sides do not have to be present when the coal companies' affairs are gone into. When some of their results have been got out by accountants they would very much object to others seeing those results. The hon. Gentleman's mentality is such that he believes that the employer has a right to supervise everything that the employé does. We want arrangements to be made by which neither party has the right to be present.
  An Hon. Member: Impossible.
  Sir K. Wood: It does not matter. It has been agreed upon with the Association.
  Sir S. Cripps: Some people think it does matter. The circumstances in which these matters are agreed upon are not always very willing circumstances. It is sometimes the best thing that you can get and the result is that you agree to do something rather than not agree to anything. The whole idea is that we object to the ballot being forced upon people who have expressed no wish for it. They should be allowed to do as they like and if they want to join a union they should be allowed to do so without being controlled by a majority in which many of them could have no confidence. For these reasons we shall vote against the Clause.
  9.39 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to say a word or two as a lifelong trade unionist who has some knowledge of his own organisation and of the travail and sorrow through which that organisation has gone. Apart from the ballot, and apart from the proceedings that have been suggested, I believe that the action of Imperial Airways is trifling with the liberty of the individual to please himself. The Secretary of State for Air has said that this matter has been agreed upon,

  1957
  but evidently it has been Hobson's choice. Matters have been taken so far that there is nothing left for the men to do but, as a last resort, to take this course because there is no alternative. After their graduation the livelihood and the life of the pilots of Imperial Airways depend entirely upon the good will of the company. Undoubtedly the intention in this case is that there shall be what is called a company union and that the men employed by Imperial Airways should be entirely dependent in future for their livelihood upon the attitude of the managing director or whoever is responsible between the company and the pilots.
  We have had a good bit of experience of this sort of thing. It took many years before we could have an association for the miners. The coalowners as an association put our men's furniture out on the streets and into the woods in the depths of winter before we had that association, because they believed that it was not in the interests of the industry that the men should be organised. We have developed from those days, and it has been recognised that the manual worker is to be allowed to work. Why should there be objection and restriction in regard to the black-coated workers being in their own associations? You people on the other side of the Committee have the greatest objection when anybody talks about class, but it seems to me that this is a case of sheer class. You allow the manual workers to organise but you object to organisation among people who, by education, have come into some sort of profession or specialised industry. Why? Is it because you want to retain control over them and thus also control the workers if need be?
  Is this one of the ideas that have come from America? We had read an awful lot about company unions in America. With all the strikes and industrial turmoil in America we cannot believe tint the industrial upheaval has not been dissociated from them. It was only after the nation was turned upsidedown that organisation was made illegal. We have had many bad things from America and some that we could well do without. If this idea of company unions has come from America let us say that we can carry on in our old-fashioned British way without any of these company unions. If the pilots believe for one moment that they
  1958
  can have justice when they most need it by having a company trade union, then they are making the greatest mistake they ever made. Even with our strong industrial organisation amongst the workers, where does our safety lie to-day? It lies in the fact that we can make a complaint on behalf of a man, without the company being able to put a finger on the man who has made the original complaint. The days of victimisation are not over in this country. We have men who have never had a job since 1926 because they took a strong stand then for what they believed to be right. They have never worked since.
  In the conduct of Imperial Airways there is not a single thing of which anyone could be proud. In all the Debates, we have had nothing has been revealed of which we could be proud. We have had pilots dismissed without any charge against them. Who is going to defend men in those circumstances if a company union is formed? There is no one to defend them, because every man who steps into the breach will be another man marked for the road. That is why they do not want a free organisation with representatives of the men—men like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins)—who could represent the men without fear. That is why we have the checkweighmen in our mines—because they could not be given the sack. They could say what they thought without fear, but the companies played havoc even with the checkweighers system. They have power to dismiss a checkweigliman if he becomes—not exactly a nuisance, but something of that sort. I only rose tonight because the important thing is that this is a transgression of British liberty. We, in the trade unions, would be making a fundamental mistake in allowing anything other than a free association chosen by the men themselves.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. Poole: I feel that I should be false to my sense of duty if, in a Debate so vital to trade unionism, I did not make my contribution to the expression of exactly what we feel regarding the attitude of the Government in this matter. I have sat through the major part of the Debate to-night, and the one thing that has impressed me is our inability to make any impression on the Government benches. There have been very few

  1959
  people there to be impressed, but those who are there, including the Secretary of State, have shown themselves absolutely incapable of being moved in any way from the stand they have taken. The Secretary of State for Air in his two replies reminded me of the song which says:
  " He flies through the air with the greatest of ease,
  The daring young man on the flying trapeze."
  No stability, fixity or certainty was to be found in any of his statements, nor was there any attempt to deal with the points raised by those on this side of the Committee. In my opinion, there would appear to have been good reason why Guy Fawkes wanted to make an impression on the Government of the day. He must have been faced with an unreceptive attitude on the Government benches, such as we have faced to-night. Is it not apparent to the Government, making, as they are, an approach to organised trade unionism in this country to help them in the rearmament programme, that organised trade unionism will not be anxious to help them while they deny to men the right to form their own union? The Secretary of State said that no attempt was made to influence the company in that inquiry. But an attempt should have been made to influence the company to form a free and impartial tribunal that would inquire into any charges levelled against these dismissed men. No one seems to know the charges or the defence. We only know that men have been sentenced in the dark, and that is contrary to every conception of British justice.
  The Minister says we have had a very thorough discussion. But that is not because the Government has contributed to the discussion. The Government has not made it possible for this Committee to discuss this matter very fully. They will not lay before the Committee the material facts of the case. All that has been acquired to make discussion possible is what Members on this side have been able to acquire from their own personal and secret inquiries. The Government are subsidising this company and have two representatives on the board of directors who ought to place the facts before this Committee. That is my prime objection. I am not well up in Parliamentary pro-
  1960
  cedure, but if this is Parliamentary procedure and democratic government, it is not my conception of democracy.
  Should we have two directors on the company and have no knowledge as to what happens to the money which the country is putting into the company? Is it proper that we should not have the elementary right of inquiry when men under the company are dismissed, and is it right that workers should not be allowed to form a trade union? I did not think such things possible in this enlightened twentieth century. I understood the Minister to say that the ballot was to be carried out by a chartered accountant. We are opposed to the ballot. It is contrary to what we, as trade unionists, have always understood to be right, but we are even more opposed to men being charged, tried and sentenced in the dark without this House being made aware of the facts of the case, and to the fact that we should hand over £1,500,000 without being able to ask a question about the money.
  Mr. Gallacher: In view of the remarks made earlier in the evening and the quotation which the Minister gave from the speech of the Under-Secretary, I ask the Minister to get up at that Box and withdraw the statement made by the Under-Secretary that these men were justifiably dismissed.
  Sir K. Wood: The Under-Secretary did not make any such statement. He referred to the report of the Government directors and to their decision in the matter.
  Sir S. Cripps: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the Under-Secretary said that the Government accepted the report of the directors. Therefore, is it not right to say that the Government's attitude is that these men were justifiably dismissed?
  9.56 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: What my hon. and gallant Friend said was:
  " I will be perfectly frank with the Committee and give them the full knowledge I have got. I have seen the Government Directors' report to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, which says that the Government Directors investigated the circumstances of the dismissals and found that the dismissals were justified."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1938; col. 971, Vol. 336.]

  1961
  We appointed a tribunal and the tribunal came to a certain conclusion. I made an investigation and we came to the conclusion that they had conducted their investigation with fairness and justice and the desire to arrive at a right decision.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman makes it worse. Does he suggest that the directors were inquiring into their own conduct? They are directors on this board. These men were dismissed by the board. He now says that these directors inquired as a tribunal into their own conduct and discovered to his amazement that their own conduct was justified. Really, the right hon. Gentleman is below his usual form and I could not say worse of him than that. It is appalling that this Committee should be replied to in those terms. The directors have made a report; the report has been seen by the Under-Secretary, and the Under-Secretary has said that the directors are satisfied that they did the right thing. The Committee is supposed to accept that reply. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to the Committee. He ought to carry this matter a little further. Either he should say that there is no evidence to justify the dismissal of the men or he should place the report before us. The right hon. Gentleman is starting off in his new office in a very bad way indeed. I always thought the appointment singularly unfortunate. I know he was appointed because he was a politician, and not because he was a statesman, but, even as a politician, he is failing this evening. We must have a little more from him before we are justified in leaving this matter where it is.
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I want further light on this point. The Minister said there was no charge against these men. He quoted the latter part of the Under-Secretary's speech to emphasise that point. Now he says "I myself made an investigation arid am satisfied that the report of the directors is a correct report." In other words he says "I am satisfied that the dismissals were justified." The dismissals can only be justified on the basis of a charge against these men. How then can the Minister having told us earlier that there was no charge against them, now say that he is satisfied that the charge against them was found by the directors to have been maintained and that the
  1962
  dismissals were justified? The Minister must do one of two things. The Committee has a duty to these pilots as well as to the House of Commons as a whole to see that he does one of those two things. He must either withdraw his statement that the dismissals were justified, or present to us the report which he claims to have investigated, so that we may see whether there is any ground for his statement that the directors were justified in their decision.
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Kelly: I ask the Minister to take this matter a little more seriously. He says these two directors sat as a tribunal. Surely he realises that a tribunal which considered a case of this kind ought to report to us, and that we are justified in demanding a report from them. We are entitled to know what was the decision of the tribunal and on what grounds that decision was made. We are entitled in the interest of the people, whose money we have passed over to this company in the past and are likely to pass over to it in the future, to ask for such a report. I hope that the Patronage Secretary, in the interests of fair play and British methods, will use his influence to see that a report is presented to the House of Commons. As it is, these men are under suspicion of having done something so bad that they are no longer fit to be employed by Imperial Airways. The country now thinks that these men must have committed themselves badly, and in the interest of the men themselves, as well as in the interest of the House of Commons, I hope we shall have this report.
  10.3 p.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: The Minister has just raised a very serious point. We are not clear whether the Government accept responsibility for the acts of the Government directors. As we understand it, if the Government appoint directors they cannot shift responsibility for the acts of those directors from themselves on to the directors. It becomes a Ministerial responsibility. If they say that the directors found that these dismissals were justified, they must accept responsibility for that statement. Otherwise the responsibility is nowhere. They say that these Government directors sat as a tribunal to consider an act of the board of directors. Can anybody imagine an ordinary company appointing directors to conduct an inquiry

  1963
  into what the directors themselves have done? It is fantastic. The only conceivable basis for the holding of this inquiry by two Government directors into the acts of the board of which they are part, is that they occupy a special position as direct representatives of the Government and that the Government accept responsibility for what they do. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the proposition, that the Government must accept responsibility for what they ask their representatives to do and for the result of this inquiry?
  10.5 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: In a commercial company, in the ordinary way, decisions of the directors are matters for them. In this case, having regard to the allegations that were made in this House about victimisation, the Government directors, who occupy a special position as far as this company is concerned, were asked to reexamine the matter. They inquired into it, in the presence of the representatives of the association. I have reviewed the whole position, and as far as I am concerned I see no reason to differ from the decision to which the directors came.
  Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he has reviewed the whole position and he finds no reason to differ from the decision of the directors. Therefore his opinion, the opinion of His Majesty's Government, is that these men were rightly dismissed. Am I right in that assumption?
  Sir K. Wood: As far as I can say, from my review of the position, I would not say that they were rightly dismissed, because that is not the proper term to use, but that their engagements were terminated and that there was no victimisation, as far as I can judge, in connection with the termination of their engagements. We must remember that the responsibility in the ordinary course rests with the directors of the company. This is a commercial concern and the majority of the directors are outside any supervision by the Government. Therefore, that consideration must always be borne in mind. It is only because there are Government directors and there is a contractual relationship between the company and the State, that this exceptional situation arose. Reviewing the position
  1964
  as I see it, I do not think there has been any victimisation.
  Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. The Under-Secretary said on the last occasion:
  " All that has happened is that they have been dismissed, and in the opinion of the Government directors those dismissals were justified.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1938; col. 975, Vol. 336.]
  The question that I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman is this: Does he, after his independent investigation, agree that those dismissals were justified?
  Sir K. Wood: So far as my review of the matter is concerned, I should have come to the same conclusion.
  Mr. Bevan: Then what was the charge?
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. Davidson: I want to raise one or two points on precisely the matter with which the Minister is concerned. The Under-Secretary stated that he saw the report of the tribunal, and he stated that, having seen that report, he felt that the dismissals were justified.
  Captain Balfour indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davidson: Yes. Now, the Secretary of State for Air states that, after investigating the tribunal's report, he is satisfied that the dismissals were justifiable decisions. Has he seen the full report submitted by the two Government directors who formed the tribunal? If so is he prepared to submit to this House the reasons for the dismissal of those pilots? Does he recognise that employers dismiss men only for bad workmanship, for misbehaviour, or for some action against the good interests of the firm? I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman when he states that these pilots were dismissed on justifiable grounds, were those grounds the grounds of misbehaviour, of bad workmanship, or of acting against the interests of Imperial Airways? Only on one or other of those grounds could the dismissals be justified. The Minister states that because two Government directors were on the board, that should not make much difference. He recognises that this investigation arose because the question was raised in this House and this House desired to exercise some right in regard to the conduct of a company to which it has given considerable subsidies.

  1965
  Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question? Has he seen the tribunal's report? Is he satisfied that the dismissals were justified on the same grounds that dismissals take place in regard to ordinary firms? If so, will he explain why he is so anxious to reinstate dismissed men, whose dismissals he says were justified, and to place them in other positions of trust? If their dismissals were justified, why is he so anxious to see these men reinstated in some other positions? I should like him to answer these questions and to tell the Committee the real reason for the dismissals. It must have been misbehaviour, bad workmanship or acting against the interests of the company. It cannot have been for bad dress or lack of decorum. It must have been on one or other of three issues which are recognised as grounds of dismissal throughout the country.
  10.13 p.m.
  Sir Percy Harris: I have considerable sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that he has taken over a very responsible position at a very difficult time, and in doing so he has inherited some of the troubles of his predecessor. That makes it difficult for him to take up his new position in a new attitude. On the other hand, this is a service which is vital to the well-being of the country, and it is necessary, if he is going to make a success of the civil side of aviation, that he should have the good will of the whole staff and also of my hon. Friends above the Gangway who are so much identified with the trade union movement. From what we know of my right hon. Friend, I feel sure that he has done his best to do justice all round, but he is apparently precluded from making a statement.
  Cannot he make some concession? This will remain an open sore. We have listened to many speeches, and they have largely been repetition. I do not mean that disrespectfully, for it only shows how strongly hon. Members feel about the matter—so strongly that they have kept the Debate going for many hours. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman, with his skill as a conciliator, make a gesture to hon. Members that will enable him to get his Bill and to proceed with his great and responsible job at the Air Ministry? Would is not be possible to appoint a Committee of, say, three impartial people to report
  1966
  to the House whether they were satisfied that the directors had done their job? We desire to end this very unfortunate episode, and enable the right hon. Gentleman to get on with his far more important work as Air Minister.
  10.15 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: Perhaps I might say a word in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I really do not think that his suggestion would be very useful. As a matter of fact, all the men concerned are re-employed except one, and any further investigation would not really be of any practical value. I have indicated the position of the company so far as one man is concerned, and I very much hope that he will accept the offer of the company. From a practical point of view there remains only one man, and, so far as I am personally concerned, I will do my best for him. As regards victimisation, and the question of trade unionism and matters of that kind, I have already indicated that certain steps have been taken to deal with the matter of trade union organisation, and I have no doubt that that will be satisfactorily settled. As regards victimisation, with which the Committee alone is concerned, I myself, after a review of the matter, see no reason to think that there has been any victimisation.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has spoken of repetition. It would have been possible for us to have divided the Committee three-quarters of an hour ago had the Minister repeated himself, but in fact he has shifted his position on two occasions. In the early part of the evening he said that the directors had made an inquiry, and he was disposed to accept their conclusion. Later on he said, "I have heard the evidence upon which the directors have come to their conclusion, and I think the matter should rest there, because I cannot interfere with the administration of the board." Now he has said, "I have seen the evidence upon which these men have been dismissed, and I should have reached the same conclusion as the board has reached." Therefore, if hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby in support of the Government, they will be voting in support of the statement of the Minister that the dismissal of these men was justified,

  1967
  although no charge has been made against the men.
  The matter would have been very simple for us if the right hon. Gentleman had kept to his original position, but this dishonesty on the Front Bench is becoming intolerable. If the Government would take the Committee into their confidence at the beginning and state their position, it would be easier for us, but it is obvious now that during the whole evening the right hon. Gentleman has not stated his real line, and has only done it under the provocation of Debate. He now says that the dismissal of these men was justified. Does he stick to that? We must be told. Does he believe that these men ought to have been dismissed? If they ought to have been dismissed, why have they been reinstated? The Committee is entitled to a reply. If the dismissal was justified, the reinstatement is not justified. But obviously everyone in the Committee knows that the men were reinstated because their dismissal was not justified. And yet the right hon. Gentleman says that he would have reached the decision to dismiss the men had he had the evidence.
  Before we vote on this matter, we are entitled to be told what the evidence was upon which these men were dismissed; we are entitled to receive the report of the directors; and we are entitled to know the charges made against the men. The House has discussed this matter on two occasions. I will give way to any hon. Member in any part of the Committee who will get up and say what was the charge made against these men which led to their dismissal. Will the right hon. Gentleman state it? He has told the Committee that he himself would have dismissed them. Upon what charge? There is no reply.
  Lord Apsley: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was dismissed from the executive of the Labour party. I am sure it was not for bad behaviour, I am certain it was not for bad workmanship, I hope it was not for conduct derogatory to the party; yet no charge was brought before him, and subsequently he was reinstated.
  Sir S. Cripps: Will the Noble Lord be good enough to tell me the occasion of which he speaks? I am wholly unaware
  1968
  of it. I resigned from the executive on a difference of policy over Abyssinia. I am quite unaware that I was dismissed. Perhaps the Noble Lord will now get up and withdraw.
  Lord Apsley: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman resigned. It was, I think, a case of being asked to resign rather than of resigning of his own volition.
  Sir S. Cripps: The Noble Lord is now trying to be humorous. I was not asked to resign in any way, directly or indirectly. I resigned entirely from my own point of view, because I disagreed with those in authority: which is a very common thing in the case of people on executive committees, and is not unknown with members of Cabinets.
  Lord Apsley: I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation.
  Mr. Bevan: Perhaps we can now get back to serious matters. We on this side do not treat the dismissal of pilots with the same frivolity as hon. Members opposite. Here are men who labour under the injustice of a statement by a Minister of the Crown that they ought to be dismissed. They are men who are in a very responsible service. Their names are known to their colleagues and to hundreds of thousands of other people, and it is now said by the Minister that they ought to have been dismissed and that had the right hon. Gentleman been in charge he would have dismissed them. Yet he refuses to tell the Committee or the men why. No charge has been made against the men or announced to the Committee.
  I submit that we have now carried this Debate to the lowest point of ignominy for the Minister. He is left completely defenceless. All he can do is to resign himself to a silence that would have been far better had he adopted it throughout the evening, because every speech he has made has shown how dishonest his previous speeches were, and has shown how he has concealed from the Committee information that the Committee should have. He has also shown his utter incapacity for the office he holds. He has shown how justified, too, were the engineers, at their conference to-day, in refusing any confidence in the lies of a lying Government that cannot be trusted to do the decent thing. If this

  1969
  had been ordinary Parliamentary obstruction it would have been a different thing indeed. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if they want the Air Force to be properly organised they ought to have somebody responsible other than hack politicians who are more concerned with getting votes than with giving justice to these men.
  It really has become intolerable. I have been in this House nine years, but I have never seen a Government reduced to such an appalling depth of shilly-shallying evasion as I have seen on the Front Bench on this occasion. It is deplorable. We who belong to the trade union movement and have been asked by the Government to make certain concessions in order that the programme may be carried through will have to wait a long time before we can repose confidence in Ministers because of the way they have behaved this afternoon. We are not taking an entirely party point of view at all. This matter has not only been raised on these benches, but on all sides of the Committee; there has been a universal desire to see justice done to these men. Evidence has been forthcoming both from that side and this side of the Committee of the behaviour of Imperial Airways. None of these charges has been refuted and almost every one has been admitted, and now, at the end of the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman commits himself to a statement which slurs the character of decent people without giving them the opportunity of replying. It is a disgusting exhibition.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: The position is perfectly clear. The Government have made up their minds, after investigation, that these men were guilty and were rightly dismissed. I think that the Government were entirely wrong, from the evidence, which I have read very carefully, but they have made up their minds. Their proposal is an act of grace to do the best they can for the men and to find them jobs. That really leaves the position as it is, and I do not know that we can get much further than that. I want to make a point which has not already been made. The right hon. Gentleman, or rather his predecessor, has created a very important precedent. He asked two Government directors, without consulting the rest of the board, to hold an investigation for him into the way in which the
  1970
  business of the company had been carried on in certain respects concerning the way they were treating the pilots. That is a very important precedent. It is a very different thing from what has been said to-night to the effect that the board must act together, and the Government have no control over these directors. The Government called upon these directors to make an investigation for them on a specific point. I hope that that will be remembered, and that when other occasions arise, and we want to know what has been going on, the Minister concerned will call upon the Government director to report to him direct, without bothering about the rest of the directors of the board. We have had the position made perfectly clear, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having set up a very valuable precedent which will be followed, I hope, a great deal in the future.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. Boyce: Is not the real point in the Debate that the Minister himself would not be justified in giving the information to the Committee for which the opposition are asking? The Government clearly cannot be held responsible for the direction of this company.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman has accepted the responsibility.
  Mr. Boyce: Both in fact and in law, the directors alone can be held responsible for the policy of the company.
  Mr. Bevan: The Minister has accepted responsibility.
  Mr. Boyce: No. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have listened very attentively to everything the Minister has said and I did not gather that that was so, and I do not see how, even if that impression was conveyed by the Minister, he could in any way be responsible for the direction of a company, which, in fact and in law, must vest in the directorate. This company has other directors besides those who are nominated by the Government. The directors who are nominated by the Government, if they are to associate with the other directors and be jointly responsible for the policy of the company, must have some regard to the confidence of the board room. If you are going to have Government directors appointed as directors on a public company with other directors, arid the con-

  1971
  fidences of board meetings are to become the subject of debates in the House of Commons, it will be utterly impossible to get any responsible business man to enter into such an association. It would redound to the disadvantage of the company concerned. That is the Minister's position. I do not know what hon. Members on the Front Bench think, as I have never had the pleasure of sitting there—and I imagine that it is far more comfortable to sit below the Gangway than on the Front Bench—but I feel, and I am sure other Members feel with me, that it would be a mistake if this Debate ended leaving the impression that the Minister is wilfully concealing something from the Committee which, in fact, he is not entitled to disclose and which he would not in any circumstances be justified in disclosing.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: One serious aspect of this matter has not yet been touched upon. It is the future effect on a company like Imperial Airways of the way in which the Government are now behaving in this matter. Imperial Airways have dismissed men at a moment which happened unfortunately to coincide with the formation of a union. Nobody knows why they were dismissed. The Government directors have held an inquiry and have said that what their colleagues on the board did was right. The Secretary of State has now looked into the matter and he says that they were right, and the reward of the board of Imperial Airways is that they are to have twice as much public money as they had before. What does that mean as regards the future? It means that if some time next year, or the year after, five or six, or nine or 10, competent pilots venture to lift their voices and behave as independent human beings and want to form a union or do anything reasonable to get proper conditions, and the board meets to consider it, they will say: "As far as we can judge from the conduct of His Majesty's Government in the past on matters like this, we are entitled to regard them as thoroughly consistent. We know that if we dismiss these men and refuse to give any reasons whatever, our colleagues on the board, the Government directors, will say that in their humble opinion we were right to do it, and were right not to publish the reasons; and the Secretary of
  1972
  State for Air"—who now sits there looking like an elder salesman— "will get up in the House of Commons and give as the third reason in one night that he has read the papers too and he thinks the board were right." The board will consider what is going to happen and will say, "If we take this serious step, as far as we can judge from the precedent of this consistent Government, the probable result is that the following year it will vote £6,000,000." If anybody expects decent treatment from Imperial Airways after that, he is at last the classic definition of an optimist.
  Another point which I wish to mention is the presence of the Government directors. We have it on the authority of the hon. Member who wisely knows that it is more comfortable to sit below the Gangway than to sit above it—and he is confirmed also by the Secretary of State—that the two Government directors are in a minority. So they are. But let us be clear about this, that if you put Government directors upon the board of a company with some idea of safeguarding public money and procuring the unusual and unprecedented importation into a great concern of common decency in the treatment of its servants, it is no good saying hereafter, "We are very sorry, there are only two of us, and there are three, four or five ordinary business men, so how could we do anything?"
  The Secretary of State and the Government must make up their minds about this and have some concerted policy. Either they must tell the House what the Government directors on the company can do towards maintaining proper conduct, and that the public can look towards them to maintain some proper conduct in the public service; or they must admit that the whole thing is a fake, a humbug and a sham and that the two directors are of no use whatever; and just shovel out money to independent concerns in this ancient game of bribing capitalism to keep going on its sticky and unlubricated wheels. I would like the Secretary of State, before the Debate ends some time to-morrow afternoon, to tell us whether he regards the Government directors as some safeguard for the public. If so, let him withdraw the statement that they are only a minority. If not, let him say that it is only a humbug, and let him withdraw the Government directors.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: In reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), the Minister said that he would not say that the pilots were rightly dismissed, and then he corrected himself and said that he would put it another way, and say that the pilots were not victimised. But from the point of view of the Government, the question of victimisation is quite a secondary one. Why does the Minister fasten on to the secondary question and say nothing about the first question? Is it not obvious that he dare not face up to it? I wish to quote what the Under-Secretary said in regard to this matter, and I hope the Minister will pay attention to it, because I want an explanation. The Under-Secretary said:
  " The facts are that the pilots were dismissed by the company and that, at the request of the Government, the Government directors went into the question as to the reasons for the dismissal and the justification or otherwise for that dismissal. They interviewed five pilots, and I shall not prove to be wrong, because I saw the Government directors' report myself. The Government directors found that the dismissals were justified, and they secondly found "—
  There were then a few interjections, after which the Under-Secretary continued his statement as follows:
  " We asked the Government directors to investigate the circumstances of the dismissal of these pilots, and they reported to us that the dismissal was justified, and, secondly, that it had nothing at all to do with membership of the Air Line Pilots' Association."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1938; cols. 970–1, Vol. 336.]
  What are the reasons that justified the dismissals? I want the Minister to deal with that point. The reasons were examined by the directors, we are told, and they found that the reasons justified the dismissals. The Committee has a right to know what the reasons were. The Minister says that they are being big-hearted and trying their best to fit these men in somewhere else. Four of them have been fitted in and they hope to fit in the fifth. What has that to do with it? If a man comes out of prison there is an association to help him. What has the big-hearted philanthropy of the Minister who is trying to help these men to find employment to do with this matter? An offence has been committed against these men. Opportunities have been given to the Minister to give an ex-
  1974
  planation for the offence against them but we are not told anything.
  The reasons were examined and the dismissals justified, but I declare that neither the Minister nor the two Government directors can provide any reason of any kind for the dismissals. I declare that and I challenge anybody to deny it. If there had been a reason it would have been given long ago. There never was a case of a dismissal of a worker in which the simplest reason could not be found against him to justify it. Here the thing has been going on month after month and we never get a solitary reason for it. I am justified in claiming that they give no reason because they have none to give. Any Member of this Committee, any of the automatic majority of the Government, who votes for the Government on this question is committing a crime against these pilots who have done no wrong and were thrown out by this company because they took up the question of forming a trade union. There is no justification for this Committee voting money to the Government that will go to this company until the statement that these dismissals were justified is withdrawn and these men are reinstated without a stain on their character. That is not much to ask for pilots who have given as much service to the country as many of the people who parade here as admirals and generals. I can imagine what would happen if certain people here had got heaved off the quarterdeck. What a noise there would have been about it!
  I want the Committee to realise the pitiful demonstration that has been made by the Minister on this question. Read the last Debate and then consider this Debate. What an exhibition. Are these the Ministers on whom the people of this country have to depend for air defence? They are cringing before this company, are afraid of this company. How is it possible for them to carry on the great business of air expansion which has been entrusted to them when they take up such an attitude before this company? I ask the Minister—please, I ask you—to get up at that Box and withdraw the statement against these men. [Interruption.] Instead of hon. Members shouting at me possibly you, Captain Bourne, would be shouting at me if I were to use the language I should like to use towards the

  1975
  Government. I am entitled to ask that the Minister should get up and make a complete withdrawal. Once again I say that at the beginning he got up and said that there was nothing against these pilots. [Interruption.] I shall say it over and over again until the Minister is prepared to get up and make the withdrawal. I am concerned about these pilots—not that I know them. It is the principle involved. I have had to suffer from much the same thing myself, as have other hon. Members on this side—not an open charge, but a suggestion that there is something wrong.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Somebody ought to be shot, no doubt.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am certain that if I were provided with the necessary implement of destruction I would hit him hard. There should be an open charge. It is one of the fundamental features of British law, of British justice, one of the fundamental rights accorded by Magna Charta. How would any hon. Member of this House like to have a conviction recorded against him without knowing the charge or without any opportunity of refuting it? I say that I demand of the Minister—[Interruption]—Whether it is a request or a demand, I insist that the Minister should categorically withdraw the statement that the dismissal of these pilots was justified. No more wriggling. These men were dropped and the Minister for Air has great responsibility. It is the least he can do to do justice to these pilots.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith: I am afraid that nothing that can be said on this side of the House, or even by the supporters of the Government, who at this moment are supporting the contention from this side of the House, will move the Government to change its opinion, but I think there is an aspect of this matter that has not yet been forcibly brought home to the House, and it is that this is not the first time that Imperial Airways have done exactly the same thing. I remember in 1921 or 1922 when the same gentleman who is responsible for the dismissal of these pilots arbitrarily told the men because they joined my union that they should not have the right in the future to say whether they would go into the air, as any captain of a ship has the right to
  1976
  go to sea. He took away the flying money of the men and offered them 2s. an hour flying time, and compelled the men to pay for their insurance, and when they came to my union immediately there were dismissals among the men. I took the matter up with the Transport Workers' Union and got them reinstated, but it was on the condition that the men left the union and formed an association among themselves. What happened? When they did so they appointed the late Mr. Joynson Hicks and his firm to represent their interests and broke away from the union. That is a fact, and I say that this is history repeating itself.
  Do the Government think they are doing any service to Imperial Airways or to the aeronautical repute of this country by having the name of the company and of this country's pilots dragged through the gutter? That is what is being done by the attitude of the Government. Thoroughly efficient men who have given hundreds of hours of flying time without an accident have been arbitrarily dismissed. If it were a docker we would see that he was protected. If he was a busman or a lorry driver we could protect him, but because these men are not sufficiently organised, and because Imperial Airways is a subsidised firm pocketing public money, hiding away the inequities of the same gentleman who was responsible for the last affair, they are bringing the whole name of our Air Force into disrepute. I am talking of Mr. Woods-Humphery, and I say that the Government ought to look at the past history of this. Every effort the pilots have made to organise themselves to get reasonable justice has been met with conditions such as have been met with on this occasion. Whilst the Government may say they will not protest, it is their duty to see that fair play is given to every man who risks his life in the air on behalf of the people of this country.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: I think I have something of interest to say that has not been said before. Questions have been asked as to the reasons why the pilots were dismissed. I think I can throw some light on that with regard to one particular case, that of Captain Rogers, and I take the opportunity of again thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his promise to help this gallant officer, which I am sure he

  1977
  will do to the best of his ability. Captain Rogers was concerned in organising the Air Line Pilots' Association, of which he was vice-chairman. On one occasion he was sent for by the managing director and he was handed three letters and was asked to take them away and come back the next day and decide which of the three he would sign. The first was dismissing him because he was out of sympathy with the company's work, the second alternative was dismissing him under his contract because he was reluctant to recognise authority and disobeyed orders to fly Avro No. 652—I may say that he has a complete answer to all those things—and the third was his resignation. Captain Rogers took those three letters away. He did not go back again next day and he retained the letters, I think very wisely. He was then dismissed as he would not accept the offer that was made to him to resign. With regard to the interview that took place with the directors, he was represented by a friend and not by counsel or anything of that kind and of course he was present only when the pilots were there. That is an accurate statement of the case.
  Sir K. Wood: I am prepared to assist this officer.
  Mr. Davidson: While it is right that the Minister should assist this officer, may I ask whether he remembers that he stated that he was convinced that the findings of the directors as to this officer's dismissal were justified, and may I ask him whether he still stands at that Box and states, in view of those facts, that he believes, from the evidence submitted, that that officer and the other officers were justifiably dismissed?
  Sir K. Wood: As a matter of fact, what I said was that the Government directors had looked into this matter and had come to the conclusion that the termination of this officer's engagement was justified and I saw no reason to differ from that conclusion; nevertheless, as in the case of very many others I saw no reason why I should not help this officer.
  Mr. Montague: The Secretary of State said that in the same circumstances he would have done the same thing himself and accepted responsibility.
  Mr. Benn: The Secretary of State was asked to produce the report; he refused. Then he was pressed to say whether he
  1978
  had investigated the thing himself, and he said he had. He said he had gone into the whole matter and he was satisfied and would have acted in a like manner himself. Had the right hon. Gentleman seen those letters?
  Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.
  Mr. Benn: Well, he must say whether he has knowledge of the matters now raised by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and whether the Government are satisfied that that was a proper method with which to deal with the pilots.
  Sir K. Wood: That may be so, but it was a matter, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, that did not affect the question of dismissal.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: We have heard from the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) some of the things that happened to Captain Rogers. He was given three letters and was asked which of the three he would choose as the way of committing hari-kari in the service of this company. He declined to sign any of the letters and was subsequently dismissed. In view of the fact that the company receives a subsidy, has the right hon. Gentleman informed the company that that is not the way, while they are receiving Government subsidy, that they should treat their employés? After the way the men were treated it would be very difficult to convince any reasonable tribunal that Captain Rogers' attitude towards those three letters had nothing to do with his subsequent dismissal.
  Sir K. Wood: I understand there was a way that was suggested to Captain Rogers.
  Mr. Ede: As one who has had on occasion to represent people who are in a semi-professional capacity not unlike this, I have met the same sort of thing. I have had a case where a teacher was unpopular with the district manager, who said to him, "We do not want to dismiss you, but if you will send in your resignation we will help you to get another job. Go quietly and we will make it all right with the beak." That is the attitude taken up. I have had to advise persons in cases of this sort whatever they did not to resign, to put the responsibility on the other people to find them guilty, because persons in public employment can

  1979
  rest assured that the public authority behind them will see that they are not dismissed unjustly. That is the whole position. These people, by receiving a Government subsidy, put themselves in a very different position from the board of directors envisaged by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison).
  Mr. Boyce: Do not confuse me with the Minister for Agriculture.
  Mr. Ede: I would apologise to the Minister for Agriculture if he were present. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce), I think, was in the House when the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) spoke earlier in the Debate. He anticipated what the hon. Member for Gloucester said. The hon. Member put this position to the Committee: What bank, having advanced money to a semi-derelict concern, would accept the position which is accepted by the Government in this matter concerning the Government directors? I suggest to the hon. Member for Gloucester that he could not compare this company with one not in receipt of Government assistance. This is a case where private enterprise is being bolstered up by State contribution and one of the things that goes with State contribution is a reasonable security of tenure for employés.
  Mr. Boyce: No bank which nominated a director on the board of another company would be justified in obtaining information from its nominated director and then broadcasting that information to its own shareholders. That is what the position would be if the Government were to nominate directors to the board of a company they were helping to finance, and then used those directors to obtain information in order to broadcast it to the House of Commons. I think you will find that I am right.
  Mr. Ede: That would be a discovery. I do not accept that position. If the shareholders of a bank at the annual general meeting 'thought it was not being conducted in a way to safeguard their interests, does the hon. Member suggest they would not have the right to safeguard themselves? One of the things that we have to safeguard is the position of employés in concerns into which public money has been put. We must see that they treat their employés according to modern traditions, and not
  1980
  in the eighteenth century manner which this board has chosen to adopt. It is a very serious thing that people employed by a subsidised company can be dismissed on the basis of secret reports and especially secret reports made by the kind of officers alluded to by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). The more the Minister tries to explain this away the worse it becomes.
  Now we are told that the incident to which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) referred, arose after the decision to dismiss had been taken. This was a way of "getting out of it." If the directors were challenged, they would be able to say, "The man was not dismissed; here is his resignation." Is not that a sufficient reason to suggest that this board requires more attention than it has received hitherto? I am not going to the Derby to-morrow and I am prepared to stay here until after the race has been run, if only we can secure justice for these men. But I suggest that this matter cannot be left where the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary are attempting to leave it, and that we should be guilty of a gross dereliction of our duty to the people employed in a subsidised firm if we did so.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: I intervene again in this Debate only because I want to do so. I want to address myself to two points. A suggestion has been put out by the Minister and by the very few in the Committee who are supporting him at irregular intervals that it does not matter much about Captain Rogers, or anybody else, because the Minister is finding them jobs. That will not do. We are not discussing whether some person who has, presumably, been unjustly dismissed, is getting back into employment or not. We are discussing whether a concern which is living on the public dole has been treating its people decently or not. It is no answer to say "Do not let us discuss whether Imperial Airways have treated these people abominably, because the Minister is going round begging other people to give them jobs." Just think of it—in a free country, where people are supposed to get justice, the Secretary of State, with his beautiful plausibility of manner, goes to somebody who is run

  1981
  ning an air service and says, "I have a friend who has been sacked and I am going to say in the House of Commons on 31st May that I would have sacked him too if it had rested with me, but if you could find him a job, as a butler or an airman or something, it might get me out of some of the awkward questions which are to be raised on 31st May—and 1st June."
  There has been nothing like it since the Government's friend Herr Hitler, on 30th June, 1934, had some 1,700 people shot and one Mr. Schmidt was shot in mistake for another Mr. Schmidt. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Stalin?"] No, Herr Hitler did not shoot M. Stalin. Herr Hitler bears some resemblance in this matter to the Secretary of State. He sent an officer of considerable distinction to apologise to the widow. [An HON. MEMBER: Stalin does not even do that."] There are a good many authorities on Russia in the House; and a lot of nonsense they talk. [Interruption.] I am unable to describe that interruption as nonsense because I did not hear it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us about Stalin."] If hon. Members are not careful I will tell them all about Stalin until the last horse passes the post in the Derby. Some hon. Members on my left are asking me if I will tell them the name of the first horse. That is perhaps their only qualification for participation in the work of legislation that I have ever discovered.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) explained the ethics of banking. He told us what a bank does when it plants directors on somebody else's board. He said that if the bank had directors on a board you could not expect the confidential information obtained by the bank directors to be broadcast to the shareholders. I know how important it is that what really happens in a company should not be told, otherwise capitalism would collapse in five minutes. But the hon. Member got a little astray, because on the 23rd May, col. 971, the Government could not merely not tell the House; they could not even tell themselves. The Under-Secretary said:
  "I do not know, and I submit that no one in this Committee, either a Member of the Government or anyone else, is entitled to ask for the full private domestic reasons as recorded in the minutes of the board of the company."
  The hon. and gallant Member, who has recently assumed his high office, does not
  1982
  know that the full private domestic reasons are never recorded in the minutes. He went on to say:
  " I never said I knew. I will be perfectly frank with the Committee and give them the full knowledge I have got. I have seen the Government Directors' report to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, which says that the Government directors investigated the circumstances of the dismissals and found that the dismissals were justified.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1938; col. 975, Vol. 336.]
  If these passages mean anything they mean that in the opinion of the Under-Secretary and the Government not only no body roughly corresponding to shareholders but not even the Government itself can be told everything, or anything. It is becoming plainer and plainer that there is nothing in this transaction that is sufficiently respectable even to be risked by being presented to the tender consciences of Cabinet Ministers. What would happen if it were presented to the ordinary general public, Heaven alone knows.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: Before the Question is put, we are entitled to have some further remarks from the Minister on this question of a withdrawal of the accusation against these pilots. I ask the Minister if he is not prepared—keep your head up; you do not need to keep it down on your knees.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member must please recollect that he is addressing the Chair.
  Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister to keep his head up, to face up to his responsibility, and to make a statement, before the vote is taken, withdrawing this allegation against these pilots. Especially after the statement by the hon. Member who spoke from the second bench below the Gangway, and the letter he read showing how these pilots were treated, no Member of the Government can justify this anywhere. When the Minister goes to his constituency he will have this thrown against him. I am certain that he canont justify it in his constituency. I ask him, through you, Sir Dennis, to make this belated withdrawal of the accusation which has been launched against these pilots. If he does not make it, not a single Member on the other side should be prepared to vote this money and participate with the Minister in a crime against honest, conscientious airmen who have given great service, not only

  1983
  to this company, but to aviation in this country.
  11.18 p.m.
  Miss Wilkinson: I have not intervened in this Debate before, because I have had other matters in hand, but I have been rather surprised at the complete silence of a large number of Government supporters on this matter. I can understand that they must have been feeling distinctly uncomfortable, because, when they go to meet their constituents, they will find that questions are being asked in their constituencies. If there is one thing that this Government has prided itself upon, it has been its appeal to the middle class, to the professional class, to the black-coated workers, to everyone, in fact, except the horny-handed sons of toil. The Government have not made a very good show in the way they protect these people whom they specially claim to represent. They cannot come to the House of Commons and say they represent the railwaymen, the dockers, and so on. They have to find some kind of social basis; they cannot get up and say they are the shareholders' party, or the party of the City of London, or the party of big men and big business. Members for places like Hendon and Ilford talk about the numbers of clerks and the numbers of professional men in their constituencies, and how these are the really patriotic people who can look at matters from the Conservative point of view.
  There was a time when these people thought it could be left to Conservative Ministers and patriotic people generally to look after their interests, but many of them are finding that they are not so well protected, and are not doing as well, as the docker, the railwayman, and the transport worker. I warn the Minister of Health—[Interruption.] —I warn the right hon. Gentleman—who ought to be the Minister of Health, in which capacity he was some good, instead of Minister of
  Air, at which he is no good at all—that in his constituency he has a very large number of black-coated workers and professional men. What is the answer of the Government to these professional men? It is that they will not stand for the organisation of the black-coated workers and the professional men? I shall spend most of Whitsuntide at the various by-elections that are now in progress. I had proposed to attack the Government on their appalling foreign policy, but I have a very much better thing to attack them on in this attitude of theirs to professional men. They will not allow a professional man to join his professional organisation; if he does so, he will be sacked. These men were sacked; and they would have stayed sacked had it not been for the publicity the Labour party have put up on the matter.
  I wonder what is going to happen to this Government that talks such a great deal about patriotism and all the rest of it? You can ask these people to sacrifice their lives, but you will not even allow them to form an organisation in order to secure not only decent conditions for themselves but conditions of safety for the general public. One of the things for which the Air Line Pilots' Association stood was conditions of safety for the general public. But in order to protect the dividends of Imperial Airways—which would have been more or less non-existent but for the subsidies which this House voted—the Government have not only made these men sacrifice their right to organise, but refuse them the right, through an organisation to make recommendations with regard to the safety of the public. That is the issue; and it is an issue which many of us on this side will take care to put before the public at the by-elections.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 127.

  Division No. 228.]

  AYES.

  [11.23 p.m.

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

  Beechman, N. A,

  Butcher, H. W.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Bottom, A. C.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

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

  Boulton, W. W.

  Carver, Major W. H.

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

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Cary, R, A.

  Apsley, Lord

  Boyce, H. Leslie

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

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Channon, H.

  Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Bull, B. B.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

  Bullock, Capt. HI.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Reid. Sir D. D. (Down)

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

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

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

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

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Crook, Sir J. S.

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Rowlands, G.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C

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

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Cross, R. H.

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

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

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Keeling, E. H.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Selley, H. R.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Kimball, L.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  De la Bère, R.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Denville, Alfred

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Dodd, J. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Levy, T.

  Smithers, Sir W

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Spens, W. P.

  Dunglass, Lord.

  Lyons, A. M.

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

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Eckersley, P. T.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Storey, S.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Everard, W. L.

  McKie, J. H.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Tasker, Sir R. 1.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Magnay, T.

  Tale, Mavis C.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Maitland, A.

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

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Furness, S. N.

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

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Markham, S. F.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  May hew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

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

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

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

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

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

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Munro, P.

  Wedderburn. H. J. S.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Nail, Sir J.

  Wells. S. R

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

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

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

  Hambro, A. V.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

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

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Peake, O.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Harbord, A.

  Peat, C. U.

  Wise, A. R.

  Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

  Petherick, M.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Wood Hon C I. C.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Radford, E. A.

  Wragg, H.

  Hepworth, J.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Higgs, W. F.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hopkinson, A.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Mr. Grimston.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  NOES.

  Adams, O. (Consett)

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Groves, T. E.

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

  Daggar, G.

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

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

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Davies, R. J. (Wisthoughton)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hardie, Agnes

  Banfield, J. W.

  Dobbie, W.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

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

  Batey, J.

  Ede, J. C.

  Hayday, A.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Benson, G.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Bevan, A.

  Foot, D. M.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Broad, F. A.

  Frankel, D.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Bromfield, W.

  Gallacher, W.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Hopkin, D.

  Buchanan, G.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Burke, W. A.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  John, W.

  Cape, T.

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

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Cluae, W. S.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Cave, W. G.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Kelly, W. T.

  1986

  1987

  Kennedy, Rt. Han. T.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Stephen, C.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

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

  Lathan, G.

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  Lawson, J. J.

  Owen, Major G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Leach, W.

  Parker, J.

  Thurtle, E.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Logan, D. G.

  Pearson, A.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Lunn, W.

  Poole, C. C.

  Viant, S. P.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Price, M. P.

  Walkden, A. G.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Watkins, F. C.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Ridley, G.

  Watson, W. McL.

  MacLaren, A.

  Riley, B.

  Westwood, J.

  Maclean, N.

  Ritson, J.

  White, H. Graham

  MacNeill Weir, L.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Mander, G. le M

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Marshall, F.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Mathers, G.

  Shinwell, E.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Maxton, J.

  Silkin, L.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Milner, Major J.

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

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Moreing, A. C.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

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

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Muff, G.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Nathan, Colonel H. L.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson.

  Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Secretary of State to have regard for assisting certain undertakings.)
  The Secretary of State, before agreeing to pay any subsidies under this Act amounting in the aggregate to a sum in excess of the amount of one million five hundred thousand pounds during any financial year, shall have regard to the desirability of assisting undertakings authorised by him at the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, and entered into by persons with respect to the provision of air services between Great Britain and other European countries where such services are liable under reciprocal agreement to subsidised competition by the air lines to those countries.—[Colonel Ropner.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.—[Colonel Ropier.]
  11.32 p.m.
  Colonel Ropner: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I hope the Committee will extend to me a certain measure of sympathy rather than display any resentment. I have sat here for several hours, and it is not my fault that I have to move this new Clause at this late hour. At the same time I do not in the least complain of hon. Members opposite for having given so much time to the last Debate. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to accept this new Clause and at the same time give the Committee a little more information as to exactly which operating companies are to receive the subsidy. The Committee is, I think, entitled to ask whether it has been finally decided that so far as external airlines are concerned
  1988
  only Imperial Airways for Empire routes and British Airways for European routes shall receive the subsidy. I think the Committee would be interested to hear even if a decision has been arrived at in principle whether exceptional circumstances do not warrant a departure from this course in certain cases. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to page 32 of the Cadman Report and the recommendations Nos. 9 and 10 under the heading "Air Services and Operating Companies." Recommendation g reads as follows:
  "British external air transport should be concentrated in a small number of well founded and substantial organisations;"
  and Recommendation 10 reads:
  "The same external route should not be operated by more than one British company, so as to avoid indiscriminate competition."
  I do not think there is any hon. Member who would dispute the wisdom of those recommendations. If they are accepted by the Government, we are encouraged to believe that there will be a small number of highly efficient air operating companies working over well-defined areas with no direct competition, but all subject to the encouragement of a certain amount of rivalry, and the increased efficiency which comes from competition of that sort. Later on, there is Recommendation 13 which reads:
  " British Airways, suitably organised, should develop the other air services in Europe ••
  It seems to me that there is a certain amount of contradiction between Recommendations g and 10 and Recommendation 13. One company is, indeed, a very

  1989
  small number; it is, in fact, the establishment of a monopoly so far as the European services are concerned. Even if there were no history, even if there were no previous commitments or no prior obligations, I believe that it would be better for the Government to encourage three or four operating companies for our external services rather than one or two. I feel certain that in this way you would get, without any direct or wasteful competition, wholesome rivalry. Each company would serve as a basis for comparison with the other companies, the relative efficiency of each could be compared; and you would, in fact, get something very much in the nature of the organisation of the railway companies in this country to-day, where each company operates over a definitely defined area, but each tries to provide for its customers quicker trains and more comfortable accommodation, and there is a healthy rivalry between the companies which in many senses do not compete at all.
  I feel that it would be altogether to the good that experience in operating air routes overseas should be distributed among three or four offices rather than concentrated in the no doubt sumptuous offices of Imperial Airways and British Airways. As a matter of principle, therefore, the Government would, I submit, be well advised to develop three or four companies rather than one or two, and for that reason alone I would press the claim of Allied Airways for financial assistance in maintaining its Newcastle-Norway service.
  But I submit that the claim of this company is even stronger than one based only on disagreement with an arbitrary decision. Civil aviation in this country has a history. We cannot pretend that we are starting afresh at the end of May, 1938. Long before the Cadman Committee was appointed the Fisher Committee was set up and it carefully considered the problems presented by international air transport. In the Cadman Report, page 45, there is a summary of the recommendations of the Fisher Committee. Paragraph 21, referring to the Fisher Committee, reads:
  " They came to the conclusion… that the future policy of the Government in relation to operating companies must be based on three conditions—(1) Government support to more than one company; (2) each supported company to have its own de-limited sphere of
  1990
  operations; (3) Incentives to expansion and effort by restricted competition and effective Government control."
  There is no sort of indication in these recommendations that European air services should be made the monopoly of one company. Inded, there is good reason for believing that in 1935 and 1936 it was not the intention of the Government to establish a monopoly. About that time those who were responsible for the direction of Allied Airways asked for the assistance of the Government to establish an airline from Newcastle to Norway. I am informed that Sir Francis Shelmerdine, the Director-General of Civil Aviation, wrote on behalf of this company to Colonel Klingenberg who was the head of Norwegian aviation. The result was that Allied Airways came to a working arrangement with the Norwegian Government, and in 1937 they commenced a regular daily service between Newcastle and Norway, a service which has been maintained with efficiency, regularity and safety. The service was maintained throughout the summer of 1937 and it commenced operations again in April this year.
  I am informed that it is alleged by the Air Ministry that this company cannot be considered for a subsidy and that its very existence was not even mentioned to the Cadman Committee because it ran only a seasonal service. It ran for six months last year and it is doing the same this year. The Air Ministry should know that its discontinuance during the winter was in accordance with the wishes of the Norwegian Government itself. No doubt the company, if it is given the chance, will in course of time and in co-operation with the Norwegian Government, develop a service which will run the whole of the 12 months. But the existing contract, under which it was working last year and under which it will work this year, is for six months.
  Whatever the mother country of this British company may think of it, the Norwegian Government appears to have every confidence in it. I am informed, and I believe other hon. Members have the same information, that the Government of Norway has extended a one year contract and granted a concession for five years, and has granted to Allied Airways the right to prolong the service from Stavanger, on the coast, to Oslo, the capital of Norway.

  1991
  Finally, the Norwegian Government sends its mails by this line. I do not think, after full investigation, that the confidence of the Norwegian Government has been misplaced and I feel bound to ask why the Government of this country withholds equal confidence in this British company. It is not a mushroom concern. It has already found £150,000 and has spent tens of thousands of pounds upon British aircraft. It has built an airport at Aberdeen, it holds the Shetland air mail contract; it operates skilfully and regularly on several internal air routes, and its machines cover 1,200 miles a day over the sea. Moreover, it is in no sense in direct competition with any other operating company. Its very existence, as I have tried to point out, depends upon the assistance of the Air Ministry. If help in the shape of a subsidy is refused and it is elbowed out of existence I have not the slightest doubt that the Government will have to subsidise some other company to fly over that route. Perhaps I ought to say that I have no sort of personal contact with or interest in this company, but they have pioneered the North Sea passage and if any company deserves a subsidy on this route I submit that it is Allied Airways.
  I know that Governments dislike creating precedents. There is always the fear of consequential claims. I should be the last to advocate that whatever sum we have to devote to subsidies should be frittered away among a dozen or a score of competing concerns, and the Secretary of State will, in his wisdom, have to deal with consequential claims, if there are any. But if that argument be used, and I hope that it will not be, surely it is a cowardly argument. The consideration due to the company should be judged on the merits of the case alone. I know also that Secretaries of State share with lesser mortals a national desire to take the easy path. It is easy to say "A subsidy for Imperial Airways on Empire routes, a subsidy for British Airways on European routes and no subsidy for anybody else." It is a symmetrical argument, but I submit that it is a lazy argument. I should never accuse the Secretary of State for Air of being either cowardly or lazy and I think that he will find that in the end it is better to take the more difficult course and reconsider the question of
  1992
  subsidising one or two other companies with external services.
  Only one word more. Governments and Secretaries of State have sometimes sheltered behind the recommendations of committees, but the Cadman Committee were not even told of the existence of Allied Airways. That committee has made its recommendations, and the responsibility now rests solely upon the Government. I am certain that the Secretary of State wishes to be fair; my submission is that it is not fair to kill this company, this child for which the Government are partially responsible. Some air company must run a service to Norway. That company should be Allied Airways which has blazed that particular trail. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the proposed new Clause; if he cannot do that, I hope that he will at least agree that there should be no hard-and-fast rule that would for ever debar enterprising companies from subsidy, other than Imperial Airways and British Airways.
  Mr. Gallacher: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us how Allied Airways treat their employés?
  Colonel Ropner: No, Sir.
  Sir S. Cripps: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me the meaning of the last two lines of his new Clause:
  " where such services are liable under reciprocal agreement to subsidised competition by the air lines of those countries."
  Colonel Ropner: They limit the discretion of the Government to giving subsidies, if the Clause is accepted, to external air lines which may meet competition from subsidised foreign companies. This particular company will surely in the course of time have to meet the competition of a reciprocal service run by the Norwegian Government.
  Sir S. Cripps: What sort of reciprocal agreement is there which makes one liable to subsidised competition?
  Colonel Ropner: I was trying to explain, and to give an instance of that very thing. The company has a working arrangement with the Norwegian Government on a fifty-fifty basis, and the reciprocal arrangement with the Norwegian Government may, and in fact will, lead to the Norwegian company being able, if

  1993
  it is subsidised, to run machines highly efficient, more luxurious and faster than the company with which it is actually working. It is very reasonable that the Government should grant a subsidy to a British company which is working on a reciprocal basis with a subsidised foreign company.
  11.53 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: Most of my speeches on this subject have been made at an earlier stage of the proceedings, but I should like to associate myself with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the other side has said. I would remind the Committee of what was said during the Debates on the Air Navigation Bill two years ago, as it closely affects this matter. We were exceedingly anxious that there should be full opportunity for competition in the case of new subsidies and new services, and we were assured that every facility would be given. Tenders could be put in and everything would come before the House of Commons. If the proposed new Clause is not agreed to, that permission will be broken, and if British Airways is to run all these services none of the other companies will be able to exist at all, or put in any tenders. There is a very strong case for allowing such other companies as have established routes and are carrying on successfully to put their cases forward, and have them carefully considered by the Air Ministry at the present time.
  I am not too much impressed by the claims of British Airways to have the monopoly in this matter. They have just put out their balance-sheet, showing that on a capital of £365,000 they have succeeded in losing £367,000. It may be inevitable, but it is hardly a recommendation for giving the company a monopoly of all these air services. I sincerely ask the Minister to give an assurance, in respect of existing air companies, such as this Allied Airways to which reference in detail has been made, North-Western Airways and many others, which participate on certain routes, that before any final decision is arrived at, personal consideration will be given to the matter by the Minister himself. If the right hon. Gentleman can give that assurance he will go some way to meet the views of those who are interested in these matters—although I have no interest in any of these companies.
  11.57 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: The matter that has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was carefully considered by the Cadman Committee. I would draw attention to their recommendations, which, hon. Members may also remember, were accepted by the Government. That committee said:
  " We feel that, if our national prestige is to be maintained, our external air services must be concentrated in a small number of well-founded and substantial organisations, rather than dissipated among a large number of competing companies of indifferent stability. Subsidised foreign lines will provide all the competition "—
  that was the point which my hon. and gallant Friend made—
  " necessary to stimulate improvement in services and equipment."
  They then go on to deal with the matter more in detail in paragraph 37. In paragraph 38 they refer to the participation of Imperial Airways, and they say in paragraph 4o:
  " Subject to our remarks below, the British air services in Europe should be developed by British Airways, which since 1936 has been the chosen instrument of the Government for air transport."
  The effect of this Amendment would be to cut right across the recommendations of the Cadman Committee.
  Mr. Mander: I would remind the Minister of the precise wording:
  " external air services must be concentrated in a small number."
  It does not say what is a small number.
  Sir K. Wood: The effect must be read in conjunction with the paragraph that follows in which they discuss how you should do it. If the Clause were accepted it would mean the dissipation of this money among seven or eight companies and would destroy the whole object of the concentration into two main agencies, so far as this Bill is concerned. It is such dissipation of money and force that the Cadman Committee was anxious to avoid. As regards British Airways, as I have told the Committee, it depends on the reorganisation of its capital now taking place. I would also like to say that practically all the Continental countries concentrate on a single national air company, such as was advised by the Cadman Committee. I must maintain the principles of the Cadman Report which were accepted, not by myself but by the Government, but I will submit to

  1995
  my colleagues the case of Allied Airways and see whether, while preserving the principles laid down in the report, it would be possible to bring that company within the terms of the arrangement. Hon. Members will realise that the Government may be prepared to treat Allied Airways as a special case.
  Mr. Mander: And North-Eastern Airways?
  Sir K. Wood: If I go on to include others I immediately begin to defeat the whole object, which is the advancement of national prestige through one or two companies. I think the hon. Member will see that once we begin to dissipate the money in this way we are not achieving our object. I will have regard to what the hon. Gentleman said to-night, but I will not hold out any hopes, because this is a Government decision and I shall have to consult my colleagues.
  12.2 a.m.
  Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Will the Minister consider the value of Allied Airways from a defence point of view? They are very useful in training pilots to fly over the sea, and these pilots would be very valuable in time of war in looking for submarines and mines. Will the Minister not say whether he will reconsider the decision to turn down the claims of Allied Airways? I ask him to do so in the interests of Defence, and the training of extra pilots, about which, I know, the Under-Secretary of State is so keen.
  12.3 a.m.
  Mr. Everard: I do not intend to detain the Committee very long—
  Mr. Gallacher: As long as you like.
  Mr. Everard: —although I do know more about the subject than some hon. Members opposite. I am obliged to the Minister for meeting us on this new Clause. He has promised to give further consideration to it. I am certain it was never the intention of the Cadman Committee or of anyone else to suggest that the European air services of this country should be run by one company, and that no consideration should be given to those people who have expended capital in building up services. I have watched the growth of transport in various forms, and I have noticed that the small man who
  1996
  made the start was generally swallowed up by the people who came afterwards. There is no doubt that this company and many others have spent much money in private enterprise for the good of the country, gaining no profit and often meeting with large losses.
  I do not think it would be fair to give one company full control of the European services without the Air Ministry coming to an arrangement with these other companies. At the very beginning Imperial Airways itself was an amalgamation of four or five companies. Surely if we are to have a European Air service by one company it can only fairly be made out of an amalgamation of those companies which are to-day running various services. I look upon the Norwegian service as of great importance. The Scandinavian countries have always been great friends of this country, and I hope always will be, and I am delighted to think that an air company operating from Great Britain is able to show the flag in those countries. It is only in that way that we can improve our trade and our relations with those countries. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the large amount of money which private enterprise has expended on these services, and will see that everybody gets a fair deal.
  12.6 a.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I intervene in this Debate only because I know that nobody in the Committee wants me to intervene. I think at this stage we ought to report progress, but I do not know whether it is possible to move such a Motion now under the Rules of Procedure. But I would like Members to understand, in connection with the Minister's statement on this proposal, that we are facing a serious situation. Money is to be used for two great companies over which the Government have no control of any kind. That has been shown by the earlier Debate in the case of Imperial Airways. I would like the Committee to understand that this proposal destroys all the principles on which capitalism is supposed to be built. What about the spirit of enterprise and initiative now? Where is the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) who says that nothing should be allowed to interfere with the right of a man to start a business? Here we have the Minister presenting a proposal which is directly con-

  1997
  trary to that principle and hon. Members are ready to go into the Lobby in support of it when the Chief Whip orders them.
  The Minister proposes to put all these independent businesses on to the scrap-heap. What chance is there for Allied Airways or North-Eastern Airways to carry on business against powerful companies which are receiving big subsidies from the Government? It simply means that the Government have decided that all these other companies must close down and that a monopoly will be given to Imperial Airways and British Airways. Do hon. Members agree with that proposition? If it is impossible for ordinary capitalist methods to function in this connection, why not have one public company controlled by the Government to run the whole business? But here we are asked to say that two big companies over which the Government have no control are to have a monopoly and are to be supplied with finance to the amount of £3,000,000, while, I suppose, Allied Airways and North-Eastern Airways and the others are to be shut down. It means that all other companies would be shut down, and nothing would be given to any of them. It might be, in a very short time, that Allied Airways would be ahead of them all. To say that only two companies are to be subsidised is rather a peculiar position for a Minister representing a Capitalist Government to take up, and it is a most astounding situation that Conservative Members should support such a proposition.
  This matter is of such serious consequence that it is not possible to allow the companies to build up on their own. If this money is to be used it must be for the purpose of founding a public company to run the air lines of this country. The proposed new Clause of the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised an important matter for all Members, and it should be given serious consideration, and not this flippant reply of the Minister about subsidising Imperial Airways and British Airways. I am sure that a large number of Government supporters are not in favour of companies being pushed out of existence and of the two other companies getting the monopoly and Government subsidy without any control. We demand, instead of that, that a public company should be set up. The two propositions are, that of the hon. and
  1998
  gallant Member that the small companies showing initiative should get support as well as the big companies, and that there should be a public company. We cannot simply brush this matter aside; it should be taken back for reconsideration, whether by reporting Progress or not, if that course is in order, before Members are rushed into voting for one thing or the other.
  12.14 a.m.
  Colonel Ropner: The proposed new Clause appeared on the Paper for the first time this morning. The Secretary of State has now told us that he will consult his colleagues; I cannot see that he could do more this evening. If the Committee wishes to divide I shall, of course, support the new Clause.
  Mr. Gallacher: Do not run away.
  Colonel Ropner: On the other hand, with the permission of the Committee, I would beg leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause, and to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not only put the matter before his colleagues but will do what he can himself for these new companies.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. David Adams: As a member of a local authority which owns a municipal airport, may I say that the proposal contained in this Clause has the hearty support of the City of Newcastle-on-Tyne? Newcastle has expended on its airport a great deal of money which today is virtually wasted. An increase both in our internal and in our external air lines is urgently required, and Newcastle, as a maritime port, feels strongly that there ought to be a direct air service between it and near and distant Continental ports. Moreover, if we are to have, as we all desire, an air-minded population, airports must receive something more than the neglect which has been accorded them for years past. If we are to be supreme in the air we shall have to accustom ourselves to the air as we have to the sea.
  The opportunity to pursue that course is afforded by this proposal, to which the Minister has indicated he will give favourable consideration. Allied Airways have fought a very hard fight and have expended a great deal of money without any support beyond the local support accorded them in connection with the ser-

  1999
  vice between this country and Norway; and, since Newcastle is our nearest port to the Norwegian coast, it is naturally desirable that such a service from Newcastle should be maintained and if possible extended. While I would not argue in favour of subsidising any particular air line, I suggest that in the general interest of the air-mindedness of the nation the whole question ought to be favourably considered by the Government.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. Benn: We propose to divide the House on the Third Reading. Although, under the new Standing Order, it is quite in order for the Government to take all stages, from the Committee stage to the Third Reading, on the same day, we do not think it is a correct procedure to adopt with a Bill which involves such a large sum of money, and on which such grave dissatisfaction has been expressed by hon. Members.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 80.

  Division No. 229.]

  AYES.

  [12.21 a.m.

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

  Hambro, A. V.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Harbord, A.

  Rankin, Sir R.

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

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Apsley, Lord

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

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

  Herbert, Major J, A. (Monmouth)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

  Hicks, E. G.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Rowlands, G.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Bull, B. B.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Selley, H. R.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Cary, R. A.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montross)

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Kerr; J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Channon, H.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Leech, Sir J, W.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J

  Craven-Ellis, W

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Levy, T.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Tale, Mavis C.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Dodd, J. S.

  Lottus, P. C.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Duggan, H. J.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Dunglass, Lord

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Fastwood, J. F.

  McKie, J. H.

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

  Emery, J. F.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Magnay, T.

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Everard, W. L.

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

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Markham, S. F.

  Wells, S. R.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Cot. J.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

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

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

  Furness, S. N.

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

  Wise, A. R.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Munro, P.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Gluckstein, L. H-

  Nicolson, Hen. H. G.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Wragg, H.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Petherick, M.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H, (Drake)

  Porritt, R. W.

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

  Procter, Major H. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gunston, Capt. Sir O. W.

  Radford, E. A.

  Captain Duģdale and Major Sir James Edmondson.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Banfield, J. W.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Benson, G.

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

  Batey, J.

  Bevan, A.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Bromfield, W.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Ritson, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Sexton. T. M.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Hopkin, D.

  Silkin, L.

  Daggar, G.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  John, W.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Dobbie, W.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Stephen, C.

  Ede, J. C.

  Leach, W.

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

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpath)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Lunn, W.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Foot, D. M.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Frankel, D.

  Maxton, J.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Gallacher, W.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Westwood, J.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

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

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

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

  Pearson, A.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Poole, C. C.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Price, M. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayday, A.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Ridley, G.

  Resolution agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS [Money].
  Resolution reported,
  " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Treasury and the Postmaster-General to carry out certain arrangements made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with Cable and Wireless, Limited, and in connection with those arrangements to amend the law with respect to the calculation of the Post Office net surplus, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment into the Exchequer of any dividends or other sums received by the Treasury in respect of any shares in Cable and Wireless, Limited, accepted by the Treasury under such arrangements;

  (b) the waiver by the Postmaster-General of a claim against Cable and Wireless, Limited, in respect of a right conceded to that company to operate a wireless telegraph service with Kenya;

  (c) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may become payable therefrom under Section thirty-nine of the Finance Act, 1933, into the Post Office Fund by reason of the inclusion for the purpose of the statement required to be made under Section thirty-eight of the Finance Act, 1933, in the revenue of the Post Office of a sum calculated at the rate of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds per annum."

  CHIMNEY SWEEPERS ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Sir A. Wilson.]

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  INFANTICIDE BILL [Lords].
  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 upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes before One o' Clock.

  PALESTINE (MUFTI).
  PALESTINE (MUFTI).
CIVIL AVIATION.
  AIRPORT, FAIRLOP.
  AIRPORT, FAIRLOP.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND NORWAY AIR SERVICE.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND NORWAY AIR SERVICE.
  EMPIRE AIR ROUTE BASES.
  EMPIRE AIR ROUTE BASES.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE AERODROME, NOTTINGHAM.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE AERODROME, NOTTINGHAM.
  AFRICAN COLONIES (EDUCATION).
  AFRICAN COLONIES (EDUCATION).
  TRINIDAD (ARBITRATION ORDINANCE).
  TRINIDAD (ARBITRATION ORDINANCE).
EDUCATION.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  HANDWORK AND DOMESTIC SCIENCE.
  HANDWORK AND DOMESTIC SCIENCE.
  SENIOR SCHOOLS (PLAYING FIELDS).
  SENIOR SCHOOLS (PLAYING FIELDS).
TRANSPORT.
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (FREE TRAVEL).
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (FREE TRAVEL).
  ADVISORY COUNCIL REPORT.
  ADVISORY COUNCIL REPORT.
  JARROW-HOWDEN FERRY.
  JARROW-HOWDEN FERRY.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE.
  TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE.
  BUILDING TRADE TRAINEES.
  BUILDING TRADE TRAINEES.
  LANCASHIRE SITE COMPANY.
  LANCASHIRE SITE COMPANY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  RETIRED OFFICERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, NOTTINGHAM.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, NOTTINGHAM.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  ELECTRIC MACHINERY.
  ELECTRIC MACHINERY.
  GRESFORD COLLIERY.
  GRESFORD COLLIERY.
  BURNING PIT-HEAPS.
  BURNING PIT-HEAPS.
  SHALE OIL PRODUCTION.
  SHALE OIL PRODUCTION.
HOUSING.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL TENANTS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL TENANTS.
  TIED COTTAGE (ROCKFIELD, MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  TIED COTTAGE (ROCKFIELD, MONMOUTHSHIRE).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONERS (MORTALITY RATE).
  DISABILITY PENSIONERS (MORTALITY RATE).
  SOLICITORS (PROSECUTIONS FOR FRAUD).
  SOLICITORS (PROSECUTIONS FOR FRAUD).
  AUSTRIAN REFUGEES.
  AUSTRIAN REFUGEES.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  RURAL HOUSING, SCOTLAND.
  RURAL HOUSING, SCOTLAND.
AGRICULTURE.
  ANTHRAX, ANGUS.
  ANTHRAX, ANGUS.
  LAND FOR ALLOTMENTS (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
  LAND FOR ALLOTMENTS (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
  EGGS AND FEEDING-STUFFS (PRICES).
  EGGS AND FEEDING-STUFFS (PRICES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  CONGO BASIN (CONVENTION).
  CONGO BASIN (CONVENTION).
  CONDENSED MILK IMPORTS.
  CONDENSED MILK IMPORTS.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND SPAIN.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND SPAIN.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD.
  NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD.
  COASTWISE SHIPPING.
  COASTWISE SHIPPING.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SHROPSHIRE WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CREWE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
RADCLIFFE FARNWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ROMFORD GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
AIR NAVIGATION (LICENSING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT) ORDER, 1938.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King:
  "I have received your Address praying that the Air Navigation (Licensing of Public Transport) Order, 1938, be made in the terms of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
ALDRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
BRIXHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITYM BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TUNNEL AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
ROYAL SHEFFIELD INFIRMARY AND HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

WAR DEPARTMENT PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable the Secretary of State for War to delegate the function of executing instruments relating to the acquisition, management and disposal of property. I beg to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EAST LOTHIAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time I present it to your Lordships as a measure which deals in a modest, but I hope useful, way with cases which occur from time to time when a person dies disposing of his or her property in such a way as to make no provision or very insufficient provision for the maintenance of those who in that person's lifetime depended on him or her for maintenance. This country, England, stands, I do not say alone but in a very small minority of countries which claim to be civilised, in that her law enables a man to dispose of his property without making any provision at all for those who during his life were dependent upon him. Other countries—and, in the case of the Dominions, many of the States and Provinces of those Dominions—have as part of their legislation provided that in such cases protection should be given to those dependants of a testator who have been left unprovided for. Scotland has always had as part of her legal system the provision that the widow and the children of a testator—or rather I should say the spouse and children of a testator—are entitled respectively to a fixed part of the estate, varying from one-half to one-third, over which the testator has no disposing power at all. The form of protection given in various countries varies with the provision made. In some it is very drastic, Compared with that I would venture to describe this present Bill as a very mild brew and a very small measure.
If your Lordships will allow me, I will give a very brief outline of its contents, which will occupy only a few minutes. But, first of all, I would say this. Some ten years ago the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, introduced a measure to a similar effect in your Lordships' House and since then from time to time Bills have been introduced in another place, but owing to the vicissitudes, which, as your Lordships know, usually attend, or very frequently attend, Private Bill legislation,
800
none of them has succeeded in reaching the Statute Book. But in 1931 a Bill then under consideration was referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses to report upon it. The Report, while condemning that particular measure because it adopted an arbitrary and fixed standard of relief, concluded in these words:
"The Committee, however, are of opinion that it is wrong that a surviving spouse or child, who is otherwise without adequate means of support, should be left without such means of support, owing to the terms of the deceased spouse's will, and that such spouse or child should be able to obtain such means of support by application to the Court, the amount to be measured by the amount of the estate and the circumstances in which the family had been living."
The present Bill has been framed upon those lines, and its provisions may be shortly stated.
It enables the Court to make a limited provision out of a testator's estate for the maintenance of the testator's dependants. The dependants in question are a spouse, unmarried daughters, infant sons, and sons incapable either through mental or through physical capacity of maintaining themselves. They also include sons or daughters of those categories who have been adopted by the testator. The estate out of which provision is to be made is defined in such a way that the creditors and all other liabilities of the testator are paid before any provision is made. The nature of the provision is of this kind. It is a maintenance out of income with power in certain small cases to make a payment out of capital, but only in small cases. The maintenance provision ends in the case of a spouse with her marriage, in the case of an unmarried daughter with her marriage, in the case of an infant son with his attaining majority, and in the case of an incapacitated son with cesser of the incapacity. There is a limit to the provision which can be made: that limit is the maximum amount of income applicable at any one time, and it varies from two-thirds, which is the limit in cases where there are in existence both spouse and dependent children, to a half if there is no spouse but dependent children or if there is a spouse and no dependent child.
The Court which has to deal with the matter, which is largely one for the discretion of the Court, is the High Court, presumably the Chancery Division, and the two Palatine Courts of Lancaster and

801
Durham. There is a time limit within which the application must be made—namely, six months from the date when representation in regard to the estate for general purposes is first taken out. Finally—and the House will perhaps think this most important—the Court has in every case a discretion, and must in exercising that discretion take into account the applicant's other means, past, present and future; the conduct of the applicant in regard to the testator; and the reasons, such as they may be, prompting the testator to disinherit that particular claimant. Those are the provisions of this Bill, and I venture to submit them to your Lordships as reasonable and proper provisions to make.
Your Lordships have before you copies of the Bill. It is a short Bill. Clause 1, subsection (1), defines the dependants in the way which I have stated, and provides that the Bill is to apply where there is a will
"which does not make reasonable provision for the maintenance of such a person as aforesaid."
Subsection (2) provides for the nature of the provision out of income and its determination in the events which I have indicated. Subsection (3) imposes the limits. Subsection (4) enables an advance out of capital to be made in cases of small estates which do not exceed £2,000. Subsection (5) is in these words:
"No application shall be entertained by the Court by or on behalf of any person where the testator has bequeathed not less than two-thirds of I he income of the net estate to a surviving spouse and the only other dependant or dependants, if any, is or are a child or children of such surviving spouse."
That subsection is put in to meet the case, which not infrequently occurs, of a testator who, having full confidence in his wife or her husband, as the case may be, leaves the estate to him or her in full reliance that he or she will make proper provision for the children who are dependent. Subsection (6) is put in to guard against any improvident realisation of the estate for the purpose of making the maintenance allowance, and subsection (7) defines the expression "net estate" so as to ensure the payment of creditors and other liabilities of the testator. Subsections (8) and (9) impose upon the Court the obligation to take into consideration
802
the matters which I have indicated.
Clause 2 is the time limit section. Subsection (2) of that clause is a technical matter and is put in simply to enable a dependant to apply for administration of the estate in case the executors delay in making such application. Clause 3 is a technical matter, again; it is put in to ensure that the State shall receive legacy duty in cases where provision is made. Clause 4 deals with variation of orders and says:
"On an application made at a date after the expiration of the period specified in Section two of this Act the Court may make—"
an order, in certain circumstances when the case for that arises, as, for instance, when there has been a change in the circumstances of the applicant. Finally, Clause 5 limits the application of the measure, necessarily, to the case of a testator who has died domiciled in England. Clause 6 defines the Court in the manner which I have mentioned, and Clause 7 includes in the expression "son and daughter" an adopted child. With that brief explanation I leave the matter to your Lordships' consideration, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is, if I may say so, a model and useful amendment of the law. If I may make a personal confession it is that some ten years ago I delivered a lecture on the topic embraced in the Bill, but your Lordships will be much relieved to hear that I have no intention of repeating it on this occasion. I think the Bill is one which will prevent a certain number of hardships, which do take place from time to time where a testator or a testatrix, very often at a time when old age to some extent deprives him or her of a just appreciation of circumstances, makes some wholly unfair will, with no proper provision for persons, spouse or children, to make provision for whom there is a duty. Accordingly I welcome the chance of this Bill becoming an Act. It is of the nature of those Bills which I think create a real effect without any litigation whatever, because, in the great number of cases, as

803
soon as testators are aware and solicitors are aware of the provisions of this measure, when it becomes an Act, it will not be necessary to go to the Courts because the conditions required by the Act will be properly complied with.
I have read the Bill with much care, and I want to say that there are a certain number of things in it which to my mind require careful consideration on the Committee stage. I have not yet been able to mention them to my noble and learned friend, but before the matter comes on at the next stage I shall have an opportunity of putting them before him, and it may be that some of them will be the subjects of Amendments. This Bill, like many others which come up to this House, is one which very likely will receive certain improvements before it is returned to another place. Meanwhile, I welcome the measure and ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STREET PLAYGROUNDS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to prohibit traffic on roads to be used as playgrounds.
1.—(1) The council of any county (other than the administrative county of London) or county borough, or borough or urban district, shall have power, for the purpose of enabling any roads within their area in respect of which the council are the highway authority, to be used as playgrounds for children, to make an order prohibiting or restricting, subject to such exceptions and conditions as to occasional user or otherwise as may be specified in the order, the use of any specified road by vehicles, or by vehicles of any specified class or description, either generally or on particular days or during particular hours:
Provided that an order made under this section with respect to any road shall make provision for permitting reasonable access to premises situated on or adjacent to the road.
(2) No order made under this section shall be of any effect unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister of Transport, and the Minister, if he confirms the order, may confirm it either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, but be shall not confirm an order until twenty-eight days at least have elapsed since the making of the order and, before confirming it, shall consider any objections which may have been made to him against the order and, if he thinks fit, may cause a public inquiry to be held.
(7) In the case of the administrative county of London an order under this section may be made by a highway authority as respects any road vested in them.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or," where that word first occurs, and insert "metropolitan borough." The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, whose absence through illness all of your Lordships will regret, I beg to move this and one or two other Amendments which stand in his name on the Paper. This first Amendment should be read in conjunction with another Amendment in the name of the noble Lord on the second page of the Marshalled List. The effect of this Amendment is merely to transfer metropolitan boroughs from subsection (7) to subsection (1). It does in effect have the result of saying in, I think, two words what is at present said in twenty-eight, and I think it may be called a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("or") and insert ("metropolitan borough").—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out the first ("or").—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "power," to insert "subject as hereinafter provided." The noble Lord said: In the absence of Lord Bay-ford, who is unable to get here till later in the proceedings, I desire to move this Amendment. I am sure the Committee will regret that illness has suddenly overtaken Lord Denham, who recently moved the Second Reading of this Bill in a maiden speech. I am glad to hear that

805
the noble Lord is going on so well. The object of this and the next Amendment on the Paper is such that the two Amendments should be taken together. Their purpose is to ensure that classified roads shall not be used as street playgrounds. It would quite obviously be uneconomic, and indeed disturbing, for any classified road, which by the very fact of being classified must be part of the highway system of any area, to be closed to traffic or restricted to certain types of vehicles. But I am aware in moving this Amendment that it may be argued that the Amendment is unnecessary, because it is improbable that councils will wish to make orders for the use of classified roads as street playgrounds. It may also be argued that any orders made will have to be subject to an act of consent by the Minister of Transport, and that he would naturally withhold consent in any such case. I venture to say that those arguments are not very impressive when one considers them, as they suggest that merely because something is unlikely to happen no steps should be taken to meet even the possibility. If it is accepted that a classified road is undesirable to schedule as a street playground, then it is right, and indeed advisable, to prevent disputes or difficulties arising in the future by making quite clear in the Bill the view of the promotors that such classified roads are unsuitable for the purpose of street playgrounds.
I know it is often said that Government Departments do not like to exercise semi-judicial functions, and if that is really their view of the matter I venture to suggest that it might be well for the Government to make a gesture in order that the truth of that statement may be more strongly upheld. I personally deplore the tendency of this House to shelve its responsibility. Departmental orders and regulations are very often confusing and even conflicting, and I suggest that here is an opportunity for this House to give a plain, straightforward lead by indicating that it does not desire, and indeed does not intend, that such roads, where classified, should be diverted from the good and proper purpose for which they were built to other purposes. Moreover, we do not want to see local authorities endeavouring to divest themselves of their proper obligation to provide suitable playgrounds for the inhabitants of their areas, and making use of this Bill
806
to that end, thus obviating or postponing their responsibility by saying to the public: "You have your playgrounds, you have your scheduled streets, and why should we incur further expense in equipping other grounds for that purpose?" For the reasons I have given I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Bayford and myself.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("power") insert ("subject as hereinafter provided").—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: I take it that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment was speaking to both this and the second Amendment in the name of himself and Lord Bayford. With regard to the first, the insertion of the words "subject as hereinafter provided," the promoters of the Bill are advised that even if the second Amendment, which is in line 9, after "roads," to insert "not being classified roads," should commend itself to your Lordships, the first is unnecessary. It is not common form, and it is not necessary to cumber the Bill with these not very euphoneous words. With regard to the second Amendment, to which the noble Lord has been speaking mainly, I am sure all your Lordships will understand and sympathise with the motives of my noble friend. He wants to be quite sure, naturally, that classified roads are not used as street playgrounds. Also hovering at the back of his mind is the spectre, which has hovered at the back of the minds of most of us at some time or another, of the wicked Minister who is constantly encroaching on the prerogatives of Parliament, but I suggest to the noble Lord that this is not particularly favourable ground on which to give battle on that particular and admittedly important issue.
Your Lordships will not have failed to notice that in Clause 1 (2) the Bill provides that no order shall come into effect unless and until it has been confirmed by the Minister of Transport. I am sure, however poorly some of your Lordships may think of some Ministers of Transport, you can hardly suppose that the Minister of Transport, who after all makes a grant of sixty per cent. out of public funds for the maintenance of classified roads as roads appropriate to bear through traffic, would in the circumstances stultify himself

807
by closing to all traffic the roads for which he is making that grant. However meanly some of your Lordships may think of the capacities of some future Minister of Transport, you can hardly suppose he would do that. I would ask your Lordships also to remember that the Minister, who has the power and the duty of confirming or refusing to confirm these orders, is not the Minister of Health, who might conceivably be prejudiced and weight the balance in favour of these street playgrounds; it is the Minister of Transport, whose whole statutory duty is to see after the rapid and effective movement of traffic. I really do not think that we can suppose that the Minister of Transport, who has to bear Parliamentary criticism on his discharge of that function, would so stultify himself as to close to traffic a classified road for which he was making a grant out of the public funds in order to maintain it in a state fit to bear traffic. I very much hope, and the supporters of the Bill hope, that the noble Lord, who, we all know, has every sympathy with the object of this Bill, will not press this Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: With the permission of the Committee I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, though I must say I do not share the confidence in future Ministers of Transport expressed by my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "Provided that," to insert:

"(a) an order under this section shall not be made with respect to any claimed road within the meaning of Section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929, without the consent of the council of the county in which such road is situated; and

(b)"

The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is much the same as the reason for my previous Amendment. The council of an urban district council with a population exceeding 20,000 persons is entitled to claim the repair and maintenance of county roads in its district, but the county council still remains the highway authority for the administrative county as a whole and is very vitally concerned to secure the proper flow of traffic through the area under its jurisdiction. It is not inconceivable, although probably
808
not very likely, that a district council might make a street playground order in the light only of the traffic requirements of the immediate area under its jurisdiction, and without visualising the effect of such an order on the surrounding county areas. Therefore it is essential that the consent of the county council should be madea statutory requirement before the smaller local authorities could be empowered to close the road for the purpose of a playground.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("that") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: Again the supporters of the Bill are in entire sympathy with the motives of the noble Lord, only we feel that the Amendment is not really necessary. The anxiety of the noble Lord is entirely intelligible. He remembers that an urban district council under the Local Government Act, 1929, may claim to exercise various functions of maintenance and repair on a county road within their district. The noble Lord is quite naturally afraid that they might therefore claim to exercise the powers to be granted under this Bill within their area, and he wishes that they should receive authority beforehand from the county council. I hope I may be able to convince the noble Lord that this is not really a necessary Amendment, because your Lordships will notice that in line 10 of Clause 1 these powers are specifically conferred upon "the highway authority." It is the opinion of the Minister that the urban district council which may claim to exercise these functions in respect of county roads within their own urban district area do not by that claim make themselves the highway authority, and therefore they are not qualified to exercise the powers conferred by this Bill.
I think that will be quite clear to your Lordships if you remember that under the Local Government Act, 1929, Section 32 (the section to which the noble Lord has referred), where powers are granted to the urban district council to exercise certain functions of maintenance and repair of roads within their area, it is specifically stated that they should exercise these functions as if they were, as respects that road, the highway authority. That makes it, I think, quite clear that they are not the highway authority, and that therefore they would not qualify to exercise any of

809
the powers to be granted by this Bill. The Minister is quite clear that the urban district council claiming are not the highway authority, and therefore would not come under this Bill. I hope your Lordships will be prepared to accept his assurance.
LORD ELTISLEY: If the legal interpretation of these particular words is so patently clear as my noble friend suggests, I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (2), after "until" ["until twenty-eight days"] to insert "the council by whom the order was made have given in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the road is situated notice of the making of the order, with an intimation that any person objecting to the order may send particulars of his objection to the Minister, and until." The noble Lord said: It is clearly desirable that all persons likely to be affected by a street playground should be given every reasonable opportunity of being heard and of their objections being thoroughly gone into. For this reason it appears desirable that public notice of any proposal to make an order as contemplated under this Bill should be given, and it is thought that an official announcement in the local Press is the best way of giving such notice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("until") insert the said words.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: I should be willing to make some concession to the noble Lord, but this Amendment falls under the same criticism as I had to make regarding the noble Lord's last Amendment—namely, that it is really superfluous. Your Lordships will notice that under subsection (6) of Clause 1, the Minister of Transport is empowered to make regulations. There are in existence regulations made by the Minister under the analogous Road Traffic Act, 1930, amended by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and there is one regulation—Regulation No. 4—which exactly meets what the noble Lord desires. That regulation provides that when an order has been made, the order in the form and containing the particulars specified in the First Schedule shall be published
810
by the council once at least in each of two consecutive weeks in some local newspaper circulating in the district in which the road is situated. The Minister in another place gave the assurance that the regulations to be made under this Bill would exactly follow the analogy of the regulations made under these two former Acts. I hope, therefore, that will meet the noble Lord's natural anxiety.
LORD ELTISLEY: In withdrawing this Amendment, I would explain that all these Amendments have been moved on behalf of a very responsible body—namely, the County Councils' Association.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (2), after "order" ["against the order"] to insert "and also the traffic value of the road." The noble Lord said: If the Minister could give an assurance that the traffic value of any given road will always be one of the principal points he will take into consideration before confirming any order, I do not wish to press this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, after ("order") insert ("and also the traffic value of the road").—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: I am sure the Minister would be prepared to give that assurance, but even without the assurance your Lordships will recognise that it is, after all, the Minister of Transport and not the Minister of Health who has to confirm these orders; and he is bound—he would stultify himself if he did not—to take into consideration the traffic value of the road. If the noble Lord read the debate in another place he probably recognised that the Minister there expressed himself ready to give that assurance if it were thought necessary.
LORD ELTISLEY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) As a condition of confirming an order made under this section, the Minister may require the council by whom the order was made to undertake to make good any damage caused to persons or property in consequence of the use of the road as a playground "

811
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It is thought that when a road is used as a street playground it may very well result in injury to individuals or damage to the fabric or amenities of adjoining property. The suggestion in this Amendment is that there should be power to place on the council mainly concerned definite responsibility for making good, as far as may be practicable, any such injury or damage. It may be that those in charge of the Bill will object to this proposal on the ground that a person whose property is damaged by such use of the road has got a definite remedy under the ordinary law. I do not wish to minimise in any way the chance of being able to deal with this particular matter in that particular way. At the same time I would point out that the children by whom the damage may be done will be children attending public elementary schools or small secondary schools, and that proceedings against their parents—I take it that would be the remedy at law—are not likely to result in financial satisfaction. Therefore it seems only fair that there should be somebody at whom the persons whose property has been damaged would be able to shoot.
It may be that householders will not welcome the transformation of a quiet street into a noisy playground, and if, in addition, they are to run the risk of having personal damage or damage done to their property for which they can get no real redress, then they have a very definite grievance. The proposal is that the responsibility should lie with the authority. I do not for a moment suggest that the authority would be saddled with a heavy obligation, but at any rate they would have a small risk, and it would be easy for them to insure against that risk or meet it out of their ordinary current resources.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: Here my noble friend is really for the first time moving an Amendment which strikes at the roots of the Bill. I am not able to say that this is merely superflous; I think it is rather a dangerous Amendment. In the first place it clearly introduces an important
812
alteration of general law. I do not think there is any precedent for requiring a third party to make good damage done by somebody else in this way. As the noble Lord has said, the aggrieved householder, if there should be an aggrieved householder, has his rights already existing under the Common Law. It is clear that if you threaten the local authorities with the possibility that they may have to make good unspecified damage caused in these streets, the effect would probably be, in a number of localities, to make the measure a dead letter. That has been the view expressed by the Urban District Councils' Association—that a number of authorities would not use the permissive powers under this Bill if there was a vague possibility that such a claim would lie over them. I do not suggest that there is likely to be damage done. We are informed by the Ministry that in the two towns where, under Private Acts, these powers have already been granted, as far as they are aware, there have been no cases of damage—certainly none brought to their notice.
I do not think it is in the least likely, but it is one of those cases where the vague threat that, a local authority might be required to make good damage done, thereby introducing an entirely novel principle into the Common Law, would very likely have the effect of making the Act a dead letter in quite a number of localities. Whether or not it would have the effect of reducing the temptation to the child to do damage, I am not entirely clear; whether saying to the child, "Any damage you do will be made good by somebody else," is necessarily the best way of restraining the child from doing damage, is at least uncertain. But I am clear that the effect would probably be to reduce the Bill to something like a dead letter. Moreover, the Minister is clearly of opinion that it would be very embarrassing for him to have the powers which the noble Lord seeks to confer on him, as he is not in the least clear on what principles he would decide whether or not he should exercise those powers. As, therefore, the Minister seeks not to be charged with these powers, and as a number of local authorities have expressed the view that if this Amendment were carried it might reduce the working of the Bill to a dead letter, I do hope that the noble Lord, who, I know, is anxious to see the Bill carried and working successfully, may

813
possibly see his way to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: It is not often that I have found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at least not in recent years, but I do wholeheartedly support him on this occasion What is the damage these children will do playing in the road? They might put a cricket ball through a window. They might do that in any case whether or not this Bill were passed. In view of what has been said that this Amendment might cause the Bill to become a dead letter, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Might I ask the noble Lord who moved the Amendment whether his object is that if, as a result of children playing ball, half a dozen panes of glass should be broken, then the householder would have redress from the local authority for the damage done?
LORD ELTISLEY: I did not visualise that particular thing arising; but generally speaking, if a child did damage and injured the legitimate and proper interests of the householders the local authority would be responsible. I cannot see why the local authority should not be responsible. It has taken over the road as a playground, and the householder has bought his house or become tenant of it in good faith, and if his window is broken he should be entitled to compensation, I think.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Lord says he cannot see why the local council should not be responsible. The reply to that is the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that if you put this into the Bill it will undoubtedly in a considerable number of cases—I think in the great majority of cases—make the Bill a dead letter. That is the reply. The local council will not incur this liability, it is quite true, though the liability is probably trivial; in fact we are told that in the two cases where powers have been taken by Private Acts similar to those in the Bill and are in operation there have been no cases of damage. But, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has pointed out, what would the damage be? I have a case in mind of which I have some knowledge. It was a broken piece of glass, and the window actually belonged in that case to the local authority. Can
814
you conceive of a more heinous crime than for a small boy to break a piece of glass belonging to a local authority! What happened? Nothing. The local authority made representations, they were met with the retort that boys would be boys, and they replaced the glass.
It might be urged that the possibility—I will not put it higher than that—of personal damage exists. I think it is extremely remote, because, as I understand it, the vast number of the street playgrounds will be in the nature of courts and alleys; they will not be through roads at all; and the probability of some person getting hurt by a cricket ball or otherwise when children are playing in one of these courts and alleys is really extremely remote. In my younger days I had a good deal of experience in these courts and alleys trying to do a little good amongst the poor, and I think that what has been suggested may very largely be ruled out. In any case the injured person, if he desires to take action, has his remedy at Common Law. True, the noble Lord may reply: "Yes, but those who cause the injury are probably people of small means." I think that is really something which must be risked. It seems to me that keeping a proper perspective, having regard to the national fitness campaign and so forth, this is a Bill of some considerable importance, which I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to kill, and I feel that this would be a most destructive Amendment. On balance the arguments are strongly against it, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: In view of what has been said in the House, and in view of my own ignorance of the fact that this apparently humble Amendment runs counter to the Common Law of the land, I venture to ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved to insert after subsection (4):
"(5) When an order is in force under this section authorising the closing of a street for use as a playground for children, the highway authority shall place and maintain a warning notice at each road entrance to the playground intimating to the drivers of vehicles that it is a street playground and specifying the hours when it may be used for that purpose and the restrictions on the use of the road by vehicular traffic."
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I promised that with your Lordships' consent I would move this Amendment. Although it is a simple thing, it is very obvious that something of the kind provided for in this Amendment is necessary. I cannot imagine any local authority scheduling a street and not marking it, except possibly through inadvertence or carelessness of their employees. On the other hand, if you did have a street scheduled and nothing to show that a car must not go down it, it might make a hunting ground for the police chivying cars about and chasing them off, and the purpose of having the street as a playground would be largely destroyed. I think the case might be met if we were given an assurance that regulations would be drawn up for these streets by the Minister of Transport, who would include in the regulations a requirement that such notices should be put up at the entrance of each street. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF ERNE: This Amendment was moved in another place and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport gave this assurance which I should like to repeat to your Lordships:
"I have here the regulations which were made under Section 46 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, and paragraph 7 (b) says: 'The Council shall cause to be erected on or near to the roads such notice in such positions as may be approved by the Minister.'"
He went on to say:
"I can give the Committee the assurance that regulations on those lines will be made and that the wording of the Bill is such that the Amendment is unnecessary."
LORD SANDHURST: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTON: The next two Amendments standing in Lord Denham's name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("made") and insert ("in force")
Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Application to Scotland.
4. This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—
(a) the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section one of this Act on the councils therein mentioned shall be exercisable, in a county by the county council, and in a burgh by the town council;
LORD ELTON: The first two Amendments to this clause down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 8, after ("exercisable") insert ("as regards roads")
Page 4, line 9, after ("and") insert ("as regards roads").—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved to insert after paragraph (a):
"(b) in subsection (5) of Section one of this Act for the words 'on summary conviction' there shall be substituted the words 'on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction'."
The noble Lord said: This is merely necessary to provide for the slightly different local circumstances in Scotland. I think it may be called drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the chief operative words of this Bill are these:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act a person shall not practise or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the word 'architect' unless he is a person registered under the principal Act."
There follow certain exceptions and an extension to which I will draw your Lordships' attention in a moment. The main part of this Bill was passed unanimously

817
by your Lordships last year, but it failed to pass in another place. This Session the Bill was introduced elsewhere, and has now reached your Lordships after having been amended and extended.
In substance, tae term "registered architect" laid down in the parent Act of 1931, applying to persons qualified to be architects under that Act, is replaced by the simple word "architect" under this Bill. There are certain exceptions. In the first place, there are three architects with what I might call a good-will interest in the word "architect"—namely, naval architect, landscape architect and golf course architect. Each of these categories of varying interest is excluded front this Bill and will continue to be called naval or golf or landscape architect, as the case may be. Secondly, there is a wider exception, and that applies to four categories mentioned at the top of page 2, members of the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Chartered Surveyors' Institution and the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers. In each case where a member of one of these bodies now holds in the service of a local authority an office making him responsible for the management and control of the architectural work of that local authority, he will be entitled to be called architect, provided, as laid down in line to onwards, that one of the local authority's servants engaged under him for the purpose of architectural work is a person registered under the principal Act. Those are the seven groups of exceptions.
The second portion of the Bill, beginning with Clause 2, your Lordships will see deals with the date of the application for registration. It allows a period of two years during which any person practising as an architect can make up his mind what he wishes to do under the Act, and it establishes a tribunal which will be a court of appeal to which any aggrieved person who thinks he has not been properly treated under the Act is entitled to appeal. It consists of seven persons, one nominated by the Lord Chancellor, a second by the Minister of Health, a third by the Department of Health for Scotland, a fourth by the President of the Law Society, a fifth by the Chairman of the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland, and two others by the authorities of Northern Ireland to which this Bill will or can be applied
818
under a special provision in the parent Act. That tribunal is an impartial body. No member of the Architects' Registration Council is entitled as such as serve upon it and it is provided that its decision shall be final and conclusive. The rest of the proposals are nominal and deal with the question of application. I think that the Bill has removed any source of grievance or danger to persons who may think their interests are aggrieved by the establishment of this well defined and strong tribunal. The Bill has passed through the House of Commons by immense majorities and I hope your Lordships will give it a favourable reception. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill which was formerly in controversy is now agreed in principle. At the present time any person, however uneducated or illiterate, may designate himself as architect and there have been cases where persons wholly unqualified to act as architects have misled the public. I remember one case in particular which came under my own notice. A small tradesman had retired from business and thought he would like to build a cottage in the country. He consulted a person whom he saw described on the door-plate as an architect in a small country town. So-called plans were prepared and submitted to the local authority and were rejected on the ground that they failed to comply almost entirely with the local by-laws. The result was that the unfortunate man had to pay a bill of some £25 in respect of fees for those plans. That sort of thing is not uncommon. I venture to think that when we have a measure of this kind on the Statute Book the public will be properly safeguarded.
The great movement in respect of the training of young men and women for the profession of architect has made very noticeable advance in recent years. Candidates for examination by the various examining bodies set up under the parent Act come from all classes of the community. At one time the idea was that to receive a diploma as architect a young man must be the son of a person of some means. That is not the case now, owing to the enlightened policy of the education authorities and technical schools. We find

819
now that the fees charged for instruction are moderate and that year by year scholarships for deserving and competent candidates are being extended. The result is that any lad with brains can become a properly qualified architect with a diploma without any financial burden upon his parents. The classes for the training of young men of that kind are so arranged that the student can do practical work during the day and during the evening can attend classes for theoretical instruction. Students who happen to be some distance away from technical schools can prepare themselves by a correspondence course.
The fees charged at these schools are low. To take Birmingham, for example, the fee is 7s. 6d. or £1 a year according to age. At Aberdeen it is £1 a year; at Sheffield it is £1 1s.; at Cardiff £1 1s.; and at the Northern Polytechnic in London 18s. up to the age of twenty-one and 30s. over that age. The highest fee is at London University School, where it is six guineas. In addition scholarships are provided. The Registration Council award a certain number, which is limited because their funds are restricted, but in course of time these scholarships will become more abundant. Scholarships are also granted by, for example, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Leeds, Cardiff, London and many other places, so that it is possible for any young man or woman, however humble, to acquire the proper training and submit themselves for examination in the theory and practice of architecture. Of course, I admit that other schools are open to people who choose to attend them, such as schools of art, and if anyone wishes to have a more expensive education, he can obtain it. We have now a body of many young men who have worked hard and received their diploma in architecture. They are an asset to the State, and I venture to submit, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said, that the public should not be confused in their mind between qualified architects and persons who have no qualification whatever. The Bill is straightforward and in the right direction, and will not only add to the dignity of the profession of an architect, but will also afford protection to the public.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SCOTTISH LAND COURT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill to continue, with certain modifications, the operation of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, which, as your Lordships may remember, was prolonged until this year by the Labour Party but which, unless it were continued, would expire on June 24 next. I may add that the extension of the modifications that we are proposing follow the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Rural Housing of the Central Housing Advisory Committee. The Chairman of that Committee, as your Lordships will also remember, is my right reverend friend the Bishop of Winchester, and I am sure the House will wish me to thank him for his services and the services of that Committee on this occasion, as we did a short time ago on another Housing Bill.
The 1926 Act was designed to encourage the reconditioning and improvement of such agricultural cottages as were suitable and capable of being improved. It was not intended, on the one hand, to be used for repairing cottages which the landowner should have kept in a state of repair; nor, on the other hand, was it intended to be used for patching up old houses which were only fit to be demolished. It was generally agreed, I think, that there were a number of houses of perfectly sound structure that could be improved and modernised, and that, if this were done, not only would housing conditions be made more attractive in the country but also the amenities and appearance of the countryside would be preserved. It had a further object which was of particular value to the Government's housing policy. I mentioned the other day, in discussing the Rent Restrictions Act, that the housing policy of successive Governments was to maintain and to enlarge a pool of good working-class houses, to keep the rents of these houses low, and to keep the houses themselves occupied by

821
the working classes and not by other people who could well afford to house themselves. I would point out that this Act has the effect, not only of improving houses, but of maintaining them within the pool for the exclusive benefit of the agricultural classes and other people of the same economic status, because it is only on those terms that the grant is payable.
In return for agreeing to these conditions, the owner is entitled to a contribution towards the capital cost of the improvements not exceeding £100 in all, part of which comes from the Exchequer and part from the local authority. At least one-third of the total cost is to be borne by the owner himself. We are now proposing to continue this grant until 1942, because we believe that, though it has been used to some effect, it still has a great deal of scope in front of it. I shall have something to say about the progress which has been achieved under the Act, but I want for the moment to deal with the provisions of the new Bill. I may just explain that the reason why we have chosen 1942 is that it coincides with a date when all the housing subsidies are being generally reviewed.
Turning to the Bill, your Lordships will see in Clause 2 that there is a small alleviation which follows the recommendation of the Sub-Committee's Report: it permits local authorities to pay grants by instalments during the progress of the work. The object of that is to help more impoverished owners. Clause 3 provides for another change of a little more importance. One of the present conditions under which an owner can get this grant is by agreeing to retain the cottage within the agricultural pool for a period of twenty years, and any breach of those conditions would render him liable to pay back the whole of the grant which he has received, plus compound interest. The length of the time to which the owner would thereby commit himself has, I think, in certain cases deterred owners from using this Act as freely as they otherwise might have done. Therefore under this clause, if they wish no longer to comply with these conditions, they need only pay back that part of the grant which could be apportioned to the period subsequent to the date when the alteration of conditions took place. We hope that this will lead to a freer use of the Act. Clause 4 has particular reference to Scotland, where some
822
difficulties have arisen in adhering to certain conditions. In certain places the authorities are not able to fix the average rent paid by agricultural workers, for the reason that there are no agricultural workers in their district. This new clause merely enables them to fix the rent by taking into account the average rent paid by people of the same economic position.
Clause 5 adds another condition to those to which the owners will have to conform after they get the grant in the future. It is that, having obtained the grant, they must maintain the house in all respects fit for human habitation. The point is that, while hitherto the owners have had to satisfy the authorities that they have reconditioned the house and that it is fit for human habitation, they are often under no obligation to maintain it fit except to the extent to which they are liable under the public health law. By making this requirement a definite condition of enjoying the grant we are tightening procedure generally, and we hope it will have good effect. Clause 6 makes it clear that an owner receiving any grant after January 1, 1935, shall be allowed to charge 4 per cent. on his expenditure. It also makes it clear that this concession granted by the Housing Act of 1935 will only apply retrospectively to expenditure carried out on works of a similar character after 1935. There was apparently some doubt about this. Clause 7, I think, is self-explanatory. It prevents the evasion of the Act when owners charge more for land let with the house than they are prevented from charging in extra rent on the house itself. Clause 8 is a machinery clause. Clause 9 is designed to encourage the abatement of overcrowding. As I have already pointed out, the maximum grant under the 1926 Act was £100, and after that an owner could not obtain any further assistance, but now if he desires to abate overcrowding we give him an opportunity of obtaining another grant on the same terms, but limited in this case to £50. Clause 10 deals in particular with Scotland and authorises an increased rate of Exchequer contribution to owners who are in what are known as the Highlands and Islands districts.
I think that is all I have to say about the bare description of the Bill, but I would like to say a word or two about the progress we have made, and what we

823
hope to do in the future. In the past, I quite admit, progress has been very uneven. In some parts, particularly Scotland and Devonshire, the Act has been used very freely, but in some other parts hardly at all. I understand that up to 1937 about 30,000 houses in Scotland had been improved and only 16,000 in the whole of England and Wales. In Devonshire 1,800 grants have been made, whereas in Bedfordshire no grants have been made. In the eastern end of Suffolk I understand that 800 houses have been reconditioned, and in the western part only 39. It is inconceivable that housing requirements should vary in this peculiar geographical way, and I think it is clear that other factors have been at work, no doubt in part due to the energy, or lack of energy, of the various councils. I have no doubt that the increased publicity which we hope to give to this Act, and the publication of the booklet which is just about to be produced by the Committee presided over by Lord Crawford, which shows the architectural possibilities of reconditioning, will do something to promote progress.
But I think there is another reason. There is a theory, advanced by noble Lords opposite, and indeed I think shared to some extent by some members of the Liberal and even of the Conservative Parties, that there is something immoral or anti-social in giving grants of public money to private owners, particularly if they are well-to-do. We believe that this Act, if properly worked, will offer great benefits to agricultural labourers, and, as we all, I think, desire to improve conditions in the countryside and help to attract more labour back to the land, I suggest that we ought to try to elucidate this controversy and if possible dissipate any inhibitions there may be against the more extensive use of the Act.
We all, as I have said, desire to improve housing conditions in the countryside, but we all recognise that the agricultural labourer, by reason of his low wages, cannot afford to pay any, even a hardly appreciable, increase of rent. Therefore if these improvements have got to be made, and the tenant cannot pay for them, they will have to be paid for by somebody else. The question is: Who will pay for them? Under the recent Housing Bill—the Financial Provisions
824
Bill—the Government, as your Lordships know, are furnishing a large subsidy to enable housing authorities to construct houses to be occupied by agricultural workers at low rents, and nobody has contended, so far as I know, that it is wrong that public money should be used for that purpose, although the object of the Act is designed to help to house workers who, as your Lordships know, are in private employment. In other words, we have agreed to pay this subsidy because we think it is right to improve housing conditions, and not because we hope to get any return from it. This Bill deals with the improvement of existing buildings, and if it is generally agreed, as I think it is, that existing buildings ought to be improved in order to bring about a standard comparable with the new houses we are constructing, then it seems to me that the same principle ought to apply.
I do not argue that the State ought to do ordinary repairs for the landlord, but there are all sorts of safeguards in the Bill and in other Acts against that happening. I agree that if the safeguards are not working properly the procedure ought to be tightened up. I am talking about genuine improvements in accommodation, enlargement of rooms, improved sanitation, and so forth, and I say that if the tenant cannot pay for these improvements, and if Parliament thinks them desirable, it seems to me that public money can just as rightly be used for those purposes as for the other. It seems to me quite irrelevant to take into account the personal wealth of the agent through whom these housing reforms are brought about—whether that agent is the landowner on whose estate existing houses are enlarged, or the contractor who builds the new houses for the local authority. In both cases I say it performs a social service, and it is right that public funds should be used for it.
I know that noble Lords will say that the parallel is not a true one, because after twenty years the residual value in the case of council houses will revert to the public, and in the case of private houses will revert to the owner. If I were here to defend the owner on the charge of exploiting the public, I think I should have something to say about the amount of this residual value—that is to say, what the residual value will be after making allowances for the conditions which the

825
owner has to observe. If I were here defending the Government against a charge of being exploited, I say at once that I do not care whether the owner does make a profit out of us or whether we make a profit out of the owner, provided always that we can show that there is no more effective or cheaper method of bringing about these improvements that we desire.
I should like to invite any noble Lord to suggest how he would propose to improve these existing houses and still let them at low rents in a cheaper and more effective way than we propose. It might be said that we could effect these improvements by laying heavy penalties on owners for not carrying them out. I believe a celebrated headmaster of Eton, Dr. Keate, once exhorted his boys to be charitable to one another, but he added that if they were not charitable he would beat them until they were. I believe that noble Lords opposite have a great belief in the big-stick policy in regard to owners, and of course we might say that no owners should allow any house to be occupied unless it had rooms of a certain height and unless it had proper sanitation, and perhaps electric light. Certainly that would be cheaper, but is it likely to be effective? For surely it is clear that if we endeavoured to force on owners uneconomic conditions, either they would let the houses stand unoccupied, or else they would let them to people of a different class. In either case the agricultural community suffers.
In other circumstances the local authority might purchase these houses by agreement and do the repairs themselves, in which case the public would enjoy the residual value. But I would ask how much would the local authority have to pay for these houses? I think it ought to be remembered that in a number of parts of England these agricultural cottages have two totally different values: they have a low value as agricultural cottages, and a considerably higher value as weekend cottages, particularly if they have any æsthetic pretensions, as many of them have. I am sure the only value which the local authority could hope to get away with, if I may so put it, would be the full market value, and it seems quite clear that if the authority had to pay that value, and also had to pay ordinary landlord's repairs 826
and the whole of the cost of the reconditioning improvements, the agricultural rent they would get for that, even with the small increase contemplated in this Bill, would in no wise compensate them, particularly if one takes into acount the expenses of looking after a large number of houses dotted all over the countryside. Indeed, I think there is no doubt that the loss which would accrue to the local authority in this way would be much greater than that which we hope will be the limit under this Bill. Of course, I am not saying that the local authority never ought to purchase these houses and repair them themselves. In certain circumstances it might be an admirable thing, but as a general rule I think it would work out much more expensively. For these reasons I hope there will be no further hesitation, either on the part of the authorities or on the part of the owners, in making use of the Act, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will not try to damn with faint praise or with many qualifications an Act which after all they themselves did prolong.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, and indeed to give it a hearty welcome because of the good that it will do for the domestic well-being of one of the most deserving sections of the population. When all Parties talk about the decline of the rural population I think they are all agreed, unless political considerations intervene, that it is a deplorable thing that no fewer than 200,000 people should have left agriculture, and I think it is generally agreed, too, that one of the main causes is the unfortunate state of housing conditions in the agricultural districts. I myself think it is probably the second cause, and I have heard it put even higher than that by those who should be well qualified to judge. His Majesty's Government have recognised that, and have brought forward two Bills in the course of the last two months which have met with such general approbation that I think that even the ranks of Tuscany have found it extremely difficult to refrain from cheering. This Bill of course is really almost entirely concerned with the extension of the period. There are certainly amendments to the last Act, but none of them is of really vital importance.

827
There are those who say that surely during all this time such houses as were worth reconditioning should have been reconditioned. I venture to put one reason, which, curiously enough, has not been given either in your Lordships' House or in another place, why this Act must take a very long period, and that is the very simple one that, except in the rarest of cases, you cannot recondition a house unless the occupant goes out of it. Therefore you have either to find him other accommodation, or he has to vacate his house by death or for some other reason. I venture to think that we shall see this Act extended for a very great many years; indeed I believe we shall find ourselves reconditioning the houses that have already been reconditioned, and even some of those houses that have been built in the course of the last two years.
The Party of noble Lords opposite are somewhat divided on this Act, and this Bill too. Some of them dislike it very greatly on the ground that it is putting something into the hands of the bloated capitalist. Others, on the other hand, welcome it on the ground that it is taking something out of the pocket of the bloated capitalist, and I suggest that the second class of people on the whole have far more grounds for their opinion than the other section. Because, after all, the landowner who reconditions a cottage puts his hand into his pocket often for a very considerable sum and, except in the rarest cases, he gets nothing whatever out of it. It is quite true that he is allowed to charge an additional 4 per cent. on his expenditure, but in how few cases is this done! I have had hardly one brought to my notice. It cannot happen in a tied cottage, and if cottages were not tied it would be the rarest exception for it to happen. Indeed I should not have minded in the least or raised any objection if the right to charge 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. had been taken away under this Bill.
There is, or has been, a singular lack of uniformity in the use of this Act. I come from a County, or part of a County, East Suffolk, which has a singularly enlightened county council, of whom I form one; and not only is it enlightened but it is enlightened on all sections of municipal thought, and by a unanimous vote we work this Act to a large extent. As the noble Viscount has said, we have reconditioned
828
800 cottages, which is more than any whole county has reconditioned, with the sole exception of Devon. I find myself at a great loss to understand why more use has not been made of it. I did at one time form the opinion that it was partially due to the option under the Act to delegate powers to a rural district council, and I had thought of moving an Amendment to this Bill to get that right to delegate taken away, but when I made inquiries I found that there were undoubtedly certain cases where, when powers have been delegated, more houses have been built than before. So that motive was taken away from me. All the same I think the county council rather than the rural district council is the right body to exercise these powers. It has a more general knowledge of the subject, and it has usually—I will not say always—the services of a better architect.
I have one criticism to make. I think the grant might have been raised to a rather higher figure and, still more, that the £400 under the old Act might have been put forward to £500. That is merely on the ground that the cost of building has gone up by different figures in different places. In my own county it has gone up by a figure of from 25 to 28 per cent., and I feel that the restriction will have the effect of reducing in some cases the reconditioning that might well have been done and, I would remind noble Lords opposite, reducing the amount that can be taken from the pocket of the landowner.
There is a further point which I wish to bring to the notice of the noble Viscount for his careful consideration, and that is the grave anomaly that exists at the present moment with regard to the rating of agricultural cottages, not only all agricultural cottages, but especially such cottages as have been reconditioned. I believe there is a Committee now sitting to consider this question, but it is now possible for a rating authority to do this—in fact I believe it is their duty to do it. If a pair of cottages, one a tied cottage and the other a non-tied cottage, are reconditioned into a pair of cottages of exactly the same type, one is rated on the basis of 3s. to 4s. a week and the other is rated up to 15s. a week. That is an anomaly which is not only ludicrous but imposes on the landowner, who spends money in reconditioning, a burden which he was never intended to bear. I would

829
ask the noble Viscount to use his influence with the Ministry of Health, where he is such a power, so that that injustice and anomaly may be reduced. I will not say any more, except this. I believe this Bill might have been a rather better Bill but, on reflection, I have come to the conclusion that I have never yet met a Bill in your Lordships' House which I did not think could be better, and it is possible that this Bill is as near perfect as may be. At all events I am certain it will do something substantial for the better housing of the rural population in many cases and, as such, I most heartily welcome it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I do not rise on this occasion, as I not infrequently do, to challenge the Second Reading of a Bill which the Government have recommended to your Lordships' House, or even to criticise it in principle. I am perfectly certain that all Parties in the State welcome any measure that will do something to improve the housing conditions of those who work on the land by enabling existing cottages to be modernised and reconditioned. It was symptomatic of this state of mind that this Bill, when it reached its Third Reading in another place, was passed without a Division. We were glad to hear, as the noble Viscount told us, that since the original Act was passed there has been a number of houses built both in this country and in Scotland, although the progress that has been made in England clearly compares very unfavourably with the use that has been made of the Act in the northern Kingdom.
We hope, as the Government hope, that in the years to come the 1926 Act, prolonged by the present measure, will be more effective in accomplishing the purpose which it was framed to bring about. But we are not satisfied that the fundamental problem of preventing the drift from the land, which has been increasingly serious in recent years, can be coped with by the provisions of the present Bill. If it is a question of providing decent housing standards for the agricultural labourer, I do not believe that the improvements which a Bill of this kind can bring about will meet the case. There can be little doubt that mere modernising and bringing up to date cottages which have been built many decades ago cannot provide anything like the same standard of
830
comfort and hygiene as is provided by houses which have been built by local authorities in recent years, under plans drawn up by modem architects and with amenities which are regarded as being normal and desirable at the present time. It is a question, I believe, not primarily of improving houses, but of providing new houses with modern amenities and built according to modern standards.
Perhaps that is criticising the Bill for not being another Bill, and I do not wish to go beyond the limits of the subject with which it deals. We have, however, one objection to which the noble Viscount has already referred, and I am not satisfied by the answer he has given in anticipation of the arguments which I would raise. We maintain that it is exceedingly undesirable that public money should be provided for improving and modernising cottages in those cases where the landlords are in a financial position to do the work themselves. We are not satisfied that it is desirable to subsidise the wealthier landlord as well as the impecunious farmer.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Who is he?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Duke asks what wealthy landlords there are. In answer to that, according to fairly modest standards, a certain number of members of your Lordships' House would qualify as prosperous landowners. I do not say necessarily owing to the fact that their income comes from the land. I want specially to refer to the late Sir John Ellerman, because this was an instance brought up in another place which illustrates the point I desire to make. In this case the late Sir John Ellerman, who, I think everyone will agree, was a man with a very considerable income, had an estate in the County of Aberdeen and he applied to the Aberdeen County Council for a grant towards the reconditioning of some fifteen cottages. I merely give that as an instance of what I mean. I do not think that these landlords who are in a position to be able to do the work themselves should take advantage of funds that are provided out of public money, and if it is said that the administrative difficulties in the way of assessing the income of landlords are insuperable, I think it ought to be pointed out that these difficulties have been overcome in other cases. For instance, when

831
a local authority gives a grant towards a scholarship from an elementary to a secondary or central school, it takes into account the income of the father of the child and it regulates the amount of the grant in proportion to the amount of that income. Similarly, in cases where unemployed men have enjoyed the money accruing from their insured period they are expected to declare any private income or any earned income from other sources before they can receive public money.
I think a more formidable objection is the one mentioned by the noble Viscount in the course of his speech, that in the event of any sort of means test the work would not be done. We want this Bill to be made use of, and we want the Act of 1926 to be used much more frequently than it has been used in the past, and the principal object cannot be achieved if the landlord finds that the disadvantages of doing the work are so considerable that he prefers to leave it undone. But the local authorities have power to purchase compulsorily any cottages that need reconditioning and modernising and to do the work themselves. And, quite frankly, in such cases—and I imagine indeed they will not be frequent because landlords have a very real sense of responsibility towards their tenants in this respect—I myself would wish that the Government would urge the local authorities to make use of these powers. I should prefer to see the local authorities benefiting from any subsidy that was provided by the Government to landlords in cases of this kind, because, as the noble Viscount himself pointed out, the benefit accruing from the expenditure of the money would go in perpetuity to the public in the one case whereas in the other case it would go to the landlord and to his heirs. That is the main criticism of a general kind that we want to level at the Bill. At the same time, as I said earlier, we welcome the prolongation of the 1926 Act, and we hope just as ardently as the Government that the provisions of this Bill when it passes into law will be implemented by landlords and local authorities in a way that has not occurred in the last twelve years.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I want to say a word or two in welcoming this Bill. The main lines of
832
the Bill were partly suggested by a Committee which was a non-Party Committee, and the Bill has now been welcomed by members of all Parties in both Houses. The objects of the Bill are twofold. In the first place, to keep in existence the number of houses which can be let at a low rent to the agricultural labourer. All of us who know anything about rural conditions are deeply concerned about the shortage of houses within the means of agricultural labourers. Without this Bill, and without the continuation of the present Act, a number of houses which might be used for the rural labourer and let at a very low rent would gradually fall into a state of utter disrepair and would be quite impossible to be used. This Bill, by itself, would not meet the needs of housing in the rural districts. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord opposite has just said on that point. But it is intended to supplement it by other measures, and in this way it will keep in use a number of houses which otherwise might have been demolished.
In the second place, it is a Bill which w ill help to keep in existence a number of picturesque cottages. I quite deliberately put this in the second place, because in the first place we must consider the building of houses which are healthy and sanitary and comfortable; but there are a large number of picturesque houses which can be reconditioned. A great feature of our English countryside is, I am afraid, in some places rapidly disappearing with the destruction of cottages which have stood in some cases almost for centuries, and all their beauty has been ruthlessly swept away. I believe that the policy embodied in the old Acts and in this Bill will do much to preserve some of these cottages which might otherwise vanish. I have, no doubt like many of your Lordships, visited some of these houses which have been reconditioned. I have seen them in various parts of the country and have been greatly struck by the way in which in so many instances their beauty has been preserved, and at the same time they have been made comfortable and healthy for those who occupy them. Your Lordships may have seen some illustrations of this in a little handbook which has been issued by the Ministry of Health.
But our Committee, when it went into this matter, was very struck by the point

833
which has been mentioned by the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill—namely, the different way in which these Acts were used in various parts of the country. The difference is most striking. You find places like Devonshire where a very large use has been made of these Acts, and you find other counties where they have been practically untouched. We tried to find out the reasons for this, and we came unanimously to the conclusion that it was very largely due to the way in which publicity was employed in some cases and neglected in others. The noble Lord who spoke of East Suffolk has told us about the success of his own County in this matter—very remarkable success. We had a witness from that County, and he told us of the very careful arrangements which were made for publicity so that people throughout the County were thoroughly familiar with these Acts, knew how they might apply for them and use them, and as a result they did make a very large use of them. In other counties we found practically no propaganda of any sort or kind. We felt so strongly on this that we asked that an interim Report might be published on this one matter, and this was issued by the Ministry of Health.
The noble Lord who has spoken touched on a very thorny and difficult matter—namely, whether these Acts could be administered more wisely and more efficiently by the county councils or by the rural district councils. Until I was a member of the Sub-Committee I had no idea of the amount of heat which might be engendered by this question. We eventually discovered a formula, which we put into the Report, which I think partially satisfied all the members of the Committee, but the one thing on which we were all clear was that there must be the closest co-operation between the county councils and the rural district councils if these Acts are to be worked efficiently. In our Report there was another suggestion which I hope will be acted upon administratively, although of course it could not find a place in the Bill. We suggested that the rural district councils should take active steps to ascertain for themselves which cottages require reconditioning. We felt that too often this has been left rather to chance and rather to the last minute. It would be of the utmost value if the rural district councils made a kind of census of the
834
houses which might be saved by reconditioning. This would also give various people opportunities of saving houses which otherwise might be condemned. Agitation to save a cottage from destruction sometimes comes too late because those concerned have not understood the opportunities given by these Acts.
There was another recommendation which was pressed on us by some of the witnesses, and although I do not think we embodied it in our Report I should like to support it personally. That was that it was not sufficient to ask only the medical officer of health to inspect a cottage and to depend upon his judgment as to whether it could be reconditioned or not. Many of the witnesses we had before us felt most strongly that an architect ought to be called in, because an architect is better qualified to know whether a house is capable of preservation.
The noble Earl who spoke from the Opposition Benches raised a point which was before the Committee—namely, the possibility of help going to some landlords who could afford to do without it. I would like to say that we also heard a good deal of evidence in the other direction—namely, that certain district councils were so prejudiced against a class of landlords that they refused to give the help which might preserve these houses. We make some reference to this in our Report:
"Some of our witnesses have suggested that certain local authorities discriminate in their administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts against owners with means. Discrimination of this kind is in our view contrary to the intention of the Acts and likely to result in depriving tenants of agricultural properties of the benefits the Acts were intended to afford them. A local authority has of course complete discretion to decide whether they will grant any particular application but a general discrimination against a whole class of persons is in our view strongly to be deprecated."
I think it will be very difficult to apply anything like a means test, although I believe the local authorities in most cases would avoid making the grant to some landlords who could obviously easily afford to put the house in good condition. It is of such vital importance that these cottages should be preserved for the rural worker that I for one should be quite ready to take the risk of an occasional mistake in that matter. I hope that the Bill will pass into law.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill which I think really has the support of all three Parties. No legislation in recent years has done more for at any rate one section of the agricultural working classes, and that is the women, than this Act. In my experience the introduction of a water closet, running water and a copper, at any rate on the hill farms, makes the whole difference in their lives. From that point of view I think this one of the most beneficent Acts passed for a great many years. My only regret is that it has not been more widely used. I happen to be a landowner in two different parts of the country. In one case the powers under the Acts are used with great vigour and immense benefit and in the other they are not being used at all. I think it largely turns on the attitude of the local authorities whether they are going to use their powers. I think they ought to use their powers drastically everywhere. You do get improved housing conditions extraordinarily cheaply from the point of view of the local authority. In my experience at least two-thirds of the cost of these improvements is borne in practice by the landlord. The contribution made, at any rate by the local authority who presides over my affairs, as a rule is not more than one-third of the cost of improving cottages. When you compare the cost to a local authority of improvements made under this Act with the cost of the local authority building a new cottage or providing a housing estate, they are making a very good bargain.
Finally, although as a good Liberal I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle that you should not subsidise landlords, there is one aspect which is often forgotten and that is that Death Duties on agricultural property are directly charged on the capital in the industry. Their effect is quite different from Death Duties on industrial property, because industrial shares can be sold to pay the Death Duties and the money is not taken out of the reserves of the industry. In the case of agricultural property unless the owner has other forms of negotiable securities it has to be taken out of the capital of agriculture. Therefore to that extent this Bill does put back a small amount of capital into an industry which badly needs it. I am sure this Bill will receive a Second Reading, and I hope the Government will use their influence
836
to secure that it is used as widely as possible.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to add a word to what has been said by my noble friend and by the right reverend Prelate. I rather regret the reference made by the noble Earl on the Opposition Front Bench to prosperous landlords. There are not many prosperous landlords who live upon the rents of land in this country. Those who are prosperous do put their cottages in order. This Bill, as I understand it, is designed to help those who are not prosperous, and they form the very large majority. I am not entirely inclined to agree with him in thinking that it is impossible to recondition an old cottage. Very often an old cottage has better walls and better foundations than some of the new cottages put up by the county council. I am not at all sure that we are not more benefiting amenity and hygiene by properly reconditioning what already exists. I think it a pity that it should go out to the world that prosperous landlords are battening on the rents of these cottages, which are usually let for 3s. a week, when a great deal has to be found by the landlord and he is really receiving an uneconomic rent.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend the Earl of Listowel has been doubly attacked for what he said about wealthy landlords, and I hasten to his support. Of course there are wealthy landlords. We are thinking of the city nabob who lives in the Home Counties for amenity purposes and makes money by manipulating the Stock Exchange and the markets. The landlords are not only the impoverished landowners ruined by Death Duties over whom we are invited to weep by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. It is only rich men who can afford to keep country estates nowadays, people who have incomes outside their landed property. That is one of the mysteries of this present time. The business of land-owning in this country is in utter decay. I have always deplored it and shall go on deploring it. The whole character of the countryside is changing. But there are a great many wealthy men living on country estates who have income from businesses outside and can afford to put their cottages in order and ought to do so, and my Party objects very strongly to subsidising these people.

837
I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Marquess, not for the first time, over this matter of Death Duties. I have always opposed the raising of the Death Duties, and have done so in another place ever since the end of the War, when they were put up so high. They are in effect eating up the country's capital, and are economically unsound. The Party which the Leader of the House and the noble Viscount adorn are the greatest sinners in this respect. It was under their Governments that these Death Duties were put up to such astronomical heights, and they will have to pay for it. Although I have sympathy for many landlords, I must again support my noble friend Lord Listowel in his objection to subsidising the wealthy man on the land, who has his duty which he ought to do without Acts of Parliament or anything to help him.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I have very little to say. I thank noble Lords for the reception they have given to this Bill, and in spite of the note of controversy which the noble Lord opposite introduced, I thank Lord Listowel for taking up a more sympathetic, and what I describe as a more reasonable, attitude than that of his colleagues in another place. He said that there were objections to the Bill but that he could not see how they could be got over. I hope that that means that he and his Party will help to give this Bill encouragement in the country. I think he said that he did not anticipate that the Bill would stop the drift away from the land. That is no doubt true, but it must be considered together with the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, which, as the noble Earl knows, gives a very big subsidy for rural housing.
I think Lord Cranworth raised one point which I agree is a very complicated one. I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view which he expressed on the question of what he described as a rating anomaly. But I must admit that I was filled with apprehension
838
about a possible revision of the rating law, because the whole matter is so exceedingly complicated. I will certainly do what I can to meet this point. I think the answer is that it is one of the things in which the Committee which is investigating the whole question of assessments in connection with the Postponement of Valuations Bill is interesting itself.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I really think that that is all I have to say. I regret that the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has had difficulty with one of his rural authorities. While the discretion remains, I suppose we cannot put pressure on them, because in that case it does not remain a discretion. We should be very glad to help the noble Marquess to get rid of any unnecessary obstruction, but as he is so extremely persuasive himself I have no doubt that he will meet with success. I think that I have answered the few points that have been raised in the debate, and I hope I have done so to the satisfaction of the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, there are, as your Lordships are aware, no Orders on the Paper for tomorrow, but on Thursday we have a good many Bills to consider. I give notice that I shall have to ask your Lordships' leave to suspend the Standing Order so that the Scottish Land Court Bill may take precedence over other matters and be able to come before the Royal Commission which it is proposed should sit at six o'clock.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Keighley),

Marriages Provisional Order.

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Redcar Corporation,

Southern Railway,

Osset Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the joint Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. Bill reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, the 14th of June next, and to be printed as amended.