Sitting of 15 February 1939

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Jarrow Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 28th February.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Blackburn) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hastings) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leyton) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton Extension) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  FILM CENSORSHIP.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister the number of occasions during the past two years on which the British Board of Film Censors has communicated with the Foreign Office for information or advice; and the names of the films concerned?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): No such requests have been made to the Foreign Office.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government propose to offer financial assistance to the National Relief Commission of the Chinese Government, in view of the beneficent work accomplished, as shown in the report lately issued?
  Mr. Butler: Through their contribution to the League of Nations His Majesty's
  1692
  Government already contribute towards the anti-epidemiological work of the League in China.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Will the Government be prepared to consider further assistance if an appeal is made through the League of Nations?
  Mr. Butler: If it is made through the League of Nations we shall always be ready to consider it.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether any previous notice of their intention to land troops or occupy the Island of Hainan was given by the Japanese authorities either to this country or France; and whether any undertaking regarding the duration of that occupation has been received?
  Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Japanese Government have stated that they have no territorial designs and that the occupation of the island will not last longer than is required by military needs.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Have the Government considered in these circumstances the desirability of sending a British warship, or even landing a British force, to protect British interests in the Island of Hainan, seeing that in view of the statement which they have made the Japanese authorities could not reasonably object to it?
  Mr. Butler: I should want notice of that question.
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: Are we to understand that the Government accept the Japanese Government's reply and propose to acquiesce in the occupation of Hainan for the duration of the war?
  Mr. Butler: I have answered the question upon the Paper, which asked whether any undertaking regarding the duration of the occupation of Hainan had been received, and I have given the House the information in my possession.
  Sir A. Sinclair: Are the Government asking for a further undertaking?
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is it the case that the United States Government have already sent a warship to Hainan?
  Mr. Butler: I am afraid I cannot answer as to that.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Did not the Japanese give the same undertaking respecting Manchuria in 1931?
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether British ships are now allowed free access to the port of Tsingtao by the Japanese authorities, and, if not, what action he has taken to protect British interests?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Fresh representations were recently made to the Japanese Government, and His Majesty's Consul-General and the local British naval authorities are continuing to press for the reopening of the port.
  Captain Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether he will now proceed to active collaboration with the Government of the French Republic to terminate as quickly as possible the Japanese occupation of the island of Hainan and thus remove this menace to both British and French possessions and trade in the Far East?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government and the French Government are in constant communication regarding the most appropriate methods of safeguarding their common interests in the South China Seas.
  Captain Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing acts of aggression by Japanese naval and military authorities against British trade in the Far East, he will forthwith denounce the Anglo-Japanese Trade Treaty of 1911?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have under constant review the measures which may be regarded as best calculated to protect British interests in the Far East.
  Captain Graham: Is it not patent that all protests in this matter are ineffective, and that the only weapon which brings any satisfaction is some form of retaliatory action?
  Mr. Butler: I would not regard that as the only method of achieving useful results.
  Miss Rathbone: Can the Japanese authorities be expected to pay greater attention to the protests of His Majesty's
  1694
  Government than General Franco has done?
  Sir Charles Cayzerasked the Prime Minister how British action, based on the resolution of the League of Nations in favour of the grant of maximum assistance to China, compares with that taken by the other Powers which adhered to the resolution; and whether he can give details?
  Mr. Butler: Since the League resolution did not call for a report from individual members, I am unable to make the comparison desired
  Sir C. Cayzer: In view of the great disparity between the amounts contributed by the United States of America and by members of the League of Nations for the assistance of the Chinese Government, can my right hon. Friend offer any hope that in the near future the British Government will take the initiative in pressing for further assistance to the Chinese Government?
  Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman will consult the proceedings of the League Council which I attended he will see the attitude of His Majesty's Government set out there.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the present position which exists in connection with passenger transport between Hankow and Shanghai, in which only Japanese transport is available and the allocation to British subjects for the necessary passages is insignificant, although German subjects experience little difficulty; what action the Government is taking in the matter; and whether they will inaugurate a gunboat passenger service, as in the case of the Pearl River or, alternatively, utilise merchant ships under the white ensign?
  Mr. Butler: I am aware of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers, though reports received do not indicate discrimination in favour of German nationals. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden) on 6th February, further representations were made to the Japanese Government on 14th January last. The proposals mentioned in the last part of the question as well as other suggestions are receiving consideration.

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether the assurances he has received from Signor Mussolini include, at the end of the war in Spain, a complete withdrawal from submarine bases, aerodromes and fortifications, of all Italian personnel; and whether any assurances on this general question of the withdrawal of Germans at the close of the war have been received from the German Government?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the exchange of notes forming part of the Anglo-Italian Agreement under which the Italian Government have undertaken that on the termination of the Spanish civil war all remaining Italian volunteers would forthwith leave Spanish territory. As regards Germans now in Spain, I was informed by Herr Hitler at Munich that he would be ready to withdraw the German volunteers whenever other countries were prepared to do the same.
  Mr. Mander: Is it not clear from what the Prime Minister said that the undertaking of the Italian Government does not, in fact, cover all the points which are mentioned in this question?
  The Prime Minister: It appears to me to do so.
  Mr. Shin well: If the Italian forces now in Spain are transferred to civilian work at the end of the civil war, will that be in compliance with the Anglo-Italian Agreement?
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Does the undertaking cover materiel as well as personnel?
  The Prime Minister: This was an undertaking in regard to Italian volunteers.
  Mr. Benn: Am I right in supposing that it does not cover materiel?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. I think they did say that Italian materiel will also be withdrawn.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the assurance of Herr Hitler as a formal and binding assurance?
  The Prime Minister: I regard it as an expression of his intention at the time he spoke to me.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not clear from the reply of the Prime Minister that the assurance given by Herr Hitler is not in any way a binding undertaking?
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister how many protests have been sent by His Majesty's Government to the Spanish insurgent authorities since the beginning of the war?
  Mr. Butler: The information requested is not readily available, and I fear that it would not now be possible to give the exact figures desired.
  Mr. Mander: Would it be several hundreds or thousands?
  Mr. Butler: According to the imagination of the hon. Member.
  Mr. Strauss: Have the results ever been satisfactory?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Sir A. Sinclair: Why leave it to the imagination of the hon. Member? Why not give us the facts?
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether all British members of the International Brigade captured by General Franco have been released?
  Mr. Dobbieasked the Prime Minister (1) how many British prisoners are still in the concentration camp, San Pedro, at Burgos; and what steps are being taken to have them liberated;
  (2) whether he has had any report from the British representative at Burgos as to the conditions prevailing in the concentration camp at San Pedro and the treatment of the prisoners there; whether any complaint has been made to the British representative by British nationals as to their treatment while in that camp; and whether any approach has been made to the Burgos authority on the question by the British representative?
  Mr. Butler: I understand that 55 British members of the International Brigade are still held prisoner by General Franco's administration. Of these, 39 have already been transferred to San Sebastian for evacuation, and they will be released as soon as an equal number of Italian prisoners on the other side have been

  1697
  embarked. His Majesty's Consul at Valencia is taking all possible steps to expedite these arrangements. Of the remaining 16 prisoners, the British nationality of one or two of whom is doubtful, three are at Bilbao and 13 at Burgos. Negotiations for their exchange are proceeding as quickly as possible. A member of the staff of the British Agency has during the past year frequently visited the camp at Burgos, listened to any of the prisoners' complaints and reported them to the competent authorities, and he appears to have been satisfied that conditions were improved, and that the prisoners were on the whole well cared for.
  Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister say why there has been such a delay in the release of these prisoners after the International Brigade has been withdrawn; and will he make inquiries as to the case of a leading member of the brigade, Mr. Frank Ryan, who has been condemned to 30 years' imprisonment?
  Mr. Butler: The delay is due to the difficulties of the exchange negotiations, and the last batch are waiting for an equal number of Italians to be embarked. I hope that that will take place very soon. As regards the other point, I will certainly continue my investigations into the case of Mr. Ryan which already has been communicated to me by another hon. Member.
  Viscountess Astor: If the International Brigade who have been fighting in Spain are Communists, would they not be more at home in Russia?
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister the date upon which the last meeting was held of the Non-intervention Committee and the number of meetings held by this committee to date; and whether any recent statements have been made on the reasons for withdrawing representatives from either the committee or the chairman's sub-committee?
  Mr. Butler: The last meeting of the committee took place on 5th July, 1938. The committee has met 29 times. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. Day: Are we to understand that this committee has now ceased to function?
  Mr. Butler: It has not recently met.
  Mr. Day: Is it intended to disband it?
  Mr. Butler: No such decision has been taken.
  Mr. Thorne: Are any minutes taken of the meetings and a record kept of the number of people who attend?
  Mr. Butler: I am sure there are records, but the proceedings of the committee are confidential.
  Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the principal Paris newspapers, together with 10 special French delegates, four of whom are military officers of high rank, have accepted an invitation from the Burgos Administration to visit any part of Spain they desire with a view to disposing of un founded rumours as to the establishment of aerodromes, fortifications, and submarine bases under foreign control; and whether he can arrange for an independent British Commission to visit Spain with the same object?
  Mr. Butler: The invitation in question was to certain newspaper representatives. If a similar invitation were to be received here, it would not be a matter for His Majesty's Government unless their views were asked.
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have now come to any decision on the recognition of General Franco?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he will inform all Governments concerned, that in order to ensure that Spanish affairs are decided by the Spaniards themselves, His Majesty's Government will not be a party to any alteration of the régime in or constitution of Spain, until all foreign intervention has ceased in that country?
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not accord recognition to the insurgent authorities as the legitimate Government of Spain until all foreign troops and armaments have been withdrawn from Spanish territory?
  The Prime Minister: This matter is still under consideration by His Majesty's Government, and I am unable, therefore, to make any further statement.
  Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise the effect on British public opinion that will be produced if the Government recognise the Persians whilst Leonidas is still fighting in Thermopylae?
  Mr. Mander: Is it proposed to act jointly with the French Government in this matter and to make a simultaneous announcement?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member had better put that question down.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not clear that the wish of the Government for Spanish affairs to be settled by the Spanish people cannot be fulfilled as long as foreign intervention in Spain continues?
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether the refusal of His Majesty's Government to grant belligerent rights to General Franco on the ground that there was no civil war in Spain owing to intervention of foreign Powers on one side or the other will be followed in relation to the recognition of the Spanish insurgent authorities as the de jure or de facto Government of Spain?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government are bound by international agreement in the case of granting of belligerent rights, but no such agreement exists in connection with the granting of recognition.
  Mr. Henderson: If His Majesty's Government were influenced by the fact that foreign Governments had intervened in the Spanish war when they refused to grant belligerent rights, is it not right that they should take that same fact into consideration when making up their minds whether they should afford recognition?
  The Prime Minister: I have already said that the matter is now under consideration, and I could not therefore make any further statement.
  Mr. Henderson: I am not asking for any further statement, but whether His Majesty's Government will take that fact into consideration?
  The Prime Minister: I call that asking for a further statement.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister why the decision to send His Majesty's ship "Devonshire" to Minorca was not communicated to the accredited representative of the Spanish Government in London?
  Mr. Butler: In the circumstances existing at that moment it was thought right to act without delay.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: While appreciating the reasons for the Government's wish to act without delay, may I ask whether it is not quite unprecedented for action of this sort to be taken without communicating with the accredited representative in this country of the Government concerned?
  Mr. Butler: The circumstances with which we were dealing were unprecedented.
  Mr. Shin well: Was there any request by the inhabitants of Minorca for the despatch of a British vessel?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot add anything to the long statement on that subject which has already been made by the Prime Minister.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Would it not have been perfectly possible, at any rate, to notify the Spanish Ambassador in London at the same time that action was taken, and would not that have been in accordance with courtesy and precedent?
  Mr. Butler: I think it would have been possible. We wish to treat the Spanish Ambassador with every courtesy and distinction.
  Sir A. Sinclair: Did the Government communicate with the representative of General Franco in this country before they took this step?
  Mr. Butler: Not that I am aware of.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government still regards the Republican Government of Spain as the only legal Government existing in that country and that all major decisions affecting Spanish affairs will be communicated to that Government or, failing the possibility of establishing contact, with the Spanish Ambassador in London?
  Mr. Butler: Our relations with the Spanish Government remain unchanged in the absence of any decision to the contrary, but His Majesty's Government must themselves decide what communications they make to foreign representatives.
  Lieut.-commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that decisions of major importance affecting the Spanish Government will be communicated to the representative of that Government in London?
  Mr. Butler: Provided that the hon. and gallant Member understands that the discretion must rest with us.
  Mr. Thorne: Do the various Ambassadors meet at any time for the purpose of exchanging notes on these matters?
  Mr. Butler: I am sure that the Ambassadors parley together.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are willing to take active steps to secure a settlement of the Spanish war on the basis that all foreign troops should be withdrawn, that there should be no reprisals, and that the Spanish people should have an opportunity of choosing their own form of Government?
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will now use their good offices to bring about a settlement in Spain by proposing to both sides an armistice, with an undertaking that there shall be no reprisals on either side, and that provision shall be made for a general amnesty?
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are most anxious to see the termination of the war in Spain without further bloodshed, and they will maintain touch with both sides in case their services should be desired to bring them together. But they do not consider it advisable at present to take the responsibility of sponsoring any particular terms of settlement.
  Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether a condition of the surrender of Minorca to the Nationalist forces, to which the representative of the British Government agreed, was that certain persons should be evacuated to safety; and whether all of those persons were, in fact, so evacuated?
  The Prime Minister: As I have already informed the House, His Majesty's Government took no part in the negotiations for the surrender of Minorca and made themselves in no way responsible for the
  1702
  conditions of that surrender. They merely provided a channel of communication between the two parties. It was at the independent suggestion of General Franco's representatives that His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" agreed to embark certain refugees.
  Mr. Roberts: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the statement made by the captain of the "Devonshire," widely reported in the Press, in which he states that the Governor of Minorca agreed to surrender only on condition that the cruiser "Devonshire" did take off a specified list of refugees? Is that statement correct or not?
  The Prime Minister: I could not say. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question down.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will call for a report from the commanding officer of His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" concerning the identity of the aircraft which recently made seven air raids on Port Mahon, Minorca, while that vessel was in the harbour?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): No, Sir, we have already had a report from the commanding officer of His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" which indicates that those aeroplanes which were seen from his ship to be engaged in bombing Minorca appeared to resemble an Italian type.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the explanation by the Prime Minister yesterday that these bombing raids were carried out in disobedience of orders, are we to understand that Italian aircraft in Majorca refuse to obey General Franco's orders and accept Mussolini's?
  Mr. Shakespeare: That is not a question for me.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has any protest been addressed to the Italian Government about this bombing?
  Mr. Pritt: And has any inquiry been made concerning the boasts in the Italian Press about these raids?
  Mr. Leach: Why was the Prime Minister's reply couched in such pernickety language?

  PASSPORTS.
  Sir Alfred Beitasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware, that whereas passports may be renewed for periods up to 10 years, such renewal is not permitted when the pages of a passport have been exhausted, but that in such a case, application must be made for a new passport, involving amongst other formalities the provision of two references of a special nature; and whether, in order to remove this discrepancy, he is prepared to abolish these formalities in the case of any individual who has gone through them to get his first passport?
  Mr. Butler: I can assure my hon. Friend that in the circumstances mentioned, where a passport needs replacement during the period of its validity, it is customary for the Passport Office, on request, to dispense with the requirement of a personal reference.

  CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether provision has been made for the minorities treaties to continue in force in those areas transferred by recent frontier changes to new sovereignties from Czecho-Slovakia; and what is the position in this respect?
  Mr. Butler: The position of the Czech minority in the Sudeten areas ceded to Germany is regulated by the German-Czecho-Slovak Declaration of 20th November last regarding the protection of respective national minorities. This declaration provides for the establishment of a mixed Governmental Commission to regulate questions affecting the national character of the Czech minority in Germany and of the German minority in Czecho-Slovakia. So far as my Noble Friend is aware, the Czecho-Slovak minorities in the territories ceded to Poland and Hungary enjoy the same rights as other national minorities in those countries.
  Mr. Mander: Is it not clear that the minorities treaties drawn up at the time of the Peace Conference are no longer binding in those particular territories?
  Mr. Butler: To take as an example the minorities in Hungary, their position is regulated by Articles 54 to 60 of the Treaty of Trianon.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the obligations of the minorities treaties are accepted by Germany in accordance with the usual practice in international law of the succession of obligations?
  Mr. Butler: I have explained that the position of Germany is governed by the declaration of 20th November last.

  BRITISH CONSULATE, VIENNA (VISAS).
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Prime Minister on how many days in the week His Majesty's consulate in Vienna is open to receive applications for visas?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 5th December to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), which contained full particulars of the arrangements operating at the passport control office at Vienna for dealing with applications for visas.

  PALESTINE (ANTI-BRITISH BROADCASTS).
  Sir C. Cayzerasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continuance of the slanderous broadcasts from German wireless stations on the conduct of British troops in Palestine, he will make an official protest to the German Government?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Members for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 21st November last, to which I have nothing to add.
  Captain Cazalet: Have these attacks been answered in the German broadcasts from this country?
  Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into that and find out.

  LIBYA (ITALIAN FORCES).
  Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the strength of the Italian army in Libya on 16th April, 1938; when the strength of that army was reduced by one half as compared with that date; and how far it has been reinforced since?
  Mr. Butler: According to information received from the Italian Government, the numerical strength of the Italian forces in Libya last April was between 65,000 and 70,000. There is reason to believe that die signature of the Anglo-Italian Agreement was followed by a marked reduction of effectives and, as the Prime Minister informed the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 8th February, the information then just received from the Italian Government was that the numerical strength of the Italian forces at present in Libya is between 30,000 and 32,000.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Is there any reason to think there has been substitution by German forces for the Italian forces in Libya?
  Mr. Butler: I have no such information.
  Mr. Attlee: As this was a definite term of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, is there any regular means of ascertaining the definite number of the troops in Libya?
  Mr. Butler: There is provision in the Agreement for the exchange of military information.
  Mr. Attlee: If it is a term of the Agreement that there should be definite reduction by a definite number, have steps been taken to ascertain whether it has been carried out?
  Mr. Butler: There have been exchanges of information, and I have just given the House the figures that the Italian Government have communicated to us as to the Italian forces at present in Libya. I have also given to the House the strength of the Italian forces last April.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Is there any reason to believe that the Italian Government have sent further troops to Libya since the reply was given to my question last week?
  Mr. Butler: I have given the House the latest information given just before I answered the question on 8th February. I have had no information since then.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the hon. Gentleman any information to establish what is regarded as the peace-time strength of the Italian Army in Libya?

  AALAND ISLANDS.
  Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether the British Government have been consulted about the proposed fortification by the Swedish and Finnish Governments of the Aaland Islands; and whether the views of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been ascertained thereon?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government, having been asked by the Finnish and Swedish Governments for their views on the proposals of those Governments for the partial refortification of the Aaland Islands, have replied that they see no objection to the proposals in principle, on the understanding that, as they have been assured, the other interested Governments will also be consulted and the proposals then submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. I am not yet aware of the replies returned by the other Governments consulted.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    EMPLOYÉS' WAGES, ASTON DOWN AND KEMBLE.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air what rate of pay is paid by his Department to general labourers, light drivers, and heavy drivers employed at Aston Down aerodrome and Kemble aerodrome?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The rates of pay in force for unskilled labourers, light drivers and heavy drivers employed at Aston Down are 43s., 51s. 6d. and 53s. 6d. per week, respectively. The corresponding rates at Kemble are 45s., 53s. 6d. and 55s. 6d. per week.
    Mr. Perkins: In view of the fact that these two aerodromes practically adjoin, being almost a stone's throw from each other, does my right hon. Friend not think it is rather undesirable that different rates of wages should be paid to men who are almost equal, and would he be willing to receive representations in regard to this matter?
    Sir K. Wood: I will certainly receive representations on the matter, but I understand there is a variation in the wage-levels between the two districts.
    Mr. T. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many hours the men work?
    Sir K. Wood: I will inquire and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Thorne: Are they the recognised rates and conditions?
    Sir K. Wood: The wages are fixed in these cases on the principle that they shall be not less favourable than those paid in comparable employment by private employers in the district.

    AERO-ENGINES (MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to manufacture aero-engines in Canada as well as air frames?
    Sir K. Wood: The question whether arrangements should be made for the manufacture in Canada of aero-engines for the Royal Air Force has received careful consideration and it has been decided that, in present circumstances, it is not necessary for the United Kingdom Government to initiate steps with a view to the creation of capacity for that purpose.
    Mr. Perkins: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to buy aero-engines from America for British aircraft?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. Engines required for aircraft manufactured in peace time to the order of the United Kingdom Government will be British made from materials supplied from this country.

    CONTRACTS.
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Department is proposing to make all its contracts with manufacturers direct instead of through merchants; and whether, as the price is the same and accredited merchants have facilities for prompt and better delivery owing to the wide range of their business, he will maintain the former practice, if necessary stipulating that orders shall be placed, as far as practicable, in distressed areas?
    Sir K. Wood: It is not proposed to make any change in the policy of my Department, which is to buy on the most economical terms; and, generally speaking, it has been found that these are
    1708
    obtained by dealing direct with manufacturers. Other things being equal, a preference is given to goods manufactured in distressed areas, and this can be more effectively achieved by purchasing direct from the makers than by placing orders through agents.

    VOLUNTEER RESERVE SCHOOL, PORTSMOUTH.
    Mr. Beaumontasked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to establish a Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve flying school at Portsmouth; and what steps have been taken in the matter?
    Sir K. Wood: It is proposed to establish a Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve School at the Civil Airport, Portsmouth. The proposal has the approval of the municipal authority, and technical details are in process of being settled.
    Mr. Beaumont: Has my right hon. Friend received any information from the airport that this proposal will in any way conflict with vital naval interests?
    Sir K. Wood: I have not received any such information.

    AIRCRAFTMAN'S DEATH, FARNBOROUGH.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any in formation in connection with an aircraft man, aged 19, who was found hanged in his cell at the detention barracks, Farnborough, on Sunday?
    Sir K. Wood: A court of inquiry has been convened and is meeting to-day to investigate the circumstances connected with the death of the aircraftman referred to.

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    LONDON-AMSTERDAM-OSLO SERVICE.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air when it is proposed to start the London-Amsterdam-Oslo air service?
    Sir K. Wood: The question of the commencement of this service is under consideration in connection with the programme of European services which I hope to announce before the end of this month.

    AIRPORTS, LONDON.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made towards the establishment of a central airport for London?
    Sir K. Wood: As was stated in a reply to a question by my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), on 1st November last, the establishment of a central airport for London is not in contemplation. It is not considered practicable to handle the whole of the existing, and likely future, London air traffic from a single airport. The intention is that this traffic should be handled from main aerodromes on suitable sites in a belt round London. In regard to the progress in the development of these airports, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on the 1st of this month.
    Mr. Day: Has the committee that was considering this matter concluded its investigations?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Mr. Lyons: In fixing the location for these airports on a belt around London, will that same committee take note of the transport facilities or lack of them in those airports to Central London?
    Sir K. Wood: That is a matter that will, of course, be considered.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS AND BRITISH AIRWAYS.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he proposes to modify in any way the proposed merger of Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, Limited, in order to meet the criticisms against this proposed monopoly?
    Sir K. Wood: It remains the Government's intention to recommend to Parliament, during the present Session, legislation setting up a public corporation to acquire the existing undertakings of Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, Limited. With regard to the details of this proposal, perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to await the necessary legislation, which will be introduced as soon as possible.

    FLYING BOAT "CAVALIER."
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now make any statement regarding the loss of the flying boat "Cavalier "?
    Sir K. Wood: The Chief Inspector of Accidents is at present conducting his
    1710
    investigation of the accident to the flying boat "Cavalier," and he is not expected to return to this country until the end of the month. As soon as his report is available, a statement will be issued giving a summary of the general conclusions.
    Mr. Simmonds: In view of the great importance of this report to our aeronautical prestige, particularly in the United States, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it will be published in full?
    Sir K. Wood: I will consider that suggestion, but I think it is the practice to give the general conclusions.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    GERMANY (SUBMARINE TONNAGE).
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the German naval discussions, held in Berlin on 30th December, disclosed the reasons for Germany increasing her submarine tonnage; and, if so, can these reasons be given?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement I made in reply to various questions on this subject on 8th February last.

    ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what was the number of youths that entered the examination for naval cadets and other branches of the naval service, held last November; and whether he can state the number of successful candidates that were drawn from secondary and in termediate schools, and the number drawn from other schools?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The number of youths who sat at the written examination last November for naval and paymaster cadetships, and for first appointments in the Royal Marines, was 302. The great number of candidates come from schools recognised as efficient by the Board of Education which include grammar schools, grant-aided and otherwise, and county secondary schools. I will send the hon. Member a complete list.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman make particular inquiries into a case from my constituency, in which an applicant

    1711
    from the Amman Valley county school came out eighteenth in the written examination in intellectual capacity and had higher marks than 79 successful applicants? I have interviewed the young man and his headmaster, and I am satisfied that it is a case into which the hon. Gentleman should make inquiries, and that this young boy was turned down because of class prejudice on the part of the interviewers against the kind of school from which he came; and is he aware that there is great dissatisfaction in the district in regard to this matter?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I cannot accept the implication in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I will give this case my personal attention.
    Mr. Griffiths: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the boy was eighteenth in the whole list—
    Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Griffiths: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Adjournment.

    STEAM DRIFTERS (EMERGENCY USE).
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty now regard steam drifters as being of value in time of emergency; and whether he can now announce what part steam drifters will be called upon to play in such an event?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The Admiralty still regard steam drifters as being of value to the Royal Navy in time of emergency. It is anticipated that a number would then be required for various ancillary duties, but it would not be in the public interest to detail these duties.
    Mr. Stewart: If that is so, will my hon. Friend represent to the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland the desirability of doing something now to prevent the decline of the herring industry?

    ENGINE-BUILDING INDUSTRY.
    Miss Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Navy is short of engine-room personnel and approaching engine-building firms for artificers and other engine-room ratings, he will take steps to see that such firms remain in
    1712
    being in order to train men for naval requirements?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The Admiralty fully appreciate the importance of the engine-building industry, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the point to which she draws attention will not be overlooked.
    Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend make representations to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Prime Minister, in order that we may get on?

    RETAINED PENSIONER WRITERS (LEAVE).
    Mr. Beaumontasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has yet considered the question of the eligibility of certain pensioner writers, who were retained in the Royal Naval Barracks to deal with accounts of men called up on mobilisation during the recent crisis, for leave on the termination of their period of service; and what decision has been arrived at?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Men serving in Home Port Establishments are granted leave al certain seasons—Christmas, Easter and the summer—and there is no provision for the grant of a proportion of such leave to men whose service terminates between two leave periods.

    LAUNCHING CEREMONY.
    Commander Marsdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the launching of the French battleship "Richelieu," when the inaugural ceremony was performed by Madame Mons in virtue of the fact that she was the mother of 10 French children, who were all present at the ceremony; and whether he will recommend to the Board of Admiralty that one of the ships now building for His Majesty's Navy should be launched with a similar ceremony?
    Mr. Shakespeare: My Noble Friend understands that sympathetic consideration has been given to this suggestion, but so far it has been found impracticable to adopt it, in view of the many difficulties involved in making a satisfactory choice commanding general acceptance.
    Commander Marsden: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he realises how great a source of pleasure it would be to the men who build these ships if occasionally the wife of one of them were asked to officiate at a launch?
    Mr. Shakespeare: As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, the normal practice is for the firm who build the ship to decide who shall launch it.
    Viscountess Astor: Surely that is not the ordinary practice in the Dockyards?

    AIR PILOTS.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of air pilots entered in the Navy from the Royal Air Force; the number entered for training for air pilot from civil life; the number selected from officers and ratings; the number of officers selected for observers and ratings for observers' mates; and the numbers of each who qualified in the year 1938?
    Mr. Shakespeare: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The number of officer pilots who have entered the Navy from the Royal Air Force and Royal Air Force Reserve is 141, of whom 80 have now completed the specialised training required for naval air duties.
    The number of Air Branch officers entered for pilot training from civil life to date is 116, of whom the first batch is now completing its training.
    There are 191 executive naval officers now serving as pilots; 25 executive officers and 44 naval ratings have commenced training as pilot since 1st January, 1938; of these, 16 officers have completed this training, and the first batch of ratings is in the final stage.
    One hundred and thirty-two executive officers are now serving as observers; 40 have begun training since 1st January, 1938, of whom 19 have now completed the training. There are 34 ratings now serving as observers' mates; six have been taken for training since 1st January, 1938.
    One hundred and twenty Air Branch officers are now under training for observer who were entered direct from civil life; none has yet completed training. The foregoing figures do not include officers of the Air Branch of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.

    NAVAL PUBLICATIONS, GERMANY.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether
    1714
    he is aware that semi-official naval publications in Germany have published specifications of the "King George V" to be launched shortly, although practically no information is available for the British Press and public; and whether he will have inquiries made with a view to discovering how this information was made available to these German publications?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the details concerning His Majesty's Ship "King George V" contained in the recent issue of the German handbook to which attention has been drawn in the Press. According to my information, this publication has no official backing, its status being similar to that of the corresponding book published in this country. I may add that certain of the particulars given by the German editor are inaccurate. As regards the second part of the question, the Admiralty will, of course, take such steps as are practicable to ascertain whether any unauthorised leakage of information has occurred.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are no publications in Germany that have not Government backing; and is it not the case that the main details published in these technical journals in Germany are correct, and must come from a source that has inside knowledge? In view of the allegations made about information from the Air Force, is it not necessary that a real inquiry should be made into the source of this information?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Even if it be the fact that this is an official publication, I see no reason to take further action, first, because much of the information is inaccurate, and, secondly, because the information contained in this article is not the information which by treaty we are obliged to furnish to Germany.
    Mr. Gallacher: If you are not obliged to furnish this information to Germany, who furnished it to Germany? Will not the hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to how it is that Germany gets inside information about aeroplanes?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continuance of serious unemployment in this

  1715
  country, he has considered the desirability of despatching a small Royal Commission to investigate conditions in Soviet Russia where, for the past 10 years, unemployment has been successfully eliminated and to report how far the methods employed there could be applied in this country?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not consider that the despatch of such a Commission would serve any useful purpose.
  Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that in that country poverty also has been eliminated, and that the Russian Government are now engaged in raising the standards of life and culture—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot be allowed, at Question Time, to make a statement on the conditions in Russia.
  Mr. Adams: On a point of Order. May I not be permitted to conclude my supplementary question?

  COTTON INDUSTRY.
  Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to the representations made to him by the deputation of representatives of the cotton trade unions from Lancashire on 24th January; and whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the specific requests made to him for assisting the cotton trade?
  The Prime Minister: I was glad to have the opportunity of meeting the deputation, and of assuring them that His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the difficulties of the industry and will continue to take all appropriate steps within their power to assist it. A Command Paper has now been issued containing the clauses of a Bill based on the proposals of the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations for the reorganisation of the industry, and the firms in the producing sections of the industry have been asked by the Board of Trade to say whether they are in favour of the introduction of legislation.
  I cannot, within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, add to the replies which I gave to the deputation on their other requests, except to say, in regard to the suggestion that the producing as well as the merchanting side of the trade should be consulted in connection with trade negotiations with other countries,
  1716
  that it is already the practice of the Board of Trade in such cases to consult the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations as well as the interested Chambers of Commerce.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Has the Prime Minister given consideration to the request that was made for financial assistance to the exporting section of the industry?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that that is another question.

  DEFENCE (FISHING AND MERCANTILE VESSELS).
  Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the adequacy and suitability of fishing vessels and the state of the Mercantile Marine in relation to defence needs is receiving the attention of his Department; and, in particular, having regard to the large number of very old vessels in the trawling industry and the unemployment of large numbers of skilled men who can build them, he will examine the possibility of State assistance and organisation for a scrap-and-build scheme?
  Miss Wardasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Committee of Imperial Defence has examined the position of the Merchant Navy in relation to the defence of this country; and whether he is satisfied that the national safety is not impaired by the decline of merchant shipbuilding?
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The state of the Mercantile Marine and fishing fleets in relation to defence needs is receiving the constant attention of the Departments concerned, and all aspects of the question are being kept under review.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable apprehension lest, owing to the diversified control of and responsibility for the Mercantile Marine fishing service, important facts regarding its weakening strength are being overlooked in regard to the taking of effective action?
  Mr. Morrison: I was not aware of that apprehension.
  Mr. Garro Jones: On which Minister or Ministers does the responsibility rest for discussing measures for dealing with this situation?
  Mr. Morrison: The defence aspect of the problem is kept under review by the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Departments concerned; proposals for assisting the fishing fleet should be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, and questions on the Mercantile Marine to the President of the Board of Trade.
  Viscountess Astor: Has any satisfaction been obtained, as far as fishing is concerned, from the Minister of Agriculture? Could the Government consider setting up a Ministry of Fisheries at once?
  Mr. Morrison: I should require notice of that question.
  Miss Ward: Might I have an answer to the last part of my question?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Lady, in the last part of her question, asks me whether I am satisfied that the national safety is not being impaired. I cannot say that I am satisfied yet about anything, and it does not do to be too easily satisfied on questions of this sort.
  Miss Ward: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to say whether he is satisfied or not?
  Mr. Morrison: I will inform the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Mander: Is the Minister not satisfied with the Government?

  CAMEROONS (EUROPEAN POPULATION).
  Mr. Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the respective numbers of British and German white subjects in the mandated territory of the British Cameroons?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): According to my latest information, which is for the year 1937, the European population in the Cameroons under British Mandate includes 85 British subjects and 253 Germans.
  Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite confident that in all circumstances the police force in the mandated territory is sufficient to maintain order?
  Mr. MacDonald: I have never had any suggestion to the contrary.

  GAMBIA.
  Mr. Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Germans are employed in Gambia in connection with the German Trans-Atlantic base there; whether a German warship is permanently stationed off Bathurst; and how large is the British garrison in Bathurst?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is 49. This figure includes the personnel employed in the catapult ship which is normally stationed at Bathurst in connection with the air service. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The garrison at Bathurst consists of one company of the Royal West African Frontier Force.

  COLONIAL VETERINARY SERVICE.
  Mr. Markhamasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the disability under which the Colonial Veterinary Service is suffering as the result of the continued lack of an adviser in animal health at the Colonial Office; and whether he can see his way to make such an appointment forthwith, in accordance with the recommendation of the Lovat Committee?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The question of reviving the appointment of adviser on animal health, which has been in abeyance since 1932, is at present under consideration. If my hon. Friend will repeat his question in a fortnight's time, I shall be in a position to give him a definite reply.

  TRINIDAD.

    OILFIELDS ARBITRATION AWARD.
    Mr. George Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement on the reception given by the parties concerned to the awards of the arbitration tribunal set up in connection with the dispute in the Trinidad oilfields?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The tribunal was unable to agree, and the award was made by the chairman in accordance with Section 3 (2) (c) of the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Inquiry) Ordinance. I understand that both parties have expressed dissatisfaction with the award, but have accepted it in the same spirit

    1719
    which prompted them to refer their differences to arbitration for settlement.
    Mr. Griffiths: Are they always carrying out the award about paying the workers?
    Mr. MacDonald: I feel sure they will do so.
    Mr. Griffiths: I asked whether they are—not whether they will.
    Mr. MacDonald: The award consisted of two parts, one of which was retrospective for 12 months. I have no doubt that that will be carried out as rapidly as possible. The other part applied to future payments. I have no doubt also that they will carry that out. They accepted both parts of the award.
    Mr. Griffiths: If I put a question down later, will the right hon. Gentleman give me a definite answer that this is being done?
    Mr. MacDonald: I will give a definite answer.

    SEDITION BILL.
    Mr. Jaggerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a new Sedition Ordinance has been introduced in the Trinidad Legislature containing drastic provisions; and what local circumstance or condition has led to this Ordinance being introduced?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am aware that it is proposed to introduce a new Sedition Bill into the Trinidad Legislature. The Bill, which is based upon the law of this country, has been prepared to define more clearly the law relating to sedition. It has not been occasioned by any particular local circumstance.

  CYPRUS.
  Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is a strong demand for self-government in Cyprus; and what steps he is taking to make this island a contented colony?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: As I said in reply to questions by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 8th February, the Government's policy is
  1720
  to develop the participation of the people in their own government in the first instance through the district and municipal councils. I cannot add anything to that statement at present.
  Captain Graham: Is it not a fact that what discontent there is is confined to a few ex-politicians out of jobs?
  Mr. Pritt: Is it not confined to all the Greeks on the island and a few of the Turks?

  CEYLON.
  Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the proposals of the Governor of Ceylon will be debated in the State Council; and when he expects to be in a position to make a statement thereon?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The Debate to which the hon. Member refers is due to open on 9th March. I cannot say yet when I shall be in a position to make a statement in the matter.
  Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman generally agree with the proposals of the Governor in regard to suggested changes in the Constitution of Ceylon?
  Mr. MacDonald: I think I have given an indication of my views in the despatch in reply to the Governor's, which has been published in the White Paper. Beyond that I cannot go until the Debate has taken place.

  TANGANYIKA (TRADE STATISTICS).
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how the trade of Tanganyika is divided between England, Germany, Japan, the United States, and Holland for 1937?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Thorne: Will those facts reveal that Germany has any cause for complaint in Tanganyika?
  Mr. MacDonald: I would prefer that the hon. Member should wait and make up his own mind on that.
  Following is the answer:

  Tanganyika Trade, 1937.

  Countries of Origin or Destination.

  Imports (excluding Bullion and Specie).

  Domestic Exports.

  Total Exports.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  …

  953,115

  24.29

  1,486,568

  29.91

  1,492,845

  24.19

  Germany

  …

  525,585

  13.39

  501,181

  10.08

  503,806

  8.16

  Japan

  …

  933,512

  23.79

  9,370

  .19

  10,114

  .16

  United States of America

  …

  254,183

  6.48

  232,491

  4.68

  232,585

  3.77

  Holland

  …

  92,381

  2.35

  210,677

  4.24

  213,330

  3.46

  Total

  …

  3,924,095

  4,969,452

  6,169,888

  SEYCHELLES (PUBLIC OFFICERS' SALARIES).
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the salaries paid in the Seychelles Isles to public officers are such as secure suitable appointees; and whether then; has been, in recent time, any reduction in the salaries paid to such State employés?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: After a comprehensive inquiry into the finances of the Colony in 1933, the public service was thoroughly reorganised, and in the course of this the salaries of certain offices were reduced. A salary levy imposed in 1931, however, was removed in 1936. It is difficult to say at any given moment whether all the salaries in a particular Colony are adequate to secure suitable candidates, but I am not aware of any post in Seychelles at the moment for which it has been impossible to secure an adequately qualified candidate.
  Mr. Adams: Is the Minister not aware of any of the discontent which is at present prevailing?
  Mr. MacDonald: I have not heard of any.

  KENYA (EDUCATION).
  Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the progress made by the Independent Schools Associations in Kenya?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply is rather long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  At the end of 1937, there were 59 schools controlled by these associations, of which 54 were authorised and registered. Of these 54, 44 were maintained by the Independent Schools Association and 10 by the Karinga Schools Association. The general policy of the Government of Kenya in regard to these schools is, where possible, to enlist the co-operation of the associations which manage them in order to increase their efficiency, and to this end a European inspector and an African assistant have been provided for work solely in connection with these schools. I understand that the Independent Schools Association (which has now separated from the Kikuyu Central Association) has recently shown a welcome readiness to co-operate with the Government. A number of its schools have complied with the regulations of the Education Department, and have greatly increased in efficiency. The efforts of the Government to secure the co-operation of the Karinga Association (which has now ceased to exist and the management of whose affairs has been taken over by the Kikuyu Central Association) have, however, not so far been so successful.

  KENYA-UGANDA RAILWAY.
  Mr. R. Morganasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the position with regard to the claim of £5,500,000 against Kenya and Uganda in respect of the original cost of construction of the Uganda railway; whether the Government is agreeable to the cancellation of this claim; and, if so, under what conditions?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: It has been decided to invite Parliament to agree to the remission, subject to one condition, of the claim

  1723
  for £5,500,000 in respect of the original cost of construction of the Kenya-Uganda Railway. The condition is that a sum of £500,000 should be transferred from the reserve funds of the railway to a supplementary sinking fund earmarked towards the redemption of the 1921 Kenya Loan.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Will there be an opportunity of discussing this matter in the House?
  Mr. MacDonald: It will have to be brought before the House in whatever is the appropriate form.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA.
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to publish the report of the Committee on Nutrition in Northern Rhodesia set up in 1936?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The report was published last year by the Government of Northern Rhodesia, and copies are on sale at the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies.
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken since the publication of the Pim and Orde-Brown Reports on Northern Rhodesian affairs, to implement their recommendations?
  Mr. MacDonald: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Paling: Is anything being done about the alarming state of things which is reported in connection with the entire absence of medical supplies in half the Continent?
  Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. Provision for this is included in connection with the general extension which is to take place in the social services.
  Following is the answer:
  The social services, whose inadequacy was criticised by the Financial Commission, are to be greatly expanded in the next five years as part of a general programme of development to be begun at once. Recurrent and special expenditure is estimated to increase from £1,161,305 in 1939 to £1,347,247 in 1943. These totals of expenditure are considerably
  1724
  more than those contemplated by Sir Alan Pim. It is also intended to spend some £500,000 on public works extraordinary in the five-year period, and, in addition, comprehensive schemes of water development and soil conservation are to be submitted, among others, to the Colonial Development Advisory Committee.
  The recommendations in the report of Major Orde Browne in regard to labour conditions in the territory, which are subsequent in date to those of the Financial Commission, have also been taken into account in the preparation of the five-year plan drawn up by the Government of Northern Rhodesia. Steps are being taken to implement his proposals for the amelioration of labour conditions, and I am at the moment awaiting a report from the Governor on the result of two meetings on labour matters. The first was to be with the mine managers in Northern Rhodesia in connection with internal labour questions, including recruiting and transport facilities. The second was recently held at Salisbury with representatives of the Governments of Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland for the purpose of considering the inter-territorial labour situation.
  I am waiting until I am aware of the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission on closer cooperation and association between the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, which I understand, will shortly be available, before finally approving the details of the proposed labour organisation in Northern Rhodesia, part of which has already been established.

  TRANSPORT.

    WESTHORNE AVENUE.
    Sir Alfred Beitasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to de-restrict Westhorne Avenue, S.E.9 and S.E.12, a double track road to which the houses lining it have no access, and which forms part of the projected South Circular Road?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I am not prepared to de-restrict Westhorne Avenue at present, but I will review the matter when the Lewisham Borough Council has erected traffic lights at the junction of that road with Burnt Ash Hill.
    Sir A. Beit: Will that be shortly?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, I think so.

    PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (LIGHTING).
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the fact that many pedestrian beacons are not sufficiently conspicuous at night, he will consider what action he will take with local authorities for the purpose of seeing that pedestrian crossings are more clearly visible to drivers at night?
    Mr. Burgin: I have already informed local authorities who have raised this question that where pedestrian crossing beacons are not sufficiently conspicuous at night, the street lighting should be improved so that not only the beacons but the crossing and any pedestrians using it may be clearly visible to drivers. When a suitable opportunity offers I will consider so advising local authorities generally.
    Mr. Day: Have alterations been made in all these crossings to which road engineers have referred his Department?
    Mr. Burgin: That is rather a wide and general question. I should say, broadly speaking, yes.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is obligatory upon the councils to carry out his requests or otherwise?
    Mr. Burgin: It varies with the requests, and I should think that it also varies with the councils.

    INLAND WATERWAYS.
    Mr. Alan Herbertasked the Minister of Transport whether His Majesty's Government propose to introduce legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, 1909; and whether he can make any statement on the present condition of inland waterways, and the future policy of the Government concerning them?
    Mr. Burgin: I will gladly examine any proposals put before me which would encourage the profitable use of the canals but, as at present advised, am not disposed to introduce legislation.
    Mr. Herbertasked the Minister of Transport how many miles of inland waterways, including canals, navigations,
    1726
    and open rivers, were navigable by loaded commercial craft in 1909, when the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways reported; and what are the comparable figures now?
    Mr. Burgin: According to the report of the Royal Commission on Canals, 1909, the mileage of canals and inland navigations in use at that period in the United Kingdom was 4,670 miles. Comparable figures at the present time are not readily available.
    Mr. Westwood: In view of the attitude of the railway companies which control some of these canals in Britain to-day, will the Minister set up another commission of inquiry into the way in which this method of transport is being completely destroyed by the railway companies?
    Mr. Burgin: I think I can achieve my purpose without a Royal Commission.
    Mr. Herbertasked the Minister of Transport whether the inland waterway from the Severn to the Thames, by the Kennet and Avon route, is now navigable by loaded commercial craft?
    Mr. Burgin: This length of canal has been little used of late years. I am informed by the owners that in their view it would be capable of navigation provided that the craft do not exceed certain dimensions.
    Mr. Herbert: In view of the obvious strategic importance of that route, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to question No. 75?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir, I have the question of the canals and their user in time of emergency constantly under my observation. I do not think that legislation will be necessary, but I appreciate the importance of the hon. Member's question.
    Sir P. Hurd: Will the Minister take into consultation the local authorities through whose region this canal runs?
    Mr. Burgin: I will consider that.
    Mr. R. Gibson: Can the Minister give the dimensions of the commercial craft which use the canal?
    Mr. Burgin: The owners state that the canal is navigable by craft of a length not exceeding 69 feet, a beam not exceed-

    1727
    ing 13 feet 10 inches, a height above water level not exceeding 8 feet 3 inches, and a draught not exceeding 3 feet.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS (TOTTENHAM).
    Mr. Messerasked the Minister of Transport whether he can give for the years 1936, 1937, and 1938 up to the most convenient date, the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents which have happened in High Road, Tottenham,

    Name of Road

    Year

    Accidents resulting in—

    Total.

    Death

    Serious personal injury

    Slight personal injury

    High Road, Tottenham, from Craven Park Road to Snells Park

    1937

    6

    25

    232

    263

    1938

    3

    14

    197

    214

    Seven Sisters Road, from Holloway Road to High Road, Tottenham

    1937

    —

    17

    179

    196

    1938

    3

    10

    169

    182

    Green Lanes, from Newington Green to Turnpike Lane

    1937

    4

    12

    137

    153

    1938

    4

    14

    136

    154

    Total

    1937

    10

    54

    548

    612

    1938

    10

    38

    502

    550

    Corresponding figures for the calendar year 1936 are not available and could only be obtained after considerable research, but on 18th November, 1936, my predecessor gave the figures for the 12 months ended 31st October, 1936.

    ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the matter of road improvement and construction schemes?
    Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member will find the information he seeks in the report on the Administration of the Road Fund for 1937–38.

    TRUNK ROADS (DUAL CARRIAGEWAYS).
    Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Transport what is the present mileage of dual carriageways on the highways under his control; and what additional mileage of such dual carriageways he expects to be added thereto during the coming 12 months?
    Mr. Burgin: The mileage of trunk roads provided with dual carriageways at 1st April, 1938, was 27.5. Schemes are in various stages of preparation, and progress for a further 130 miles of this type of lay-out and a substantial portion of
    1728
    Seven Sisters Road, Tottenham. Green Lanes, Tottenham?
    Mr. Burgin: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The number of accidents involving death or personal injury recorded as having occurred in the years 1937 and 1938 on the undermentioned roads were:
    the work should be completed during the next 12 months.

    PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE LICENCE (FEE).
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the Minister of Transport whether, as a result of the review which he has recently under taken of the fees payable for licences for passenger road services, he is now able to announce any alterations?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I am about to make regulations reducing the fee for a public service vehicle licence from £3 a year to £2.

    ROAD REPAIRS, SHOTLEY BRIDGE— SCOTSWOOD.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that road A694, between Shotley Bridge and Scotswood, county Durham is in bad condition; and whether, in view of the un employment in that county, he will give instructions for the requisite repairs to be carried out forthwith?
    Mr. Burgin: The highway authority for this road is the Durham County Council. I understand that they propose to reconstruct about 11 miles in 1942 and 1943 at an estimated cost of £100,000. In the meantime, such temporary repairs as may be necessary will be carried out.

  NYASALAND (NUTRITIONAL SURVEY).
  Mr, Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement regarding the nutritional survey recently instituted in Nyasaland and, in particular, on its terms of reference and personnel?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: A full statement on this subject was recently issued to the Press, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy. There is nothing that I could usefully add to it at this stage.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE).
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneageasked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made in supplying villages in North Lincolnshire with electricity?
  Mr. Burgin: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the villages mentioned in his previous question on 14th December, 1938. I am informed by the Electricity Commissioners that their inspector has visited the locality. He reports that the prospective revenue in relation to the capital expenditure involved is insufficient to induce the company to carry out this development at the present time, but that if, at some future date, the company find it necessary to provide a ring main in this part of their area, its construction will probably facilitate the provision of a supply to these villages.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not a scandal that these villages should be left without light because a company cannot make profit out of them; and will not the Government take steps to provide the necessary means for providing light?

  INSURERS ACT (PEARL ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED).
  Mr. Silvermanasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Smith v. Pearl Assurance Company, Limited, recently decided in the Court of Appeal; and whether any steps are intended to amend either the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act, 1930, or the Poor Persons Rules, so as to obviate the injustice occasioned by such cases?
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): As I stated in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) on Monday last, the attention of my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has been called to the case mentioned by the hon. Member, and he is considering what steps can be taken to deal with the situation disclosed in the judgment.

  DEFENCE LOANS.
  Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further statement to make in regard to the financing of the Defence programme?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The House will recall that on 29th November last I made a statement that in view of our increasing expenditure on Defence preparations further borrowing powers would be needed, and that it was my intention at the appropriate time to ask Parliament to pass legislation for this purpose. The Defence Loans Act, 1937, authorised borrowing in connection with our rearmament programme to a total of £400,000,000 in respect of the quinquennium 1937–38 to 1941–42. It was made clear at the time of the introduction of that Act that the limit of £400,000,000 was by no means final, and that if conditions required it Parliament would be asked to authorise a measure of further borrowing. Accordingly, a Ways and Means Resolution is being tabled to-day upon which to found a Bill which will double the amount which may be raised in the five-year period ending 1941–42 so that the total loan authorised becomes £800,000,000; the expense of rearmament met out of borrowed money up to the present is just under £200,000,000, so the result of the new Bill will be to provide for the future a total authority of about £600,000,000.
  The Bill will follow the same lines as the Act of 1937, but I propose to include among the purposes for which these Defence Loans may be used expenditure on Civil Defence and the purchase of food and other essential commodities under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act of last session.
  The Prime Minister authorises me to add that a White Paper on Defence has

  1731
  been prepared, and this will be in the Vote Office immediately after Questions to-day. No doubt a Debate on the White Paper will be desired, and the occasion of the discussion in Committee of the Ways and Means Resolution would appear to provide a convenient opportunity.
  Mr. Attlee: Would it be possible for the Prime Minister to indicate when he proposes to have the Debate on the Ways and Means Resolution?
  The Prime Minister: I think it will be convenient if I anticipate the usual Business Statement which I shall make To-morrow by informing the House now that it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolution for the Defence Loans Bill on Monday and Tuesday of next week.
  Mr. Ballenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the £200,000,000 which has already been issued of the first £400,000,000 has been exhausted, and whether it is proposed to issue a new loan on account of Defence at an early date?
  Sir J. Simon: As regards the £200,000,000, my statement was that the expenditure on re-armament had already amounted, up to the present, to just under £200,000,000. I cannot make any statement as to the date of any future issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter which has to be very carefully considered with experts.
  Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement relating to Defence which is about to be issued gives particular attention to the financial aspect of the re-armament programme, and, having regard to the fact that this aspect is now a matter of some complexity, if it does not give particular attention to the financial aspects, whether we may have a White Paper which does?
  Sir J. Simon: The White Paper will be available as soon as Questions are over, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to wait until he sees the White Paper.
  Mr. Garro Jones: It will be too late to ask the right hon. Gentleman after I have seen it.

DISUSED BURIAL GROUNDS ACT, 1884 (Amendment).
Mr. Hannah: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Section three of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884."
That Act permits churches to be enlarged, but says nothing about enlarging or providing vestries or parish houses. Accordingly, in order to do anything of that kind it would be necessary to introduce a Private Act of Parliament, which is exceedingly costly and frequently may prevent a desirable scheme being carried out. In some cases in remote parts of the country the Act has been actually ignored. The Bill which I seek permission to bring in proposes to permit any church, or chapel, or other place of worship to build or enlarge a vestry, parish room or chambers, purely for the use of the church, by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Ministry of Health, with the following provisions, that if any bones are disturbed—[Laughter]—the sense of humour of the House is very acute to-day—if any bones are disturbed, they must be decently and properly re-interred either in the same or some other recognised burial ground. Further, the consent of the local authority must be obtained. In the Metropolitan area that is understood to mean the London County Council and the borough concerned. No children's playground may be reduced in extent under the provisions of the Bill. As a further provision against destroying open spaces or amenities, in no case may more than one-tenth of a burial ground be covered by the new building, whether in one instalment or more under the provisions of the Bill. The City of London is to be excluded from the operations of the Bill.
I claim that this is an opportunity for a very desirable delegation of the powers of this House to the local authorities. I should be the very last to do anything that would reduce open spaces in London or any other city or town, but I would point out that under this Bill the local authority will actually be in a better position than before. At the present time the local authority can do no more than oppose a Private Act of Parliament, but under the proposals of the Bill a local authority will be able definitey to veto a scheme should it so desire.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hannah, Mr. Mander, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Graham Kerr, Sir Samuel Chapman, Sir Patrick Hannon, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Thorne, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins, Mr. Lipson, Miss Horsbrugh, and Colonel Clarke.

DISUSED BURIAL GROUNDS ACT, 1884 (AMENDMENT) BILL,
"to amend Section three of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

LONDON RATING (SITE VALUES).
Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the rating of the annual site value of land in the administrative county of London; and for purposes connected therewith."
This is a Bill which is not confined to burial grounds, but deals with land in general. I am asking the House to be good enough to permit me to bring in the Bill in order to modify the rating system obtaining in the Administrative County of London. As things are now, the whole of the rates payable to the local authorities in London are raised from the occupiers, namely, the ordinary citizens, the residents, the shopkeepers and the business undertakings. They carry the whole burden of London rates. The purpose of the Bill is to relieve the burden that that general body of ratepayers carries. The one class in the community who, as such, bear no rate burden at all, are the owners of land. Landowners, as such, are paying nothing whatever towards the cost of local government, and yet there is no section of the community which benefits more from the existence of the community and the work of the local authorities than the landowning class, particularly in the Administrative County of London. The value of land in London would be negligible if the population of London did not exist. That, I understand, is agreed on both sides of the House. If there were no population in London to work, if the area were depopulated, or agricultural, the value of the land would be either nil or negligible.
The value that attaches to London land attaches to it because a community of millions of people is at work in the City, and the landowners are living upon the
1734
backs of those people. The community itself, the millions of people in London, could not live in this great City it the local authorities did not discharge many statutory duties and conduct many public services. Unless the local authorities existed and worked, the community could not live a civilised existence in London, and, therefore, the value of the land would not exist. In these circumstances it is not only grossly unjust, but it is really a piece of characteristic landowning impudence that these landowners, who benefit so much from the existence of the community and from the work of the local authorities, should be specifically exempted from contributing their share towards the work of the local authorities. I am bound to say that if I were the Duke of Bedford I would have had too much sense of shame to have petitioned against the Bill on this subject which was recently submitted to Parliament. The general body of ratepayers, including the residents, the little shopkeepers, the business men, the lower middle class, the owner-occupier who is purchasing his house under a loan from the local authority or building society—all this body of ratepayers are paying more rates in order that landowners shall pay no rates; and we say that it is unjust, and that it is the duty of the House to give justice to this general body of ratepayers.
It is proposed in the Bill that the London County Council, through the boroughs, shall be enabled to levy a rate of 2s. in the £ on the annual value of land. It is estimated—including the high-value land of the central areas in London—that that will produce a revenue of £3,000,000 a year. The £3,000,000 a year is equal to a shilling county rate, and that will enable us to relieve the burden falling on the general ratepayer by a shilling in the £. Therefore all the general body of ratepayers will be better off, and the owner-occupier on balance will be financially definitely better off than he is now. The Bill provides for the exemption of certain lands, and of course it will be competent for other cases to be argued in Committee. But those are the principles upon which the Bill proceeds. It takes away the privilege that the landowners now have at the expense of other sections of the community. It is a Bill for the relief of the general body of London ratepayers. It is opposed, it is true, by certain vested interests, who

1735
always oppose the interests of the community, and doubtless those vested interests will always find their appropriate form of expression. But this is a Bill which is in the interests of the masses of the people of London. It is a Bill which is based upon fairness and justice to the average ratepayer, and I ask the House to give me permission to bring in the Bill.
Mr. H. G. Williams: I thought it was most appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) introduced a Disused Burial Grounds Bill before this Bill, because we have now a convenient place in which to put it. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill suggested that because landowners as such are not rated, the rate being something paid by the occupier, landowners contribute nothing to the cost of local government. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to examine the financial statement presented to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last April, he will find therein Parliamentary grants to the tune of about £168,000,000 to the local authorities. That sum is obtained from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, to which all landowners contribute according to the system of taxation imposed upon them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly; they pay Income Tax, if they are rich they pay Surtax, on their deaths they pay Estate Duties—at least the inheritors do—and in connection with transfers they pay Stamp Duties; and every statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made to-day is factually inaccurate.
The right hon. Gentleman in introducing this Bill is not being in the least original. I imagine that he must have been stimulated to it by his recent visit to the United States, where some 50 or 60 years ago one Henry George sought election as Mayor of New York. He did not get in, though I understand he had a great many fanatical supporters, many of whom, of course, were wealthy manufacturers of a Radical tinge, who always thought it a good idea that public attention should be withdrawn from their profits by concentration on the incomes of the landowners. Accordingly, when Henry George died a gentleman, Mr. Joseph Fels, who used to sell Fels-Naptha soap, became the standard-
1736
bearer of this great cause of the single tax, which is now out of date because the whole income from land is only about one-tenth of our Budget and Landlord-hunting was, of course, a pet hobby of that not too considerate group of employers who belonged to what was called the Manchester School. It is true that most of them have been educated a little since, with the result that their supporters on the second bench below the gangway opposite are less numerous than they used to be.
I am opposing this Bill with one measure of regret, because if I could only be certain that it would become law, within six months, I am quite satisfied, the right hon. Gentleman would lose his control of County Hall. The right hon. Gentleman's idea that this proposal is popular is one of the delusions from which he suffers. He is, I understand, one of the opponents of the Popular Front, but to-day he hopes to lead a Popular Front into the Lobby. It is the only thing which hon. Members opposite think is popular, but they are wrong. There are to-day in London hundreds of thousands of small owners who are going to be irritated beyond measure over the whole problem of valuations. It is curious that the right hon. Gentleman, like the Bourbons, can never learn anything. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) invented a system of land taxation which at least theoretically had merits far beyond this, but he was ultimately forced to witness the spectacle of that system of taxes being dropped by a Government of which he was Prime Minister. He had to choose the tax or office, and he preferred the office. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, afterwards Lord Snowden, introduced the same idea in 1930. It is true that he had ceased to be a member of the Government when the idea was abandoned. That system of taxation was a penny in the £ of annual value, and it was abandoned. We have had an election since then.
I wonder whether any hon. Member received protests in 1935 because a year before this House had repealed the Snowden land taxes? Not one. There is no popular approval for this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman would be the most miserable person politically if this House passed the Bill. But as we prefer

1737
the continued employment of the people in those trades which would be affected, rather than the mere electoral advantage which is perhaps more prominent in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, the House I hope, reject the Bill. That it would gravely prejudice the building trade, which is now undergoing some measure of decline, is obvious; that it would prejudice every manufacturing industry, would undo some of the merits of the De-rating Act of 1929, which was introduced to enable us to meet foreign competition, is also obvious. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, learning nothing from the unfortunate experiences of
others, produces this Bill as a Public Bill. I do not think this House is going to lose its sense to-day merely because the right hon. Gentleman, the dictator of the great Hall on the other side of the river, asks us to do so. I hope that by an overwhelming majority the House will reject the Bill.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the rating of the annual site value of land in the administrative county of London; and for purposes connected therewith."
The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 229.

Division No. 36.]

AYES.

[4.10 p.m.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

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

Parker, J.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Parkinson, J. A.

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

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Pearson, A.

Adamson, Jennie L (Dartford)

Groves, T. E.

Pritt, D. N.

Adamson, W. M.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hardie, Agnes

Ritson, J.

Banfield, J. W.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Bartlett, C. V. O.

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

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Batey, J.

Heyday, A.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Bellenger, F. J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Sanders, W. S.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Benson, G.

Hicks, E. G.

Sexton, T. M.

Bevan, A.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Shinwell, E.

Broad, F. A.

Hopkin, D.

Silkin, L.

Bromfield, W.

Jagger, J.

Silverman, S. S.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Simpson, F. B.

Burke, W. A.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

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

Cape, T.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cassells, T.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Charleton, H. C.

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Chater, D.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Stephen, C.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Lathan, G.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Cocks, F. S.

Leach, W.

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

Collindridge, F.

Leonard, W.

Stokes, R. R.

Cove, W. G.

Logan, D. G.

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

Dagger, G.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Dalton, H.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Thorne, W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

McEntee, V. La T.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McGhee, H. G.

Tinker, J. J.

Day, H.

MacLaren, A.

Tomlinson, G.

Dobbie, W.

Maclean, N.

Viant, S. P.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

MacNeill Weir, L.

Walker, J.

Ede, J. C.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Watkins, F. C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mender, G. le M.

Welsh, J. C.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Marklew, E.

Westwood, J.

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

Marshall, F.

Whits, H. Graham

Frankel, D.

Mathers, G.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Gallacher, W.

Maxton, J.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gardner, B. W.

Messer, F.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Garro Jones, G. M.

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

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

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

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Muff, G.

Young, Sir R. (Newtons)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Owen, Major G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Grenfell, D. R.

Paling, W.

Mr. Montague and Mr. Cluse.

NOES.

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

Beit, Sir A. L.

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

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

Blair, Sir R.

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

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Bossom, A. C.

Bull, B. B.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Boulton, W. W.

Bullock. Capt. M.

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

Boyce, H. Leslie

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Caine, G. R. Halt-

Balniel, Lord

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Cary, R. A.

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

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Hopkinson, A.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Reid, Captain A. Cunningham

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

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

Hume, Sir G. H.

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Channon, H.

Hunloke, H. P.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Hunter, T.

Ropner, Colonel L.

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

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Hutchinson, G. C.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Rowlands, G.

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

Joel, D. J. B.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

Keeling, E. H.

Ruggtos-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Russell, Sir Alexander

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

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Salmon, Sir I.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Salt, E. W.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Kimball, L.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

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

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Scott, Lord William

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Selley, H. R.

Crossley, A. C.

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

Shakespeare, G. H.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Lees-Jones, J.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Simmonds, O. E.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Liddall, W. S.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

Davison, Sir W. H.

Lindsay, K. M.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

De Chair, S. S.

Lipson, D. L.

Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

De la Bère, R.

Little, Sir E. Graham-

Somerset, T.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Denville, Alfred

Lloyd, G. W.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

Lyons, A. M.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Doland, G. F.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

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

Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

McKie, J. H.

Storey, S.

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Duggan, H. J.

Maitland, Sir Adam

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Dunglass, Lord

Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Eastwood, J. F.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Ellis, Sir G.

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Emery, J. F.

Markham, S. F.

Sutcliffe, H.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Marsden, Commander A.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Fleming, E. L.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Tate, Mavis C.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Medlicott, F.

Thomas, J. P. L.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

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

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Gluckstein, L. H.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Touche, G. C.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Train, Sir J.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Grant-Ferris, R.

Moraing, A. C.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Granville, E. L.

Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

Turton, R. H.

Gretton, Col, Rt. Hon. J.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

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

Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Grigg, Sir E. W. M

Munro, P.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Grimston, R. V.

Nall, Sir J.

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

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

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Hambro, A. V.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hannah, I. C.

Peake, O.

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

Harbord, A.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel, G.

Harvey, Sir G.

Petherick, M.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Pilkington, R.

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Porritt, R. W.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Radford, E. A.

Higgs, W. F.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S

Ramsbotham, H.

Mr. Herbert Williams and Mr. Duncan.

Holmes, J. S.

Rankin, Sir R.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1939.
Estimates presented,—for the Army for the financial year 1939 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 59.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1939.
Estimates presented,—for the Navy for the financial year 1939 [by Command];
1740
referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 60.]

BILLS REPORTED.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MARYPORT HARBOUR BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

EDUCATION FOR COMMERCE.
4.20 p.m.
Mr. Annesley Somerville: I beg to move,
"That, in view of the growing severity of international competition in trade and the consequent need to attract into the service of commerce and industry a sufficient supply of persons of well trained character and brains, this House considers it desirable that the Board of Education should consult with the local education authorities and the other educational interests for the purpose of determining how far the recommendations of the Spens Report on Secondary Education and the Report of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on the Commercial Employment of Students with Degrees in Commerce, or modifications of such recommendations, should be carried into effect."
The Motion expresses anxiety lest the education which is provided for young people who are going into commerce is not of the best kind, and it seems reasonable to ask the authorities concerned to consult together and, if this is true, to see whether steps cannot be taken to improve the education. Government departments are often reproached for red tape and stagnation, but surely that reproach cannot be thrown at the Board of Education. Their activities in the past 12 years have been almost volcanic. Twelve years ago we had the Hadow Report, which has been gradually transforming our whole system of elementary and secondary education, and now we have the Spens Report which advocates another revolution. It seems as if the Board of Education and their Consultative Committee have cherished a revolutionary cell in their austere bosom
The Hadow reforms have done some harm, but they have done a great deal of good. They have done harm to many of our village schools, a wholesome factor in the life of the countryside. Sometimes they have mutilated these schools and sometimes suppressed them. They have brought country children into the towns and urban districts when they should have been allowed to remain in the country, at a time when we need in the countryside people who care for it. The Spens Report takes note of these things, and particularly of a tendency which we find in our present educational school system, a tendency to what I may call educational nationalism. Each type of school seeks to be self-sufficient. We find in grammar schools and in secondary schools for boys and girls a tendency to
1756
cater for the needs of those who show technical aptitudes and some modern schools such as central selective schools are trying to prepare some of their pupils who have literary aptitude for the schools certificate examination. The Spens Report takes note of this and proposes a remedy, at a price, which I will consider later.
In view of the shortness of time at our disposal and the vast field covered by the Spens Report I will confine myself to four points. Three of them are recommendations of the report which seem to me wholly good; they concern the schools certificate examination—private schools, and country grammar schools. With regard to the schools certificate examination I was a member of the first Secondary Schools Examination Council which, in 1917, issued the first syllabus for that examination, and following the directions of the Board of Education we went on what was a perfectly sound principle and that was that the syllabus should follow the curriculum of the schools—not determine it. As a matter of fact, in practice exactly the reverse has happened, and the reason is that this examination has been made to serve two purposes, first, as a test of sound education for boys and girls at the age of 15-plus to 16-plus, and as a matriculation examination. The chief sinner in this respect is the University of London, so ably represented by my hon. Friend who, no doubt, will set up a stout defence for the London University in the course of the Debate. But the report recommends freedom from this dual function; it recommends that these two functions should be separate. That is wholly sound.
The Board of Education have accepted their recommendations with one exception, and I regret that they have made this one exception. They have abolished the requirement of one credit for a certificate. I do not agree, and I think it is to be regretted. We need thoroughness, and we should be wise to follow in our teaching the dictates of human nature. We have been trying in our system to teach too many subjects at the same time. What is necessary is thoroughness in at least one subject. If you consider human nature, we all like to handle and deal with what we understand and know, whether it is a dictionary, a calculus, a test tube, a pencil, or, a cricket bat. I could almost give an

1757
address on the kind of training you can get out of a cricket bat—patience, tenacity, anticipation, the employment of every physical power and the spirit of adventure. Looking at the matter in that way I regret that the condition of obtaining one credit should have been abolished. I ask that it should be replaced, or, at any rate, that there should be an equivalent of a good standard of attainment in at least two cognate subjects. That is my first point.
The next is private schools. In 1932 there was a Departmental Committee on private schools which produced a valuable report, favourable to private schools. It said that many of them were excellent and that the majority were free from reproach. I see the hon. Member who was chairman of that committee present, and I shall be glad to hear his opinion upon the carrying out of that report. I happen to be President of the Private or Independent Schools' Association. The report recommended that these schools should be subject to inspection. We accept that most heartily and ask that the recommendation should be carried out. The Spens Report also recommends it. My third point is the country grammar school, which is referred to in the report with sympathy and encouragement. It points out ways in which the country grammar school can be encouraged, and it also points out their difficulties, the small number of pupils which sometimes render grading and a varied curriculum so difficult. At the same time it says:
"Country schools thus enjoy unrivalled opportunities of framing syllabuses which have a high practical value derived from their close affinity to the world outside the school, and which at the same time should develop in the pupil an inquiring and critical mind and the power of independent judgment."
I am glad that we have that testimony from the committee to the usefulness and the necessity of encouraging the country grammar school, but I would say that, as in every other school, the success and usefulness of the country grammar school depends upon the teachers. There will not be the right spirit in the country school, or in any other school, unless the teacher, and particularly the head teacher, has the spirit that inspires what one wants to see in the school. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) was Chairman of a Departmental Committee on the training of rural
1758
teachers. That committee made excellent suggestions which were not carried out for some time, but I am glad that now the Board of Education are making efforts to carry out those recommendations and are doing a good deal in that direction. There is in my constituency an elementary school the head teacher of which really cares for the things of the countryside and inspires the school in that sense, as the school gardens and surroundings show. That is the spirit we want to get into our rural schools.
The next point—and this is the central point of the report—is the setting up of a new type of technical school. The Spens Report looks at the educational system, consisting as it does of two great lines, the State and grant-aided and controlled schools and the private schools of the country, and finds them incomplete; and it proposes the institution of a type of school not exactly new, but framed after the fashion of the existing junior technical schools which provide training for those who are going into the engineering and building industries.
I want to take this opportunity of saying a word or two about the public schools of the country. The private schools include all those schools that are independent of State and grant aid and the so-called public schools, with their complementary system of preparatory schools. It has been the fashion to criticise those schools very severely, and to accuse them of stagnation and many other defects; but I venture to say that in the public schools, with their complementary preparatory schools, the country has a possession of great value. The proof of that is the way in which other countries. recognise them. The Spens Report and the grammar schools of the country bear-testimony to that. The grammar schools. have borrowed many of the traditions and customs of the public schools, such as the prefect system and the house system, and they are all the stronger for doing so; and it brings the schools together.
The Spens Report strongly recommends the tutorial system. That system has existed for many years in the public schools, especially Eton. I am speaking from experience when I say that it is an excellent system. There are 1100 boys at Eton. The Spens Report speaks of a school of 800 boys as being too large, but at Eton there is more individual attention given to every member of the school than

1759
is perhaps given in any other school in the country that is not preparatory. The reason for this is the tutorial system. Every boy, on coming to the school, is provided with one man as his tutor, to whom he goes during the whole of his school life for instruction, encouragement and help with his work in the forms or classes—or divisions as they are called at Eton—and in every other way. That is good for the master and good for the boy; in the master it produces a sense of responsibility towards the pupils, responsibility of a different kind from that which the form master has to his form; and in the boy it produces the feeling that he has a centre to which he can refer. That system is recommended by the Spens Report. As to the public school spirit, it is a real thing, but it is impalpable. Some time ago I gave a series of addresses on different educational subjects for the National Council of Education in Canada, at various places from Vancouver to Toronto. I was often asked to say something about the public school spirit. It was a difficult thing to do, and what was I to do but to quote to them the oath taken by the ephebi in Ancient Greece, that is, the youths of 18, when they went to the Temple of Minerva to get their arms before being sent to the frontier to guard their State. The oath was:
"I will not dishonour my sacred arms;
I will not desert my fellow soldiers by whose side I shall be set;
I will do battle for my country whether aided or unaided;
I will strive to leave her better than I found her;
I will reverence the temples in which my fathers worshipped.
Of these things the gods are my witnesses."
Those principles are as old as time, but they are the basis of democracy. Hon. Members opposite are very appreciative of Eton. They have among them only two old Etonians, and they think so much of them that they have put them on their Front Bench—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton); I regret to say that for the moment they have ostracised Winchester in the person of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but I suppose that is a passing family quarrel. Eton reciprocates. They have
1760
at Eton a political society run by the senior boys, and the president of that society at the present time is the son of the Foreign Secretary. They have invited various Members of the House to be kind enough to address them. The Leader of the Opposition has addressed them twice, and the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) have also addressed them. On this side of the House, the Secretary of State for the Dominions and the Home Secretary and others have addressed the society, and to show its appreciation of independence and originality, the society has three times asked the honourable, independent and original Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) to address it.
Sir Ernest Graham-Little: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of the public schools, I would like to ask him whether the public schools contemplate changing their curriculum in the same sense as is now asked for the grant-aided schools, and further, has he seen that his former headmaster, who was 16 years Headmaster of Eton, has expressly declared in a book which he recently published that the curriculum as envisaged by Circular 1463 goes much too far, and that it would have the effect of reducing the number of students who get higher education?
Mr. Somerville: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that interruption. I take it he is referring to the book "A Plea for a Plan" by Doctor Alington. As a matter of fact, the public schools already provide very much of what is recommended in the Spens Report. For instance, Oundle School, which has 580 boys, has a classical side, a modem side, and an engineering side; it has a school farm, five laboratories, workshops and so on. The head of that school is a distinguished man of science, who did fine work for the Government during the War. I will also mention another school of a different type, Bembridge School, which is run on the Ruskin principle—the principle that when you want a thing you make it. When they want to go on the water, they have to build their own boats. I mention this to show the richness and variety of our educational system. I submit to the House that it would be a great mistake to try to bring all these schools

1761
into one State system. To do that would be to make the system much less vital, much less full of life, and much less able to experiment; it would curtail the freedom of the system, and in education, freedom is the breath of life.
I pass now to the central recommendation of the Spens Report, that is, that a new type of school should be instituted on the lines of the present junior technical schools which prepare pupils for the engineering and building industries. That system of schools would fulfil these conditions. There would be complete parity between all types of secondary schools. They would draw their pupils from the same general pool, the elementary schools at 11 plus. They would be housed as far as possible with the technical colleges. I assume that would mean a good deal more building. Their progress would be reviewed at 13 plus so that if aptitudes or later development were discovered, the pupils might be transferred from those schools to the grammar schools.
The junior technical schools are doing good work, and it is a good principle, when an institution is doing good work, not to interfere with it. Whether the expansion of these schools would interfere with their work is a matter that could be decided only by experiment. It might be that there would not be much interference. Parity and the housing of new institutions would mean a considerable cost, for it would involve parity of salaries and the provision of new buildings. I agree with the principle of parity. Everything above 11 plus is secondary education. I think that parity might be introduced by degrees, due regard being had for the difficult time through which the country is passing. As to the new buildings, I suppose that the technical colleges would have to be consulted in the matter. With regard to drawing the pupils for these new schools from the general pool, I cannot see that that would do anything except weaken the existing schools. The general pool consists of pupils of 11 plus from the elementary schools. If a new set of schools is instituted into which one pours from that pool a stream which did not exist before, one must lessen the streams that go into other schools, and so weaken the grammar schools and the modern schools. That seems to me wholly wrong.
1762
Another condition laid down is that the basis of education between 11 plus and 13 plus under the new system, should be the same as that in the grammar schools. That points to the desirability of keeping the pupils together, at any rate up to the age of 13 plus and then reviewing the position at 13 plus. What is the chief factor in formation of the character of the boy? It is the influence of the school; his relations with the teachers, their relations with him and his relations with his fellows. You take him out of the elementary school at 11 plus and then if it is necessary to transfer him at 13 plus, are you going to dig him out of his school and pass him on to another school to begin all over again? I think that is a weak suggestion, and all this points to the desirability of keeping pupils together at the same school.
The report suggests another way of dealing with the problem, and that is what they call multi-lateralism. I agree with that. I think it is far better than what they propose. Multi-lateralism means providing a sufficient number of sides or of "streams" in one school in order to meet the demands of the aptitudes of the boys or girls in that school. That seems to be sound. In the grammar schools after 13 plus you could provide a technical stream into which would flow from the same school, those boys who had technical aptitudes. If transfer became necessary, they would still be in the same school, with the same influences, and you would not weaken the school.
As against that, certain objections are urged by the Spens Report. There is the size of the school. They take a school of 800. They put up a great nine-pin and take great pleasure in knocking it down, because it is only a nine-pin and in their own report they provide the solution of the difficulty. They recommend the tutorial system. I have mentioned a school of 1,100 boys in which that system produces the greatest amount of individualism and of individual influence and the same thing could easily be provided in a school of 800. Then they say that there would be the difficulty of a sixth form. I do not think that is such a difficulty. If you had the multi-lateral system, on the technical side and the pupils ordinarily left at 16 plus, there would be some outstanding pupils for whom it would be arranged that they should go on to the universities and get

1763
the benefit of the scientific courses at the universities. These would provide a sixth form on the technical side, joined with the sixth form on the other side. So I do not think that a very serious objection. At the worst you could always give sixth form powers to the most mature and leading pupils on the technical side.
Then it is said that you would not be able to get head teachers with the necessary qualifications. For instance, they say, if you have a head teacher who is a classical man, he will not take a proper interest in the technical side. With all due respect to the consultative committee, I do not think that is a good objection and I speak from experience. I was once the head of a side where we had modern subjects. The head of the school, who was a splendid man, was a devoted classical scholar who believed thoroughly in the classics, but he would come round to our classes and take the greatest interest in them and talk to the boys. What matters in a head is not the kind of subjects which he knows, but his personality and the way in which he inspires the school. The boys on that side, which was practically a modern side, realised that. They said: "There is our head who cares for us and for our progress and the progress of the school and it does not matter a row of pins what subjects he cares for particularly." I do not attach much weight to that objection in the Spens Report. I might point again to the case of Oundle, where there is a science man as head of a college which has a classical, a modern and an engineering side, and is very successful.
Then it is said that the technical curriculum would have on influence on the modern curriculum. I do not see that that would be the case, and, as for the influence of the staff of the technical side on the rest of the school, I think it would be wholly good. It would strengthen and vitalise the school. So, I would recommend the gradual introduction of the multilateral system. For instance, we have just built at Windsor a county boys school and it would be comparatively easy to add to that school so as to provide for a technical side. That would be possible without great expense in many parts of the country. You cannot do it all at once, because the cost of new buildings and so on would be too great, but you could make a beginning. Let the junior technical schools continue their most
1764
useful functions. Introduce a technical side on the multilateral system, and let the syllabus of the school certificate examination be so arranged that pupils from the technical side can take full advantage of it. Thus, by degrees, you can bring about real parity between all schools and all teachers.
Time is getting on, and there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, and so I must confine myself to very few words with regard to the other report—that of the Chambers of Commerce. It seems to me that their recommendation as to the provision of practical courses while the student is still reading for his degree, is wholly good, but I cannot help thinking that their report has been written without full information. I have had information from the appointments boards of various universities— from my own university of Cambridge, from London, from Birmingham—calling attention to the fact that the figure of 100 in the report is an absolute under-estimate. For instance, the Cambridge appointment board, alone, last year sent to commerce and industry 253 graduates and that has been the sort of average for a number of years. When I was up, there was one large firm who said they would always take the first six in the applied science tripos.
Mr. Owen Evans: Would the hon. Member inform the House whether that 253 included scientific and technical as well as commercial appointments?
Mr. Somerville: The 253 went into commerce and industry. For instance, it is the Shell Company which still takes these graduates. A very good statement has been issued by London University which deals with the core of the question. It points out that when a great business wants to get a man from a university, it is not so much a question of what the man knows as of his personality, his type and the likelihood that he will train on into a person capable of taking charge of a great department of the business. That is what determines it, and as this statement says:
"It does not matter whether he has taken his degree in anthropology or in Sanscrit, if he is the right kind of man he will be taken."
I would say a word about the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove).
Mr. Speaker: That Amendment will not be moved, because it would not be in order.
Mr. Somerville: Then I am reduced to commiserating with my hon. Friend. I know he has strong views, and I hope he will have an opportunity of expressing them. The Motion expresses an anxiety, and I think that anxiety is to some extent justified when we consider the very wide extent and the complexity of British commerce and its value to human progress and welfare. I hope the House will consider it reasonable to ask those concerned with the training of our young people who are going into commerce and industry, to consult together and determine whether the training which is being given to these young people, is the training best calculated to forward the objects which we all desire.
4.57 P.m.
Sir Geoffrey Ellis: I beg to second the Motion.
It is my duty to confine myself mainly to the Report on the Commercial Employment of Students with Degrees in Commerce. In one sense I regret that it should be so, because it is a disappointment after one reads a report of nearly 500 pages, showing courage and imagination in dealing with the facts, to descend to 4½ pages of arid negation, and I cannot think that there has been any real inquiry which has justified the conclusions and the statement in this short report. What was the question under examination? It was not so much the question of courses and degrees in commerce, as that of the place of university graduates throughout Great Britain, in commerce and industry, the value of a university education to those graduates and, incidentally, its value to commerce and industry. Surely never was it more necessary than in these changing days, with so many different kinds of combinations in trade, commerce and industry, both national and international, that our trade and industry should recruit the best brains of the country. Every other profession and interest looks for something following a secondary education, but if one is to believe this report, the bulk of the people who are members of chambers of commerce are content with the narrow formalism and close details of the single office in which a man has to do his work.
1766
I have sat for some time on the appointments board at Cambridge, and I should like to take up some of the statements made in this report. In the first place, the figure of 130 is quite wrong. It is true that the people selected by the appointments board at Cambridge—as I believe is also the case at Oxford and other universities—go into all classes of trade and industry. They may go into companies which are operating abroad. They may go into professions such as accountancy, and they may even take up certain forms of actuarial work in connection with insurance. That only shows the value which is attached by all these employers to that class of training and how much they appreciate what some university graduates can do. The trouble in the whole of this question, from the point of view of many employers, is that they have concentrated on believing that the only man of any value is the man who takes a high specialist degree at a university, and in that concentration they have forgotten a great many alternative courses which are already prepared by the universities.
May I take one provided by my own university of Cambridge as an illustration, and put it to the House whether the following form of education would not be one of the best general forms that could be provided after secondary education for anyone who hoped to make a place in commerce or industry? Leaving school at the age of 17, having qualified himself by exemption for the entrance examination of the university and then spending a year abroad, there learning two languages, the foundations of which he would already have gained at his school, with some opportunity of seeing a good deal of the people of those countries whose languages were being learned, and at an early time in his life getting rid of, perhaps, a little of that self-complacency which, I am afraid, is the besetting sin of our nation, and at the same time appreciating a good deal that no reading in books and no office could teach him. He then goes to the university, and there for two years he is able to concentrate on his two languages, on the modern history of his own country and probably of the United States of America, with some reference to economic questions and enough English, at any rate, to make him appreciate what it is to speak clearly, to think clearly, and to write clearly. For his

1767
last year he is able to take up one of many special subjects. Anyone who went to Cambridge with the intention of going in for a special trade or industry would naturally have that trade or industry in mind and would, therefore, take a subject in his last year which would be of considerable value to him afterwards.
But it does not stop there. During the time spent at the university a good deal of the year is on vacation, and during that vacation it would be essential for the student to go either again to those two countries whose languages he was learning or for some period to the Continent or to the United States, into an office of a kind in which he would be able to learn something of business methods. All these outside things could be done, and at the same time the broader general background he would be able to obtain by residence at a university would not be in any way lacking. That would take about 2¾ years out of his life and leave him before he was 21, with a sound background of life and a good knowledge of two languages, the ability to express himself clearly and forcibly, and having had contacts with other people which, to my mind, is one of the most valuable attributes any university can possibly give. If that is not a sound preparation for anyone going into commerce and industry, then I find some difficulty in believing that any sound preparation can be given.
I regret very much to see from these reports that the greatest criticism apparently comes from people who do not believe that there is any need for a boy to proceed further than his school education if he is going into industry or commerce. I believe we are about the only country left, if the statement be true, that does take such a point of view. It is not the point of view taken on the Continent generally, and it is certainly not the point of view taken in the United States. That this point of view can be taken is one of the things that makes some of us a little doubtful of the success of any real crusade to help trade and industry by education. The universities up and down the country have been put down in the great commercial centres, and they rely on the people in trade and industry in those centres to help them to relate their work to the needs of the district, and I am afraid that in many cases they are not getting much help in the process.
1768
I do not put forward the course of education that I have detailed as a scheme, because it is something which is being done to-day; it is in existence, and it seems altogether to have escaped the minds of the people who drafted this report. The Spens Report, in this respect, has left out something that is essential. It has not provided any means for the poor scholar from the secondary school to get to the university in order to take this form of education which I have recommended and which obviously, in existing conditions, is open only to people who can afford to pay the fees. In that respect I think we have to face a condition which needs inquiry. All scholarships to-day are based on an examination which is intended to satisfy the examiners that anyone taking a scholarship will be able to get high honours at the university. The basis of an education for commerce and industry is not necessarily, and not always advisably, one of trying for high honours, especially in one subject. You have to consider whether it would not be possible also to erect some scholarships which could be given from secondary schools to boys unable to afford university fees, that would give them the opportunity of passing on and taking the course of education for industry and commerce which I have already indicated. If not, if you are going to leave it to boys from poor homes to go into commerce and industry direct from school only, what will happen? If they are bright boys, the whole bent of their minds at any rate the suggestion from their teachers will be that they should take up specialist work in order that they may get scholarships in specialist subjects, and that will turn them away from commerce into the teaching and other professions which will, as a consequence, soon become overcrowded. It is a point to which I would like my hon. Friend on the Front Bench to pay some attention, because I am certain that if you can be sure of some kind of examination, of charcter, of school record, and recommendations from masters, there is room for the erection of a form of scholarship of the type that I have mentioned, which will ensure to the poorer pupils the same opportunities as are open to those who can afford to pay fees. This will open up commercial and industrial careers in a direct way for these poorer pupils.

1769
The conclusions come to by the committee are interesting, in view of their negations in the first part of the report. They are in agreement with the suggestion that it would be advantageous to British commerce if a larger proportion of university graduates were recruited. All that I can say is that it would have been helpful if they had extended their inquiries and examined some of the syllabuses which are given throughout this country and arranged expressly with a view to helping the teaching of subjects of interest to industry and commerce in the universities. Not a single bit of help is given here, and I conclude, as I began, that if this is all that the chambers of commerce in this country can do, they are not going to be of much good either to education or to industry and commerce.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Cove: I am sure the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) for having put down this Motion to-day. The reports which we have been asked to consider are of vital importance to the national well-being and, indeed, to the preservation of democracy in this country. We have listened to two very progressive and enlightened speeches, and I need hardly say that we on this side of the House welcome the spirit of those speeches. If I may say so without offence, the hon. Member who moved the Motion moved it in the spirit of enlightened Toryism. In fact, he did it in such a way as to safeguard what I might call the historic preserves of the Tory party. I think his criticism of the report in relation to the multilateral school was devastating and left the authors of the report with no shred of argument for the attitude which they had taken up.
I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member realised the real reason why, in my judgment at any rate, the authors of the report turned their heads, as it were, away from the multilateral school. As I understand the report against the multilateral school, the argument cannot be sustained on the basis of educational principle and practice; it can only be sustained on the basis of social implication and social policy. As a matter of fact, I see the multilateral school as a microcosm of real democracy, and therefore the compromise embodied in the report was, as I see the matter, bound
1770
to be arrived at. While the hon. Member for Windsor was enlightened in his attitude towards the multilateral school, he was very careful indeed to make as good a case as he could for the preservation of the public school and the private school. We may as well be frank about it. Of course, the great public schools of this country are undoubtedly the preserves of the rich; hence the hon. Member's reactionary attitude on that question has been governed by his general attitude as far as class distinctions are concerned.
There is not much time in which to discuss the report in detail. I have read in the Press many praises of its clarity and all that sort of thing. It may be my fault—I am sure it is—but I have found myself very much confused, at times, in reading the report. If one had time it would not be very difficult to show many contradictions in the statements that have been made in the report. That, again, I believe, is due to the fact that it was a committee whose members had varying views and, therefore, there had to be these contradictions in order that a report could be issued. I do not believe it is the main function of the House of Commons to discuss the stricter educational aspects of the report. Our best function is to consider the main principles embodied in it. The main criticism against the report is that it has failed to envisage and to suggest steps and methods whereby we could reach a greater national system of education. There is no picture in this report of a real national system of education. It has not embodied the principle of democracy in our educational system. There will not be even as much equality of opportunity in the future, if this report is brought into effect, as there will be by the development of the present system with full free secondary education for our children.
The report leaves out of consideration the place and function of the great public schools. They are merely there for people who can afford to send their sons to them. I know hon. Members opposite may disagree, but I will declare boldly that the great public schools cannot function as they are, cannot be the repositories, as they are, of class privilege, if we are to have a real national democratic system of education. They must come into the common pool. They must come within this national system. The hon. Member who moved the Motion seemed to suggest

1771
that a school outside the national system is freer, and that because it is outside the national system it has more independence, more initiative, and can make a greater individual contribution to the theory and practice of education and teaching. Will hon. Members who say that say that the dead horse of national ownership and control hangs over the initiative and efficiency of the British Navy? Will they take the same attitude towards the nationally owned and controlled Royal Air Force? It is not true that a national system of education means a dead level with a lack of initiative and freedom. We find initiative and drive within the sphere of our national system, in both the elementary part of it and the State secondary part of it, simply because within that national system there is a security which allows freedom for the individual school. Therefore, it is no argument to say that if we get these schools within the national system the dead hand of authoritarianism will be upon them. It is possible to have a national system of education and at the same time freedom and liberty in the schools within that system.
Mr. Pickthorn: What country has done it?
Mr. Cove: This country. If the hon. Member will only look at our infant schools and the few nursery schools we have he will find more initiative, progress, new methods, new objectives, and new treatment of the individual child than probably in any other section of the educational system. There is life, verve and vigour in the State-owned infant schools of this country. I would invite the hon. Member to go down and see them. They exist in their hundreds. Therefore, I say that there is evidence of freedom and progress inside the national system of education.
Let us look at one or two of the proposals of the committee in order to justify the contention which I am putting forward that there is a danger, if the main proposals of the committee are put into effect, that their tendency will be towards reaction rather than towards progress. They envisage an elementary system up to the age of 11 and then a system at the age of 11 with modern schools, that is the present senior schools, and what are called central non-selective schools and central selective schools. What a maze we have!
1772
I do not know what foreigner can understand the jigsaw puzzle of an educational system which we have in this country. It has a bad effect. The very fact that we have this jigsaw system means great inequality of opportunity in various areas. In Wales, for instance, we are proud of the fact that we have a high percentage of our people who go into secondary schools. In Hertfordshire, we find that the percentage is very much lower. In some areas it varies as much as six to one. The jigsaw system is fraught, and is bound to be fraught with inequality of opportunity between one area and another. It is wrong that a child born in one area should not have an equal opportunity with the child born in another. The authors of this report come along and say that we should have modern schools, senior schools, central schools, selective and non-selective, technical high schools, and what are now to be called grammar schools.
I want to lay down definitely that progress in the field of higher education must involve the pursuit of a freer and freer system within that field. If we are to get progress and march towards equality of opportunity, indeed, if we are to meet the industrial needs of this nation in a modern competitive world, we have to give free secondary education to all children with maintenance grants to those who need them. The case for that lies in the fact that millions of our children are born in homes whose incomes are not sufficient to pay their way through the secondary schools. The case for it is to be found in the great inequality of wealth that exists in this country. What does this report say? It says a number of things about it. It says that the number who are to get this grammar school education is to be only 15 per cent. of the age group 10 to 11, that is, 15, per cent. of a school population which is now declining. Hence, the 15 per cent. will result in a fewer number of children getting secondary education in future than at present.
The report suggests something else, and if I am wrong I hope I shall be corrected, because the report is full of antitheses. It suggests that we want a levelling up. That principle is sound, for I have just enunciated that there ought to be equality of opportunity between area and area. There are, however, some areas with 30 per cent. and 40 per

1773
cent. at secondary schools, and if we are to get a dead level of 15 per cent. of the age group 10 to 11 it means that many of the areas that are now progressive and have provided a higher amount of secondary education will have to come down. Let them try it on in Wales. Let any Government try the levelling down of our secondary places in Wales, and they will find the popular front stronger than they have ever seen it in this country. There would be a real popular front in Wales in defence of the right of the Welsh children to have the secondary education that has been won for them. Will attempts be made to justify that only 15 per cent. of the children of this country of the age group 10 to 11 are fit to profit by secondary education? Will it be suggested that only 15 per cent. can gain from being in these schools? I deny the implication of stupidity involved in that statement so far as the normal child is concerned. Education ought to be provided in a rich country like this for every normal child. Fifteen per cent. is not a figure which can by any means be said to be progressive.
Then the committee deal with examinations and special places. I want the House to note that a special place is not a free place. The special place was the device of the present Foreign Secretary when he was at the Board for effecting economies in education. We fought that in Wales and did very well, far better than in England. I said at the time, and on closer examination I am reaffirmed in my view, that the system of special places means that free places have gone. There are no free places in our secondary education system to-day. That is the meaning of it. Take 100 seats in a secondary school in the Rhondda Valley. Those seats were free, as it were—if boys passed the examination. They had no fee at all to pay. Under the special places system those 100 places are no longer free. A price must be paid, a price which varies according to localities—£3, £5 or £10 a year. It is perfectly true that under the special places system there is some accommodation for the poor people, but it is an accommodation based upon two things: There is the right to get a special place without payment of a fee provided the child passes an examination, thus proving its capacity, and provided that the income of the parent is not above a certain level. The means test,
1774
the income test comes in. There is no right to a free place apart from an income test.
Mr. Rowlands Mr. Rowlands rose—
Mr. Cove: I do not want to give way. Many Members have asked me to keep my speech short, and it is very difficult for me to do so. The report itself, in one of its phrases, says that the system of special places can form—indeed, I believe it says it does form—a barrier to any realisation of full free secondary education. That is very important. So long as there is a system of special places there cannot be free secondary education. I ask how any policy which maintains a special places system which is an effective barrier against free places can be regarded as progressive. In reply it is said, "Look at these 100 places. We will give 50 of them to the children who pass an examination and show without doubt that they are brilliant, absolutely brilliant." They hold the examination and the 50 will get places. What about the other 50 places? They are to be reserved. For whom? Reserved for capacity; reserved for children on the basis of their being able to profit by attendance at a grammar school? No. Here other factors come in. For the other 50 places these factors will involve consideration of the families from whom those children may come, and the method adopted will be by interview. That is how I understand the report, and if the Parliamentary Secretary can dispute it I shall be glad and relieved. In other words, the implication in the report is that while 50 per cent. of the places are given to the brilliant children, based on examination results, the other 50 per cent. are reserved for the children of people who can afford to pay to send their children to these schools. I say without hesitation that that is unfair and undemocratic. If we are to have a system of special places all of them should be filled by children who have shown their capacity by intellectual tests and not with any sort of favouritism at all.
I really do want to give somebody else a chance, but I should like to add a few words about examinations. Though I admit that it is somewhat difficult to avoid them, I believe that examinations are a great curse in our educational system. I believe that they are injurious not only within the secondary education sphere but also within the elementary education

1775
sphere. My impression may be wrong, but I feel they are probably more injurious in Wales than in other places. For instance, the other day a headmistress in a distressed area was telling me that when a mother brought her boy up to the infants' school on the first day she said to the headmistress, "Here is little Johnnie, get him on, won't you?"—that is, try and drive him so that he will be able to pass the scholarship examination in order to get into the secondary school. There is pressure there. The pressure on the secondary school people is equally bad. Schools are often driven out of the proper path, if I may put it that way, because there are these examinations; and in the distressed areas if a child is to have any chance at all to escape from depressed industries it is most important that it should pass certain examinations. One can understand the pressure.
I am not an expert on this, but I know a boy who is going in for the higher schools examination, and I was looking over his books. He was taking Latin, French, German, English and history. Some of the books the lad was reading were, quite frankly, beyond the experience of a boy of 16. One book was called, "From Laissez Faire to State Control." The book he was reading in English was a novel, "Lord Jim," by Conrad. A young lad. I read a criticism of that book a short while ago and the critic said that it was a book describing how a lad made a terrible mistake in the beginning of his life—he ran away from a sinking ship—and Conrad was dealing with all the psychological reactions of this lad in order to try to rehabilitate his self-confidence. A lad of 16 supposed to be interested in the psychological rehabilitation of someone who had failed at a certain juncture in his life. I do not believe normal children would be interested in that problem.
If the Board of Education will look into it, they will find that the standard of questions set in the higher schools examinations and other scholarship examinations is as high as was the standard in a final, and almost a degree, some time ago. If I may say so to the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, there is only one thing with which I agree in the report of the Chambers of Commerce. I believe there is something in the statement that industry and business
1776
may be filled by men and women who are tired and jaded because of the pressure of secondary schools work and university courses for examinations. The life and verve have gone out of them. The Board of Education have a responsibility in this. They cannot shelter themselves behind the statement, "Oh, the universities are the bosses of this." They must take the responsibility and see to it that examination questions are reasonable and fit in with the level of experience of the children who are taking those examinations.
I am sorry that I could not move my Amendment, but one has to accept the Ruling of the Chair, and I do accept it, but I would like to say this: I often hear it said, or rather suggested, that the cost of education is a burden upon industry. That is the meaning of the Government's pronouncement on this report. I wish we could have attacked the Government to-day, because they are the culprits. The Government say they will not have Chapter 9 because it costs money and the nation cannot afford it. I repudiate the statement that education is a burden. It is not a burden on industry. Education is a servant of industry. It is industry which has been a burden upon education. Oh, yes. Where has industry got its scientific research; where has it got its trained intelligence; where has it got the power that it has to produce in greater and greater quantities at a lesser and lesser cost in human labour? From education, from the secondary schools, from the universities, from the men and the women who have been educated within the State system of education.
It is not true to say that education is a burden upon industry. Industry owes a debt to education, and as surely as this nation denies expansion to the education system as surely will it fall behind in the great industrial race. There is no shadow of doubt about that. It is a great mistake, too, to say that an inordinate amount of money has been going to this service, or to the social services in general. I have found these figures in the Statistical Abstract. In 1913–14 education took 8.84 per cent. of the Budget expenditure. In 1937–38 it took 6.86 per cent. It is taking a lesser percentage of the Budget expenditure. The big increase has come from armaments expenditure and the National Debt. If anybody is looking for the figures that represent the bulk of the

1777
Budget expenditure they will not be found under the heading of the social services in general, or education in particular. The burden lies mainly, all through the post-war years, on the cost of the War Debt service. A nation that refuses to look at those facts, and which says "We must curtail our educational service" on that account, is making a serious mistake. Let there be no mistake about it, the Government have curtailed in that direction. Economy has begun in the educational field; the Government are practising that form of economy already. I am sorry that we are not able, owing to the Rules of the House, to make the attack upon the people upon whom it should be made. The Government are in the dock. We shall see, if they happen to win the next general election, what the real meaning is. It is that we shall have a curtailment of the educational services of this country.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: I am very glad indeed that too much education has not destroyed the verve of the hon. Gentleman and that, in spite of the Rules of Order, he has succeeded in putting a good many people, including the Government, into the dock. I shall return to him later. I would like first, however, to say one or two words in defence of one person whom the hon. Gentleman put in the dock; that is the late Mr. Conrad. I do not think that "Lord Jim" is unsuitable reading for boys of 16. Of course, if you talk to boys of 16 about psychological rehabilitation the boys of 16 will be bored, and so, I think, would men of sense of any age. [Interruption.] Well, that was the critic's description of Mr. Conrad. I dare say that the critic's description would have been extremely unsuitable for schoolboys. I cannot believe that boys of 16 are more interested in anything but the problems of character displayed in narratives of adventure, and surely, therefore, there is nothing to be said against "Lord Jim" as a proper topic for schoolboy reading.
There is one other point in connection with the last speech before I go directly to the reports, and that is the allegation very often made that school-leaving examination questions get more difficult, until now they are as difficult as the final university examination questions used to be. That is true, in a sense and in some
1778
subjects. I remember hearing Sir Joseph Thompson once, and not very long ago, saying that when he was taking his degree he could not have answered any of the questions set nowadays in a physics examination for a Trinity scholarship. That increase in difficulty tends to happen in subjects in which knowledge gets built up. A boy can learn physics much more quickly now than a boy could 20 years ago, and, of course, it is regrettable that a tendency to over-exigent examinings should arise. I do not believe that anything done by the Board of Education or by the universities will ever stop it. It is almost impossible to prevent headmasters pressing and pressing, and examiners from putting in a few difficult questions here and there to spot the best boys. The difficult questions tend to spread until the other kind become very few.
I am sure that it is not true—if this was the intention of the hon. Gentleman—to say that in a general way people taking examinations at the age of 17 or 18 years are capable of answering much more difficult questions than people were 30 years ago. I am certain that that is not true. I may be mistaken, but I have as much experience in this matter as most people. There are few colleges either at Oxford or Cambridge, except a few of the very fashionable ones, which in any year get as many good scholars as they would like to give money to. It is still very striking how few people there really are who can clearly show themselves at the age of 18 years to be fit to be put into what might be called the top scholarship class.
That brings me back to the point at which I had meant to start, that this topic is, in the long run, the most important that we could ever discuss in this House. Accident always seems to result in our discussing it for short periods only. I wish there had been more of the captains of industry who generally adorn our benches present To minutes ago to hear the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) explaining to them how they owe all they are and all they have to chaps like him and me. As a rule we discuss this topic in great haste and in very thin Houses, but it could not be more important than it is at this moment. Whether we like it or not the Spens Report is revolutionary. I am in some slight difficulty; although I can hardly expect the House to believe me, in the

1779
place from which I come the name Spens is regarded with even more respect than it is here, and I approach the report with a certain deference. I am not yet clear whether I think that more than half of it is good or more than half of it is bad, but what I am sure about is that I, like everybody else who has read the report, believe it would make a revolution to enforce it at once as it stands. I think I am the first to say that I have tried to read it all, although I would not swear to every word, and I am sure that it would be a long-range revolution to adopt it as it stands. It could not be more important than it is.
I do not know whether hon. Members remember the eloquent speech made by the Home Secretary in the Second Reading Debate the other day upon his Criminal Justice Bill, and the passage in which he was cheered most widely from every quarter of the House. It was that in which he explained regretfully that indictable crime among boys and girls under the age of 17 was going up rather fast every year and had reached the point when 38 per cent. of all indictable crimes in the country were committed by boys of 17. The point at which the right hon. Gentleman was most cheered by everybody in the House, by everyone I think, except myself, was when he went on to say that nobody would hold the children themselves responsible. He said it was not their fault, and he added:
"The young are not more wicked than they were, but … they are less controlled by their parents.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1938; col. 272, Vol. 342.]
If that be true after two or three generations of compulsory elementary education, and certainly of one quite complete generation, and of primary and widespread free secondary education in this country, and when parents have, as compared with 30 or 40 years ago, more money, more leisure, and fewer children to manage; if, in spite of all those social improvements the parents are worse by what might seem the humble and elementary test of human value, looking after their own children, it is high time we debated education in this House. I hope that some day soon we shall be able to debate it in a full House and at great length, and so that all of us who speak shall not feel
"Time's winged chariot drawing near."
1780
I hope that the hon. Member for Aberavon thinks that quotation is suitable for boys of 16.
The matter is important and could not be more important. There is no doubt that the future of what people call, in political debates, democracy, depends upon it. I am never quite sure myself that I think as highly of democracy as a lot of other people seem to. When people say "democracy," as a rule they generally mean the decencies, and freedoms, and live-and-let-live, and all that side of life which has disappeared very rapidly over a large surface of the world. They are much bigger than democracy and they depend fundamentally upon education.
Some things in the report are no doubt good. I have no doubt that it is good that we should try to work towards what is called parity between grammar schools and the technical high schools. It is not going to be easy to get to that point, but it is good that an authoritative report should set it up as an ideal. Whether the proper age of choosing should be 11 years or 13 years is a very difficult question indeed. I have no doubt that it is also good—in this I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite—to set it up as an ideal that children should receive a secondary education, chosen because of the aptitudes of the children rather than because of their parents' income, and that the school-leaving age should be 16 years. Those are good things to aim at, but they do not represent the whole of this side of the matter, to which I will return in a minute.
I have no doubt that it is also good to divide the school certificate from matriculation. Everybody has exaggerated the wickedness of that bogy, but it is rather a bogy and it is rather wicked. There again, I should be glad to accept the report, but I am not sure whether it is wise to take for granted that it is desirable, as the report has suggested, that children should be encouraged to reflect about political, social and economic problems. I spent most of the time when not in this House trying to teach history to children over 18 years of age, and I am bound to say that I find it extremely difficult. The fundamental difficulty is, of course, that young men of 18, 19, 20 or 21 years of age have not very much idea of what men are, and have no idea at all of what women are. That is why it is the most difficult task in the

1781
world to teach children political, social and economic problems. I am not at all sure that it is not best simply to answer the questions that children put to you and never to start the subjects for them.
If the Board of Education takes the report into serious consideration, as have no doubt it will, I hope that it will accept the gloss which the Commissioners put upon that recommendation, when they say that the best way to deal with this problem in the schools is that children should learn about these things as part of the ordinary life and work of the school and as part of the business of themselves managing their own organisations in the schools. That is the only way in which the thing can be done, in the long run.
Again, we ought to press upon the Board, with our approval here, the Commission's insistence upon the value of the sixth form in schools. My belief is that what matters in schools is what boys learn from other boys, and most particularly what they learn from boys a little older than themselves. That logically means that the sixth form is the one which really matters. I hope that the Board will also take seriously the recommendations of the report about Scripture. There are other things which I would wish to approve in the report, but I want to be as quick about my speech as I can. I must say a few words about the report of the Chamber of Commerce because, although I thought that the hon. Gentleman who spoke from below the Gangway had as neat a hand with a cutting edge as any man I have ever seen upon the vertebrae of a doubtful quadruped, and though I do not want to spend very much time flogging a dead horse, yet I think that that horse ought to have another kick from me, as in private duty bound.
There are one or two doubts and hesitations which I wish to insinuate about this Spens Report, and they centre mostly around what are called the direct grant schools. I am never very good, unless I have it all on paper under my eyes, about the five classifications of the direct and the indirect grant schools, the grant-aided schools and so on. Probably most Members are roughly familiar with it. Shortly speaking, the direct grant schools are mostly the old-established famous grammar schools which for the most part get a quarter, or less than a quarter, of their current income from any public source, most of their income arising
1782
from endowments. It seems to me to be a very dangerous invasion of the rights of corporations—and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will believe that I am just as tender towards the rights of trade unions and friendly societies as I am towards the rights of railway companies or banks—I think this is rather a dangerous invasion of the rights of corporations, particularly when those corporations have done so well. Some of them are almost the most glorious things in the whole history of our education. If I might refer to one, I think that Manchester Grammar School has a title to glory such that only one or two universities—perhaps only one—in this country could with complete confidence advance its banner in competition with it.
Mr. Markham: Which one?
Mr. Pickthorn: These institutions get their capital from endowments; they receive more than three-quarters of their income from endowments. Of course he who pays the piper should call the tune, but, if the fellow who pays about a tenth of the piper is going to call all the tunes, that is going to be a little hard. This particular sort of school is in many ways the most democratic, the most libertarian, has the widest representation of income-background among its pupils; and there is no class of school to which we ought to be more tender. If schools of that sort are to be brought into any scheme based on this report, they must be brought in in a state of confidence that they are being brought into something of which they approve. I feel that at this moment they would not be so confident; a good deal of persuading needs to be done.
For instance, headmasters ought to be much clearer than they can be merely on the basis of the report that they will continue to have a considerable control over their own entry. I mean control rather in the French than in the English sense. I do not mean that they should have absolute control as to who should be admitted. I mean, rather, control in the sense in which the policeman at Piccadilly Circus controls the traffic, although he does not tell the No. 9 bus to go to Wood Green. There ought to be some such control on the part of the headmasters. There ought to be some taking into account of other things than English and arithmetic at the entry stage. I am bound

1783
to say that I am not so frightened of taking family into account as the hon. Member for Aberavon. I have had experience of it myself. I have no shame in saying that, when I was tutor of my college and controlled the entry, I took family into account. Once I thought that I had as reasonable a percentage as I was likely to get of any one class in the community, I always gave preference to other sections. I would take a boy whose father was unemployed before I would take the son of the richest man in England, if I thought the proportions of the college required it, and I did that more frequently than the other way round.
I think there is an excessive fear that the persons managing colleges and universities are going to use that sort of discrimination in a snobbish or improper way. But if you really have such a fear of the people who manage schools and colleges, I do not know why you want to have your children in their almost exclusive control from the age of four to the age of 16. There are many ways in which these schools ought to expect and receive more assurances and more explanation before the scheme as it concerns them is enforced upon them, and most particularly because it is mainly the existence of this sort of school that gives parents some opportunity of choice. A parent, really, does not hesitate between the Lot's Road Secondary School and Eton. There are very few parents who hesitate on that dilemma. But there is a considerable measure of choice which is represented by the existence of independent schools of the type of which Manchester Grammar School is perhaps one of the most glorious examples.
The most important sentence, almost, in the report is one which has not yet been mentioned. It says:
"The second party to be considered is the parent. It must be recognised as a governing principle that parents, over and above their general rights as citizens, have a dominant interest in the education of their own children."
Although lip-service is almost always paid to that principle in these documents, I believe that unless the Board, in basing their policy on the report, in administering it later, and in bringing in any legislation which may be necessary before administration, remember that principle all the time, we shall be doing more harm than
1784
good, and that the eventual revolution will be in the wrong direction.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but there is still one other subject about which, with the indulgence of the House, I should like to speak for five minutes, namely, the document of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. I have the same respect for them which I am sure they have for universities, and I would not for a moment say anything that might involve any risk of our parting brass-rags, but this document seems to me to show what could have been done with a little more education. To begin with, its title is:
"Report on the Commercial Employment of Students with Degrees in Commerce."
So far, however, as one can tell from the rather confused argumentation in the body of the document, it does not mean that at all. It applies, not merely to students with degrees in commerce, but to students with all sorts of degrees. At the bottom of page 1, the statement is made that not more than 130 graduates—presumably not merely commercial graduates—go into commerce and industry. In fact, however, the figures for my own university, so far as is known to the Appointments Board—no doubt 25 per cent., and very possibly 50 per cent., would have to be added—show that from 1902 to 1911 the average number was 37. Just before the War it rose to 128. In the 10 years after the War the average was 184, and in the last 10 years the average has been 233. How, therefore, it is made out that from all the universities of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the sum total of entries into commerce is only 130, I am at a loss to know: nor is it easy to follow the way in which the evidence has been gathered. They speak of having consulted very many firms and so on. My information is that they in fact consulted four, and I am certain, because I have inquired, that many obvious firms have not been consulted.
Their method of gathering evidence is not clear, and their logic is even less clear. In the second paragraph on page 4 they say:
"This low figure is confirmed by the returns from various chambers of commerce. Only a small proportion of these replied at all, so indicating that in the majority of areas there is no employment of graduates."
I think that this is almost the worst non sequitur I have ever seen. There is

1785
a slightly worse one on page 5, where, after all these denigratory negations, they suddenly break into a sort of song and dance without rhyme or reason, and say:
"The sub-committee is in agreement with the suggestion that it would be advantageous to British commerce if a larger proportion of university graduates were recruited."
If, as the Motion asks, the Board of Education take these reports into consideration, I hope they will take the smaller of the two into consideration with a large bucket, of the kind in which A.R.P. sand is kept, but full of salt, under the table. As to the Spens Report I feel rather fifty-fiftyish: I think that on the whole it is probably a good report, but I would particularly plead that, when the Board read it, they will think of the Spens Report as a reminder that the parent ought to have the dominant interest in the education of his children. Further, and connected with that, I hope they will think particularly of the direct-grant schools and the schools in classes 2 and 3 of the Spens Report's classification.
6. I 2 p.m.
Mr. O. Evans: The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) said in the earlier part of his speech that he wanted to have one more kick at one of these documents, and he proceeded to kick it very hard for some minutes. When I read the document some days ago, I wondered how it ever came to be raised to the dignity of being referred to on the Order Paper of this House; it was so obvious that its facts were wrong; and, if the facts are wrong, no one knows where the deductions are. I rise with great hesitation to take part in this Debate, because, in the first place, I do not profess to be an expert in education or in the practice of the profession of education. We have heard in the Debate a series of hon. Members who have spent their lives in education at universities and in schools. I am not one of those, and I do not profess to be; and I am not, therefore, going to deal with the technical aspects of the report. I am one of the very simple industrialists who consider it to be a matter of some importance to have a supply of well educated, well trained people for the purposes of carrying on productive industry and commerce.
I confess that it never occurred to me to think either that education was a burden on industry or that industry was a burden on education. If industry is a
1786
burden on education, and if the leaders in industry are dependent upon hon. Members and others like them who teach and train the youth of this country to come into industry, all I want to say is that it is all-important that the system of education should be efficient and should provide the best material. I look upon the Motion as somewhat weak and colourless, and, although the Amendment, which was more challenging, was out of order, I should have been glad if there had been a discussion upon it, so that we might have got from the Government a real declaration of policy with regard to secondary education. It looks to me as though the Motion had been carefully designed to enable the Government to delay making a definite pronouncement of their policy in regard to education.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) has drawn attention in the terms of the Motion to
"the severity of international competition in trade"
and I can assure the House that the severity of that competition is not growing any less. Then the Motion refers to the necessity of
"a sufficient supply of persons of well-trained character and brains"
for industry and commerce. I happen to have some considerable experience in selecting men for industry and commerce, and I know that both industry and commerce are looking for people of the best brains and character. The source of supply is our own young people. They cannot be imported from abroad. We depend on the home product, and the quality of that must depend on the training given by our educational system. It is all-important, therefore, to have an efficient, well thought-out and coordinated system of secondary education. The Motion and the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor, and the speeches of the other hon. Members, imply that the product we get now in industry is not so good as it might be. The Board of Education appear to think so too, and certainly the Spens Report reflects that opinion. Here we have a report extending over 400 pages, which must have cost a lot of money and on which a host of experts have spent a lot of their valuable time. If the report were equal to the keynote contained in the words which the authors have placed on the title page it would give us some inspira-

1787
tion for the future. There is on the title page a French sentence which is apparently to be the spirit behind our education in future. A literal translation of this sentence is,
"Each person should be within reach of receiving the education which is proper to him,"
or a freer translation, perhaps, would be,
"Each person should be able to receive the education which befits him."
That, obviously, should be the ultimate goal of our system of education. The committee's recommendations are directed towards that. Their object is that no single child should be forgotten in the mass of children. That would mean more and better qualified teachers, smaller classes and better equipped buildings; and that would cost money. If the authors of this report are inspired by the spirit of that French quotation on the title page, we are in for some great additional expenditure on education, better equipped schools, and more and better qualified teachers. I deplore one idea in reference to education, and that is the reference to the expression which is often used, "a liberal education." That seems to be used in the sense of a liberal education for one class only, and something different for the masses. The only way to enable industry to-day to get recruits who are well qualified and prepared for their duties is to see that people have their intelligence broadened and their intellectual equipment enlarged by people of intelligence who possess the faculty of understanding the processes and workings of industry. No one in this House will claim that we have yet reached that high standard. The material from schools is very often poor. The rejections often are many, and although we have the raw material in abundance the means of polishing is not yet perfect.
I consulted the heads of some factories of an engineering character in the industry with which I am concerned. I asked the head of one, "How do you recruit your drawing office staff and the technical juniors in the works?" and his reply was significant. He said, "I always communicate with the headmasters of the schools in the area where the factories are situated, and the headmaster recommends candidates, to whom we give another test, as we find that the position of a boy in the school is no indication of intelligence. A short
1788
intelligence test is applied in all cases. In face of that, what does the hon. Member propose? He proposes simply that the Government should consult the local education authorities and other educational interests, in order to decide what they are going to do with this report. I submit that that is putting the cart before the horse. What the House wants is a declaration from the Government of what they have in view on this report. Let them make their statement, definite and clear, and then submit that to the local authorities for their comments.
I want particularly to refer to that part of the report relating to the problems of Wales, and I want the Minister to bear in mind the remarks I am making on this when he comes to reply. The Consultative Committee of the Board of Education realised that Wales had its own special problems. In spite of that admission, they devote seven pages to dealing with Wales out of over 400 pages. That is in spite of their statement that it is necessary to consider these special problems in applying their recommendations to the schools in Wales. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) mentions the much higher percentage of children who go from elementary schools to secondary schools in Wales than in England. In 1937, the percentage in England was 13.4, and in Wales 25.9, or nearly twice as much. There is also a much higher percentage of pupils who go from the secondary and intermediate schools to universities in Wales than in England. The Government must recognise that Wales has its own special problems. Does the Minister intend to appoint a consultative committee to deal with the problems of Wales?
Mr. Ede: Would they consult in Welsh?
Mr. Evans: They should, otherwise they would not understand the problems. There is the bilingual problem, for one thing. The bilingual problem in Wales implies the right to use the language, not only in commerce and industry but in all public places, in the public services, in councils and in the courts. This House has embarked on a policy with regard to the Welsh language, and it cannot reverse that policy now. It must go forward. It has recognised the language as a cultural means, and as an intellectual test in examinations. It is also recognised as

1789
useful for commercial work in Wales itself. We cannot resist the recognition of this language in all circles. Will the Minister consider the question of Wales again, especially in view of the fact that it has its own Statute, the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, which recognises that the problems of Wales differ in essentials from those of England?
I want to refer only to two other points. The hon. Member for Windsor referred to the impression of a master's personality on a pupil. That is an extremely important feature of school life. The question of personality, whatever anybody says, is extremely important in commerce and industry—that indefinable quality of demeanour and of charm, which is so valuable in the higher ranks of commercial life. That, I am bound to say, plays almost a predominant part in the selection of candidates for the higher posts, particularly in commerce. It does so, indeed, in the selection of candidates, too, for the higher posts of the Civil Service. I remember one instance in my own knowledge in connection with the higher branches of the Civil Service. It was the case of a young Welshman from one of our university colleges who in the examination one year came third in the list. He was rejected on the interview. The second year he came first, and he was rejected on the interview again. That proves that there was a glaring fault in the training of that young man, or stark, staring stupidity on the part of the interviewer.
The same thing occurs in industry. The technical importance of education in this country cannot be exaggerated to-day. Everybody who is in touch with industry realises the difficulties which have been met with in the extensive rearmament programme of this country because products have had to be imported from abroad, from Germany and other countries. There are weaknesses in our structure because they are not being produced in this country, and this country, if it embarks upon a real liberal policy with regard to refugees from Germany and elsewhere, will benefit very considerably. I know from my own experience that even to-day some of the best experts in certain branches of productive industry are settled in this country and that already considerable work is forthcoming. Therefore, let us now take advantage of the opportunity which is given to us.
6.31 p.m.
Mr. Rhys Davies: I have never hesitated to speak in this House more than on this occasion. Perhaps I ought to explain to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville), who moved the Motion, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) is indisposed and consequently I am taking his place. I hesitate to speak because I am the only uneducated person who has so far taken part in the Debate. If hon. Members will take note of the little book that we have here and read the careers of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, they will see that they are practically all scholars and wranglers, whatever the latter may mean. I have, however, as a layman, certain views on education which I would like to put to the House. I have just one qualification for speaking on education and one only. I was a member of the Manchester education authority for many years, and I was privileged in the Manchester City Council to move a motion in 1921, which was carried, to make all places in our secondary schools within the city free without fee, and of all the achievements of which I have been proud in public life, that is almost the greatest. It was left to the party opposite, however, 10 years later to destroy all that, and paying for secondary education is now the vogue, except for what they call special places. Unless I am mistaken, among the many speeches I have delivered in this House this is one of the first, if not the only occasion upon which I have said a word, upon education.
The hon. Member who moved the Motion called our attention to the Spens Report on Secondary Education, and to the report of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. I think we shall find that by this time the report of the Committee of the British Chambers of Commerce has been demolished by ridicule and that there is nothing left of it. They want a new statistician in that Chamber, and unless I am mistaken they want a new secretary, and certainly, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) said, they surely want more education than we see displayed in this report, with which he dealt so very effectively.
I look upon education very largely from my own experience. I left the ele-

1791
mentary school at 12, having learnt the three R's, and I commenced to work; and after the 18 years during which I have sat in the House of Commons I have to make a confession. When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen speak I envy them their knowledge and information, and above all the neat way in which they get hold of the right word and put it in the right place, which I cannot do myself because of lack of education. [HON. MEMBERS: "No.''] That is so, and it is no use blinking the fact at all. I do not know where or when Cromwell was born, and I do not know what Queen Anne's Bounty is either, but hon. Gentlemen around me can quote all these things with ease. I view education as a very excellent walking stick; and I liked one thing above all which the hon. Gentleman put forward in his speech to-day. He emphasised personality, and I am sure he would go further and emphasise character too, especially in the teaching profession. The little knowledge of education that I have leads me to the view that a school depends not only on its location and its tradition, but probably more than anything else upon the spirit and the personality of the master or mistress and the teachers in the school.
I have read portions of the report which we are now discussing and I have my own views upon some aspects of it, but to-day the Debate has turned round the problem of securing better technical education in this country. I suppose that the ruling classes of our country have come to the conclusion that we are being left behind by more skilled and more highly technically qualified peoples in other parts of the world. I have just been to America, and when I knew that the Spens Report had been issued I made some inquiries in America as to what was happening there in education. Quite frankly, although I do not want to be critical of the American citizen, apart from the cultural aspect of his education, I feel satisfied that if he wanted to compete with us in the markets of the world he could defeat us in almost every sphere of life. They pay more attention to education of all kinds. I was told that in the City of New York alone there are 75,000 students in the two universities in that City.
Mr. Pickthorn: Too many.
Mr. Davies: That depends upon the point of view. There are over 2,000,000 students in all the colleges and universities of America. I found something else very interesting that differs from our system. Under the education system in this country—I cannot tell the reason why—when a boy or girl obtains a degree, it is assumed that he or she must enter one of the professions. In America that is not so. I saw Masters of Art and Bachelors of Science behind the counters in coffeehouses and in shops. I am not sure which of the two systems is correct, but I am certain that there is a caste system deep down in the hearts and minds of the people who control the education system of our country.
Hon. Gentlemen shake their heads when we put that point of view, but let me say something else about education. I know this to be the fact. I know parents who have actually borrowed money at exorbitant rates of interest and have mortgaged their own cottages in order to provide the means with which to educate their children. That has happened very often. The one thing that strikes me more than anything else about our education system is that you can actually buy higher education in this country, both secondary, and college and university education, provided you have the money. If there is any protest from these benches that we can make more effectively than anything else, it is that education is still at a premium in this great country. I do not quite understand the attitude of mind of the people who control our education system, because if their speeches in this House counted for anything all higher education would be absolutely free. Take the speeches of hon. Gentlemen in this House to-day. The first speech was as Liberal and almost as Socialist as any speech could be. The hon. Gentleman compared a child of the unemployed person to the child of the rich person, but it is quite different when we come down to finance and administration. The speeches in this House make no difference at all to our education system. The speeches we hear here are not speeches which are translated into our administration. It is very much easier for the rich child to secure higher education, although he may be dull, than it is for the intelligent child of the poor man to secure the same kind of higher education.

1793
I have been trying to find out what is education. I have seen a number of definitions, but I will give my own. As far as I understand it, elementary education simply teaches the boy or girl to earn a livelihood in industry, and that is about all. When a child goes to a secondary school he is compelled to do one thing, which is more important than all the rest. He is taught how to think for himself, and education, in my opinion, means in effect the power and ability of a person to do his own thinking. That is to say, a person may read the "Daily Mail," the "Daily Herald," the "Daily Express," the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Yorkshire Post"—he may read them all—and read "Punch" in addition, and after that is done, he will say to himself, "I will make up my own mind and draw my own conclusions in spite of what anybody else may say about these things." That seems to me to be the essence of education.
In the speeches that have been delivered to-day there was an undue bias towards technical education, though that, of course, is the essence of the Spens Report. I know there is a conflict of opinion—I heard it expressed when I was a Member of the governing body of the Manchester College of Technology—that if you educate a boy or girl up to a given point, you have fitted him or her for almost any vocation; a boy could take up any vocation provided you gave him a general education. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. I remember what used to be experienced. I do not know whether it exists now. There are junior technical schools in some parts of the country.
Sir Joseph Lamb: Not enough of them.
Mr. Davies: I came up against the problem that before a boy in a junior technical school could be admitted into the College of Technology he had to matriculate. I do not know whether that exists now. The argument against that was that the boy in a junior technical school was never taught the subjects that would allow him to matriculate, and that consequently you could have in an industrial town a large number of boys in a junior technical school who were not allowed to proceed to the College of Technology in the same town because they had not matricu-
1794
lated. I come, therefore, to the question of examinations. I am not sure whether a combination of all the examinations is a correct solution, but I am satisfied that, if we are to extend technical education in this country, there ought to be a better relationship between the junior technical schools and the colleges of technology than I found when I last studied this problem.
Let me turn again to secondary education. I am told that only 14 per cent. of the children in England pass from the elementary schools to the secondary schools, and I am authoritatively informed too that at least 75 per cent, of our elementary schoolchildren would benefit by secondary education if they had a chance. In Wales the figure is very much higher, as one might expect. In the last Parliament I do not think there would have been much of a Labour party or a Liberal party without Welshmen; and without being boastful, I may claim that Welshmen acquitted themselves wonderfully well in that Parliament. That is one of the results of better education. It is stated by people who are capable of judging, that 75 per cent. of the elementary schoolchildren of this country, who proceed to industry and work at 4d. or 6d. an hour, would benefit by secondary education.
Let me enlarge upon that point. When we stipulate, as we do now, that a child is to sit for examination for secondary education purposes at the age of 11 or 12, it is assumed that you can determine whether the child at that age will or will not benefit by secondary education. Quite frankly, I think that is wrong. There are children who never develop until they are 15 or 16. There are some who come to this House on to the Tory benches who have never developed until 60, although I must congratulate the Mover of the Resolution, because he has certainly developed. Is it not true that in this discussion we are faced with a very old problem? The industrialists, the financiers and the bankers have suddenly awakened to the fact that we cannot sell our goods in the markets of the world against foreign competition because our workers are not skilled enough. That is behind the whole of this business.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) knows more about the Lancashire textile industry than I do, but if I am correct in my assumption that the

1795
industrialists are becoming afraid that our children are not properly educated on the technical side for the purpose of making industry more successful, then the industrialists must do something else. Apart altogether from the setting up of higher technical institutions for teaching these boys and girls, they must do one thing, for we shall certainly be faced with this problem when the new technical schools are established. We must say whether these children shall enter these technical institutions free of charge or be called upon to pay fees. I know of one concern that has established its own educational institution for the purpose of its own industry. I do not know what is going to be done in respect of these institutions when we proceed with the work that the Spens Committee has advocated.
Let me say a few words on what we called multilateral institutions. I am glad that the hon. Member for Windsor has spoken in favour of one of the main propositions of the Trades Union Congress. They made that suggestion, I understand, to the Spens or the Hadow Committee. The Spens Committee asks for one code. The Trades Union Congress went one step further and asked for one code and one roof. In our education system that problem ought to be inquired into by the Board, because it is clear that if you have three separate institutions under your secondary school code you will have the same differentiation in the minds of the parents as you have now. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member on that point. I know intimately a very splendid new school, which is called a selective central school, and it seems to me that in this new district where this particular school is situated there is no reason why the suggestion made by the hon. Member as to multilateralism should not begin in such an institution.
I might mention one thing that I have learned in my travels. I learn more by travel than by reading. Wherever I go, when I come back to my own country, I am proud of it in comparison with other countries. I never say a word ill of my country when I am travelling in foreign countries, but I will say it here. There is a class division facing you wherever you go in this country. This Eton and Harrow business is more than a name and more than a school. It determines a class distinction in this country, which can be
1796
found even inside this House of Commons, and I want to protest against it. If the Spens Committee's report can do anything more than other reports, it ought to aim at democratising our education system.
There is a new problem which faces us now. I represent, unfortunately, and yet fortunately, one of the poorest districts in the country, where unemployment among men has been about 50 per cent. for the last eight or 10 years. I know one distressed area where a little child, almost a baby, passing out of standard I, was asked by the teacher: "What would you like to be when you grow up?" The child answered, "I want to work on the dole, like father." That is a new problem in education, which we find in the distressed areas. Hon. Members who come from the rich parts of the country talk of free places in secondary schools. Let me tell them that there are thousands of people in my Division whose children under the present system will never receive any higher education at all.
The distribution of wealth in this country is such that the rich are becoming richer, just as the poor are becoming poorer. When I say that, hon. Members will reply that the poor are not poorer than they were before. Of course, they are not. They are better off than they used to be, but poverty must not be measured by the poverty of to-day in comparison with that of 50 years ago; it must be measured by the poverty which prevails side by side with the riches of the country, and when we measure poverty from that angle, the working classes of this country are poorer than ever they were. When the Minister deals with the question of higher education, free places and special places he must remember that there are patches in this country which so far as educational facilities are concerned are in an intolerable plight. I appeal to him—he is a young man, very much younger than I am—that in his work at the Board of Education he will remember these patches of poverty in our own land, where children will not get secondary education unless he alters his policy.
6.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): This is almost a unique

1797
occasion, at any rate for many years, in that we have had a Debate this afternoon on the subject matter of education. The subjects with which I have to deal in answer to questions in this House refer to milk, school buildings, teeth, and so forth, which are extremely important, but to-day we have got rather nearer to a Debate on the essence of education than I can remember for many years past. It was also interesting to hear one whom I may call a layman, from the benches opposite, winding up for the Opposition, because, much as I regret that many other speakers were not able to address the House, there was a slightly new note in some of the remarks which the hon. Member made. I must take exception to one sentence which he uttered. He said that he had just returned from the United States of America—I am not sure how long he was there—and that if they wanted they could beat us on any subject, because of their better education system. I have been in every State in the Union of America, and in a great many universities there, and I lived there for several years, and I do not for one moment think the hon. Member's statement is true. It is true to say that in America they have more of what one might call the broad highway—
Mr. Rhys Davies: What I meant was that in relation to the practice of industry they are better qualified, technically. That is what I meant.
Mr. Lindsay: I dispute the statement equally on that ground. Although in America they have their open, broad highway, so that every child born, say, in the State of Nebraska is a prospective Bachelor of Arts of that State, every year they are specialising and selecting in order to keep the highest standard of product going through their secondary schools to the universities.
In regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's speech, which dealt with the class system, as he called it, in this country, I should like to say a few words in relation to the Spens Report. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville), who has many old pupils among our colleagues in this House, for giving us this chance of a preliminary skirmish, for that is what it is, on the report of the Consultative Committee. The Consultative Committee is a permament committee. Ministers are apt to change at
1798
the Board of Education. Therefore, we must have something permanent. The committee goes on and has been working for the last five years preparing its report, and I think it is a tribute to the value of the report and the prestige of the chairman that in the Official Orders of this House it is now known as the Spens Report. We were all delighted to note the recent honour which Sir William Spens has received.
The report can be divided into three parts, relating to the past, the present and the future. I want, if I can, to avoid as much educational jargon as possible and try to discuss the report in the human terms of children and schools. The first part is the historical section. It traces the whole history of the grammar school from the Middle Ages, and I would commend this learned chapter to all those who are interested in the social history of the country. It is a very remarkable document. Secondly, there is the section which deals with the curriculum, technical high schools and the school certificate. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) have referred to the technical high schools and multilateralism. The position of direct grant institutions was referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), and they include bodies like Manchester Grammar School and Bradford Grammar School, which have most glorious traditions in the education system of this country. The questions relating to these institutions and the private schools will, of course, be dealt with by the Board as soon as possible. I think, however, sufficient difference of opinion has been shown here this afternoon to make it clear that the Board of Education is not going to make up its mind next week or the week after, on technical high schools and multilateralism. There are subtle questions involved and I am myself by no means convinced by several parts of what is said. What the committee does, however, is to carry rather further much what teachers and administrators have been feeling and saying for some time past.
The third part of the report deals with administration. I am not sure whether most hon. Members know that the Board of Education does not exercise direct control over education in this country. There are 315 local authorities, and of these about 170 are called Part III authorities

1799
which control elementary education. There are also about 140 which are called Part II authorities and which control both elementary and higher education. In Chapter IX of this report we seem to be ascending the Mount of Pisgah and seeing about 140 Part II leopards lying down with 170 Part III lambs in the promised land where Regulations and Burnham Scales will cease from troubling. It is an ideal picture, but everyone with specialist knowledge must be aware that we are entering on a very difficult field if we think that we can immediately out very much of this chapter IX into operation. I think much in it will make an appeal to all of us. We have in this country a very untidy system of education. Anyone who has read the historical section of this report will see that the reasons for this are obvious. We have inherited a long and varied tradition, where a strong voluntary system and old foundations exist side by side with schools which have been built since 1902. It is part of the English way of life to devise appropriate methods to suit particular needs irrespective of whether they fit neatly into the system.
I go further and I say that the real issue is not between the old and the new. The real issue here is between national organisation and local character. Efficiency demands system and system demands uniformity and uniformity ousts local character. Therefore, there is a much more fundamental issue than may at first sight appear to some hon. Members, and much as I would sympathise with the plea of the hon. Member for Aberavon for a more national scheme in this country, and I shall come to that in a moment, I agree with the statement which he made towards the end of his speech, that it is wrong that a child born in one area should have a less chance than a child born in another area. But the reason for that is that we have 315 local education authorities with something like autonomy over a very wide field of their administration and whatever the arguments for unifying secondary education I would make this generalisation, that regulations must follow realities, and not precede them. There is no good in calling things the same when they are utterly different. With regard to the point about Wales raised by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans), whose
1800
speech was one of the few which faintly supported the Chambers of Commerce report, a question which the hon. Member for Aberavon also mentioned, while the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) spoke of the distressed areas generally—it is true that Wales has a higher percentage of secondary schools, but 30 per cent. of the boys and 31 per cent. of the girls leave before the age of 16, and that is not secondary education.
Mr. Cove: That is due to poverty.
Mr. Lindsay: It may be, but do not let us confuse two different things. There are plenty of areas in England where comparable education is being given in schools which are not called secondary schools, and in saying that I speak from what I have seen up and down the country in the last two or three years. Let me take one example. We are in the middle of reorganising our elementary schools. Reorganisation does not mean just segregating the older children. It means putting into practice a curriculum which is suitable not only to the town but to the countryside, and suitable for children between 11 and 15. Much of the reorganisation at present is, indeed, makeshift.
Mr. Cove: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman that the senior schools to which he refers are equal in curriculum and in all respects to Welsh secondary schools?
Mr. Lindsay: I did not say so. What I said was that in certain areas, work was going on in schools which were not called secondary schools which was comparable with the work being done in schools in Wales, which are called secondary schools. With the children leaving the schools before 16, I think that is very obvious.
To associate the senior school at this stage with the more academic curriculum and the external certificate examination of the secondary schools, would be disruptive and harmful. Apart from this personal view, there is the question which the hon. Member for Aberavon also raised of finance. I would like him to believe that it is not only a question of the different standards. I do not think we have achieved anything like parity yet, but there is the question of local expenditure. Ask any local authority whether even if

1801
there were agreement on the measures to be taken they would be prepared to face the heavy additional expenditure that would be involved in Chapter IX of the report. The President of the Directors' Association only the other day asked for what he called "a close season for new educational proposals." I think I see his point, and I do not think that will deflect us from going ahead immediately we see the way.
But even if we could get the extra money required, I would not advise spending it on more secondary education or on the proposals in Chapter IX. At present hon. Members opposite at Question Time, frequently ask me whether we cannot improve conditions in the schools. I say bluntly that I think it would be more prudent to spend that money on objects that would give immediate benefit to the children—improved conditions in the schools, and a more complete system of nutrition and greater opportunities for the poorer children to get higher education. Those three things, in my opinion, come before putting into practice vast new administrative schemes.
Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Board would be prepared to allow a local authority to do those things?
Mr. Lindsay: I think that is a fair question. I say that at the present moment I would sooner see those things done first, but I have something further to say, and I would ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to bear with me in saying it. I think it is impossible to go very much further in educational changes in this country without a reconsideration of the financial relations between the central and the local government. I do not believe that many local authorities, including those in the distressed areas, could bear the expenditure. Therefore I am glad to think that there are informal conversations going on now between the Board and the representatives of the local education authorities.
My last word on this part of the subject is that we are spending now probably more money on education in this country than we have ever spent before. This year will be the highest and we are spending more on a smaller number of children. It is perfectly true that the proportion, as between elementary and secondary capital expenditure, has changed and as the hon.
1802
Member opposite mentioned the fact I will give him the exact figures. Last year the percentages were about 72 for elementary and 18 for secondary. This year about 80 per cent. is for elementary and 13 per cent. for secondary. I hope that I have killed, once and for all this bogy about economy. There is no economy whatever on capital expenditure in education. There is a change in the distribution of the balance as between elementary and secondary but the total is higher than it has ever been before, and as statements have been made about this all over the country, it is only right that I should make it plain that, as far as we are concerned, economy has not yet started at the Board of Education and I think it is a little unfair of hon. Members opposite to represent in the country that we are economising on education.
Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is the hon. Gentleman proud of the fact that there is no economy?
Mr. Lindsay: I was not particularly going into the question of pride. I was trying to correct a misrepresentation which has been going about the country. I would very much like to discuss with the hon. and gallant Member the question of whether or not we are getting value for this expenditure but that is a different question, and one day I hope the House will discuss it.
Now I come to the question of commerce and the Motion. I think the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University have so hammered and deflated the Chambers of Commerce report that there is little left for me to say about it. But I think the subject is more important than the document. What do we mean by commerce and by education for commerce? As I understand it, we are not talking about technical education. The hon. Member for Westhoughton went into that in some detail, but it is not "on the agenda" on this occasion. We are dealing here with professional and semiprofessional occupations such as banking, insurance, accountancy, transport, office work—which may be with merchanting firms or on the sales side of industrial firms—salesmanship, retail and distributive trades, buyers, importers and exporters and the rest, and I would ask the House to beware of having a too rigid system in this country. We do not edu-

1803
cate for a specific thing. We like to keep what is called "vertical mobility," or the chance to rise and to change jobs.
Secondly, what do we mean by education for commerce? There are several different stages at which a person enters commerce. There are those who go into commerce from the elementary schools as most children do—I should say 90 per cent. There are those who go in from what are called junior commercial schools, of which there are only about 50 in this country with an annual output of about 3,000 children.
Sir Percy Harris: And there are the central schools.
Mr. Lindsay: I am glad that the hon. Baronet reminded me of that. There are also entrants from the central schools, especially in London; there are the secondary schools, and finally there are the universities. There is one rather important aspect of commercial education which has been glossed over to-day, and is not particularly mentioned in the Spens Report, and that is part-time education. Hon. Members in London will know of the excellent work of the City of London College, and there are other such colleges of high standing in the provinces. They do a good deal of part-time work. There are no less than 500,000 entries for evening courses in this country in professional and commercial subjects. I would appeal to hon. Members and I wish there were more of them who have a first-hand acquaintance with business to help us in framing appropriate schemes for the training of young workpeople. I think it will be agreed that on broad lines we have been greatly helped by the Certificates in Commerce. Now with the help of the Chambers of Commerce there is a national scheme.
I am a warm advocate, as a matter of principle, of part-time education for commerce, for industry and for agriculture, and I look forward to the day when very boy and girl in this country will spend at least one day or its equivalent in some form of school, as is done at Rugby, and as is done in some parts of Central Europe to-day, and by some of the more enlightened firms in this country. In addition to the subjects taken, I should like to see some time given to physical exercises, and what I would call in the broadest sense, training in some element-
1804
ary notion of what citizenship means to-day.
I propose now to concentrate on the more complicated subject of secondary schools. The hon. Member for Windsor, whose experience goes back so far, will remember that when he was a member of the Secondary Schools Examination Council a more or less standard curriculum was set up. A new type of school was coming in, and the school certificate was invented. On the whole, the secondary schools have done very good work, as Sir Cyril Norwood mentioned the other day, but since the War certain new factors have come on the scene. What are they? The first is that secondary schools have become more closely linked with the universities. One of the reasons for that is that a successful school is apt to be measured by the number of scholarships it wins at a university. Another reason is that most of the teachers being university men think a university education is the culmination of a secondary school career. Then a greater percentage of pupils have tended to enter professional, commercial or clerical occupations. In 1921, about 26 per cent. went into commerce, the professions and clerical work, but the figure last year was 42 per cent. I do not propose to analyse this increase, but my suspicion is that it is due to an increase of boys and girls going into the Civil Service. I am not sure that it is evidence that these schools are more closely linked with commercial life.
Lastly, educational opinion has moved steadily in favour of greater attention being given to the needs of the individual child. Evidence of this can be seen in the recent changes in the school certificate, which was carried out as a result of overwhelming public opinion and endorsed by the Spens Committee. These factors, among others—one has been mentioned by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, the increasing severity of foreign competition—have only underlined the need for a review of our system, and to show that we are alive to that need I will mention four valuable reports. There was the report in 1931 of the Committee on Education for Salesmanship, presided over by Sir Francis Goodenough; the report of the Committee on Post-Certificate Education for Commerce; and the very interesting report, issued last year, on the Organisation and Curriculum of the Sixth Form,

1805
in which a special chapter was devoted to commercial work which I commend hon. Members to read. Finally, we have the two reports which hon. Members have been considering to-day. If hon. Members read nothing else, I would beg them to read Chapter IV of the Spens Report. I doubt whether there is more wisdom in any document which has come from the Board of Education for many years than there is in this document. Let me quote one passage:
"The advance in technological knowledge and practice in the last 40 years has been greater than in the whole previous history of our civilisation."
That is a very big statement, and should be reflected in our educational system. The second paragraph is even more interesting to me:
"There are, in fact, minds whose energies are released only by studies which have the directly envisaged goal of a vocational training. In such cases the vocational education is in the fullest sense liberal."
If Spens had said nothing else, I should be grateful to him for that because it helps to break down that hideous divorce between so-called vocational and so-called cultural education. Let me read two other passages:
"The curiosity of children of secondary school age about the practical concerns and activities of the great world is frequently so strong as to amount to a passion."
"For the majority of pupils we think that the school itself should adopt a unified principle in its curriculum, and we recommend that it be found in the teaching of English."
If only a larger number in our schools could speak the English language and did not have their appreciation of literature ruined by text books, this beautiful language would be more appreciated in commerce. The report goes on to deal with mathematics and science, commercial subjects and geography, and the rural colour—this will please the hon. Member for Windsor—which should distinguish secondary schools in the country districts. That does not mean that you should teach milking, but that you should take advantage of the fact that many of these old schools are to be found in some of the most beautiful parts of England.
I think I can sum up our attitude towards training for commerce in secondary schools in this way. The basis must be a good general education, but a special bent can be given in secondary schools towards commerce. It is quite possible, without adopting such monstrosities as
1806
"Commercial English or French," to teach subjects like geography and mathematics in a broad way so as to arouse interest in the world of commerce. I should deprecate, as a general rule, the teaching of office arts in secondary schools before 16. They can be much better taught elsewhere; but one must also recognise that such teaching is given and that nearly 2 per cent. of the entrants for the School Certificate took what are called commercial subjects last year. It is up to us to see that the conditions under which such training is given are satisfactory. Finally, there is a definite place—I am speaking for the Board of Education—for a one-year course for persons between 16 and 17 years of age who are going into commerce. Perhaps hon. Members who are interested in this point will read the section on such courses in the pamphlet to which I have already referred. Commerce has always been a suspected intruder. It has, by a rather hole-and-corner way, got into the school premises; it has been identified with typing and shorthand, and thought unworthy to rank with more academic careers. This will not do. Education for commerce is only one form of a more modern outlook in all secondary education.
Before I pass on to say a few words about the universities I want to make this general observation. It is not my place—it belongs to the province of the Board of Trade—to interpret the meaning of the phrase "growing severity of international competition in trade," but I have discussed this problem with many business men, and also observed on the spot in South America and in the Dominions some of the remarkable changes which modern business concerns who have maintained their markets have made in their whole technique. In these businesses nothing is left to chance from market research and sales-planning to salesmen with a profound technical knowledge of their product. It would seem that successful firms take infinite trouble over training their own members, and what they ask from public and secondary schools, and to a less extent universities, is young men with real personality and a capacity for hard work, a higher percentage of the best product of our schools. This means, in effect, that this country can no longer live on the accumulations of the past, when we opened up the world with our shipping, our insurance, our

1807
banks and our exploitation of the mineral resources of the Empire. We have now to take our coats off and face an entirely new world competition. We are literally fighting for our lives, and we do no harm in reminding the growing generation of that fact. Indeed, it should be reflected throughout the whole of our educational system. How are our colleges and universities facing this situation?
I am not going into detail into the question of the training for business in our universities. They are autonomous bodies and do not come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Education, but they are, I understand, fully aware of the importance of the questions at issue. In my own experience, whether it is among the building trades or the Co-operative movement, or what is known as "the City," a very big factor in job-finding is the influence of the family and relations. That is true of commerce, of all shades of commerce, because family businesses are still very much in vogue of which no appointments board can possibly have complete knowledge. But there is rather more to it than that. It is only in very large concerns, large enough to be almost like the Civil Service that there is a wide range of occupations for a man with a university degree, unless he is a chemist, a scientist, an accountant or a lawyer. It is for these reasons that firms recruit more and more from the secondary schools and then train the man in their own business, rather than take him from the university.
It has been my privilege to see during these last 18 months every type of school all over the country, including that controversial but quiet part of England represented, Mr. Speaker, by yourself. It is no accident that we live in an age of inquiry. Among the inquiries of to-day the Spens Report stands out as a classic document which will be read wherever the English tongue is spoken. When we have said all we can about education, commercial education, industrial education, and agricultural education—and it needs saying—you cannot measure the fruits of education in commercial terms. Character and tolerance, decency between man and man, clarity of mind—these are the imponderables and they weigh mightily in war as well as in peace, in commerce and industry, as also in our daily conversation and social life. For these reasons I
1808
am glad there is to be no Division in this House to-night, and I hope hon. Members will go away and re-read the Spens Report.
Resolved,
"That, in view of the growing severity of international competition in trade and the consequent need to attract into the service of commerce and industry a sufficient supply of persons of well-trained character and brains, this House considers it desirable that the Board of Education should consult with the local education authorities and the other educational interests for the purpose of determining how far the recommendations of the Spens Report on Secondary Education and the Report of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on the Commercial Employment of Students with Degrees in Commerce, or modifications of such recommendations, should be carried into effect."

DISSEMINATION OF NEWS.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: I beg to move,
"That, in the light of the considerable activity of various foreign governments in the field of propaganda by means of the Press, broadcasting, and films, this House urges the Government to pay more attention to publicity and to render wholehearted moral and financial support to schemes which will make certain of the effective presentation of British news abroad."
In these days of rapidly-moving events throughout the world, it is essential that other countries should know exactly what Great Britain thinks, and exactly what Great Britain proposes to do in any given set of circumstances. In the past, there was no need to explain ourselves to the world. It was sufficient that a certain number of people in high places in Governments abroad understood, to a certain extent, what Great Britain stood for and what she had achieved. But those days are gone, by reason of the great scientific developments which have taken place. It is essential now that the masses of the people in foreign countries should understand as much as we can make them understand of our institutions and traditions. It is not merely a question of day-to-day news being "put over." It is of no use, in giving a report of such and such a set of facts, to state only the bald facts; for it is essential, if those facts are to be clearly understood, that we should make foreign newspapers understand also that they should print those facts in the light of the background which our national institutions give to them.

1809
For instance, shortly after the September crisis there was a great deal of talk in certain circles that this country would do well to adopt conscription. We know that very sooon that idea was dropped, and it was made quite clear that in this country we had no need to adopt conscription, except in time of war. Yet one can see now in foreign newspapers the headline—"British Government declines to accept conscription, in spite of the lessons of the crisis." I maintain that such a headline would never appear if those countries clearly understood what we really can do in Great Britain through voluntary effort, without there being any need for compulsion.
When I was fortunate enough to secure a place in the Ballot, numerous representatives of the Press asked me whether it was my intention to urge upon His Majesty's Government the need for a Ministry of Propaganda. I hastily assured them that that was far from being my intention. I remember that last November the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) addressed a question to the Prime Minister, asking him whether it was his intention to set up a Ministry of Propaganda, and the Prime Minister replied that it would be extremely dangerous to set up any Ministry which might give foreign nations the idea that we were likely to impose any form of compulsion or censorship on the Press. On the whole, I think it is true to say that in this country we have a most excellent Press. It does its best to obtain the best news possible and to present it, at any rate in the news columns, in a clear and unbiased fashion. What is written in the leaders is entirely the concern of the proprietors and a matter of their policy; but as regards the news itself, I think we may say that we get news which is as good as, if not better than, that in any other country. But it is essential, in these times, that the Press should be as careful as possible not to print anything which is likely to inflame international relations. The Press in this country has grown up under our great system of private enterprise of which we have always been, and still are, naturally, so justly proud—although perhaps not all hon. Members will share that point of view. Whatever we do, and whatever means we adopt, to make sure that British news and publicity gets abroad, we must not do it by controlling and
1810
fettering the Press, or by doing anything of that description. It has always been our policy in everything in this country to build on what exists, and not to make new machinery.
The field of publicity may be conveniently divided into three sections—politicial, commercial, and what I will call, for want of a better word, although I do not like it, cultural. Political publicity is achieved by means of Debates in this House, by the speeches of Ministers in the country, and by the information which the Departments of State hand out to the Press. Commercial publicity is brought about by the efforts of private firms, making their own publicity and publishing it in this country and abroad. In these days, however, I suggest that that is really not enough to achieve the end in view, and that, just as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said the other day that it is absolutely necessary that the commerce of this country should get together and go in for collective bargaining, so it is necessary, I think, that commerce should go in for collective publicity. I know that these things have arisen as a result of systems of government in foreign countries, with which we do not agree; but still, I feel that even the worst system may perhaps have something in it from which we can learn. If we adopted in this country some of the things which have been done with great success in Germany and Italy by way of collective publicity, I think we should do a considerable amount of good for commerce in general.
With regard to cultural publicity, I would like to say a few words about a great and growing institution which is coming more and more into the public eye, not only in this country but throughout the world, namely, the British Council. The aim of the British Council is to make Great Britain and British literature, art, music, and everything connected with this country, known to all types of foreigners. I submit that there could be no better object than that for which the British Council exists. Proof that the British Council is accepted as a national institution now is to be found in the fact that upon its directorate are Members not only of the Government, but of His Majesty's Opposition.
Of course, the trouble is, as with all things that do good, that it is very diffi-

1811
cult to get money for the British Council. Although I would not like to say that the Government have been niggardly as far as the British Council is concerned, a great deal more money is necessary if its objects are to be achieved. Three or four years ago the Government's grant to the British Council amounted to about £5,000, but last year it amounted to £110,000, and by means of private subscriptions, the money which the council has available amounts to a little under £200,000. This is not nearly sufficient for the work which the council seeks to do. For instance, last year it spent £2,000 in placing British books and periodicals in the libraries of Europe and a great deal more in teaching English and English subjects in many of the countries of Europe. In Athens and Bucharest, the council has instituted chairs of English. All these things cost a great deal of money, but they do a great deal of good. In Athens, 4,000 pupils are studying at the English School under the auspices of the British Council. The council also sends various prominent men on lecture tours in different countries in Europe and other parts of the world. Another field which the council has to tackle, and which I submit very badly needs tackling, is in South America. There is in South America a great deal of foreign propaganda of a type for which we do not particularly care, and it is time that, in South American countries, Great Britain was made very much better known than she is. So much for the sources of national publicity.
As regards the dissemination of news, there is, of course, the telegraph and the cable—about which other hon. Members who are more qualified than I am to deal with the subject will speak perhaps—the foreign Press, broadcasting, and films. All of these should be used to the utmost capacity. We know that in other countries of Europe these means are used for making known to the people exactly what their Governments want them to think, and also for making the nationals of other countries know what those particular Governments want them to think. The value of broadcasting cannot be placed too high. It permeates the homes of countless thousands of people and enables them to hear British news, and to appreciate it. I am sure that many hon. Members who have friends who have returned
1812
either from Germany or Italy can testify to the enormous amount of good which these broadcasts are doing in making known in those countries exactly what Great Britain stands for. In connection with that, I would like to make one point. Let us have more broadcasts to foreign countries in their respective languages, but, above all, let them be free from any form of bias whatever. Let them be confined to the strict news and let them be non-controversial as far as possible. I think it is of paramount importance, also, that they should not be made in such a way that they attack the institutions existing in those foreign countries.
The subject of films is very important, and here a great deal has yet to be done. It is essential that if other countries are to appreciate historical facts, they should have good British films shown to them. Friends of mine have told me how very greatly such films as "Victoria Regina" and "Sixty Glorious Years" have been appreciated in foreign countries, and I hope that when my noble Friend replies to-night he will be able to tell us what steps are being taken to make more effective the spread of British films abroad. I know that there is a committee sitting under Sir Robert Vansittart which has this particular object in view, and we should like to know something of what the work of that committee consists. I had one experience myself of the effectiveness of British films abroad. About 18 months ago a few other Englishmen and myself were in a room in Germany and were being introduced to Herr Hitler, and the man next to me happened to be Mr. Yeats-Brown, who, as the House is aware, wrote "The Lives of a Bengal Lancer." When the Führer was introduced to him he remembered the name at once, and said, "That is a film which should be seen by every German." There was a tribute to British propaganda right from the very highest source in Germany. I respectfully submit that we cannot estimate too highly the effect of good British films upon foreign nations.
Mr. Bracken: That film was made in America.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: I agree. I do not mind so much where the film is made, provided it puts over what we in England know to be truly British. Before I conclude I would like to draw the attention of the House to this rather important

1813
fact. Taking into account the amount of money which the Government spend upon the British Council, from what inquiries I have been able to make I have discovered that the total expenditure of the Government upon news services, publicity and everything connected therewith for foreign consumption is something rather under £500,000. Well, it does seem to be a fantastically small amount of money—the cost, say, of a destroyer, or of 20 heavy bombers. I was told by one hon. and gallant Member of this House to-night that a destroyer costs £80,000 a year to run. I am sure the House will agree that the sum I have mentioned is a very small amount of money to be spent on something which, if properly organised and properly done, would, I believe, mean that we should need to spend far less money on destroyers and bombers. I am sure we should like to know from my Noble Friend when he replies exactly what the Government are prepared to do in order the further the aims mentioned in this Motion.
7.49 p.m.
Mr. Palmer: I beg to second the Motion.
I am very pleased indeed to have this privilege. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the words that appear in the earlier part of the Motion—"in the light of the considerable activity of various foreign governments in the field of propaganda." Propaganda is, of course, no new phenomenon. I remember that when I was a very small boy at school it always seemed to me, when I used to read about Cæsar coming out of winter quarters, that he was always engaged exhorting his legionaries to further assaults on the Gauls of those days. Even after the time of the Great War propaganda was generally a feature incidental to war, whereas to-day it seems to have become a pervading feature of every-day life throughout the world. I think this change can be attributed to two causes. In the first place science has placed at man's disposal—and he has misused it—the means for the rapid transmission and powerful presentation of impressions, whether those impressions be true or false; and in so doing science has given man a weapon. Propaganda is no less a weapon that is a bullet. The two differ in this respect, that whereas the target tries to avoid the bullet, propaganda is only successful if the target is a
1814
willing target. But, for all that, propaganda is no less deadly to the lives of nations than are other forms of aggressive weapons.
The second cause of the change is that this weapon, once having been formed, has become indispensable to the rulers of certain kinds of States. Dictatorship is in large degree ruled by propaganda. If one studies the immense propaganda machines which have been created by the Governments of Russia, Italy and Germany, to mention only three, one thinks one is living in a world of complete fantasy. But the aim of these machines—they are more or less successful—is always the same, and that is to produce an absolutely centralised, unified, single control of all the impressions that may influence the people living in those countries, particularly the young people. It was not for nothing that Dr. Goebbels boasted that he would play on his propaganda instrument in the same way as a musician plays on a piano. The object of these instruments is two-fold—to maintain power within the country and to extend power beyond its borders.
Of course we are not in this country concerned with the internal affairs of other countries, but these propaganda machines do concern us in more than one way. First, they concern us as to what kind of impression is made on the peoples living in those countries about our affairs. We are also naturally very concerned by any attempt that may be made to use these machines for the extension of power beyond the borders of those countries. This latter may take the form of trying to organise the national minorities in other countries to disrupt their Governments—to exercise this new technique of aggression without war. This technique can possibly be extended into many spheres where so far it has not been greatly exercised—in certain areas of Europe, in South America and in North Africa, where such propaganda may have great effect.
I would like to give the House examples of the kind of think that is being done. At Zeesen, the short wave station in Germany, broadcasts are sent out for practically 24 hours every day on 14 different wavelengths to countries of the British Empire. Broadcasts are also sent out from Germany in Portuguese and Spanish for Central and South America for something like 16 hours every day.

1815
The programmes, of course, are varied. There is a lot of entertainment, music and so forth, but always the element of tendentious news is liable to crop up. In one of the South American countries there are even organised bodies of listeners to these broadcasts. In other countries of South America there have been distributed in large quantities cheap, small receiving sets which are capable only of receiving broadcasts from Germany. That is one example, but there are many others.
Take the broadcasts from Rome. These, on short wave or ultra short wave, go out in 19 or 20 languages. From Russia similarly there are broadcasts in some 16 languages; and it is not unamusing that it is a criminal offence in Germany to listen in to Moscow. Other methods of course are used, but I believe that throughout the world there are some 1,700 news agencies which receive their news by wireless from Germany and 150 of these are in the United States. Every kind of channel for propaganda is used—documentary films, written articles, trade exhibitions and so forth. But the point about it is the fact that many millions of money are spent by these Governments on this propaganda service, and that money would not be spent by those Governments unless it had a definite political objective.
We have to ask ourselves, what are the motives and what the effects of these efforts? Of course, when they come from Russia, when they are designed to advance the interests of the Comintern, we know that they are directed against many countries besides ourselves, and though they have very sporadic success they are intensely dangerous. But apart from Russia, there seems in other countries to be a deliberate attempt to create a picture of the British people as being an effete race, poor in arms, flabby rather than free, possessing still nominally an Empire which they have in fact already virtually lost, and declining in their industrial and commercial power, largely, or at any rate partly, owing to the influence of Jews. In fact there is a theme being presented to the world of the decay and dissolution of democracy. On the other hand, by contrast there is being presented a picture of new races arising, virile, dynamic, marching to the succession of the British Empire under the guidance of great and
1816
sacred leaders. I do not think I have exaggerated the kind of picture which it is attempted to draw in foreign countries about ourselves.
So the question arises what is to be our attitude towards these efforts. I suggest that we cannot be indifferent. Equally we cannot make any easy assumption that people who matter really understand what good people we are. Nor do we want to indulge in retaliation or recrimination. We do not want to resort to methods of distortion or suppression, but we do want to make sure that we make a deliberate projection of this people and of our Empire in a dignified way, hiding nothing, not seeking to conceal our imperfections, but presenting to the world a picture of what we believe we do contribute to the common stock of civilisation. We look around, and we see that there are many materials ready to hand for this purpose. We have only to consider what a picture we can make if we present the truth that our freedom is not flabbiness but flexibility, which gives us strength. We have our unique contributions to the art of government in our Empire relations, we have our Defence services—and I trust the White Paper which has gone out this evening will not pass unnoticed in any country in the world—we have all our social services, our literature, our art, our countryside, and all the rest of it.
These things are the material which we not merely can, but must, use in order to build up and mould together a coherent, unified picture, not a series of disjointed ideas, but a unified picture of a great Empire founded on order and freedom, virile as ever in arms, in commerce, in art, and in civilisation, and above all prepared to devote all its forces to the pursuit of peace. It is some such picture as this that we want to see formed in the minds of people throughout the world by the Government and through the agencies to which my hon. Friend refers in his Motion; and I am convinced that we can be successful, for this reason, that in building up this picture we can at the same time make it interesting and make it true. It is only if it is interesting and true that it can be of lasting value as a background to the constant and continuous presentation of a stream of news such as is visualised by my hon. Friend.
But do not let us stint our efforts in this direction. Do not let us have any

1817
false sentiment about truth prevailing by some inherent power within itself. This is a matter, not merely of quality, although quality is of superlative importance, but of quantity too. There has always been much talk about "a place in the sun." We want a place, not merely in the sun, on the sea, in the air, even in the ether, but we must have a place also in the minds and hearts of the peoples throughout the world, and we must make a deliberate effort to create the right impression in those minds. I do not need to go through all the methods which are open to us and which we have traditionally relied upon to create the right impression, but I would like to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of giving this continuous service of interesting, straight, accurate, reliable, and regular news to countries where the people may well be deprived of such service in the ordinary course.
We have, as everyone knows, these foreign broadcasts in Arabic, in Spanish and Portuguese to South America, and in German and Italian, and I think it is very interesting, in trying to gauge to some extent the effects of some of these broadcasts, to have noticed a report which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" recently of an article in a German newspaper, which complained—as indeed Herr Hitler, in his speech of 30th January, complained—of the British broadcasts in German. It is interesting to reflect on that, because it means that these broadcasts must be so well known among Germans that those who control the Press in Germany are not afraid to give them a free advertisement; and by contrast it is interesting to ask oneself how many people in this country know that German and Italian stations send out English news for our benefit. It is encouraging to think that we are really, by these broadcasts, meeting a genuine and perhaps increasing demand.
In conclusion, I would like to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said about not creating any elaborate machinery, or any ministry, of propaganda in this country. What we want to do is to extend our efforts on the lines on which they are already laid down. It may be that it would be a possible or desirable plan—I do not seek to judge of it either way—for the Government to give some assistance direct to the British Broadcasting
1818
Corporation to enable them to increase these services, either to extend their time and their programmes or to include other countries. It might also be useful to have some general review of this whole matter, though I dare say that, as that is already in the competent hands of the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Vansittart, that review is unnecessary.
However that may be, I am convinced that from the financial point of view we must bear in mind that the countries to which I have been referring are spending several million pounds a year on their propaganda, and although we do not seek to set up any comparable instrument, although we do not want to retaliate or indulge in counter-propaganda, we do want to make sure that we give an adequate projection of ourselves, so that the world may not be misled and so that we may not be misrepresented, because this matter is really part of our Defence services. Our rearmament programme, if it is to be successful, must obviously be linked with a definite policy and a definite aim. If it is to achieve that aim—and that aim is not to win a victorious war, but to maintain a peace—it is essential that we should maintain our prestige throughout the world and that our aim should be widely and properly understood. It is because I believe that by extending these methods we can help to achieve that end that I have very great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Grant-Ferris) on bringing before the House this very important issue. I believe, as the last speaker has said, that it is a matter which is of the very greatest importance from the point of view of defence. We would all agree, I think, that we should like to have more, and more pleasant, information about this country spread abroad, but in our desire to get that information spread there are certain temptations which I think we ought to resist and to which I will call brief attention. We read, in the first place, of these vast sums of money spent by totalitarian States on propaganda, and instead of realising that these sums, like all sums spent on advertisement, are in themselves to some extent a confession of weakness, we might be tempted to spend great sums of money

1819
ourselves in trying to rival these totalitarian States. I think that would be a great mistake. I happen to be very strongly opposed to what is now known as propaganda. I am one of the victims of it. When I first became a victim of propaganda during the Peace Conference, I weighed less than 10 stone. I then became a victim of Polish, Hungarian, Rumanian, and other dinners, which have not done me very much good.
I venture to believe that the situation is not as bad as it sounds, because, after all, what is the situation to-day? I think we must, in the first place, distinguish between news and publicity or propaganda. Every editor of every newspaper is, quite rightly, on the look-out to prevent publicity from creeping over from the advertising columns into the editorial columns, because he knows that his newspaper will lose prestige if he does not prevent that. The Government, I think, should be just as careful, because in a world where more and more States have their Press strictly controlled and have a Press which is allowed to publish only that news that is valuable to the Government, any service of news which is entirely free from that suspicion of control is looked upon with increasing respect, and I venture to believe that our present services of news from this country are treated with very great respect throughout the world just because there is at present no suspicion of Government control. How does news from this country reach the foreign Press? Some of it goes through the British Official Wireless, some of it goes through the great news agencies, the British news agencies, some of it, most of it, goes through the representatives in this country of foreign news agencies and foreign newspapers, and some of it again, as we have been hearing, goes through the B.B.C. news bulletins.
As I see it, in the totalitarian States whatever we send out would be suppressed when it did not suit the Dictators. In other States the less our news service is coloured by propaganda, the more willingly will it be received and the more will it be used. I think it was about a year ago that the Associated British Chambers of Commerce adopted a resolution pressing the British Government to subsidise a news service to South American countries. I hope very much that nothing of
1820
the kind will ever be done, because once we go in for subsidising commercial news services, we arouse the suspicion that our sources of news are tainted, and we begin the process of undermining the whole structure of the freedom of the Press, with results that are just as disastrous at home as they are overseas. Whatever Members of this House may think about the British Press, I would venture to remind them that Parliament and the Press are the two great bastions of our freedom, and the maintenance of our right as citizens to speak our own minds is the best propaganda of all in a world that is suffering far too much from control of one sort and another. I imagine that the Government must sometimes feel a desire to control the Press, just as I imagine that right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench must at times resent being put in the witness box or in the dock every day during Question Time, but they would, I am sure, agree that through the Press and through the right of Members to ask questions on every conceivable issue, we do maintain a freedom which is of the greatest possible service in a world that is losing freedom.
I deplore as much as anybody in this House the exaggerated sensationalism which is found in certain British newspapers. I rather wish that somebody could put forward a Bill which would limit, for example, the size of the headlines, which are the cause of most of the trouble. We cannot, however, suppress the yellow sensational newspapers without at the same time endangering the great defenders of the best British traditions like the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Yorkshire Post." Once we have a Government subsidy for news agencies or news services we are menacing the freedom of the people. Subsidies, indeed, are unnecessary, because the present service of news, as distinct from publicity or propaganda, is admirable. The British Official Wireless may sometimes be colourless and dull, but it is looked upon with great respect throughout the world just because it goes out as an official service. If public money is spent on sending out news from this country, it can go out only with the hallmark "Official" on it.
In a world where more and more we have subsidised services trying to put forward the picture which the hon. Member

1821
for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) drew of a decadent British Empire facing a vigorous and all-successful totalitarian State, the existence of a British official wireless service which goes out without any pretence that it is anything but official has a great influence. It is very often referred to, even when it is not printed in newspapers, by the editors of foreign newspapers to make sure that their own correspondents are not going too wide of the mark. But the most important agents we have in this country for disseminating news about this country abroad must necessarily be the representatives of foreign agencies and newspapers. They do, on the whole, an extremely valuable job. If any question of subsidising a news service from this country were to come up, I would remind hon. Members that one great American news agency during the September crisis cabled to the States of South America as much as 20,000 words a day, including verbatim reports of speeches by the Prime Minister and a White Paper which came out about the time of the visit to Munich.
Considering the fact that it is not too easy for a foreign correspondent to come and listen to the Debates in this House, I am amazed and impressed in picking up newspapers printed 6,000 or 7,000 miles away to find fuller reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons than we find in a considerable number of daily papers in this country. I believe with the hon. Member for Winchester that we have to watch very carefully all this propaganda effort which is carried out by other countries, in South America and elsewhere. I am encouraged, however, by the reflection that in South America, for example—where there has been undoubtedly a tremendous effort by the totalitarian States to convey the impression that this Empire is utterly decadent—at the Pan-American Conference held at Lima, German propaganda, which must have been carried out at the cost of a tremendous expenditure of money, was a signal political failure. I think it is true that all matters, except those which are of purely domestic interest, including the proceedings of this House are widely reported everywhere.
There are two respects in which we can be useful to these unsconscious agents in this task of projecting Britain overseas. I refer to the foreign correspondents in London. A few years ago London was the
1822
channel through which almost all news to Europe went overseas. It was all cabled or telephoned to London, sub-edited here, and then cabled on to oversea countries. Now that is changed because the French, by the use of a special system, have been able very greatly to reduce their cable tolls. That is a serious matter, because it does not matter whether the stuff is sub-edited by British subjects or not if it is sent overseas from London it does to a certain extent get coloured with British views. To give an illustration. There might be an important happening on the Continent. If the report of that event comes through London, the local correspondents of the news agency or the paper are immediately put on to the job. They get into touch with prominent British citizens and they are able to accompany their report of the event in Europe with an account of the British reactions to it. At the very moment the news is going, say, to South America it is accompanied, therefore, by the British reaction to it. That is of the greatest importance. I suggest that if we are really going to take seriously this question of disseminating news we should do something about the reduction of cable tolls from this country. The Empire Press Union has for many years been urging that Press rates to the Empire should be reduced. I believe that it is not only to the Empire that these rates should be reduced. I am told that the reduction could be brought about without great technical alterations in our present equipment.
There is a second way of helping to get news abroad. The various Government Departments give the greatest possible facilities to foreign journalists established in London. I would like to pay a tribute to the news department of the Foreign Office. It has a very small staff, but I believe that it has far greater influence than any other news department in Europe, and I think I have had dealings with almost all of them. It has that influence because it sticks absolutely to giving straight news. It does not make any great effort to influence the man who goes to get his news. I cannot pose as a whole-hearted supporter of the foreign policy of the present Government, but I have never been victimised because of that. Because the news department of the Foreign Office has always done its best to give me the information I have wanted, and has told me what the Gov-

1823
ernment's policy was, and has not victimised me if I did not make use of that information, I think it is true that I make a greater effort to understand the Government's foreign policy and to appreciate it than I might otherwise do. I am sure that the same remark applies to other journalists who go to that department. There are other Government Departments which have not yet realised the part that they can play in this important business of projecting Great Britain to foreign countries. I would suggest that the Government should, if they can see their way to do so, persuade these Government Departments to pay greater attention to foreign journalists than they may have done in the past. Of course, it is true that those journalists will not conceal the fact, for example, that we have over 2,000,000 unemployed, and it is true that in certain sections of society-it is almost as indelicate to mention the existence of unemployment to-day as it would have been to mention the existence of legs during the reign of Queen Victoria. But no Government can escape criticism if it does not do very much to remove that scandal of unemployment.
I venture to think that, as far as news is concerned, we have not got very much to worry about, and, as previous speakers in this discussion have pointed out, the important thing is to concentrate on publicity, on propaganda; in other words, to do much more to get people interested in the culture of this country. That can be done to some extent by a development which, I believe, is taking place—by the appointment of far more Press attachés at our Embassies and Legations overseas. If there are energetic young men in those Legations abroad they can do a very useful, because a very honest, job by watching out for misrepresentations in the foreign Press, by maintaining contact with responsible journalists and by supplying them with the background that is necessary if they are rightly to make use of the news that is brought to them by the news agencies. That, I believe, is an important development, and, as I say, I am glad to see that the Government do seem to be sending abroad far more Press attachés than in the past.
Of broadcasting and the other important methods of reaching the public in other countries I am not going to say much, because previous speakers have
1824
done it better than I could, but I am convinced that the broadcasting from this country in foreign languages which has taken place in the last few months has been successful because it is completely unbiased. Occasionally when I listen to the broadcasts in German, for example, I find that I am a little annoyed by them, because I wish there were a little more "kick" in them, but when I reflect about them I have to admit that this method of giving only straight news is much the best. After all, if we went in for definite propaganda there is no doubt that those news bulletins would be suppressed in the totalitarian States. As the hon. Member for Winchester has pointed out, for many years broadcasts in English have been sent out from other countries, and I think it is quite time that we replied, and I hope very much that we shall extend as much as possible the time allotted to them and the number of languages in which we send them out.
But in the last resort the valuable field is publicity, not news. We have for far too long given the foreigner the impression that we were interested in nothing except football pools, golf handicaps and that sort of thing. We have great cultural traditions, of which we have every right to be proud. I am sometimes distressed to see how German Ministers and very important people in German public life find time to visit the smallest and humblest capitals in Europe. I should like to see that system developed very much more in this country. The British Council, especially when one remembers how little money it has, is carrying out a very remarkable job, and I hope very much that Members of this House will do everything they can to further the work of that council, even putting themselves to some inconvenience to accept invitations to lecture abroad. I am distressed sometimes to see how little in the past we have worried about the provision of British books in libraries overseas. We have the example of the French, with their institutes in capitals all over Europe, with their great efforts to spread French culture, with their French theatrical companies, with their French orchestras and so on.
I hope that we shall learn from the French and develop that cultural propaganda as much as possible, because, after all, it is a legitimate propaganda. We have this culture and we have every right

1825
to spread it overseas. From my experience when wandering around Europe I am sure that anything we can do in that direction will be most warmly welcomed. Nothing to do with any attempt to control news, but everything to further the cultural propaganda. But in the last resort, of course, the best propaganda of all is a policy of the courageous maintenance of our ideals. If we are content to sit back and admit that there must always be 2,000,000 unemployed in this country, and to admit that the destruction must take place of other peoples in Europe who have been doing their best to defend those ideas of democracy that we did so much to foster in the past, then I believe all the propaganda in the world is useless and justifiably useless; but I do believe most sincerely that the more we can be proud of our culture and of the cultural ideas that we have been able to give to the world, the more welcome we shall find for them.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Storey: I welcome this opportunity to discuss what is, after all, an essential part of the equipment of the modern State, and that is the possession of efficient methods of publicity. My hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Motion dealt mainly with broadcasting and the work of the British Council. Those are both means of publicity deserving of the support of this House, particularly as in them this country starts with no great initial advantage. Indeed, we have rather allowed ourselves to be forestalled and it will mean a strenuous effort if we are to keep up with our competitors. I wish rather to deal with a matter which has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett). It is the third means of publicity—which I believe to be by far the most effective, because it is not so obvious and because it deals rather with the written than with the spoken word—and that is the distribution through British channels of world news to the newspapers of the world. In that department we in this country start with very great advantages, because we possess what is the only universal news agency in the world which has direct contacts with all the principal news agencies in the world, and has its contacts in every quarter of the globe. For three quarters of a century, mainly through the medium of Reuters, British and foreign news has been widely distri-
1826
buted throughout the world, particularly in Europe and in the Far East, and the independence, the accuracy and the integrity of that news has assured its ready acceptance, and by that acceptance British prestige has been maintained and a better knowledge and understanding of British aims has been fostered.
In the last few years, however, there has been a great change. The hon. Member for Bridgwater said he did not think there was much to fear as regards British news. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him, for foreign Governments having realised the advantages which have accrued to Great Britain through the dissemination of British aims and views, and the development of wireless telegraphy having provided a cheap means of transmitting news messages, those foreign Governments have seized their opportunity and have spent large sums in building up competing services. National news agencies in foreign countries, heavily subsidised, enjoying special facilities for cheap transmission, have been able to distribute a wealth of information by wireless news service, with unlimited wordage, of news not only of their own countries but of Britain and other foreign countries, at a fraction of the cost which it means to their British counterpart which is run as a commercial concern.
When it is realised that a foreign news agency can deliver news in Japan at one-tenth of the commercial cost to an agency in this country, the House will understand how potent is that competition. It is no wonder that those national news agencies have forced themselves upon the attention of foreign newspapers. Only the reputation for efficiency, accuracy and integrity, built up over a long period, has enabled us to hold our own. Even if those foreign news agencies contented themselves with skilfully presenting the news of their own countries and in fairly presenting the news of this country—news, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater pointed out, would still be news as seen through foreign eyes—the loss of a proper understanding of Great Britain would be enormous; but when these heavily subsidised agencies present news of Great Britain in a definitely tendentious manner the harm to British prestige is incalculable.
I need not weary the House with examples of such tendentious news. The

1827
hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) dealt in a similar Debate last year with this tendentious news and with the derogatory twist given to news of Great Britain; I need only recall that the secret instruction of the German Foreign Propaganda Department calls for action to discredit the news agencies of other countries and to damage their relations with foreign newspapers, and states that the elimination of news from other news agencies is a definite gain to Germany.
How are we to defeat such efforts? Last year the House passed a similar Resolution to that which we are discussing to-night, and during the stress of the crisis something was done to implement that Resolution as regards the distribution of news to foreign newspapers. I do not feel that enough has been done. I hope that the House will pass this Motion and, the House having reaffirmed its opinion, that the Government will go forward and take more far-reaching action. As I have pointed out, there is available a worldwide organisation such as no other country possesses. Surely the Government will make full use of that organisation. For such use there is only one essential condition and that is that the independence of the organisation must be maintained. The prestige of British news services and their ability so far to hold their own are due to that independence. There is no reason why we should interfere with that independence. Unless that independence is fully safeguarded those concerned would prefer to continue to fight a losing battle. They would not give up the fight, but they will not seek assistance at the price of their independence.
I see no reason why we could not safeguard that independence; in fact, I have every reason to believe that the Government take that view and would not seek in any way to do anything to lessen that independence. After all, it is possible to assist in meeting the cost of distribution of news services without interfering in the collection and selection of the news. During the War, Reuters did an immense amount of work for the Government in sending out news services to foreign newspapers, and—let it be placed clearly on record—never once during the whole of that time, when they did that work, did the Government of the day show the
1828
slightest tendency to interfere with the selection of the news. What was done then can be done now. It can be done at the present time. I hope that the Government will utilise the organisation that is available to its fullest ability, without weakening the foundations upon which that organisation is built, which is its independence.
I support the Motion because it calls attention to a problem which has long caused those who are engaged in the distribution of world news through British channels grave concern. Their work is more apparent abroad than it is at home, but it is work which plays a great part in maintaining British prestige and in developing British trade. I feel that it is well that the House and the country should realise it and that the Government should do all in their power to assist it.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Muff: In cash value we can afford to imitate any foreign country, so far as the provision of money is concerned, in the dissemination of news. In moral values I hope that this country will never descend to copying any foreign nation, or to endeavouring to imitate a foreign nation in some of the methods to which we listen to-day in what is called foreign propaganda. I am glad that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion put out of their own minds and out of ours any idea that we want a minister of propaganda. The creation of a ministry of propaganda would be a confession of weakness. I feel that there is no need for this country to have an inferiority complex such as is sometimes displayed in the propaganda from foreign countries. I agree that at times we are misunderstood in foreign countries, and that there may be in some foreign newspapers on Saturday evening or Sunday joy because of the great defeat of England—England defeated; the downfall of England, by Irishmen at football. I am certain that we are misunderstood; at any rate, we Yorkshiremen are misunderstood. When we meet Lancastrians on August Bank Holiday or at Whitsuntide, and we talk about the battle of the Roses, some of the foreigners may think that we are talking about a battle of long ago.
I quite agree, therefore, with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), who speaks with great knowledge about the Press. We do not want a gramophone

1829
Press, but I wish that certain sections of the Press would not emphasise the failings of the foreigner. In one weekly newspaper published last Thursday we were told almost with joy that the head of a certain State was suffering from a throat disease. I was sorry to see that printed, because it would be copied in certain foreign newspapers, which would say that we were gloating at the probable death of the leader of whom they were proud. Fortunately, our Press does not need any lessons from such people as myself upon how to conduct its affairs, but if my voice could reach certain sections of the Press I would wish that in their criticisms of certain foreign Powers they might use forbearance and a certain amount of charity. I am sure that the speeches of certain Ministers would not be reported in the foreign Press but for the fact that in Free Trade Hall and in St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, certain speakers, both from the party opposite and from the party on this side, have been shouted down. I wish my voice could reach that small minority of men of my own country who put in peril our great right of free speech, and also give to the foreigner a false impression that we are decadent.
I am glad that the B.B.C. is disseminating news on the medium wavelength. There has been criticism from abroad, and I try to understand the foreign point of view. A government abroad caters for its citizens by putting on the market a radio set which will only pick up news on a certain wave-length, or on two or three wave-lengths, and, because they use an ultra-short wavelength, they expect us to do the same. But the wicked Britisher puts the news over on a medium wave-length, and it is a testimonial to the success of our dissemination of that news that there is this criticism from abroad. It shows that that radio straight news of ours—I emphasise the expression "straight news"—is appreciated at its proper value both by critics and by those who admire it. There was some criticism about what we did by way of a certain form of reprisal, as I suppose it might be described, to the Ban station, which disseminated news to the Arabians. In that case the B.B.C. was somewhat slow in not commandeering into its service the Paymaster-General—the Noble Lord, apparently, does not appreciate his new office; let me say the
1830
late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—because, if there is a man in this country who could disseminate British news with the proper Arabic, almost Rabelaisian flavour, I believe it would be the Noble Lord.
The Paymaster-General (Earl Winterton): My Arabic is not very classical.
Mr. Muff: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) drew attention to the foreign Press, and also to the cable messages that we send abroad. I had made a note of that matter myself. We ought, in our British unemotional way, I agree, to make a little more fuss of the foreign correspondents by providing better accommodation for them at St. Stephen's. I think it would even pay the Postmaster-General to reduce his tolls on foreign messages, because then the cables would be used to a greater extent, and perhaps in the end there would be no larger loss than at present, because, even if there were a loss in one direction, what he would lose on the swings he would gain on the roundabouts.
Films have been mentioned, and it was rather amusing to think that a film which the German Führer had been primed to commend before the arival of the distinguished Conservative Members of Parliament who are visiting him, and their friends, was an American film. It is, of course, a very exciting film, and one which all of us, even Germans, can enjoy. I want to say in passing that these films have to stand on their own merits; and that they are appealing more and more to a wider public is shown by the fact that a great British film has received the crown of glory, or the olive branch, or the gold medal, or whatever they give in America to the best film of the year.
I am glad that the British Council has been mentioned. Again I trust that we shall never compete with certain foreign nations in shovelling out money for propaganda. Every Member of this House receives the "Asiatic News" and various other forms of propaganda, and I am glad that the Lord has given to most Britishers, and especially Englishmen, a sense of humour, so that we can appreciate some of this propaganda literature that we receive week by week at its proper value, which is not very high. I hope we shall not spend money in that way. But I think that the British Coun-

1831
cil should receive greater recognition from this House, and also from the other House, but particularly from this House, because it is the money-providing machine. I was impressed when some of us were invited—in my case for the first time—to attend a meeting of the British Council. I knew very little about it, but I was impressed by the smallness of the amount of money it possessed, and was astounded at the great use that it made of its money in providing what I would call ambassadors of good will to go to various countries and simply be their natural selves, putting the English point of view in a straight sort of way. If there is one suggestion that I would make to the British Council—I do not suppose that they will ever hear of it—I think they might make more use of Members who sit on these benches. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and myself were sent abroad on such a mission, I am sure the results would be surprising. I think the British provincial point of view might be put to the foreigner. London does not represent the British point of view in its proper dimensions and aspect. You have to go north of the Trent if you want it put in a proper way. That is one reason why I would suggest that the British Council should make some use of Members of Parliament and other people of my own persuasion filled with the same spirit of good will. We might not do it so effectively; our English, I am certain, would not be as good; but at any rate we should try to put the really British point of view.
Looking at the picture as a whole, I am proud of the British Press for its dignity, and also for its preservation of the decencies of everyday life, and if our radio services can continue to preserve in their way the decencies of everyday life, there is no need for us to be duly alarmed. We need not be complacent; but the message of England will get across the footlights of the world without any subsidies, without any undue extravagance, because the message that we have to deliver to the world is really a message of good will, and not a message of ill will.
8.55 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am sure we all enjoyed very much the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff). He did unconsciously say a thing which I
1832
think is profoundly true; that was when he jokingly proposed that a visit by himself and one of his political opponents abroad would do a lot of good. Nothing would be more beneficial than such a visit by two political opponents from this country, because that would indicate just what other countries are suffering from. You cannot run a democracy when you want to murder and blow up your opponents. Unless there is an understanding which rises above party feeling, democracy will not work.
I feel that everywhere we are becoming more and more like the children in "Brave New World." We are educated by the Press to think along the lines they want us to follow. Hon. Members will remember how the children in that book were taught not to like certain things by being given shocks when they were young. That is the sort of thing that is happening in Europe to-day. Our own Press, perhaps, is less blameworthy than the others, but you get things of a surprising type creeping in, like the case of the Duke of Windsor, which was not mentioned for a year, while the foreign Press was discussing it, and the case of Oswald Mosley, who, although he is the leader of a political party, is not mentioned at all. That must be because some form of arrangement and conspiracy exists within our Press. If that is so, we have not a free Press, and that state of affairs should be altered.
We are told that we have the sort of Press that we deserve. From that we draw the obvious deduction that we are getting more vulgar every day. That, of course, is our own fault. But some of the papers get their values very wrong. One may see the front pages of some of our papers occupied by the story, for instance, of the amours of some American film star of whom one has never heard. The climax was reached recently when one of our great papers gave one-third of its front page to the picture of a cat that saw a murder.
One of the most important developments is the starting of this broadcasting in foreign languages. Let us be perfectly clear about it. It was the Germans who started it. During the War, before one could speak over the ether, when it was all Morse code, they sent out the most remarkable anti-English propaganda. Afterwards, they were the first to start the short-wave stations, from which

1833
broadcasts in English went to all our Colonies. I have listened to a great many of these broadcasts, and I do not think it could be said that in them the Germans tried to run us down. They did a great deal of English broadcasting, but, apart from boosting their own goods, it was a perfectly fair type of broadcast. We are drifting into a position where each country knows only what its own Government wants it to know. That is most unhealthy. Broadcasting of a propaganda type has been tried, and has failed. I do not know whether hon. Members have listened to the English broadcasts from Moscow. That is a country to which everybody would like to listen if one could get perfectly fair and unbiased accounts of their successes, their troubles and their failures. But their broadcasts were so obviously propaganda that nobody would listen to them. There was a chance of enabling us to learn about Russia, which was thrown away because they resorted to propaganda.
Now we have one of our English stations starting to talk to Germany in her own language. We must not prostitute the gift of broadcasting by propaganda, because if for one moment the German nation, when listening to that, thought we were trying to educate them rather than to give perfectly straight news, the whole thing would be bound to fail. I would like to see a German station broadcasting in English also. After all, we are so prejudiced against Nazi-ism, against Communism, against this and that, that we do not hear about the good side of Governments of other countries. We could inculcate 60 per cent, of National Socialism, with very good results, into this country without destroying democracy. Good broadcasting, without propaganda, would enable us to learn something from Germany which we do not now know, and they would learn something from us which they do not know. It is only by a true knowledge of other countries that we can remain peaceful citizens of a bigger country than our own, a United States of Europe.
I turn to one point that is important. Who is going to control this very important system of broadcasting to the Germans? I have been a critic of the B.B.C., and shall probably continue to be. There is nobody who is happy with their programme. Sometimes we think
1834
they are too pink; sometimes others think they are too Conservative; but that is all a matter for ourselves. When we are talking to Germany in her own language, we can make the most terrible mistakes. One can get a country annoyed at something that is said. Only the other day we quoted an article about Germany. That is not the sort of thing that is wanted. What is meant is to tell Germany the sort of thing that is going on here. These broadcasts should never deal with the country to which the broadcast is being addressed. I am afraid we shall not take this thing seriously enough.
Who is to be responsible for these broadcasts, with which I honestly believe the future of Europe is going to be bound up? Is it not going to be the Government's job? It is not a job for the Foreign Office, because they view things through their own spectacles. It is not a job for the Post Office. I think there needs to be a more intimate liaison between the Government and the B.B.C. over this. We have here a weapon which must grow in favour. Germany must ask for it and want it because the Germans know that it is trustworthy and the truth. If in answer to the good broadcast of this type, unbiased and unprejudiced, there come from other countries broadcasts in English of their doings, then we shall have succeeded in doing one of the best things that has ever occurred in Europe.
9.6 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) has made not only a delightfully racy speech, but one full of most shrewd common sense to which, I am sure, attention will have to be paid if dissemination of news is to proceed along proper lines. He mentioned Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and went on to describe what I think is rather a Grave New World in which we are not allowed to hear about the Duke of Windsor and Sir Oswald Mosley, but may hear about cats which witnessed murders and the domestic lives of film stars. The answer is, of course, that newspaper proprietors print the news which sells the paper, and, no doubt, people do like seeing pictures of cats which witnessed murders and hearing about film stars who are really only doing what most people would like to do, in

1835
their heart of hearts, if they had the courage of their convictions.
I remember the dissemination in the news a short time ago of some theological views which the stress of the Munich crisis had invoked in the mind of the hon. Mover of this Motion. I did not agree with those views, but I agree with much of what he has said to-night. He is to be sincerely congratulated upon having chosen this subject when fortunate in the ballot, because I am quite sure that Debates on this subject do good, not only because they may bring certain points of view and opinions to the notice of the Government but because these Debates are read abroad. Foreigners reading them must be impressed with the good sense and the moderation with which the question of propaganda is approached in this House, and especially with the fact that there is no encouragement in any quarter of the House for any form of retaliation in regard to propaganda. The effect on my mind of listening to Debates on this subject is that we shall never in this country have a ministry of propaganda, although we may well one day have a ministry of information, which would probably be a very useful ministry indeed.
There were one or two points which particularly impressed me in the speech of the Mover of the Motion. What he said about the Press was well deserved, and I should say that the highest tribute paid to the British Press is the wish of the German Government to muzzle it. It is an illustration of the fact that the one thing that a dictator fears is thought and that he will stop at nothing to prevent his people getting the material from which thoughts can be formed. I should like to reinforce what has been said about the British Council, and may I say in commentary on some remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull East (Mr. Muff) that it would be a great mistake to imagine that the British Council have any prejudice against Members of the Labour party as lecturers abroad. I believe that Lord Snell is actually upon a lecture tour at this moment. The success of the British Council in keeping up a high standard amongst the lecturers sent abroad is remarkable. I hear from residents in foreign countries how much these lectures are appreciated, of the good that is done
1836
by them, and especially of how immensely the fact is admired that no politics are ever introduced into the lectures, and that there is no attempt made to ram any particular point of view down the throats of the audiences. I certainly agree that it would be a very good thing to extend these lectures to South America, a country which I have always very much wished to visit.
As to foreign broadcasts, I hear from Germans who are sincere well-wishers of both countries, of their own country as well as of ours, how good they are, and they say that it is really impossible at the present moment to broadcast too much straight news. They say that nothing but good can be done by it. Although I think that it must be straight news, I see no reason at all why in these broadcasts prominence should not be given to the fact that nobody in this country has any thoughts or any designs for the encirclement of Germany or wishes Germany any harm at all. Something was said about the Vansittart Committee. His Majesty's diplomatic adviser is not, I think, overburdened by his duties in that capacity, and I am sure it is a very good thing that he has an outlet on this committee to which he can devote his undoubted energies and abilities.
I will not say anything about foreign propaganda to-night except that I cannot help remembering that one of the sequels to the Munich visit was the outbreak of a particular virulent and slanderous campaign of libel about our troops in Palestine. We heard something from the Prime Minister to-day about assurances which he had received from Herr Hitler in regard to German intervention in Spain. I felt sorry that he had not availed himself of the same opportunity to obtain some assurances from him about this propaganda, because it is impossible for anybody to work with any hope of success of better relations between this country and Germany unless a stop is put to campaigns of the nature of this campaign about our troops in Palestine.
Some time ago the House approved a Motion urging the Government
"to give its full support to schemes for wider presentation of news, views, and culture abroad."
I am sure that there is no object to which the Government could with better advantage give the full weight of their

1837
moral and financial support. But if we are to further the more effective presentation of British news, views and culture abroad, it is most essential that the news should be kept entirely separate from the views and the culture. The news should be a department by itself. In that connection subsidised propaganda is suspect, and it is no good seeking to reply to subsidised propaganda with more subsidised propaganda. It is said that every poison has its antidote, but the antidote in this case is not another poison but a wholesome diet of straight news to build up the patient's powers of resistance. If that wholesome diet is to be supplied abroad, it is essential to have transmission rates for news which are low enough to enable the British news agencies to transmit on equal terms with foreign news agencies, and also low enough to encourage foreign agencies to use London for the transmission of news abroad. It is because this is not possible that we are losing influence in world affairs at the present moment. While foreign agencies are able to pour out news by the bucketful at ridiculously low charges, British agencies cannot do it. If they are to compete they must have concessions in regard to cheap radio transmission, such as other countries enjoy. There must be cheap radio transmission or cable rates which compare favourably with the radio charges, so that our news agencies may offset the ever-increasing flood of foreign propaganda, with objective news.
I fully appreciate the importance of the defence aspect of this question, and I know that on account of defence requirements there must be a certain preference for cable services as opposed to wireless services, which can be jammed. Cable services will be essential in time of war and, therefore, they must be maintained. If we are agreed on that, I still think that defence requirements ought to be a general charge, and not a charge against a small section of the community. If on account of defence requirements we have to maintain these cable services, the position is that they are maintained, in effect, at the expense of that small percentage of the Empire community who are actively engaged in long-distance communications. They have to suffer because of our defence requirements, which prevent them from having the cheap radio transmission which is possible.
1838
If the cable services are a matter of Imperial Defence and must be considered from that point of view, and maintained accordingly, so also is the countering of foreign propaganda a matter of defence. Many foreign countries realise that and provide cheap radio transmission for their own, and in some cases for foreign news services. Portugal, Italy, France, Germany, Holland, the United States, Japan and Argentina have all been quoted to me as countries which provide this cheap radio transmission for foreign news services as well as for their own. They quote very low rates, and the charges work out at a fraction of what the cable charges would be. I remember a little time ago I heard with great dismay and some distress from a gentleman connected with a British news agency that, much against his will, he might be forced to use a foreign broadcasting station in order to meet the competitive situation with which he was confronted. So competitive is the situation that London has ceased to be the world clearing-house for news, because the news transmission rates from London are not competitive with those offered by foreign countries. The result is that the volume of news circulated via London is literally only a fraction of what it was.
There is one further aspect of the distribution of news abroad, and especially to the Empire, to which I would call attention. It is of the utmost importance that the charges for the transmission of news to the Empire should be so arranged as not to compel a too wide diffusion of each message. A weakness of the British news service overseas is that in order to avoid the duplication of cable charges one and the same message is sent, say, to India, Malaya, Australia and other places. What may interest India may not interest Hong Kong, and vice versa. If each part of the Empire is to receive its appropriate messages, the charges must be such as to enable the news agencies to transmit to each part of the Empire only the news which is appropriate to that part, and not be compelled to give such a wide diffusion to one message as they are compelled for financial reasons to do at the present time.
Most of the speakers to-night have dwelt upon the question of the distribution of news. This question of cheaper rates applies with equal force to the collection of news, which is just as important as the distribution. Facilities must be

1839
offered such as will stimulate the inward flow of news as well as the outward flow. Facilities for what are called "Radio Communications to Several Destinations" will not solve news-collecting problems, and the cost of incoming messages must be lowered, because the best distribution is no good unless there are the supplies to distribute. In regard to news abroad, there are one or two points to which I wish to call attention. Some time ago I asked a question of the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the reasons why newspapers in Singapore had been refused permission to operate radio sets for the reception of news. I was told that
"As regards the news broadcast by radio-telegraphy—for instance, the Reuters' Rugby Service—it was decided to adopt in the Straits Settlements a practice followed in this country under which the reception of such messages is carried out exclusively by the Administration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1938; col. 1880, Vol. 332.]
I can quite understand that the Government have to control radio reception at such naval stations as Singapore, and the newspapers in such a case would have no right to complain as long as the rates charged for the service they have to take are in line with what private enterprise could do if it were allowed to do it. It may be quite right that the Government should control radio reception in this way, but I do not think that should be made a reason for financially penalising the newspapers concerned.
Let me say a few words about Reuters. Nothing is further from my mind than to make any attack on the Reuter service, and I may say that I have no connection with any news agency service of any sort. My efforts are devoted to trying to secure for them all better terms and fairer conditions, and I certainly make no attack on Reuters. As a matter of fact, when I spoke in the House on this subject a little time ago I was sent a copy of the "Straits Times," in which a writer made a severe complaint about the "extravagant tribute," as he called it, which I had paid to the Reuter Agency. He went on to say certain things which it will be just as well to mention, so that we may have an explanation of them. I am sure that something can be said on the other side. The article went on to say:
"It is only the protection of a Reuter monopoly that has prevented Malaya receiving a far more extensive service of British news than is received at the present time."
1840
Later, the article said:
"For nearly five years the 'Straits Times' has been striving to get into the country a second British news service, not with the idea of excluding Reuter but in the hope of stimulating that agency to greater effort by the introduction of competition. The service we sought to bring here is thoroughly reliable, absolutely independent and of worldwide repute, but, most astonishingly, numerous obstacles have been encountered."
The article concludes:
"The remedy for the present shortage of British news lies not in a grant or concessions to Reuter but the transmission of all British news between various parts of the Empire being facilitated."
Mr. Storey: Would the hon. and gallant Member tell us the name of that other British news agency?
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I have not got it on the cutting from which I am reading. I will look it up and see if I have the name, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman stands in need of the information.
Mr. Storey: My information is that there is not another agency which does it.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: It is a very good thing, at any rate, to get some of these points cleared up. I have heard opinions expressed generally that under the present arrangement for the transmission of British news it is difficult for other agencies to compete with Reuters. If that is so, I think nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of the general improvement of news services to Empire newspapers. I have another, as I think, authoritative message from a gentleman who wrote to me to say that
"In India, where I travelled extensively in 1936 and 1937, there is considerable agitation against the Reuter monopoly made possible by government assistance of long standing. Both British and native-owned newspapers there are anxious for stimulating competition."
There was a subsidy, of course, paid to Reuters during the crisis and no doubt Reuters rendered very adequate services in return for that subsidy, but I should be very interested to hear if Australia took the subsidised service supplied by Reuters.
Then I am told that even in Canada there was resentment some time ago owing to the closing of the Reuter Bureau at Ottawa. I was told that news of Canada now depends on information filed o to New York by the Canadian Press,

1841
a co-operative news agency, primarily for the benefit of newspapers served by the Associated Press of the United States. This gentleman deplores anything that
"tends to impair a great prestige of over a century's standing. These are the days of 'specials,' and a news service must retain a tip-top efficiency and must move forward with the times, if it is to deserve the support of its subscribers or members. … Reuters' cable wordage from Ottawa to London during the fateful month of the abdication crisis averaged no more than 200 words a day. The wordage was cut down and Reuters' Office in Ottawa was closed when the Dominion Government's subsidy to Reuters terminated."
I think it was very sad if that took place, because we in this country are not as well informed about Empire affairs as we would like to be and should be, and it is regrettable that a news service from Canada should be cut down in that way.
May I say, in conclusion, that while a good deal has been said about propaganda to-night, I do not think that this country is ever likely to take kindly to blatant propaganda. I do not think it would be very much use if any Government ever tried to introduce propaganda in this country on the scale which we have heard about to-night, when we were told that Dr. Goebbels uses propaganda as a musician plays on a piano. I have come to the conclusion that propaganda requires the proper geese. The ether to-day is full of propaganda spreading confusion and distrust all through the world. That is what the great invention of wireless telegraphy is being used for—to spread confusion, fear, distrust and anxiety throughout the world. In spite of that, I believe that objective straight news of the sort that has been talked about to-night will find its own market, and in the long run command a warmer welcome than propaganda.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Bull: There are, I know, still a number of hon. Gentlemen who are anxious to speak, and therefore I will not detain the House long. I am very glad, indeed, that the House has been given an opportunity of debating this Motion. I had twice myself put down a Motion somewhat similar, and I waited in the hope that it would be called, but that did not happen. I put down that Motion because I have travelled a certain amount both in the Empire and in other countries and I have personally seen the great need for more and better British news abroad.
1842
That is very important if there is to be better understanding of this country abroad, and particularly in view of the enormous activity of other countries in this direction. I am aware that the object of the Motion is to call attention not only to British news abroad but also to other publicity activities, and indeed the field of national publicity must, to some extent at least, be considered as a whole. Other forms of national publicity are vitally necessary because we must spread abroad a knowledge of the British background and give some understanding abroad of our internal problems in this country. Only if we do this will there be a proper understanding of this country, and only if people abroad know something of our background will they be interested in the day-to-day news of this country and appreciate it in its proper perspective.
I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Motion, and, indeed, I think by almost every hon. Member who has spoken, as to the great importance of the work done by the British Council, and I agree that this is a vital work. But we must remember that we have come late into the field in undertaking this work, and we must push ahead and make every effort possible if we are to compete with the immense activities of other countries. I have also no doubt of the vast importance of films as a means of propaganda. About a month or so ago there was in the Press a considerable amount of correspondence about the influence of films. There was a great difference of expert view about them, but I do not think there was any difference about the importance of films as national publicity. In regard to industrial and commercial publicity, this is of course largely the function of individual firms, but as the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Grant-Ferris) rightly said, there is, I think, a great need for coordination by the firms in advertising abroad if they are to achieve the best results.
This is even more important just now in view of the enormous number of foreign subsidised goods in the markets of the world, which means that we cannot always compete with them in price. It, therefore, becomes vitally important that people in those countries where we are to some extent under-sold should realise the superb quality of British goods. I

1843
think it is very seldom questioned, but none the less it should be adequately pointed out. To give a simple example, I wonder whether everyone in this country knows that British brushes are by far the best in the world. Owing to the business publicity in the United States, for example, very few people there know that you can get British tooth brushes and hair brushes often at about the same price as the American brushes. They are not allowed to know that, as similar articles of American manufacture are so well advertised.
Publicity, so far as the tourist traffic is concerned, is in the hands of the Travel and Industrial Development Association. The funds provided for it mainly come from those engaged in the tourist industry. By far the best way of getting to understand a country is to travel in it, and it is in the national interest that as many tourists as possible should be attracted to this country. They are primarily interested in our ancient landmarks and buildings, not so much perhaps in our climate, although that is good enough in the summer. They come to see our ancient buildings and scenery, and American tourists, a very important section are also interested in the hotels where they stay. They are interested in the bath-room accommodation and if they could be sure that some of the hotels in the country had more bath-rooms they would stay longer. From some proprietors of our hotels, for some reason which I do not know, I understand that they do not seem to take very kindly to such things as greens, cabbage and brussel sprouts.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton-Brown): The Motion is about publicity and the Press, and has nothing to do with cabbages and greens.
Mr. Bull: I will stop at brussel sprouts. I am glad that the Government have recognised the importance of attracting tourists to this country, but by far the most important items of our publicity are those things which happen every day, the events which are broadcast and published in the Press. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Empire broadcasts and their broadcasts in foreign languages are a very valuable contribution, and I think they are being well done.
With regard to Press news, and particularly with regard to what the Mover
1844
of the Motion called political propaganda, I do not venture to criticise any of the speeches which have been made, and I only express a personal opinion when I say that speeches made in this House as to the prospects of American support for this country are not very good propaganda from our point of view. They only defeat their object and furnish material for such books as "England expects every American to do his duty," which was a best seller in the United States recently. The population of the United States is very mixed and it has strong local opinions. A great many of them left England in order to get away from the type of nonsense which is going on in Europe now. They see the only frontier which they all know well without a single fort or soldier, and they wonder, and rightly, why some nations in Europe cannot live in a similarly sensible manner. It is important to remember that as we could not legislate for the 13 American Colonies 150 years ago we certainly cannot do it to-day, and they do not appreciate any efforts to do so. As one hon. Member has said, such things as the recent Glasgow meeting are, unfortunately, the type of news which always gets great publicity on that Continent. It was very well put by the New York Correspondent of the "Sunday Times" in an article in that paper last Sunday. I will only read the last sentence:
"Most Americans would agree also that the time has arrived when it is best to call off any and all European propaganda designed to commit America to a definite-position in advance of actual conflict."
In regard to what the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) said about unemployment in this country I do not think some of the totalitarian States have anything to boast of in the propaganda for their institutions when they claim to have solved their unemployment problems, as it does not seem to me a method which should commend itself to this country to solve this problem, by maintaining vast conscript armies. That is nothing to be proud of. It is well known that certain foreign countries, particularly-some of the totalitarian States, have devoted great efforts to inundating this country and many other countries with their news, their views and their culture as well. They spend enormous sums of money and employ vast staffs and, machinery for this work. It has resulted

1845
in the development of national publicity to an extent which makes it of overwhelming importance in international politics. I do not mean to imply that the Government of this country should spend vast sums of money in this way, but I should like to be asured that the Government are giving sufficient consideration to the question of British publicity abroad, and that they are prepared to spend adequately in order to achieve real results.
9.43 p.m.
Mr. Montague: The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and the Seconder of the Motion made interesting and useful speeches in introducing the Motion, but I think they approached the subject with rather a tender tread. I gather from their remarks that the old British principle, "You stir it and stump it; and blow your own trumpet," has to be modified in case we offend the leaders of certain foreign governments. I have no desire to offend anybody but I feel that you cannot discuss the first part of this Motion without referring to leaders of foreign countries. You cannot correct premeditated inaccuracies without offending the "inaccurateurs."
Mr. Palmer: If I said that I did not mean it.
Mr. Montague: If we are to discuss this Motion intelligently and usefully we must have something to say about the methods of publicity used by foreign governments against this nation. I would remind hon. Members that this question was very fully discussed about a year ago on a similar Motion. In that Debate the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) made a speech which was full of information but of a different character from the one he has made this evening. It had to do with the methods of propaganda of foreign countries. But not only was this question discussed a year ago. It has been raised again and again in this House, on one occasion by such a prominent Member as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). All sorts of committees have been appointed to consider possible means of counteracting the effects of some types of propaganda directed against this country. I would like to ask the Noble Lord who is to reply to the Debate a few questions concerning these committees. Reference has already been made to the
1846
Vansittart Committee. That committee has not issued any report, and I do not know whether it is going to do so. We do not know very much about it. There was also a Cabinet Committee appointed to discuss the matter, and when a question was asked in the House as to what that committee had done or proposed to do, a definite refusal was given to the request that a White Paper should be issued on the subject.
Then, with the full knowledge of the Government, a B.B.C. official was sent to South America in order to see what was being done in South America by the totalitarian Governments in regard to broadcasting in Spanish and Portuguese. When questions were asked in the House, we were told that the matter was confidential, that the report was a report to the B.B.C, and that it had nothing to do with us. We do not know anything about that. What was the nature of Lord Lloyd's report to the Government? The Government were supposed to review the whole subject early this year, but we have not heard yet of any new move by the Government in regard to this important subject. Only last week a writer said:
"The general complaint is that the matter "—
this refers to what is being done by the British Council, by the B.B.C, and in other ways—
"is not being tackled as firmly and as comprehensively as its importance deserves. Since the crisis it has degenerated into a boring recital of trivialities."
The night before last, I noticed in the "Star" a short article by "The Man in the Street" in which a rather remarkable suggestion was made on this subject. He stated that the technique of propaganda has changed during the last generation, and he went on:
"Posters may only raise a smile. Slogans by themselves will not convince. We need to use our new instruments, with their vast power—the radio, the film—with subtlety and with dramatic emphasis. … If I were Sir John Anderson I would call in the best advertising brains in the country to help me, men whose business it is to know just how to appeal to the public "
That is a striking suggestion. After all, an advertising man, a publicist who is prominent in that profession, at least knows how to play upon the instrument referred to. But I am rather doubtful when I hear talk about propaganda and

1847
culture. It is desirable sometimes to define one's terms. I would like to know what is meant by culture, in this respect. We can get all sorts of culture over the wireless; one has only to turn a knob to get the culture of the African savage by way of Tin Pan Alley. What is really meant by the dissemination of British culture? Who is to be responsible for deciding what is to be the official cultural taste of this country? I think there is a little bit of cant in this talk of British culture. Our real culture, which is a great historical thing, can stand upon its own merits without any boosting by publicists by the ordinary advertising methods. I detest the word "propaganda."
On reading the Debate that took place on this subject a year ago, I noticed that the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Lees-Jones) spoke of "getting over" the policy of the Government. That raises the question as to who is to decide the nature of the broadcasting or the news that is to be sent abroad and to be spread over, not only the dictatorial countries, but our own Empire. If the policy of the Government is to be defended, surely there is a considerable danger of that measure of defence being turned into a question of party controversy. After all, when we talk about propaganda, let us remember that the British Empire is not a pot of toilet cream, or one of the 57 varieties. I think there is an objection to spending public money on propaganda either about Government policy or the supposed culture of this country.
I suppose there are some gullible people who passively accept the psychological value of advertising and publicity of this character, and who really believe that if they encourage their boys to use one manufacturer's soap rather than some other manufacturer's soap, those boys will grow up into very fine members of society. I remember that not long ago a proposal was made by a professional publicist that religion should be advertised, and he produced a specimen advertisement of about 10 inches single column, with a slogan in the form of a text at the top. The effect it had upon me was that of a blend of the "Pilgrims' Chorus" with Alexander's Ragtime Band. The important thing is not the subsidising of a tourist agency and talking about the beauties of this country.
1848
Italy and Germany can do that sort of thing much better than we can. Much more important than boosting the beauty of this country or even boosting the business of the country—which ought to be the job of the business men—is the correction of the sort of propaganda that emanates from the totalitarian countries of Europe at the present time.
I admit that what is being done by the B.B.C. has induced many Germans, who face obvious risks, to write to the B.B.C. thanking them for the German broadcasts, while Hitler's annoyance and the threat of reprisals are evidence of the fact that they are hitting their mark. What is to be the attitude of the Government to possible reprisals? I hope the Noble Lord will say something about that. The question of propaganda and news is one that cannot be considered without running the risk of offending the people whom the hon. Member for North St. Pancras does not wish to offend. We must consider what is being done by Germany. Those who have examined the matter must have been surprised and concerned, not only at the amount of money that is being spent, but the type of propaganda against this country which is indulged in by other countries. In Germany, for instance, there is a Ministry of Propaganda which serves as a fundamental organ of government, enjoying the same rank as the War Office and the Foreign Office. I do not want a Ministry of Propaganda in this country. I will quote to the House what was stated by the Nazi official organ, the "Voelkischer Beobachter":
"The influence of the Nazi party in foreign countries extends literally around the entire globe. 'My sphere is the whole world' might aptly be placed over our headquarters in Hamburg. This foreign organisation comprises to-day more than 350 national branches and fulcrum points of the Nazi party everywhere. The Nazi party will yet further develop in an effort to transplant to all foreign countries the objectives of the National Socialist Reich."
The Ministry of Propaganda in Germany controls over 300 German newspapers in foreign countries as far apart as South America and the Far East. It utilises a multitude of travel agencies. Many hon. Members will have received from Italy and Germany literature which is not political but cultural in the sense that it deals with one or other of those countries, its manners and customs, scenery and

1849
the rest of it. Those agencies and all the steamship companies of the Reich are utilised. There is a foreign organisation of the National Socialist party, a foreign organisation of the Labour Front, and a foreign political organisation independent of both. Its central department is installed in the Foreign Office as an integral section, with Herr Bohle as under-secretary. There are special institutions for training those who are to carry on propaganda in foreign countries. This, to my mind, is one of the most serious aspects of the question. There is a school in Berlin controlled by Dr. Rosenberg for such training. Every German professor and teacher who accepts a foreign appointment must undergo a course of instruction at the Akademie in Munich. Every student who goes abroad must register as a member of the German Students Foreign District, and there is a harbour service for the distribution of Nazi literature in which the Navy and mercantile fleet of Germany are utilised.
If we are to fight that kind of thing we shall have to do more than talk about what is being done by the British Council. We have to consider this matter very seriously and we have to counteract propaganda in this country, as well as abroad, because it is filtering through here in many ways. There are German agents in many reputable organisations in this country. There is a central authority in Germany—the liaison staff—which consists of Dr. Goebbels, Herr von Ribbentrop, Dr. Rosenberg and Herr Hans Oberindober. The latter is director of the ex-service men and also of the Hitler Youth and arranges fraternal meetings with the ex-service men of other countries. Upon the surface that is a very fine thing indeed, but the leaders of British ex-service men and others who go over to Germany on the invitation of the director of the Hitler Youth come back to this country filled with propaganda which has been instilled into them. Near my own constituency an address was delivered by the leader of a party of ex-service men who went over there. It was purely political and referred to the wickedness of British politicians who "wanted war."
That is what is being done in reputable organisations. It is done almost unconsciously as far as the British members of those organisations are concerned. It is not unknown in some of our peace
1850
organisations also and if we are to counter this system propaganda we have to consider also what is happening in this country. The paid and voluntary agents of these organisations number 25,000, and the expenditure this year, we are told by a writer in the "Quarterly Review," was more than £21,000,000, upon foreign propaganda of a character largely antithetical to the interests of this country. Millions of leaflets and tons of pamphlets are distributed from Hamburg all over the world. This is being done not merely to advertise the Nazi system and the German Reich. They have a perfect right to show the world what their culture is and to defend their own systems of government, and if that were all I should not grumble; but the fact is that this propaganda is anti-British and anti-democratic and is done with subversive intent, on an enormous scale and with the expenditure of a tremendous amount of money.
With regard to the Middle East, although Italy does not do as much as Germany does in this way, there is the problem of Palestine. It would be undesirable to say much on that subject just now while the Conference is sitting, but I cannot help quoting one or two statements. This is one from an Arab newspaper published in Paris:
"Listening in by natives to foreign broadcasts in Arabic has increased to an embarassing extent. B.B.C. transmissions have provided different stories from those emanating from Bari. Italian colonial governors have been advised to submit reports on the advisability of confiscating all privately or collectively owned radio sets capable of receiving foreign broadcasts. It is fully expected that the recent decree imposing heavy penalties for the reception of non-Italian broadcasts, will be followed up by a formal order for the confiscation of all sets with the exception of those owned by members of the Fascist party."
I do not think that the broadcasting of news, straight or otherwise, would easily get over that difficulty. We find the same thing in South America. The first of several detailed plans for a Federal Radio broadcasting station, aimed primarily to combat the propaganda sent over the air by the totalitarian States has just been presented to Congress. A move to counteract the steady flow of Fascist propaganda to South America has been under consideration for more than a year. That is one result. While an American group was attempting to negotiate with the Ecuadorian Government for the installation of a powerful broadcasting station

1851
in Guayaquil, agents for the German transocean group proposed the installation of an even more powerful Nazi transmitter, offering a local newspaper the official German news service at very low rates, and to instal their transmitter practically free. We are told that
"Germany which for years has led the world in broadcasting propaganda in foreign languages will start a radio war upon Great Britain unless Great Britain stops broadcasting news in German."
I think we may reasonably ask the Noble Lord who is to reply what the Government propose to do in connection with these, often vicious attacks upon this country. Some of the speeches to-night have been very kind and considerate and tolerant, but we do not know what is to be done. Are we going to combat this propaganda or not? If so, in what way and who will be responsible? Is it to be by propaganda or by straight news and who is to decide what is straight news and where it is to be obtained? I think I can pay the B.B.C. the compliment of saying that their ordinary news service is, in the main, unbiased and fair and I do not know that it would not be useful to rely upon that news service being translated into foreign languages and "radioed" over the world.
The use of the radio for propaganda purposes by one country against another and by one set of countries against other sets of countries has led to confusion in the world. I feel that that problem will not really be solved until we apply international principles to the whole thing. Why should there not be a department of the League of Nations, if it is a question of accurate news, to disseminate news that can be relied upon? It might not be practicable, but I throw out the suggestion.
I am very much afraid of this idea of propaganda. I do not want Government money to be spent merely upon business propaganda or publicity, and certainly not upon this hybrid thing that some hon. Members call culture. I should like to have that word "culture" defined, and I should like to know what kind of culture it is that we are going to broadcast from this country. If we can act in this matter by accuracy, by an honourable statement of our own case, where that case has been attacked by foreign countries, without any colour, without any propaganda, I think
1852
the truth can be relied upon to win in the long run. As Plautus said:
"It is necessary to entice the buyer to unsaleable wares. Good merchandise easily finds a buyer, even though it be hidden away."
10.7 p.m.
Earl Winterton: I think it is exactly a year ago to-day that we had a similar Debate on this very important question, in which also I replied for the Government and many of the hon. Members who have spoken to-night took part. I therefore feel in the position of a Minister presenting Estimates for the second time, and I should like to give some account of the progress which has been made since last year in connection with this matter. Before doing so, however, I should like to pay a tribute to the general tone of the speeches which have been delivered to-night. We have had a very interesting Debate, and I must say that the House, if I may use a somewhat overworked term, has been something like a Council of State on this question. Until the closing words of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), he appeared to me to be slightly in disaccord with the tone which has hitherto prevailed in the Debate, including the speeches delivered by the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) and Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Muff), both of whom gave proper credit to the work which has been done by the British Council and spoke also of the importance of showing to foreign countries the artistic and cultural achievements of this country.
The hon. Member for West Islington, until his closing words, with which I entirely agree, seemed rather to pour cold water on the work of the British Council. He said he did not quite know what was meant by British culture. If I may with respect explain what is meant, it means the exhibition of pictures by the best British masters, the giving of works by well-known British composers, performances by British orchestras—and we have in this country, especially in the North, orchestras of which no country need be ashamed—exhibitions of British first editions, speeches by well-known British authors, and so on, all of which are evidences of the artistic and cultural achievements of this country, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept them as an admirable part of legitimate British propaganda.
Mr. Montague: I was wondering what was meant by British culture in connection with this Motion. The exhibition of pictures by British masters and concerts abroad are old stuff, but I was referring to the Motion that has been moved to-night.
Earl Winterton: I am giving the hon. Gentleman the information at my disposal, and I would answer his question by saying that there has been an immense increase, largely as a result of the creation of the British Council, of this sort of exposition—I will use that word—of British artistic achievement in all its branches abroad. To give a general picture of what has been done all along the line, so to speak, under the headings dealt with in the Motion, the first point that I wish to deal with is the question of the sources of information, and I think the House generally will agree that one very valuable thing that always requires doing is to supply to foreigners sources of information which have a positive effect in the sense of giving the political views of all sections of opinion in this country. That is done through the reporting of Debates in this House, and without making the slightest reflection on the British Press, I would say that it is a fact that many foreign newspapers report the Debates in this House more fully than do many British newspapers. It is a very interesting fact that you will often get a fuller report in foreign newspapers than in British newspapers. I happened to be in Paris recently on official business, when there had been a Debate in this House, and I tested that by a practical example. I found that there was actually more space devoted in French newspapers to information about the Debate as a whole than there was in any of the popular newspapers in this country. I do not mention that fact as in any way a reflection upon British newspapers, but merely as a fact.
The reading public in a good many Continental countries which have a Parliamentary system are more politically-minded than the reading public here, if we are to judge by the amount of space given to Parliamentary Debates in the popular Press in this and other countries. Of course, the popular Press here knows its own business and publishes what it thinks its public will like to read, but equally the foreign Press knows its own business and publishes what it thinks its
1854
public will like to read. However, on this subject the Press generally give fair and accurate reports of what occurs, and it is the proper reporting of public speeches and of discussions in this House, and indeed discussions in local bodies, that enables foreigners, who are big readers of British newspapers, to know what is going on in this country.
That is or should be a form of publicity which requires no assistance from the Government. I want to make that very clear. We have to be very careful in saying things by way of advice to the Press in this country, but I would say with the greatest respect to the Press, having in my youth been an editor, that it is the duty of the British Press to report speeches in this House and outside if they are of sufficient importance to be reported. In that way they can help the dissemination of news of all kinds and show the diverse character of British democracy. I do not want to be frivolous, but if you want to discover the British character, its extraordinary incalculability and the diversity of views expressed by its people, you have only to read a typical Debate in this House, and probably at the end of it you will be left wondering what the mind of the country really is.
Apart from what is provided in the ordinary Press, there is the information which is given out to the Press by the Press branches of the various Government offices. This matter has scarcely been referred to in this Debate, but it has come up in previous Debates, when it has been approached from two angles. Some hon. Gentlemen have seen a great danger in this system. They have seen in it an attempt, by whatever Government is in office, to damp down criticism, to supply a tendentious stream of information, and generally to do something which is malevolent. On the other hand, other hon. Gentlemen have said from a different angle that not enough is done by British Departments of State to make known to the public their activities.
I think that in this as in other matters the truth lies between the extremes of criticism. These Press branches, which are a comparatively recent creation of Government Departments, do a good work and are greatly appreciated by the foreign Press. Somebody suggested that it was not possible for foreign Press correspondents to get official information. I think that I can say in respect of every

1855
one of these Departments that the Press officer is only too pleased at any time to supply all reasonable information to foreign as well as British Press correspondents.
Lastly, on this part of my subject referring to publicity in foreign countries, it should be remembered that large sums of money are always spent by firms and interests drawing attention to British industrial and commercial achievements. That is too big a subject to go into tonight and it is perhaps slightly outside the purview of this Motion and of my purpose in replying for the Government. There have been criticisms in the past that British commercial literature is not as good as foreign commercial literature. I do not think that is true. It is, however, sometimes the case that the representatives of British firms in foreign countries are not sufficiently anxious to learn the language of the countries in which they live, or, if they do know them, to use them; and it is sometimes the case that pamphlets and information sent out by British firms are not printed in the language of the country to which they are sent. Speaking generally, there has been a great improvement and the Department of Overseas Trade assists in every possible way in that connection.
I turn to another matter to which I have already made passing reference, and that is the British Council. I want to correct the impression if it exists in the minds of anybody, that there is the slightest partisanship of any sort displayed by the Council. It has on it, I think, as Members of the executive both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal party. Use is made of the services of Members of all parties in the House and of people outside of all sorts of political views. It will be worth while to devote a minute or two to saying something about the work of the Council since last we had a Debate on this subject. It has as its very energetic head Lord Lloyd, who devotes four or five days a week to this unpaid administrative work. Anyone who does unpaid administrative work often feels that he might be earning money elsewhere, and it is a great tribute to Lord Lloyd that he should do this work.
The work of the Council is both cultural and educational. I should like to give a few examples of its activities. It has
1856
established British institutes for teaching English at a number of important centres in Europe and South America, and there has been an immense demand for these facilities. It is difficult to keep abreast of the demands in respect of senior pupils. In the Near East, and in Egypt especially, existing British schools which provide an education for British children whose parents reside in those countries have been assisted, and I think in some cases they have been actually furnished by the British Council. In addition, classes of instruction in English have been provided in Cairo for Egyptians who have not been able to attend British schools.
There are two other very important activities of the Council. They have established Chairs of English language and English institutions at a number of foreign, universities where hitherto they have not existed, and where there have been flourishing schools for teaching French, German and Italian. Then they have provided scholarships for foreign students in English universities, and more than 150 foreign students were brought over to this country last year in this way. Lastly the Council supply books, periodicals and technical productions to foreign libraries, clubs and schools. I have already referred to the manner in which the Council assist in the promotion of the understanding abroad of British artistic attainments. Lecture tours have also been arranged. I understand that a very distinguished Member of the Opposition is lecturing abroad on behalf of the Council at this moment. Lord Snell, once a Member of this House whom we all recall with great respect, is at present in America in connection with the activities of the Council. It is a most admirable body and I cannot pay too high a tribute to it. Incidentally, the grant-in-aid of the Council has been increased from the £5,000 received in its first year to £110,000 in the present financial year, which I think is not a bad effort by the Government of a country which has such a heavy burden to carry at the present time.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will the Noble Lord say whether the Government are likely to increase the grant to the Council in the coming financial year?
Earl Winterton: I will not say that my hon. Friend seems slightly ungrateful, but has he appreciated that the amount has been increased from £5,000 to £110,000?

1857
I cannot speak about the future, I have no responsibility in that respect, and I do not think the Council have suggested that at this moment, when there is a tremendous demand upon the pockets of the taxpayers, there should be any increase in the grant. In the Travel and Industrial Association of Great Britain and Ireland there is another Government-approved and Government-supported body which is covering a very important field all over the world by dealing with tourist publicity for this country. I must not get outside the terms of the Motion, but, in fact, this Association is helping what was one of our most flourishing forms of invisible exports. There was a period—I am afraid it is no longer the case to-day—when the amount of foreign tourist money spent in this country exceeded the amount of British money spent by tourists in foreign countries by such an enormous sum, much larger than the public realise, that it was one of our best invisible exports. That is not true to-day in view of the special circumstances in which the world finds itself and of the depression in the United States, but a considerable amount of that foreign money has been spent in this country as a result of the activities of this Association. It has information bureaux in London, Paris and New York and it receives—no doubt my hon. Friend will be glad to have this information—a grant of £5,000 per annum which is being increased to a higher figure in a Supplementary Estimate which will soon be considered by this House.
Before I conclude my speech I want to say something about telegraphed news and, of course about news sent over the radio. A great deal of attention has been called in many speeches to-night to this question of telegraphed news, and from more than one angle. One hon. Gentleman thought that not enough was being done for Reuters and another hon. Gentleman thought that too much was being done for Reuters. It is, of course, true that the main channel by which news of Great Britain reaches the Press overseas is provided by the London correspondents of foreign newspapers and by the great British and foreign agencies. I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to the very responsible way in which home and foreign news is handled by them. The British agencies I have in mind in this connection include
1858
those who operate from London and who serve the particular needs of various Dominions, as well as that pioneer in news collection and distribution, Reuters.
If there is one criticism which some of us might make in regard to the service of news—I am speaking in a sense as a Member of this House and not with the responsibility of the Government—it is that there is to my mind a regrettably small space devoted in the British newspapers to Dominion and Colonial news. Attention has been called to the point during this Debate. Possibly it is because there is no demand for such news on the part of the customers of the newspapers, but there is regrettably small space, and it is a source of some embarrassment to those of us who have, as I have, many friends and indeed relations in the Dominions, when they come to this country, to explain the reason why there should be such a small amount of news devoted to those matters.
When on the subject of the supply of news to newspapers I would refer for a moment to the very interesting speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), and also the speech made by an hon. Member opposite, and to raise a rather delicate question. My hon. and gallant Friend said that it was true, speaking generally, and I think we all agree with him, that the news supplied by the British Press was admirable. If I may go into a parenthesis I would like to pay a tribute of respect to the British Press as a whole which is unexcelled in the Press of the world, but there are one or two curious features of British Press news in recent years which raise a point never raised in this House before, so far as I am aware. The matter was referred to also by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He asked why it was that the leader of a certain movement with which no one is in agreement in this House, I think, happens to have meetings, which I understand are fully attended and crowded, but who never has a report of his speeches in any of the London or provincial Press. He asked what the explanation was.
He will agree that it is not my duty to give an explanation, because I do not know it and because it has nothing to do with the Government; but merely as a matter of interest, I also say, speaking as an old Member of this House and not

1859
as a minor Minister, that I wonder what the explanation is. I wonder, further, whether the question asked by the hon. Member and by me will be reported in the Press and whether there will be any answer to it in the Press. I have not the slightest idea what the reason is. The same thing might, as the hon. Gentleman said, apply equally to Communism. I should be interested to know what the reason is. Speaking generally, I think that we are very fortunate in the presentation of news in our Press, and that it helps the cause which is advocated in this Motion.
In addition to the unofficial news, there is, as everyone knows, the British Official Wireless, about which I must say a word. It is generally recognised that the British Official Wireless is good, and, in order to show that it is official, it is never sent out save under the caption "British Official Wireless." It is, in an objective form, a survey of current British news which is available for reproduction in the Press or for broadcasting by wireless telephony by any individual or organisation anywhere without special organisation, and it is, in fact, intercepted for reference or reproduction in the Press of many foreign countries and of most of the countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The whole question—and this is in a sense an answer to the question of my hon. Friend below the Gangway on the subject of news agencies—of the provision of telegraphic news from this country to foreign countries is occupying the attention of His Majesty's Government. It is an extremely complex question, and I am not in a position at present to make a statement. In the meantime it remains true of the general position that there is ample machinery for the provision of authentic information, and the news agencies do in fact telegraph large quantities of news about this country all over the world.
I must now turn to the very important question on which there was some criticism in the last Debate that we had on the subject in this House a year ago. It was then said that our broadcasts to foreign countries were not of the character that was required. I think that to-day the supply of broadcast news from this country is unrivalled, and, without any bias one way or the other, I remain firmly convinced that the news which is broad-
1860
cast by the B.B.C. presents a fair and impartial picture. I am not convinced when people of the Left write to the newspapers and say that the news is given a Rightist turn, and when people of the Right say that it is given a Leftist turn. There could hardly be a better tribute to the impartiality of the news than a tribute of that kind. In the past year the B.B.C. started foreign news broadcasts, and, as I think no information has been given to the House, perhaps I might say a word or two on the subject.
At the beginning of 1938 a start was made by broadcasting in Arabic, and also news bulletins in Spanish and Portuguese to South America. The reports received, both by the B.B.C. and by the Foreign Office, showed that those broadcasts were widely welcomed, and recent official reports on the Arabic broadcast are unanimous in stating that it has been extremely successful. Last year there were some criticisms of this broadcast, and I said, speaking with some knowledge of Arabic countries and of Arabic itself, that I thought the criticisms were not justified. I must now stand in a white sheet and say that the powers that be, namely, the Foreign Office, did feel that some improvement might be made in certain directions. They have been in communication with the B.B.C. on the matter, and certain details to which they called attention last year have been remedied. At any rate, I am sure that now the broadcast is very good indeed. The news bulletins in German, French and Italian which were started in September have been continued, and the B.B.C. have recently extended the period of the German broadcast from a quarter of an hour to half an hour each evening, and have added an additional news bulletin at 10.45 p.m.
Any Minister speaking here on this matter must realise that he must tread delicately. I feel very strongly that no good is done by using the same methods to deal with any attack on this country to which objection is taken. That is a courteous way of putting it, and I have deliberately made the language somewhat obscure. It is not only of no benefit to our dignity, but it is the way to sow the seeds of war, for us to reply to attacks made in foreign broadcasts in the same sort of way.
Mr. Montague: That does not apply to correction.
Earl Winterton: I do not want to enter into controversy with the hon. Gentleman, because this is a non-controversial Debate. But the question of correction is a very difficult one. It is of the utmost importance that the news sent out to these countries should be, as it is to-day, purely objective—objective in the sense of presenting the facts as they are seen. That is a far more effective method of propaganda than would be the methods of certain foreign nations. Quite obviously, where a statement is made which is untrue, it is necessary for a statement to be sent out in reply, as is done. That really meets the hon. Gentleman's point. The Government have reason to believe that these broadcasts in foreign languages are greatly appreciated in foreign countries. They have a very wide public and they may, for some people among that public, provide a refreshing contrast to what they have been accustomed to.
I would just like to say a word or two on the subject of films, to which some reference has been made. When the British Council was formed in November, 1934, to establish closer cultural contact with other countries the use of films was naturally considered, but, as the Council had very limited funds and neither the experience nor the machinery to deal with films, it was decided to establish a new film unit. The Joint Committee on Films of the British Council and Travel Association was therefore set up in 1936, with Mr. Philip Guedalla as Chairman. Besides the representatives of the British Government and the Travel Association, it includes representatives of the Foreign Office, the Department of Overseas Trade and the Post Office, and representatives of outside organisations are requested to attend meetings if their assistance is required. Money had to be provided. In 1936 the amount was £400, in 1937 £1,000, and last year £2,600.
There is reason to suppose that both the provision of suitable films and exhibitions in various countries have been very successful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade mentioned recently that the committee, since its inception, has been instrumental in arranging for films to be exhibited in 69 countries. A considerably wider distribution will be made during the coming year. One of the tests of the work of this committee will be furnished by the New York Exhibition.
1862
I understand that Mr. Philip Guedalla, whose name will be well-known to hon. Members as a distinguished writer, is responsible for the arrangement of the films which will be exhibited, and I need hardly say, speaking on behalf of the Government Departments concerned, that any representation which hon. Gentlemen may make will be seriously considered. This is a new service but I think it is true to say that they have made progress.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman opposite asked me about the work of the committee for the co-ordination of British publicity abroad, under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Vansittart. I do not think it is contemplated that this committee should make a report to this House. The object of the committee was to coordinate. It includes representatives of the Foreign Office, the Scottish Office, the Department of Overseas Trade and other Government Departments concerned, and, on the other hand, representatives if the B.B.C., the British Council and the Travel Association. The committee has been responsible for making a number of suggestions to these individual bodies for co-ordinating their activities and for working along the whole field of British propaganda.
I have tried to paint a true and clear picture of the position, and I maintain that the general effect is satisfactory. The presentation of news about Britain and its various forms of national life is neither aggressive on the one hand, nor, on the other hand, slovenly or deficient in interest. It is true that this is a comparatively new movement, and as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett), in an excellent speech, and the Mover and Seconder of the Motion in very good speeches pointed out, we must all the time be very careful to avoid certain dangers and never to sit still. I think that we have made a very good start and taken the right road, and, further, that the system is capable of extension as circumstances admit. The Government do not regard this as a party or controversial matter, and we shall always be glad, through the medium of questions or in any way, to hear suggestions for improving it from any quarter of the House.
10.42 p.m.
Mr. Emmott: I am very grateful to my right hon. and Noble Friend for con-

1863
cluding his speech in order to allow me to make a few remarks in this very interesting, friendly and uncontroversial Debate upon a subject of extreme importance. I notice that the Motion moved by my hon. Friend differs in an important respect from the Motion which, as my right hon. Friend said, was debated almost exactly a year ago in this House. The Motion, which was moved in what I hope I may be allowed to describe as a charming and able speech by my hon. Friend, invites the Government to pay more attention to publicity, and to support schemes which will make certain of the effective presentation of British news abroad; but the Motion approved by the House last year invited the Government to support schemes to further the wider and more effective presentation of British news, views and culture abroad, and the addition of views and culture is a distinction which the hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench did seem to notice in his remarks. I do not know whether this was deliberate on the part of my hon. Friend, but I observe that he seemed to address the greater part of his argument to the question of foreign broadcasts of news. We have to deal—and hon. Members who have participated in this Debate appear to have recognised the fact—with both parts of the subject. I believe with the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) that the two parts of the subject have to be kept quite clear and distinct. One must distinguish between what should remain news and what belongs to culture and thought. We must distinguish between the two things, but we must deal with both. Now my hon. Friend, in his interesting remarks on the question of foreign broadcasts, said that they must be free from bias: they must give straight news and not be controversial. But in the Arabic broadcast there is not only news. I am informed that of the time given to the broadcast only about one-fourth is devoted to news, while the rest is devoted to comments, music and other things of that kind.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's description of news. He said that it must be free from bias, and must be straight and uncontroversial. But I suggest that we have not disposed of the real difficulty by describing news as "straight
1864
news." What is straight news? What to one was straight to another might be crooked. Consider the Bari broadcasts. The real objection to the Bari broadcasts was not that they included a number of statements which were positively and deliberately hostile to this country, or that they were offensive to Britain or her statesmen; but that by the process of the selection of news, and the omission of news which really ought to have been given, British policy was represented in an unfavourable and unfair light.
The example of the Bari broadcast shows, I think, the real difficulty and danger in selecting and presenting news. It is all very well to talk, as my hon. Friend did so charmingly, about straight news, but we have not disposed of the difficulty by the use of that convenient phrase. We can, however, do our best to give a fair, truthful and comprehensive account of events, and that is certainly done by the British Broadcasting Corporation in its foreign news broadcasts, which are given in Spanish, Portuguese, German, French and Italian. I would observe, in passing, that the news broadcasts in German, French and Italian were begun only in September of last year. It is worth while for it to be placed on record again by a private Member of this House, as has been done by other hon. Members, that the accuracy and the truthfulness of the B.B.C.'s foreign news broadcasts is universally acknowledged. We aim to tell "a round unvarnished tale," and generally we tell it well.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater stated that he thought the most important part of the field with which he was dealing was that which was concerned with news. He again used the expression, "straight news," but he kept on coming back to the other part of the subject. Indeed, he devoted what I thought was the most eloquent part of his remarks to that other part of the subject, that is, matters concerned with culture and thought. Now here we come to propaganda. We cannot avoid it, and I do not think we should be ashamed of it. Much has been said about the British Council, and I should like most heartily to support what has fallen from the lips of many hon. Members, and what was particularly said by my right hon. Friend, on this subject. I think what my right hon. Friend said

1865
and what so many people know of the work of that Council is the answer to the somewhat curious doubts which the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) appeared to cast upon the possibility of the propagation of the idea of British culture, British life and British thought abroad. The work done by the British Council is admirable. Had the right hon. Gentleman not said what he did to-night I was going to give the House some instances of the activities of the British Council abroad, but that is now unnecessary. I may, however, remind the hon. Member for West Islington that not the least important part of the work of the British Council abroad is the teaching of the English language to foreign boys and girls. Now is not that a great thing—that foreign boys and girls, most anxious and willing to learn, should be taught this beautiful and most rich of all languages, this key to one of the greatest literatures in the history of mankind?
Mention has been made of the Institute of English Studies in Athens. The House may be interested to know that this was only begun in the spring of last year, and at the beginning it had something between 300 and 400 pupils. Now it has no fewer than 4,000. I am informed that there has been one occasion when there was actual disorder due to the anxiety of more persons than could be accommodated to obtain entry to the available schools. There is a similar British Institute at Bucharest. That was opened in the spring of last year with a few hundred pupils, and there are now 3,000. A British Institute was inaugurated at Lisbon in November last year, and I am happy to say it is in a flourishing condition.
I should like to make an observation on an important matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Grant-Ferris). It concerns finance. It is quite certain that the multifarious and valuable activities of the British Council require financial support. I am not saying or suggesting in any way that the Treasury has shown itself ungenerous to the British Council. But I hope that the Treasury will continue to take the enlightened and generous view which it has hitherto taken of the financial requirements of the Council.
I return to the point with which I opened. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-
1866
Brabazon), in his original and interesting speech, said that he hoped we should not prostitute broadcasting by propaganda. He was referring to Germany. I hope he was only referring to one part of the subject—the broadcasting of news in the German language. I hope he only meant that. If he meant more than that, I think he is wrong. We do not at this moment, as I have shown by the Arabic instance, exclude comment from our foreign language broadcasts, and I think that we should not exclude from our minds the possibility even of extending the area of propaganda in broadcasts in foreign languages. I hope we may find it right at some time to add to our broad casts of news something else, of matters which are described in the Resolution which the House passed last year as "news and culture." I would like to make this suggestion—
Mr. Montague: The Noble Lord in his reply made a reference to a certain politician in this country who is not being reported in the Press. When the hon. Member talks about broadcasting views, are they to be his views, my views or the Government's views?
Mr. Emmott: I do not think I personally should be called upon to answer that question, but in any case the problem of the selection of views, the determination of the views to be broadcast, will always remain. The resolution which the House passed last year invited the Government to support schemes designed to further the presentation of British news, views and culture: that means, I think, news relating to Britain, views held by distinguished and representative Englishmen, and British culture.
I suggest that the real distinction is between good and bad propaganda. There can be bad propaganda. It can be tactless, overdrawn, offensive or unsuccessful. For instance, the German propaganda last summer about the distresses which the Germans in Czechoslovakia were alleged to be suffering went to such lengths that at last it sickened people with the subject and defeated its own object. But what is propaganda? Propaganda is a movement to propagate a belief or an idea. We have heard much to-night about the projection of Britain and the British people. Well, but what is that but propaganda? We may dislike the word, because it has collected

1867
unpleasant associations. But the thing itself may be necessary and right. Let us not be ashamed or afraid of it.
Resolved,
"That, in the light of the considerable activity of various foreign Governments in the field of propaganda by means of the Press, broadcasting and films, this House urges the Government to pay more attention to publicity and' to render wholehearted moral and
1868
financial support to schemes which will make certain of the effective presentation of British news abroad."
The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Furness.]
Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GERMAN MOTOR CARS.
  GERMAN MOTOR CARS.
  EXPORTS TO CHINA
  EXPORTS TO CHINA
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (EMERGENCY DIVERSION).
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (EMERGENCY DIVERSION).
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  AALAND ISLANDS.
  AALAND ISLANDS.
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (WOMEN).
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (WOMEN).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  GLASGOW.
  GLASGOW.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, BIRKENHEAD.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, BIRKENHEAD.
  WORLD'S FAIR, NEW YORK.
  WORLD'S FAIR, NEW YORK.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  DEATH DUTIES (AVOIDANCE).
  DEATH DUTIES (AVOIDANCE).
  CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN'S PAY).
  CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN'S PAY).
  BURGH OF DALBEATTIE (ACCOUNTS).
  BURGH OF DALBEATTIE (ACCOUNTS).
  WOMEN POLICE.
  WOMEN POLICE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DEPENDANTS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DEPENDANTS).
  WEST INDIES AND GUIANA (TRADE UNIONS).
  WEST INDIES AND GUIANA (TRADE UNIONS).
  LONDON-PARIS AIR SERVICE.
  LONDON-PARIS AIR SERVICE.
  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVANTS (REFRESHER COURSES).
  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVANTS (REFRESHER COURSES).
  SEYCHELLES (CINNAMON-LEAF OIL).
  SEYCHELLES (CINNAMON-LEAF OIL).
  HONG KONG (TRADE UNIONS).
  HONG KONG (TRADE UNIONS).
  PALESTINE (LONDON DISCUSSIONS).
  PALESTINE (LONDON DISCUSSIONS).
  WEST INDIES (WAGES).
  WEST INDIES (WAGES).
TRANSPORT
  ISLE OF UIST
  ISLE OF UIST
  ISLE OF HARRIS
  ISLE OF HARRIS
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, EAST ANGLIA
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, EAST ANGLIA
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, ABINGDON
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, ABINGDON
  HIGH COURT AND ASSIZES (DELAYS)
  HIGH COURT AND ASSIZES (DELAYS)
  POLICE COURT PROCEDURE (NAME SUPPRESSION)
  POLICE COURT PROCEDURE (NAME SUPPRESSION)
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS (PUBLICITY)
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS (PUBLICITY)
ROYAL NAVY
  ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KEYHAM
  ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KEYHAM
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "DUKE OF YORK."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "DUKE OF YORK."
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD MILFORD.
Sir Laurence Richard Philipps, Baronet, having been created Baron Milford of Llanstephan in the County of Radnor—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD HANKEY.
Sir Maurice Paschal Alers Hankey, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., having been created Baron Hankey of The Chart in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

DEER AND GROUND GAME (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Zetland, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision as regards Scotland for the prevention of damage to crops by deer or rabbits; to amend the law of Scotland relating to the rights of occupiers to kill ground game, and to the use of poison or spring traps or the use of firearms at night for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CLUBS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the registration of clubs in England and Wales and the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor therein, and for purposes connected therewith; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Clwyd.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (PUBLICATION OF REGISTER) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1928, in respect of the date of publishing the register; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Jessel).
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

RAILWAY POLICY.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL rose to call attention to the defects in the policy pursued by British railways in the past and to ask His Majesty's Government for an assurance that in granting, or contemplating the grant, of any new powers to the railways they are at the same time giving attention to the importance of ensuring that the mistakes of the past are not repeated; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the finances of British railways are in such a serious condition that I think everybody agrees that something must be done about the matter. Exactly what ought to be done is not so clear. In these circumstances it is important to ensure that remedies are not applied that are worse than the disease. So few people have had the time or inclination to study railways that it may be useful to begin by very shortly summarising their history. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was opened in 1829 and was at once brilliantly successful. For the next twenty years or so up to about 1850, in spite of a good deal of financial trouble, largely

747
due to the losses of investors in the railway mania period in the middle 'forties, very great progress was made, and railway appliances and railway services improved out of all knowledge.
By this time the position of the railways was secure. It was everywhere obvious that for the purpose of inland transport they were so far superior to any possible rival that no competition need be considered except the competition of one railway with another. There had by this time grown up a large professional class of railway officials who very quickly perceived the strength of their position and saw that all they need do to secure for themselves a quiet and untroubled life for any time to which they could look forward was to agree with one another to do as nearly as possible nothing in the way of technical development or improved service. Although of course much new line had to be built, and complete inertia in technical development was not feasible, it is not unfair to say that such improvements as took place were usually made in spite of the bitter opposition of the railway officials. The adoption of block signals and continuous brakes are classic instances. These things were forced upon the unwilling railways by the Board of Trade. Speeds of 75 miles an hour had been attained in the 'forties. Maximum speeds were still about 75 miles an hour in the 'nineties.
One result of the inertia and lack of foresight of this period was that a system of working the goods and mineral traffic was allowed to grow up which has led to some of the worst troubles from which the railways are suffering to-day. British goods and mineral traffic has always been carried on in small lots at frequent intervals and at fairly high speeds. I do not suggest that this system is without valuable features, and it would take far too long to discuss it in detail to-day; but the system was allowed to get completely out of hand, and was carried to ridiculously wasteful extremes. Single parcels of awkward and cumbrous shape were regularly accepted on the one hand, and, on the other, no proper arrangements were made for carrying in an economical manner the heavy mineral traffic passing at regular intervals. The vehicles were not big enough, and the colliery sidings and terminals in industrial works were not adapted to dealing with big vehicles.
748
The prime advantage of railways—that of being able to carry very large loads with a small amount of man-power—was not utilised as it should have been.
From about 1900 things became slightly better. Certain attempts were made to work on a larger scale, and a number of technical improvements were, very belatedly, put in hand. There was, however, no real change of spirit in the railway managements who, far from regarding themselves as partners with, and regarding themselves even less as servants of, the public, still made a quiet life for themselves their principal aim and object. Their point of view was exactly expressed by a well-known General Manager who remarked:
"The railways have the advantage of speed, and need not exercise themselves to enhance this advantage."
The interests of the public did not occur to him as being worth a thought. So things went on till about ten years ago. Up to that time the railway officials never seriously thought of mending their ways. As late as 1927 the Chairman of the London and North-Eastern Company, when asked whether he would increase to 60 miles an hour the speed of the best trains between London and the principal centres served by that railway, replied "No." When asked if he would introduce third-class sleeping carriages, he replied "I hope not."
It is therefore with all the more pleasure that I offer the London and North-Eastern Railway my most sincere congratulations, in which I hope your Lordships will join, upon the really remarkable improvements that have been effected in the last ten years. It is no longer a case of 60 miles per hour to the principal towns. York and Darlington may be reached at 70 miles an hour: Leeds, Newcastle, and Edinburgh at over 65; and there is even hope for Norwich. Third-class sleeping carriages are found where required, and, though I believe no formal instructions on the making up of lost time—that is to say, punctuality—have been issued, the position in this respect also has much improved. Goods traffic methods have changed for the better by getting the trains more quickly over the line by means of improved signalling and more powerful and economical engines. The permanent way is better, more cheaply, and much less laboriously maintained by modern methods of packing. Goods are

749
largely despatched in containers or expeditiously distributed by road motors from railhead. If improvements on the other three groups have not so far reached the high standard attained by the London and North-Eastern Company, similar developments on a smaller scale are perceptible on all of them. Indeed, from a technical and operating point of view, never since the very early days has there been such a burst of activity.
We must not, however, allow ourselves to be carried away by satisfaction at certain aspects of the railway problem. It would be folly to ignore the dark shadows. One very unsatisfactory feature of recent railway activity is that it has been accompanied by what can only be described as the "stunt" of electrification on surface railways. By "stunt" I mean a spectacular move that involves the spending of a great deal of money and is useless when completed. I have studied railway electrification as carefully as I can and, so far as I can make out, its usefulness is confined to underground lines. Owing to the adventitious fact that electricity does not exhaust or foul the air, its use on railways which are entirely or largely in tube is unavoidable. On surface lines its only technical advantages are slightly quicker starting and a small saving of space in terminal stations. It is enormously expensive to instal, and an electric motor costs roughly twice the price of a steam locomotive of equal power. Owing to difficulties of springing the heavy motors electric engines knock the road to pieces, and the vibration thus set up causes acute discomfort to passengers. I have recently exchanged experiences with some half-dozen friends and casual acquaintances of their impressions of journeys in the electric trains of the Southern Railway. All except one had felt serious discomfort, and the one exception was a retired naval officer who is, presumably, accustomed to rough seas.
Neither is there any reason to suppose that electrification pays. The Southern Railway have again and again been asked for particulars of the finance of electrification. They always flatly refuse to give them. They merely go on repeating that the traffic has largely increased on the electrified sections. Of course it has. The number of residents in the suburban districts served by the Southern Railway has largely increased
750
and traffic must have grown whatever system of traction was used. The railway's claim is a mere subterfuge to conceal awkward facts. Again, the Chairman of the Great Western Railway has recently told us that the electrification of the whole of the main line west of Taunton is under consideration, and he has added that a firm of electrical engineers has been asked to report on the subject. It is, of course, a foregone conclusion that they will report strongly in favour of a large expenditure of money in their own trade. This is the kind of way things are done. It is quite certain there will be no advantage for the shareholders or for the public.
Who is it that benefits? That is a most interesting question, and one that might very properly engage the attention of the Government. It must be remembered that it was the Government who, in their intense anxiety to snatch at any colourable excuse for spending, agreed to lend the railways millions of the taxpayers' money below the economic rate of interest, and took no proper steps to ensure that the money should be usefully employed. It was putting temptation in the way of the electrical industry that has never been backward in making claims that cannot by any means always be substantiated. It was also inviting trade practices of which the less said the better. It can only be hoped that the virtue of the various parties subjected to these unnecessary temptations is sufficient to withstand them.
When the railways asked to be relieved from their present obligations the principal reason which they alleged for this request was the pressure of the competition of road vehicles. Road vehicles are said to skim off the cream of the traffic and leave the railways only the less paying kind. Now railways are specially suited for moving very large loads. They have, and are never likely to lose, three immense sources of traffic; firstly, heavy goods and mineral traffic; secondly, intensive passenger traffic into and round the big towns; and, thirdly, long distance passenger traffic. The traffic they have lost is that where their immense carrying power is least felt; that is to say, for which they are least suited. The trouble is that railway goods rates have never been fixed upon an economic basis. The railways have always charged, in their own words, "what the traffic will bear." Put in another way, this means that they

751
have charged the more valuable consignments rates out of all proportion to the value of the services they have rendered, and have used the profits thus secured to subsidise the transport of cheaper and more bulky merchandise. In essentials the trouble is that the policy of favouring one kind of traffic against another has broken down. The subsidy has behaved as subsidies usually do behave, and has come home to roost.
It is noticeable that the railways are extremely reticent about what they propose to do if granted the new powers for which they ask. The Minister of Transport himself has failed to elicit any information. Unfortunately the whole history of officialdom on railways tends to show that it is only really stringent conditions such as have existed in the last ten years that can galvanise railway officials into life. If they are not constantly kept up to the mark they slacken effort, and it is difficult to avoid the fear that any considerable easing of their position would quickly lead to an abandonment of that activity for which we had to wait so long. The unpleasant fact also has to be faced that the immediate cause of all this trouble is that the wages of the railway servants have been forced up by political action to a point too high to allow the railway shareholders to receive a suitable return on their holdings This is obviously detrimental to the public interest, for the shareholders provide means for carrying on one of the vital public services. The capitalisation of the railways, moreover, cannot seriously be regarded as too high because it is much less than the sum that would be required to replace the railways.
This trouble, unfortunately, does not stand alone. It is merely one aspect of the present condition of national finance, which has landed this country where it now stands, in Queer Street. It is the inevitable result of subsidies, because subsidies, no matter of what kind, always tend to prevent proper provision from being made for the future. The railway servants are receiving not only that proportion of the railway receipts which they earn, but also a supplement which is earned by the thrift of the shareholders but taken from the shareholders and handed over to the railway servants. This is the morass in which we are now floundering, and, though it may be
752
possible to make some arrangements for relieving the acute troubles of the railways, no temporary expedient can settle the fundamental trouble, which is that this country is living beyond its income. These are, I believe, the principal facts bearing on the case put very shortly; and a pretty kettle of fish they are.
I have asked that steps may be taken to prevent a repetition of the mistakes of the past, so I must say a few words on that subject. My own belief is that most of the trouble has come from the weakness of the boards of directors. The boards are supposed to be a committee of shareholders whose function is to ensure that the interests of the public, the shareholders and the railway servants all receive suitable consideration. In some ways the boards are almost ideal bodies. They are mostly composed of big industrialists, landowners and public men, all of the highest character and personal integrity. But that is not enough. They also have defects which destroy their usefulness. The directors know so little about railways and can spare so little time to learn, that in practice they are hardly more than a body for registering the decrees of their professional advisers. These advisers value, above all things, a quiet life for themselves and when it is a question on the one hand of fair treatment for the unorganised and impotent shareholders or, on the other hand, of saving trouble by giving way to some demand of the highly organised railway servants, there is never any doubt what they will do. The real remedy is to get the boards to take their duties seriously. One of their first duties is effectively to organise the shareholders for such action as may be necessary, and another is to ensure that the railway managers and officials should at least continue the activity which they have recently displayed. I beg to move for Papers.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in spite of nine years experience as a Member of Parliament in another place I feel very much in need of your Lordships' indulgence in making my maiden speech here to-day. I feel especially in need of that indulgence because I know that the noble Lord who has just spoken is an expert on the subject which he has raised and I most certainly am not. Whether one is in agreement with all that has just been said or not, I am sure your

753
Lordships will be grateful that the subject has been raised to-day, because it is a particularly appropriate moment, when railway companies are making claims for most drastic revision of the law which, in many respects, has hindered them in the past. I can only look at this subject from the point of view of the man in the street, who has to use the railways for business and pleasure and also, on occasion, to despatch goods. I think it is quite clear, if one follows the history of the railways since they were inaugurated, that they have been fettered by a great many rules, regulations and restrictions which have now entirely outlived their usefulness. At the same time, I think it would be most dangerous to sweep all these rules away and give the railway companies an entirely free hand.
It is also true, as one can see from reading the history of railways in this country, that they are suffering from a great many difficulties which were put in their way when they were originally built. Most unfair prices had to be paid by the companies before they could build their lines, and it is not an exaggeration to say that they are still, more than one hundred years later, feeling the effects of that kind of obstruction. But at the same time I would not advocate sweeping away all forms of control over the companies, because that would be very dangerous and would lead to results which we cannot at present foresee at all. It will be very interesting to hear to-day what the views of His Majesty's Government are on this question. I very much hope that they will come to the conclusion that the railway companies do need some assistance, but also that that assistance should be tempered with discretion. I think that if this all-important question is handled with wisdom and foresight there will be a new and better era, not only for the railway companies, but for the whole country. If I may just sum up what I feel on this matter, I would say that I think the railway companies should be granted a very large measure of the freedom which they are now seeking, but that even then there should be some definite control of railways in regard to the conveyance of traffic, and a continuation of the general supervision which the Ministry of Transport now exercises with regard to safety and matters of that kind. I do not feel that the railway companies should be
754
granted a blank cheque to charge what they like, because that would not be for the general good of the country.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like at the outset of my remarks to congratulate the noble Earl, who has just sat down, on a very able maiden speech. Your Lordships have often heard such congratulations offered but I venture to say never with more reason than to-day. If I may say so, taking the substance of the noble Earl's remarks about railways, I, as a railway director, have not the smallest fault to find with a single word that he said. The railway companies have no desire to exploit the community and no one is more alive to the need for proper charges and reasonable charges than are the railway companies.
Now, if I may, I will turn to one or two of the remarks which fell from the noble Lord who moved the Motion. To begin with, the noble Lord dealt rather with past history. I thought at first that he was going to deal almost wholly with the past. He told us about a good many things that ought to have happened long ago and I thought that he was going to reside entirely in a bygone age. Then, to my great pleasure if I may say so, the noble Lord came to life and he told us, in phrases which I envied, and which I could not myself dream of bettering, about some of the things which the London and North-Eastern Company have done in the past ten years. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord because what he said is perfectly true, and I am sincerely grateful to him for having followed what has been done and for being ready to give praise where praise is due. If I may, I would just venture to correct one figure which he gave. He said you could travel from London to York at 70 miles an hour. As a matter of fact, the exact rate is 71.9 miles per hour. It happens to be a journey of 188 miles and the train is the fastest in the British Empire.
Then the noble Lord, having been kind for a moment, pulled himself together and said it would never do to be carried away by satisfaction. He went on to condemn the railways, among other things, for their system of charges. He said the railway companies have adopted a system of charging the traffic the rates which the traffic will bear. That is the very thing we are trying to get rid of.

755
The noble Lord did not tell your Lordships that that system is imposed on the railway companies by Act of Parliament. That is just one of the troubles we are dealing with at the present time. The noble Lord then went on to condemn any attempt to electrify railway systems and I should like, if I may, to say a word about that. I should have thought that it was absolutely res judicata that for dense suburban traffic electrification was the only possible system by which to get the maximum traffic which is necessary in the circumstances we have to face to-day. Before the noble Lord spoke, I wondered whether we were open to attack for not having done sufficient electrification or for having done too much. But the noble Lord condemned electrification root and branch, although I think he did say that electrification might be all right for the tube railways.
LORD MONKSWELL: It was surface electrification I condemned, not the electrification of tube railways. I said that was necessary.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I gather that the noble Lord approves electrification of tube railways mainly because they run in tunnels and with electrification you do not get smoke. That seems to be the only redeeming feature in the noble Lord's view. The real point about electrification, of course, is that where there is dense traffic, you can only get the maximum number of trains by electrification. Once you have got your line electrified you can run a very much larger number of trains per hour than you can when steam is the motive power. The trains are made up of multiple units. There is no shunting. The trains run into a terminus at one end and they can start out the other way, and the saving both in time and in expense is very great. The Southern Railway, apart from the suburban traffic in and about London, is the railway which has gone in most intensively for electrification. I believe they have electrified something like between 650 and 700 route miles. That system is peculiarly suitable for the Southern Railway. I do not want to say anything which is rude to the railway with which my noble friend below me is connected, but the Southern Railway is really a glorified tramway, and that is why electrification is so suitable for that
756
particular area. What I might call main line electrification is quite another thing. The Southern Railway represents 12 per cent. of the railway business of this country, and of that 12 per cent. only 1 per cent. is, I believe, merchandise. Therefore the Southern Railway is in an entirely different category to the other three main line railways.
Practically speaking, there has been no main line railway electrification carried out in this country yet. There is a certain amount on the Tyne, but that is perhaps rather special. The project which is now under construction is the electrification of the main line between Manchester and Sheffield on the London and North-Eastern Railway, and that is being undertaken because, for certain technical reasons, it would seem to offer a very favourable field. I can assure the noble Lord that the reports from electrical engineers were far from being the only matters under consideration when this expenditure was authorised, and I am sorry the noble Lord thinks that all railway directors are so very biddable and obedient to their experts. I am bound to say that I think he gave your Lordships a rather distorted picture of the proceedings which go on in the board room of a great railway. So much for electrification. If I may just add one word, it is that you get infinitely quicker acceleration and more rapid stopping.
LORD MONKSWELL: I really must protest against that. You do not get more rapid stopping. The stopping is done by the air brake which is exactly the same on a steam train as it is on an electric train.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Two similar brakes no doubt give similar results, but nevertheless I am advised that you do get quicker stopping as well as more rapid acceleration with the electric train. Apart from electricity, the noble Lord told us that merchandise is carried in much too small quantities, goods and minerals in too small lots, and that the vehicles are not big enough. This is a very old story about the 20-ton wagon. The railways have always been in favour of larger wagons, but the railways do not have the last word. The proportion of the wagons which are owned by the railways is only a part of the wagons which are on the railroads, and our masters are the traders. I sup-

757
pose the mineral traffic is best adapted for large wagons. I believe that the whole of the coal traffic that is shipped from the north-east ports is carried from the colliery to the coast in large mineral wagons. I believe it is a fact that the whole of the docks in South Wales are equipped to handle traffic in large wagons, but unfortunately that is not the case among the colliery companies generally.
I have an extract here which I think I will read to your Lordships from the Report of the Standing Committee on Mineral Transport issued in 1929. That Report says:
"Our investigations show that 56 per cent. of the collieries on a tonnage output basis and 64 per cent. of collieries on a numerical basis cannot handle 20-ton wagons. Also that 43 per cent. of private sidings serving works with a weekly consumption of 500 tons of coal cannot take the 20-ton wagons and the position at smaller works is likely to be even more unsatisfactory.…
"Another reason for the reluctance to adopt: the 20-ton wagon is that the small consignee prefers a small truck. In many cases his trade is of such a character that either lie would have to take a large wagon partially filled or he would hold up for a very long time a large wagon with a full load."
That applies, of course, to merchandise.
The railways would much prefer to handle trains made up of large wagons, and the railways do all they can to encourage traders to send their goods in large quantities, but unfortunately the traders show a disposition to do exactly the opposite. The average load for general merchandise has decreased since 1929 from 2.94 tons to 2.88 tons in 1937, and that is in spite of all the efforts which the railways have made by quoting lower rates for large quantities and in other ways. There is a way in which the railways have been successful and it has been referred to by the noble Lord who gave us credit for having done what we could to encourage the use of what are called bulk containers. Those are containers in which goods can be bulked. Where there were only 1,500 of them in use in 1928 there are 15,000 of them now in daily use.
There is only one other figure I would like to give your Lordships and that is with regard to the complication of the privately-owned wagon. In 1929 there were 5,000 separate owners, and 35 per cent. only of the wagons were greater than 12-ton capacity. I do not think I
758
need say anything with regard to speed. The noble Lord was good enough to give us credit for having increased the speed, and I can leave that alone. The noble Lord was not very polite about inertia and coma and all the rest of it, but I would like to mention that the British railways, as far as I know, are the only railways in Europe, possibly in the world, who have not got their fingers in the taxpayers' pockets. I do not know whether the noble Lord would wish me to say it, but it is perfectly true we have had the advantage of some State guaranteed money. That is true. It enabled us to get our money rather cheaper. It is, I believe, literally true that there is no other system of railways in Europe which is not having subsidies from the Government of the country. I may be wrong; I am not sure that Luxembourg does not have railways which pay their way. If so, it is an exception on which I think we can only congratulate Luxembourg without being seriously disturbed.
There is one test on efficiency which I think I can give your Lordships, and that is engine mileage. Engine mileage is a good criterion of work performed. Engine mileage in 1927 was practically the same as engine mileage in 1937, but the working expenses were down in that period by 15 per cent., and that, I think it is obvious, could not have been done without efficiency on the part of those who are responsible for that result. There is the question of wages. The noble Lord was inclined to blame us, I believe, for paying too high wages. Of course there again the wages are settled by conciliation machinery, derived from the Act of 1921. The Government conceded the eight-hour day to the railway unions without, I think, even consulting the railway companies, and the same conciliation machinery has worked from that time. Of course it is not only the eight-hour day which is expensive, but the conditions with which the eight-hour day is accompanied. In some ways the conditions cost even more than the wages.
I do not know whether I need seriously defend the railway directors from the charge of inefficiency. I was interested to observe in an evening newspaper that they had worked out the average age of railway boards. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that everyone is too old at sixty. The average age of

759
my own board is 57½. I have always been taught to believe that the prime of life is ten years older than the age of the man you are talking to. It is not a bad rule, and by that rule I think the average age of 57½ ought to go down fairly well in your Lordships' House. We really are struggling for efficiency, and I think not without success. The road competition has the tremendous advantage of "door to door," and I must remind your Lordships that one of the great difficulties under which the railways labour is the fact that their stations are so often a mile or so from the village or town that they have to serve. I suppose that in the period 1840 to 1870 any railway that was built was tremendously petitioned against, and there again your Lordships' House has had a share in creating the circumstances which now do add difficulty to the attempts of the railways to secure efficiency. I am not mentioning that in any spirit of reproach, but merely as an historical fact.
When we are accused of inefficiency sometimes I think all that derives from the fact that people do get accustomed to such a wonderfully high level of service that they are inclined to be a little bit unreasonable if there is sometimes a falling away from that high level. I was travelling south from Scotland on a night when there was a considerable snow storm just before Christmas, and I happened to look out of the window of my sleeper on several occasions during the night. On every occasion, apparently, there was blinding snow, and one could see little or nothing. In the morning when we arrived I found that the space of half an inch or so between the glass and the wooden shutter of my sleeper was packed solid with snow, and I do not think there could be any doubt that the train had been running through a blinding snow storm all night. Yet it arrived at King's Cross exactly one hour late, and I could not help thinking that that was something in the nature of a miracle. I think we get so accustomed to the high level of service and punctuality of trains that when any failure occurs undue blame is attached. I can only say that I know from the inside that the aim of the railways is to serve the public, and I believe that the level of efficiency has never been so high as it is to-day. This is not the time to enter into a discussion of the so-
760
called Square Deal. That is a matter which is sub judice, and I must not go too far in discussing that, but I would only like to add, in conclusion, that I do not think the noble Lord has made out a case that we are inefficient, and I believe that we are doing a job of work for the general public with efficiency and a real regard to the public interest.
THE EARL OE ERNE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, on his excellent maiden speech. I hope we shall often see him here taking part in our debates. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has raised a very interesting topic in initiating a debate on the subject of the British railways. He will not, I hope, expect me to deal in detail with many of the points of railway administration which he has mentioned. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who is conversant with the day-to-day working of the railways, has intervened in this debate, and covered many of these points. I would remind your Lordships, however, that the railways are not a Government service, and that subject to statutory regulation in certain respects, notably safety and charges, railway policy is a matter for the railway directors, who are, in turn, responsible to their shareholders.
Now let me turn to the five main points in Lord Monkswell's speech. First of all, it is obvious that Lord Monks-well does not like electrification, but it has many advantages in suitable conditions. Rapid acceleration and ease pf reversing at terminals are very real advantages. As an example, the Southern Railway, giving evidence before the Railway Rates Tribunal in 1933, said:
"If it had not been for our policy of electrification our net revenue would have been very considerably less than it is to-day, even after making allowance for interest on the capital that has been spent."
They also stated that
"the whole subject of an electric service is to give improved facilities; and for every two steam trains we have taken off, we have put on five electric trains."
As regards the noble Lord's statement that the Government "agreed to lend the railways millions of the taxpayers' money below an economic rate of interest, and took no proper steps to ensure that the money should be usefully employed,"

761
I should like to deal a little more fully with this as it is a matter of Government policy. This statement is not strictly accurate. By an Agreement scheduled to the Railways (Agreement) Act, 1935, the railway companies were to borrow the capital necessary to finance certain works from a finance company which, in turn, raised money from the general public by the issue of securities. All that the Government did was to guarantee these securities as to principal and interest. By this means the companies were able to undertake works which they could not otherwise have done, and large numbers of men have obtained work in consequence. These works are all designed to improve facilities. They have been agreed with the Government, and include such things as the improvement of lines and the reconstruction and enlargement of stations. The point about the railway system of working goods and mineral traffic has been dealt with very fully by Lord Balfour, and I do not propose to deal further with this rather complicated railway matter.
As regards classification, this system was imposed on the railways by Parliament after expert inquiry. The present classification was settled by the Rates Advisory Committee in pursuance of the provisions of Section 29 of the Railways Act, 1921. The section provided that in determining the classification the Committee should, in addition to all other relevant circumstances, have regard to value, to the bulk in comparison to weight, to the risk of damage, to the cost of handling and to the saving of cost which might result when merchandise was forwarded in large quantities. The quoting of exceptional rates and agreed charges—particularly during recent years in reply to competition by other forms of transport—has to some extent cut across the existing classification table, but the general principle of a classification of merchandise primarily according to value and bulk is still the foundation on which the railway rates structure is built. This matter is one which is being very closely examined by the Transport Advisory Council, and I cannot very well say more about it at present.
With regard to wages, in common with the policy adopted in industry generally, the wages and working conditions of railway servants are in the first instance the subject of joint negotiation between
762
representatives of the railway companies and the trade unions. If agreement cannot be reached in this way, the matter comes before a tribunal on which an independent element is represented. Since 1935 this final court of appeal has been a body known as the Railway Staff National Tribunal, upon which neither the railway companies nor the railway trade unions are represented; it consists of three members, none of whom is directly connected with the railways. I cannot myself see what better form of machinery for wages negotiations could be devised; or in what way the interests of the shareholders could be more adequately safeguarded.
As regards the future, the whole matter is closely bound up, as I said before, with the present claim of the railways for some relaxation of their conditions. The Transport Advisory Council will in due course report to the Minister, and the Government will have to decide what action, if any, to take. I can assure the noble Lord that in this matter His Majesty's Government will give very full consideration to the effect any change may have on all interests concerned. I would only, in conclusion, remind your Lordships that any relaxation of the present statutory control of railway charges will require legislation, and so will come before this House when there will be ample opportunities for further debate.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this subject is so important that I feel it necessary to say just a few words on behalf of the Party I represent in your Lordships' House. First of all, I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, on his most excellent speech. If he will allow me to say so, my only regret is that it was made from the Benches opposite, and I hope that now that he is in the more rarified atmosphere of your Lordships' House he will presently make the transition to this side. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, reminded your Lordships that every railway in Europe in private hands is subsidised, with the exception, I think he said, of the Luxembourg railways. The Luxembourg railways, in other words, are the only ones to-day that are paying their way, and I think that in this country, with the exception of the Southern Railway, it cannot be said that the railways are paying. They are not

763
able to pay, the conditions are against them, in particular the competition of road transport. The increasing number of people even who go by aeroplane has made a great difference to the traffic of all railways, and they are not a paying proposition to-day. In spite of that, I am bound to state from my own observations and information that the British railways are as efficient as any in the world, and are very well run. But they are not a paying proposition, and you will have this continual trouble as long as they remain in the hands of private companies.
It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that I have risen to make in a word the claim for nationalisation. The Party for which I have the honour to speak believes that the whole transport problem in this country, which becomes more and more acute all the time—transport by canal, road, railway, coastal traffic and so on—can only be solved by a great measure of national control.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Might I interrupt the noble Lord? He would perhaps tell us whether he would mind, after taking over the railways, whether they paid or not.
LORD STRABOLGI: I would not mind a bit as long as they served the community. As a matter of fact, I was coming to a point on that which I shall make. Do the roads pay? Think of the millions we spend on roads. They are a necessity, but we do not make a profit on our roads. We used to. We used to have turnpike roads on which tolls were paid, and a few still exist. But the roads are public utilities. With regard to this point about railways paying, consider the case of the German railways before the War. Both the noble Lord who introduced this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, are experts, and they are aware that one of the main reasons for the great increase in German industry and export up to 1914 was a highly efficient railway system, nationally controlled and owned. The German railways showed a deficit, but they were run, organised and managed for the benefit of German industry, with tremendous results for the advantage of German industry. I believe that is not disputed and that it was one of the main reasons for the great increase in German commerce before the War. Of course the German railways
764
showed a deficit, but it was advantageous to the whole German nation that that policy should be followed.
I would remind your Lordships also that during the late War our railways had to be taken over. I dare say if another great war comes upon us as the result of the Government's policy, which I quite anticipate, the railways will have to be taken over again. After the War the Coalition Government, of which the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, was a member, announced publicly, through Mr. Churchill, that the railways were going to be nationalised. Then some vested interests or prejudices intervened, and that policy was not carried through; but as the result of the experiment of those years the Coalition Government, which was a Government of the Right, not a Socialist Government at all, proposed to do that. Our policy, as I say—and we think it is the only one that can possibly solve these great problems—is to take over, co-ordinate, and manage in the interests of the community the whole of the transport of the country, including the railways, and when we do that in the near future I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord who introduced this Motion will give us the benefit of their assistance.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I should like to begin my reply by adding my testimony to the interest with which we listened to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. I felt there was a peculiar connection in this case. As many of your Lordships are aware, I have on various occasions ventured to bring the subject of railways before the House in the last twelve or fifteen years. I had never spoken in the House before until the noble Earl's father, who was then Leader of the Liberal Opposition, wrote to me and suggested that I should put a Motion on the Paper, which he himself would support. I did so, and we had a very good debate. That started me off in this direction to which, rightly or wrongly, I have adhered ever since. In the absence of the father, I have great pleasure in offering my thanks to the son.
I do not know that there is very much I need say on the various points raised by Lord Balfour and by the noble Earl, Lord Erne. I was a little disappointed with Lord Balfour's speech as I am one of those who regard him as one of the

765
best speakers in this House. I must say he hardly seemed to live up to that. He seemed to lead us up to a certain point and then to sheer off, particularly with regard to electrification. He told us how splendid it was, and how everybody agreed with what the experts said, but he did not come to the question of finance. There was not a single word about that. What I want to know is what are the relative estimates of the cost of running an electric service and that of running a service by the most efficient of modern steam locomotives. I have no doubt whatever that the modern steam locomotive would have it every time and that it would save millions of money.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think I can answer that. You can run two electric locomotives, taking every financial factor into account, for the cost of one steam locomotive.
LORD MONKSWELL: That is the kind of statement I dislike. I want to know what the capital cost of the electric locomotive is and what the capital cost of the steam locomotive is. It really comes down to capital cost.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I did say to the noble Lord "taking every financial factor into account," including capital cost.
LORD MONKSWELL: How much did the electrification to Hove cost?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think that is much more a matter for the shareholders of the Southern Railway than for your Lordships' House.
LORD MONKSWELL: I am entirely dissatisfied with what the noble Earl said, and I do not consider it carries us any further at all. If the noble Earl will give us the full figures I asked for, I should be glad to go into them and, if I am wrong, write to the papers and confess my error. I am perfectly certain he will not give us the figures. I have been at meetings of the Southern Railway myself when shareholders have been shrieking for them, and they have not been given. I am sorry to take up your Lordships' time, but I am not in the least impressed by what noble Lords have said. With regard to the noble Earl who spoke for the Government, I gathered from him that the Government proposed to do nothing. It is interesting to hear that that is so. That
766
is the question I asked, so I must leave it at that. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made a very interesting speech about German railways, but I do not think he laid stress on the real point. Before the War the German railways were often a great help to German trade, but has he any information about the wages paid to German railwaymen, and would he ask British railwaymen to accept similar wages? I do not think he had better run that hare too hard. He suggested that British railways should be nationalised, but he did not say a word about buying up the shareholders or what sort of terms he would offer.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not want to make a long speech, but it is quite well known that the policy of my Party is to compensate the shareholders.
LORD MONKSWELL: Out of taxes paid by themselves? But we can hardly discuss that now. I have kept your Lordships long enough, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NIGHT COLLISIONS WITH STATIONARY VEHICLES.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDhad given Notice that he would draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the number of collisions that occur after dark, between motor-cars and motor-bicycles and heavy transport vehicles stationary on the roads; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, one of the most notable changes which have taken place, especially on our main roads, during the last few years has been the great development of the carriage of heavy goods. It is no part of my intention to-day to discuss the highly controversial question of whether it would have been better, in the first place, to have diverted that traffic to the railways, as many people believe. It is quite likely, had that been done, it would have been much more advantageous to the railways than any of the schemes of nationalisation so dear to some people's hearts. But undoubtedly this growth of the carrying of heavy goods on our roads, particularly after dark, has given rise to a number of problems, especially in regard to the increase in the number of collisions and other accidents. It is my hope that I

767
shall show your Lordships in the few minutes which I wish to occupy this afternoon that hitherto these problems have not been given the attention that they deserve.
I wish to make it clear in the first place that this is in no way an attack on the drivers of heavy commercial vehicles. There are among them, of course, un-skilful and discourteous drivers, but, then, these exist among all classes of drivers, and I do not think there is any evidence to show that the drivers of heavy goods vehicles are any worse than any other section of the road-using community. The fact remains that we have now on a great many of our main roads an enormous traffic in heavy goods, carried particularly after dark. My attention has been drawn to this in the course of the last few months as a result of a number of fatal accidents which have taken place, particularly in the two Scottish counties with which I have special connection. In each of those counties two accidents took place involving the loss of eight lives in all. Each of these was due to a motor car or motor bicycle colliding after dark with a large heavy transport vehicle stationary by the roadside. It is likely, and indeed probable, that in some of these cases there was negligence or recklessness on the part of the driver of the overtaking vehicle. But, even if that is the case, we have to bear in mind that only a limited number of the drivers of motor vehicles are people who might be described as really skilled. In framing legislation or regulations for traffic we have to remember that a very considerable proportion of drivers are and always will be what I may term semiskilled, and that, furthermore, no number of certificates from a driving school will ever show what the reactions of a driver will be when he is faced with an emergency and has only seconds, or perhaps a fraction of a second, in which to act.
I think it is probable that most of these accidents have been caused by an inadequacy of light on the rear of the stationary vehicle. A good many of these heavy lorries are still lighted with oil lamps. The number, I imagine, is a steadily diminishing one, but there is still quite a substantial proportion of these lamps being used which under the best conditions are not visible at a very great distance, and when it is remembered that these lorries run for sometimes
768
several hundreds of miles throughout the night, often over wet roads, it is not surprising that even quite powerful lights become obscured with mud and dirt, and are, therefore, visible at an even shorter distance than would normally be the case. Besides there is the point that all of your Lordships who do much driving after dark will appreciate, and that is that when the roads are wet and there is rain falling, or there is fog or rain accompanied by bright moonlight, it is extraordinary how difficult it is to pick up a stationary vehicle even when one is driving at a very moderate speed. This is noticeably the case when another vehicle is coming from the opposite direction. Even if there is no question of being dazzled the mere amount of light of the oncoming vehicle that gets into one's eyes makes it very difficult indeed to perceive a stationary lorry at more than a comparatively short distance.
Actually I believe that Section 50 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930 does make it an offence to leave any vehicle by the side of the road so as to be a danger to other users of the road, but in practice my information is that this section is very largely a dead letter. The prosecutions under it are few in number, and have been mainly, if not entirely, confined to cases where lorries or other vehicles have been left on a bend or in some other actually dangerous position. Now these heavy transport drivers are compelled by Statute to rest every four hours, and it is impossible for them in the majority of cases to find any place off the road where they can park their vehicles. They cannot do as the driver of an ordinary light car would and get into a gateway, because there is no room. They cannot draw up into a side road, because they would block all traffic out of that side road. As a rule they cannot even draw on to a grass verge, because if they do the weight of their vehicle is so great that the side of the road in many cases would and sometimes does give way and the vehicle would be precipitated into the ditch. For this reason they are obliged to remain more or less on the highway, blocking up a large portion of it, and thereby constituting themselves a considerable danger to other road users.
The attention of the Ministry of Transport has, I believe, in the past been drawn to this, but I am not aware of anything having yet been done. I shall

769
be glad to learn from the noble Earl, who, I understand, is to reply for the Government, whether any steps are contemplated in the near future. But, having raised this subject, I venture to make two suggestions which I think are of a constructive nature. The first is that when main roads are being reconstructed, or new roads or by-passes built, wherever they are likely to have to carry a large amount of heavy traffic, particularly after dark, bays should be provided of a reasonable size and at fairly frequent intervals. If this were done it would not add perceptibly to the already very heavy cost of repairing or making these roads, and would certainly add very considerably to the safety of all road users. I think it is rather unfortunate that in the past few years, when we have spent so many tens of millions of pounds upon our roads, more provision has not been made for places where vehicles can draw off the road when the time comes for the drivers to have to rest.
The other suggestion that I would make is perhaps of a more original nature. The Automobile Association, I believe, do provide a sign of a somewhat distinctive character, a red reflector, to put upon the rear of vehicles, but I would suggest, in view of the large number of red lights that one finds already about the road of a very varying character, that something totally different would be advisable to denote a heavy vehicle at rest. Perpetually one sees in front red tail lights on vehicles, moving or stationary, the red circles of thirty-mile limits, and nowadays, every mile or two, a lantern denoting that road repairs or improvements are in operation. I do not think that another red light is going to be particularly noticeable, and I would therefore put forward the suggestion that a reflector of a totally different colour and different shape to any in use might be made obligatory for the use of all heavy lorries which habitually carry goods after dark. It might be, say, a blue cross or triangle of about a foot or fifteen inches in size, so that any person driving behind any such vehicle would recognise at once that he had in front of him a lorry stationary at the side of the road. Such a reflector would be infinitely more visible at a considerable distance than would any tail light or small road reflector of the sort now in use. These suggestions are put forward without any dogmatism as to
770
their value. I do hope the noble Earl will be able to give your Lordships some assurance that this problem is being considered, and that steps will be taken in the future to improve a situation which, although perhaps not the most numerous cause of road accidents after dark, still does bring about enough accidents and enough danger to justify some urgent steps being taken in the near future. With those few remarks I bring forward my Motion, naturally not in any hostile sense, but simply in the hope that by so doing one of the admittedly smaller causes of accidents on the road may be eliminated and the terrible toll of casualties somewhat reduced, which is one of the most unfortunate features of all road traffic to-day. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, this problem of road accidents continues to cause very grave concern to His Majesty's Government and to the Departments primarily concerned with their prevention. All noble Lords and indeed the country as a whole are, I am sure, awaiting with the greatest interest the Report of the Select Committee of this House which has been engaged in reviewing the whole question of road accidents. The total number of accidents last year varies little from that of the year before. It looked probable until late in the year that there would be a considerable reduction, but figures for the last two months of last year were disappointing.
Accidents of the type to which the noble Lord refers in his Motion are often of a very serious character and for that reason attract public attention, but they are not so numerous as is often supposed. Of the 6,337 fatal accidents and nearly 200,000 other accidents in the year ending 31st March, 1937, only seven fatal and 225 non-fatal accidents were caused by the absence or inadequacy of a rear light. The total number of collisions with stationary vehicles during the hours of darkness apart from any question of rear lights, was of course, considerably larger—46 fatal and 2,075 non-fatal, with a further six fatal and 304 non-fatal which occurred at dusk. The fact that accidents of the type that the noble Earl refers to are very few in comparison to the rest, is no reason why every practicable step should not be taken to prevent them. As the law stands to-day no vehicle is allowed to stop in such a position as to cause danger to other users of the road. The

771
noble Earl referred to that passage of the law and rather inferred that it was a dead letter, but there were something like 1,700 convictions in the year 1937 for that very offence.
As the law stands, it provides that vehicles have to carry during the hours of darkness two lamps in front and one red at the rear. The Highway Code emphasizes—(1) that vehicles must always be able to pull up well within the distance for which you can see the road to be clear whether by day or night; (2) that at night you should always drive well within the limits of your lights, and when your headlights are dipped or extinguished be specially careful. If you are dazzled slow down even to a standstill. Every motor vehicle must be equipped with an anti-dazzle device, unless its headlights are permanently deflected. Now in October, 1938, regulations came into operation which will indirectly affect the rear lighting of all new motor vehicles and will apply to all vehicles on and after 1st October, 1941. The previous regulations merely required that number plates should be "easily distinguishable" without specifying any distance, but the new regulations require the letters and figures to be easily distinguishable from a distance in front of or behind the vehicle of 75 feet in normal daylight and 60 feet during the hours of darkness. Of course it will be some time before the effect of these regulations can be seen, but their effect should in the long run be to improve visibility at night and to reduce the number of accidents due to collisions with stationary vehicles.
Various suggestions have been made which the Minister is considering. One suggestion is that a second rear light should be fixed on vehicles and that the second light should be separately wired so that if one should fail the other would remain alight. Another suggestion is the carrying of a reflector as well as a light. That bears very closely on the suggestion which the noble Earl has made. I cannot comment now on his suggestion, but it is in the same category as those which I have mentioned and which the Minister of Transport is closely examining. Another suggestion is that "draw-ins" or "lay-bys" should be provided at intervals on the roads. The noble Earl elaborated that. That also is under consideration and is being watched very closely at this moment by the Ministry of
772
Transport. In conclusion the Minister is closely watching the position and considering the various suggestions made. In addition evidence was given before your Lordships' Committee on this matter and I cannot, of course, anticipate what their recommendation will be, but I hope that the publicity which will be given to this short debate may lead to even greater care being exercised by motorists driving at night.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply, with which I am, at least for the moment, quite satisfied. I would only just draw your Lordships' attention to two points. The first is that although it is quite true, as the noble Earl said, that there are many admirable regulations already in existence—if those regulations were universally respected there would have been no debate on this subject this afternoon—still I think many motor users are apt to treat those regulations with the same respect as many members of the community treat the Ten Commandments. The other point is that I hope that the Ministry of Transport will not necessarily wait until the Report of the Select Committee is available and the whole matter of a new Traffic Act has been thrashed out, because that is likely to take a good deal of time. Traffic after dark is constantly increasing. I myself and others have noticed its growth even in the last few months. If action is to be delayed for, say, a couple of years, I am afraid that in the meantime we shall have an increase, rather than a decrease, in the number of road accidents. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY RABBITS BILL [H.L.]
  FORMERLY

    CROPS (PREVENTION OF DAMAGE) BILL. [H.L.]
    Amendments reported (according to Order).
    Clause 1:
    Power of local authorities to require prevention of damage by rabbits.
    1.—(1) Where the council of any county or county borough are satisfied that by reason of land within the county or borough in the occupation of any person being infested with rabbits, substantial damage is being caused

    773
    or is likely to be caused to crops, trees, pasturage, fences, banks or works on land in the occupation of any other person, the council may serve on the occupier of the first mentioned land a notice in writing requiring him to take such steps as may be reasonably practicable for the destruction of the rabbits within such reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice; and if an occupier upon whom such a notice is served fails to comply with the requirements thereof, he shall be liable on summary conviction t3 a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the failure continues:
    Provided that …
    THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the council of any county or county borough are satisfied that". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is one of the first three Amendments that stand in my name. The two next are consequential upon this Amendment. The Bill, as it finished after the Committee stage, seemed in Clause r to imply that the court of summary jurisdiction before which a prosecution would go in the first instance would only have the power to judge whether the notice to abate an infestation of rabbits had been complied with or not, and they had not the power to judge on the question of fact as to whether the ground complained of was indeed infested with rabbits, or that the rabbits were doing damage to a neighbour's ground. That was not the intention of the Bill. It was intended that if there was a prosecution the court of summary jurisdiction before which the prosecution went should have the power to judge all the relevant facts, including whether the ground was infested with rabbits, and also whether damage was being done. In that connection also arose the question of the right of appeal, because if that court could only judge as to whether the order had been complied with or not, there seemed to be no possibility of appeal against the facts of the case other than that one.
    I think that the Amendment later on in the list, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, is aimed towards that question of appeal. These Amendments have been designed to clear up not only the full power of the court of summary jurisdiction to deal with all the relevant facts, but also in so doing to clear up the question of appeal, because, as your Lord-
    774
    ships are well aware, there is an appeal from the court of summary jurisdiction to Quarter Sessions, and, on points of law, from Quarter Sessions to the High Court. I hope that this Amendment is in a form which will meet the objections that have been raised to me at different times.
    Perhaps it might help your Lordships, in view of the rather involved nature of the Amendment if I read to you how the first part of this clause will read if your Lordships agree to this Amendment and the two consequential Amendments. It would read as follows:
    "Where by reason of land in the occupation of any person being infested with rabbits, substantial damage is being caused or is likely to be caused to crops, trees, pasturage, fences, banks or works on land in the occupation of any other person, the council of the county or county borough in which the first-mentioned land or any part thereof is situate may serve on the occupier of that land a notice in writing requiring him"
    and so on as the clause now reads. You will see by that, I think, that it makes it quite clear that the council of the county or the county borough must satisfy the court that the land is infested with rabbits and damage is being done. I hope with that brief explanation I may have satisfied those who have objections to that part of this Bill. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 1, line 8, leave out ("Where") to ("by") in line 9.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I was one of those who were responsible for putting down the Amendment that appears on the next page, and I should like to say that my noble friend and myself did not put it down in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. We realise fully the damage done by rabbits, and the object of this Bill has our very fullest sympathy. Our only object in putting down the Amendment was to smooth away difficulties, and to prevent mistakes occurring in the administration of the measure. For instance, it is not always clear who really is responsible for an excessive number of rabbits being on any particular plot of land. It is quite possible that the county council, to whom the administration of this Bill is entrusted, might make a mistake in serving notice on the wrong person. The fact that it is possible for that to occur would weigh in the minds of the committee. It would be the agricultural com-

    775
    mittee, consisting mostly of farmers, to whom the administration of this Act would be confided by the county council.
    I want to see this Bill work. It is no good passing an Act of Parliament of this sort, and being able to refer to it as something that is being done to stop what undoubtedly is a considerable detriment to the country side, if it is allowed to become a dead letter. If you leave the Bill as it stands at the present moment, I believe that you will find it will be almost a dead letter, because the agricultural committee of the council, consisting very largely of farmers, will not be prepared to impose these penalties on a man when in the first instance they are not quite sure whether he is the right man or not, and in the second place when they know that if there is any mistake about the matter there is practically no appeal for the man who is injured. Therefore we welcome these Amendments that have been put down by my noble friend. I am rising to support the Amendment and to say that we are very grateful to him for having met us in the way that he has, and that the Amendment standing in my name on the next page will not now be moved.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which has just been passed.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 1, line 9, leave out ("within the county or borough").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "trees," to insert "shrubs." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I also am one of those who desire to see this Bill, when it does become an Act, work, although the painful history of all former Bills is that they never got to the stage of becoming Acts. I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name. I think it will provide another nail to the coffin of the rabbits, and it will prevent the rabbits from passing from a wood into a great place full of shrubs where, apparently, they will be outside the Act and no longer subject to the penalties under the Act. The point is simply this. Does the word "tree" include the word
    776
    "shrub"? If so, I have nothing more to say. From a diligent research I find that a tree is a plant having a single trunk, woody, branched and of large size. On the other hand, I find a shrub is a woody plant with several stems coming from the same root; a bush, or dwarf tree. Therefore there does appear to be some possibility of a shrub not being classed as a tree. As we do not want any loophole in this Bill when it becomes an Act, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 1, line 12, after ("trees") insert ("shrubs").—(Lord Eltisley.)
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: I have no objection to this Amendment. I do not think it unduly overburdens the Bill.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may serve on the occupier of the first mentioned land" and insert "of the county or county borough in which the first mentioned land or any part thereof is situate may serve on the occupier of that land." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on the first Amendment, and I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page line 14, leave out from ("council") to ("a") in line 15, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "continues," to insert "after conviction." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment bears to some extent on the points raised by Lord Bayford just now, as to the difficulty of defining an occupier, of whom there may be three of any particular land concerned. It also bears on the possibility of a man being served with a notice who feels that he has got a perfectly good defence, because if you read the clause as it stands it seems apparent that if he is convicted the penalty, which is a maximum penalty of five pounds for each day on which the offence continues, will go on accruing for every day on which the offence continues, and not merely for every day after the conviction. Therefore a man who feels that he has got a perfectly good defence against the order may be incurring a very dangerous burden

    777
    of penalty if he waits for the only remedy he has, which is that of defending himself before the court of summary jurisdiction. I think your Lordships will agree that one does not want to put any such obstacle in the way of a man, who feels that he has a perfectly good case, waiting to argue that case.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 2, line 2, at end, insert ("after conviction").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
    "(2) Where a person incurs any expense necessary for the purpose of compliance with the requirements of a notice served on him under the preceding subsection, then, if he alleges that the expense ought to be borne wholly or in part by some other person having an interest in the land to which the notice relates, he may apply to the County Court in accordance with Rules of Court, and the Court, after hearing the parties and any witnesses whom they desire to call, may make such order for securing that the applicant is wholly or in part indemnified by that other person in respect of the said expense as the Court considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the case."
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, this again bears directly on that rather difficult question of the possibility of there being three occupiers of any piece of land concerned with an order, the three occupiers being the landowner, the farming tenant, and the shooting tenant. They all have an interest in the rabbits, and it is quite possible that in a case in which an order is made the responsible authority may select the wrong person on whom to serve the notice. The real objection to that is, I think, largely a financial one—namely, that the individual may be put to an expense which should properly be carried, either wholly or in part, by someone else who is responsible for keeping the rabbits down. As your Lordships see, that is remedied by going to the County Court and getting back such proportion of the expense as that Court may decide. It is rather a difficult questino, but I think that this Amendment and the previous one together and the Bill will go as far as possible towards avoiding the difficulties which might arise over that question of the divided ownership of rabbits which exists in this country.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 2, line 8, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 6:
    Prohibition of night shooting and use of spring traps above ground.
    6.—(1) If any person—

    (a) between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, uses a firearm for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits; or

    (b) uses or knowingly permits the use of a spring trap for that purpose, except in a rabbit hole;

    he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, in the case of a person convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
    LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to insert after subsection (1):
    "(2) A police officer, if in uniform, may enter on land at any time for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of this section are being complied with."
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. I also am a humble enthusiast for trying to see that this Bill shall be a workable measure, although possibly in some cases by slightly different methods. I should like to explain that I have no great desire to apply this Amendment to subsection (1) (a) of this clause. For the sake of brevity and convenience I have made it read that it applies to both (a) and (b), but it is to paragraph (b) that I particularly desire it to apply. I do not mind in the least whether it applies to (a) or not. A great deal will depend, in considering the value of this Bill, whether trapping in the open is stopped or not, and I suggest it will very materially assist in stopping what I believe to be a highly undesirable practice, and one which I am glad is now going to be made illegal, if a properly appointed police officer has the power to enter on land at any time in order to stop it.
    I may be wrong, but I take it that the case now is that he can only do so if he has a warrant specially applied for and issued for the purpose, and I think it will be agreed that it is hardly to be expected of him that he will obtain a warrant in each case when he wants to enter upon land on suspicion that the clause is being violated. There is now a great deal of trapping in the open, both legally and illegally, and I am one of those who think that if this new legislation can be sternly enforced then the rabbit position will be made somewhat better. As I have said

    779
    before in this House, I do not think the Bill goes as far as it ought to go, but as far as it does go it is an improvement, and my only object in moving this Amendment is to make it better still. One thing which I have learned from the debates on rabbits in this House is that the conditions vary enormously in different parts of this country. I confess I did not appreciate that at the outset, but I have found out that there is all the difference in the world between the conditions in Cambridgeshire, where the noble Lord's rabbits gambol around the countryside, and the conditions in West Wales, where I happen to come from, and in Devon and Cornwall. Those areas may not be in themselves very important, but they are, I venture to say, the special areas in this particular line. They are infested with rabbits, and it has become a very serious problem indeed. Many minds have been brought to bear upon that problem in those areas, to such an extent that there is now a demand for local legislation on the subject—a course which I myself should not favour if it could possibly be avoided. But people are actually demanding a sort of local option to deal with the particular problem, realising that our legislators, coming from all parts of the country, do not, as they say, appreciate the seriousness of the position in these so-called special areas.
    I know that many do not agree with me when I say that the practice of commercial rabbit trapping as carried on today in these areas, so far from diminishing rabbits, actually increases the number. I am not going into that controversy, but I must again mention it because otherwise my argument would not be justified to-day. But this area which is now infested with rabbits is spreading. It is increasing in size, and it is moving in an easterly direction. I think any local evidence would point to that effect, and it is a very serious matter. I would like to ask the noble Earl who represents the Government what the intentions of the Ministry of Agriculture are with regard to this position, because there has recently grown up a new element in it. We now have rabbit factories being established in these areas which I call the rabbit farming areas. Now these rabbit factories must have a great supply of rabbits if they are to exist, and it follows that the interests of these factories are in direct conflict with
    780
    the interests of true farming. I am going to ask, if I may, if we can be told which of these two interests is going to be encouraged. Because I do suggest in all seriousness that they are so conflicting that they cannot both survive indefinitely.
    That is a new factor in the situation which has recently sprung up and which I think requires to be dealt with. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, will tell me, as he has told me before, that I confuse the cause and the effect. Be that as it may, I would very much like to get an authoritative opinion on this serious matter, and I suggest that if trapping in the open could really be stopped it would be a big step forward. I do not honestly believe that it can really be stopped unless some such action is taken as is embodied in my Amendment; because I respectfully agree with those who say that it is no good passing Acts of Parliament unless they are going to be enforced. If this Amendment is included in the Bill, then I think there is a real chance of the Act being enforced. It is rather too much to expect neighbours to report their own friends when breaking this law. The only sensible way to do it is to give the powers to the police and to render it easy and efficacious for them to use them.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 3, line 22, insert he said new subsection.—(Lord Merthyr.)
    LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment, and I hope so for a reason that has not been mentioned by the noble Lord. I happen to be the Chairman of a Standing Joint Committee and I, like others of your Lordships, know the immense number of new duties that have been put on the police lately. They have hardly a minute of their time available. They have a great deal of writing and inspection in consequence of these new duties, and a vast quantity of work in connection with wardens and air-raid precautions, and in most counties, my own among them, the police force is being increased at great expense. I must protest against the idea that in addition to these duties the policeman should now be turned into an under-keeper.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I also feel that this Amendment must be resisted, for perhaps different reasons. I am not the Chairman of a Standing

    781
    Joint Committee. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, fully realises all that is implied by this Amendment. At the present time the police have no right of access unless they are asked to come on to your land, and, though an Englishman's home is no longer his castle, he still has a few shreds of right, and I do like to stick to what is left as long as possible. It would mean that any policeman in uniform could wander over your land, and if you accosted him he could excuse himself by saying he was seeing whether you put traps in the open. He might be there for many other purposes, but that would be sufficient excuse. I think probably on general grounds also it is a most undesirable precedent to create.
    I entirely differ from the noble Lord in his views as regards the use of the spring trap being the real reason why there has been a great increase of rabbits in certain areas. I do not believe it is the use of the spring trap. I believe that the difficulty lies in the mentality of the people who use these traps, who prefer to make money out of rabbits rather than out of other, shall we say more legitimate methods of agriculture? I cannot speak for the Government Department concerned. I have indicated that in many cases the Amendment would create a most undesirable precedent, and I believe that if the noble Lord were to inquire, he would find that the representatives of the various Government Departments concerned would resist this Amendment most strenuously.
    VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I have a certain sympathy with the mover of the Amendment and also with what was said by the noble Earl who has just sat down. There was before the Select Committee a good deal of evidence to show how different conditions were in different parts of the country. In some parts of the country the conditions that Lord Merthyr described are really constant. Of course the subsection as drafted is rather wide. Would it not be possible to amend it by the insertion of some such words as "in cases where the local authority have reason to believe that the instructions of this section are not being complied with"? I do not know whether the noble Earl who will reply for the Government would consider this Amendment if it were in a somewhat modified form. But if there
    782
    really were reason to believe that the intention of the Bill was not being complied with I think something might be said for allowing the local authority to instruct the police to enter, at reasonable times, to see whether that was so.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, I have not had an opportunity, naturally, of considering the suggestion that has just emanated from my noble friend Lord Mersey, who, as your Lordships know, was Chairman of the Select Committee on whose recommendations this Bill was drafted, but I should say at once that the noble Viscount's suggestion would be fraught with difficulties. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has intimated to your Lordships, the principle which Lord Merthyr has brought before the House in his Amendment is one far wider than that embraced by the question of rabbits alone, or indeed by the question of the single industry of agriculture.
    As Lord Radnor has said, this Amendment, if incorporated in the Bill, would give a general right to a constable to go on to any private land at any time, day or night. There is no such provision in the general Statute save in very exceptional circumstances, and these exceptional circumstances, I understand, apply only when a police constable has a specific function to perform in a particular space. Your Lordships will appreciate that if such a power were granted under this Bill a police constable could go on to any private land or into any premises with the excuse that he was entitled to investigate whether a gin trap were set in the open or not. That power might be used for ascertaining other information for which at present no provision is made in the case of a police constable in the performance of his duty. Therefore, on general grounds, I sincerely hope my noble friend Lord Merthyr will not press his Amendment, and at the same time I hope I have sufficiently indicated to my noble friend Lord Mersey that his suggestion would have many difficulties if it were to be applied only at the discretion of local authorities.
    LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should like to say, first of all, a word about Lord Mersey's suggestion, for which I am very grateful. It would be extraordinarily

    783
    difficult if not impossible, for it to assist materially in this matter because normally local authorities—county councils at any rate—only meet every quarter. It illustrates the difficulty which I am up against because I want the police officer to be able to do this and act quickly and not have to go through a lot of formalities. If he had to get it formally put before the county council or the agricultural committee, and wait until their next quarterly meeting, it would be a great deal too late before he could do anything at all. Therefore, while I am very grateful for the noble Viscount's suggestion, I do not think it would assist. With regard to Lord Radnor's defence against this Amendment, I can only say I really expected something rather better than the old argument about an Englishman's home being his castle. As a matter of fact, I told several people that that probably might be said, but it is getting rather worn.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: It is not quite worn-out.
    LORD MERTHYR: There seems to be a theory that because this sort of thing has never been done before it cannot be done now. I cannot subscribe to that argument. We are dealing with changed conditions in the rabbit business which are, in some areas of the country, rapidly getting the better of us, and we are not coping with them. Some action a little more revolutionary than the noble Earl would allow, will be necessary before long. Appreciating that the sense of the House is hostile to this Amendment I do not ask your Lordships to divide upon it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it, although I must say I am not convinced by the arguments which have been adduced against it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 7 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, my first Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 3, line 31, after ("interest") insert ("which he has").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, the next is also a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 3, line 31, leave out ("has the right") and insert ("is entitled").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

RICHMOND PARK REGULATIONS.
LORD BARNBYhad the following Notice on the Paper: To move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent to the Draft Regulations for Richmond Park proposed to be made by the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings under the Parks Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1926.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Motion is to deal with the proposed Regulations governing the use of Richmond Park by horse-riders. Richmond Park, as is well known to all your Lordships, has habitually been used for the benefit of horse-riders in common with other classes of the public. That has been done under an Act published in 1872, which dealt with the control of Royal Parks and Gardens, and among other things dealt with the manner in which they should be used by horse-riders. That Act was amended in 1926, and in that Act it says that:
"the Commissioners of Works may make such regulations to be observed by persons using any park to which the principal Act applies, as they consider necessary for securing the proper management of the Park."
The actual situation is that in accordance with the custom built up under these Acts the responsible authorities have been in the habit of issuing Regulations which, of course, have all the statutory authority required for their imposition.
Just recently Regulations have been issued which have progressively given the appearance of greater stringency against the use of Richmond Park by horse-riders. I would remind your Lordships that the First Commissioner of Works, Sir Philip Sassoon, is one who has always been a lover of the horse, and I feel sure that he, personally, would be sympathetic to the use of the Park by horse-riders to the full in accordance with what may be compatible with the convenience of other users of the Park. Again, Sir Louis Greig, who is the executive officer responsible for supervising the administration of the Park, is, I am sure, sympathetic to its being used for this purpose. But it does

785
appear that the object of these Regulations is to discourage horse-riding in the Park. That has given rise to serious alarm among a body of horse-riders whose numbers, were your Lordships to look into the matter, would probably exceed anybody's imagination. Your Lordships in the main will be sympathetic to the use of the horse for riding, as I am myself. I must say I had not the least idea that so many people used Richmond Park for horse-riding as the investigation has shown. I would add that since this Motion was put down on the Order Paper I have been surprised at the innundation of support I have received for the proposal to appeal for the postponement or revision of the proposed Regulations.
The horse-riding public, I submit, are entitled to as much consideration as any other section of the public using the Park. But the real point is that it is proposed by the system of Regulations now issued to go much beyond what was ever contemplated by the Parliament that passed this Act in 1926. It virtually means that the officers concerned with the issue of orders are arrogating to themselves powers far beyond those that were contemplated when the Act was passed. It appears that this alarming set of Regulations passed through another place without even coming to the knowledge of the majority of those who habitually use the Park, and who, obviously, are interested in the Regulations. What is being done really appears to be a persecution of those who use the Park on horseback. They are to be confined to an absurdly restricted area; they are to be compelled to go on a track that is quite unsuitable for horse-riding; and they are only to be allowed to use the Park at limited periods and only certain portions of the Park at those periods. It is suggested that all this is done in the interest of the general public, because horses disfigure the Park by cutting up the turf. What an absurd suggestion! But even if it were true, I suggest that it is not anything like so great a disfigurement of the Park as results from use of the hurdles, the notices and I know not what else being used to try to confine the activities of the horse.
I am not going to take up the time of your Lordships, who must all be aware of the great misfortune that would ensue were these Regulations, to limit horse exercises in the Park, allowed to come
786
into force as now proposed. We want to preserve horse-riding as much as possible, for one reason because it will enable many young people to become most desirable members of the Territorial Cavalry. Moreover, the Government are spending money upon a fitness campaign. What better way could there be to encourage physical fitness than by enabling the parks to be used for horse exercises? Further, it is suggested that a charge shall be imposed for the use of the Park by persons on horseback. I cannot find anything in the Regulations which imposes any charge for parking cars, and the big car parks which have been made in the Park are a disfigurement of it, yet their use to the public is allowed free. I do not disapprove of it if it is in the interests of the public, but surely it is not right to discriminate against those who want to use the Park as it has been traditionally and always used for horse exercises, just because it is suggested that the use of the Park for this purpose cuts up the turf. That used not to be so.
I find that the number of occasions on which the Park was closed for exercise in the winters of 1937 and 1938 was sixty-five. It is now proposed that the Regulations shall be intensified and that the Park shall be closed more than ever, and even when horse-riders are to be allowed to use the Park for exercise they are to be more and more restricted as to the area that can be used. In certain cases the horses are to be made to use a track which is totally unsuitable for horse exercise. In addition there is a proposal to evade the responsibility which hitherto has prevailed in regard to accidents that may occur. I find on examining the Regulations proposed that not only is a charge going to be made but that every class of rider is going to have a ticket or badge of a particular colour, and these colours are to vary according to the time of day at which the Park is being used. As far as I can see, there are to be such colours as blue and red and white and yellow, and I do not know how many other sorts. We shall see people taking horse exercise with a harlequinade of coloured badges hanging round about them. I suggest that the proper thing to do would be to take a paint brush and put different colours on the horses. Then we should have horses which, if requisitioned in the event of war, would already be camouflaged.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Lord where he finds this? I have the Draft Order in front of me and there is nothing about these coloured tickets in it.
LORD BARNBY: I suggest that the noble Lord's assiduous investigation of the Regulations has not enabled him to find what I have found.
LORD STRABOLGI: These Regulations on the Table are those in question, and there is nothing about coloured tickets in them.
LORD BARNBY: I am endeavouring as far as I can to interpret the proposed Regulations, and it seems to me that they necessarily hamper the use of Richmond Park for horse lovers and thus prevent horse exercise by a nation which has been habituated traditionally to use the horse in every way. It is on those simple grounds that I move this Motion.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent to the Draft Regulations for Richmond Park proposed to be made by the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings under the Parks Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1926.—(Lord Barnby.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not wish to inflict myself on your Lordships again this afternoon, but in view of the fact that I do not visit Richmond Park for the purpose of riding a horse perhaps one or two observations may be permitted me. Speaking purely on physical grounds, nothing would induce me to get on a horse if I could help it. Whether all the contentions of Lord Barnby are correct or not, I think it would be most unfortunate if any unnecessary restrictions were put upon persons desirous of riding at the present time in view of the fact that nowadays, owing to the growth of motor traffic and the complete change in the character of our roads and the absence in most cases of grass verges, it is practically impossible for people who wish to ride to do so anywhere along our highways. I understand that the great proportion of those who use Richmond Park are not persons of great means, and that it is probably quite as much as they can do to afford to ride there. In those circumstances I hope that it may be found possible to modify the suggested restrictions.
788
I would make one suggestion. If it is really found—although I cannot say that my own observations lead me to believe it—that there is a great deal of damage to the Park, could not certain areas of it be zoned as areas where persons should not be permitted to ride? Those areas could be changed as soon as the grass had recovered. I chanced to be in Richmond Park as recently as last week, and I noticed that it is just where these tracks had been provided that the worst damage had taken place. Where riders, possibly in defiance of the Regulations, had crossed other parts of the Park, although the ground was fairly damp, there was not nearly so much damage as where they were confined to narrow tracks. There the grass was knocked to pieces. I hope that the noble Earl who replies for the Government will consider the question sympathetically and see that there shall be no further restrictions than are absolutely necessary.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I should like to have an assurance that nothing more is to be done under these Regulations than appears on the surface, and that the Regulations are not going to be used as a cloak for something else. I really rise to try to get an assurance on two points. One is in regard to the making of charges. There is no mention of that in the Regulations, but I should like to ask whether it is a fact, as is generally believed by those who frequent the Park, that a charge is to be made of £1 in the case of horses privately owned and £3 in the case of horses owned by people whose livelihood consists in letting out horses for hire to other people. If that is so, it is an important matter, for there are very many people who would certainly never be able to take equestrian exercise if it were not for the existence of these riding stables. As your Lordships know, it is difficult for stables, at the rates which they now charge, to make much profit, and if the owners of them should go bankrupt it would be extremely unfortunate. If it is true that fees, and substantial fees, are going to be imposed, I can only contrast that with the action of a committee of landowners who are now meeting together with a friend of mine in another place trying to find a feasible scheme by which they can provide the public with free access to land. I hope that if these Regulations go forward the noble Earl who replies for the Govern-

789
ment will suggest to the Commissioners the desirability of not appearing in too unfortunate a light when contrasted with the public-spirited attitude of private individuals.
There is another point about which I am anxious, and that is the question of tracks. If my noble friend can give an assurance on that subject he will relieve my mind. It is suggested that riders are to be prohibited from riding except on certain tracks. That of course is implicit in Regulation No. 2. But I understand that one track in question is an interesting example of how not to make a track. It runs all the way under trees, and it is in one of the boggiest portions of the Park. No real work has been done in the way of making a track. A ditch has been dug on each side, and the earth piled up in such a way that even before horses started to gallop over the track it was found that it was being made into a bog. What it amounts to is that this track is providing another bog in a portion of the Park already adequately provided with bogs. I might add that, like my noble friend, this does not concern me personally, but as a member of the public I feel it my duty to bring these points forward. On one occasion I did attempt some equestrian exercise in China, but I found it as uncongenial to myself as it was quite apparently repugnant to the horse. We parted company after a very short time, if not by mutual consent at any rate with mutual relief. If my noble friend can give assurances on these points I may be satisfied, but otherwise I hope the Motion will be pressed to a Division.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, this is an entirely new subject to me, and I would like to ask for a little more information. I rode in Richmond Park years ago, and I was certainly never charged anything. Why is a charge suddenly being imposed? It seems to be quite a heavy charge, running up to £3 3s. A paper has just been handed to me which contains this paragraph:
"A riding school master or mistress paying for six or more red badges will on application and if desired and on the payment of £1 10s. each, be supplied with one white badge in respect of each six such red badges. A white badge will authorise any person to ride in the Park, subject to the terms of condition 4."
Then there follows another paragraph:
"Yellow and white badges will be valid only so long as the corresponding red badges remain in force."
790
What does all this mean, and why is it suddenly being sprung upon an unsuspecting public? I really think that there ought to be some explanation. In another place the Regulations, I understand, went through without discussion. I do not suppose members ever saw them. They probably thought that the thing was all right and no one took any notice, but I would like to know the history of the whole thing and to have an explanation of Regulations which at first sight seem to be quite indefensible. I hope that the noble Earl will promise that the matter shall be looked into, because it seems to me that my noble friend really has something to complain of.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, may I ask if it is proposed to supplement these Draft Regulations by Regulations applying to other parks? Will it be necessary to have a red badge to ride in Hyde Park?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I would like to add a few words, because I think this matter is of very grave public importance. I came here this afternoon without the smallest idea of what lay behind this Motion. It appears that the Regulations have gone through another place, and the danger is that unless something is done here to-night it will be too late; the harm will be done. During the course of the debate I have had an opportunity of reading a memorandum sent under cover of a letter from the Richmond Park Riders' Association affiliated to the National Horse Association, and there are some very serious statements in that memorandum. I rise only to say that I am perfectly certain that after this debate the noble Earl will make a conciliatory reply and say something to allay the fears of my noble friend. If he does not do that, I hope the noble Lord will go to a Division and if he does I am certain he will carry his point.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Earl Fortescue, it falls to my lot to reply to the Motion of my noble friend behind me. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer briefly to the situation in Richmond Park in order to give your Lordships some idea of what is actually happening at the present time. I am told, as many noble Lords will probably be aware, that in

791
recent years there has been a very large increase in the number of horse-riders in this Park. The number of riding establishments has practically doubled during the past eight years, and during the same period the number of riders in the Park on a Sunday has increased from 300 to roughly 750, an increase of 100 per cent. With that increase in the number of riders using this Park on a Sunday there has correspondingly been a very large increase in the number of tracks which have been followed by the riders, and while my right honourable friend the First Commissioner of Works has every possible sympathy with such exercise as these people indulge in, it is his duty also to administer the Park in the interests of the ordinary user. I hope your Lordships will bear that in mind when we consider the whole of this problem. For a long time the Commissioners for Richmond Park endeavoured to close these tracks by means of hurdles, but unfortunately that proved useless for the reason that new tracks were instantly formed before the powers of nature restored the old tracks to their proper and original condition. Apart from that, my right honourable friend has had many bitter complaints of the damage done by equestrians in Richmond Park.
Perhaps I might give the House some indication of what the proposed Regulations are. Firstly, when this matter was originally discussed it was between the Commissioners and the National Horse Association on behalf of the riders, and I understand that the decisions which are laid down in these Draft Regulations were in fact approved by the National Horse Association. It is perfectly true that they have lain for 21 days in another place, and that they now come before your Lordships' House. They give full power to the Commissioners to control, and modify if necessary in the light of the experience gained, the conditions under which riding shall take place in the Park, and further to charge a licensing fee. Up to the present day during this winter the Park has been closed altogether to riders for 10 days; last year it was 27 days, and in the previous year it was 67 days. My right honourable friend does claim, and I think rightly, that as this track was laid down sometime in the middle or at the end of September it has already served its use and has enabled people to use the
792
track when the Park in general was in a bad state due to weather.
A NOBLE LORD: Would the noble Lord state how many accidents have occurred through using the track?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will deal with that in my own way, if I may, when I come to it. These charges will be arranged as follows: It will, as noble Lords have pointed out, be done by means of badges, and a fee of £1 per badge per annum will be charged in respect of a horse ridden by a private owner and £3 in respect of horses owned by the riding school. I may say that these conditions, as I have already mentioned, were approved by the National Horse Association in consultation with the riding schools in the neighbourhood of Richmond Park, and it was gathered at the same time that the private riders were equally prepared to accept them. It is therefore quite clear that the Commissioners could not ask for any modification of the proposed Regulations which now stand before your Lordships' House. The money which is obtained from these licences will be in effect a contribution towards the cost of maintaining the track, and the rejection of these Regulations, I venture to think, would not therefore help the cause of the riders in any possible way.
A question has been asked about the state of the track. It is some six miles in circumference and the Commissioners have chosen it to avoid the boggy parts as far as possible. I understand that they have indeed altered the track in order to remove a cause for complaint, and they are at all times ready to receive representations for further alterations of a reasonable character. They intend to continue the work of making up such parts of the track as are unsatisfactory. I understand that a beginning has already been made, but, due to the abnormally wet weather, it has been impossible to do as much as the Commissioners would have desired. On the question of accidents I have no figures before me, but I understand that that is a matter of Common Law, and I would far rather leave that to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I do in conclusion impress upon your Lordships that my right honourable friend does not wish in any way to restrict the use of this Park, but from the figures I have quoted to your Lordships I think it is proved quite

793
conclusively that the track has served its use, that the Park has not been closed so many days this year as in the previous two years, and, lastly, that this track is only used on Saturdays, Sundays, and Bank Holidays after 12 noon. I hope I have said sufficient to induce your Lordships to allow the Regulations to go through unopposed.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I feel very uneasy after the statement of the noble Earl because it is evidently the intention to extend this practice of making charges elsewhere.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I did not say so.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I think if this gets through you will have a precedent which will be acted upon. At a time like this we should encourage the use of the parks for every possible recreation that can be conceived. You are taking away an old right. Quite possibly it might be asked why people do not ride more in other parks. Well, if they did, the chances are that if the number of riders increased in Hyde Park a charge would be made there, too. I do not see where you are going to end. I hope that noble Lords who have an interest in conserving the rights of the public will allow the riding public the same rights as others who use the parks without trouble and without red tape rules. I hope the House will show that they disapprove of the proposed Regulations.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, may I point out that there is no idea whatever of extending the payment of fees to ride in other parks. The whole point of the question is this. There is no riding track such as Rotten Row in Richmond Park, and therefore riders have been all over the place. I can assure the House that when I was First Commissioner, before the present First Commissioner, I had to consider this question, and as a hunting man I realised what it meant. Those of your Lordships who follow hounds know what damage is caused by a pack and a full field, and you will realise that it is a huge field if there are as many as 300. But here you have over 700 riders. Imagine to yourself a pack of hounds with the whole field following, going across an area week
794
after week on Saturdays and Sundays. Imagine what that means in the way of cutting up the grass. Your Lordships have only to realise from your own experience out with hounds what it means in regard to Richmond Park.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Why charge for it?
EARL STANHOPE: Because there is a certain amount of cost in the licensing of these horses. You have to have some arrangement by which you can license the horses and regulate them so that you can keep in touch with what is being done, and recognise more or less where these horses come from.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Is there any such charge for Rotten Row?
EARL STANHOPE: No, because there is only one place in Hyde Park where riders can ride, but if they rode all over Hyde Park no doubt licences would be necessary. Your Lordships seem to think that there is here an invasion of the rights of the public. There are others besides riders who use Richmond Park, and there have been bitter complaints by pedestrians who use the Park and who sometimes bring perambulators and the like. Those who have seen the riders in Richmond Park know that they are not always in control of their mounts, and it is in the interests of the public that these should be under control. The object of the Regulation is not to hit the riders but to benefit the public as a whole. They are made in order to preserve the Park for pedestrians as well as for riders, because if you allow indiscriminate riding by any number of individuals you are going to have the turf cut up, not only for pedestrians but also for the horsemen themselves. I suggest that these Regulations are for the benefit of the public, and they have been agreed with the Horse Owners' Association. That being recognised, there is no question of bureaucracy and attempting to limit the rights of the public, but merely a question of preserving them to the best advantage both for pedestrians and those who ride.
LORD BARNBY: I should not like to find myself in conflict with the sympathy of the noble Earl on anything to do with horses, because his prowess and sympathy in anything to do with horses are well known. I will not disagree with what he

795
has said as to the riders in Richmond Park. There may be some who are less expert riders than may be looked for in hunting circles, and one appreciates the difficulty of the First Commissioner of Works in interpreting his responsibility. I do not want to extend the time which is taken on this Motion, but I must ask your Lordships' indulgence while I comment on one or two points. It is suggested that a large number of users of the Park would cut up the turf, so that it would be inconvenient for other users. Surely it is an extravagance to suggest that a relatively small number of horses, however many hundreds it may be, is going to imperil the turf for the use of the public, who in the main come in automobiles and in 'buses. I am told that already, as a result of recent Regulations, without those which are now suggested, a census of horse-users of the park shows a striking reduction.
EARL STANHOPE: Was that for the whole year or for the winter?
LORD BARNBY: I have not that information. It might well be that cutting up of the ground would depend upon the state of the weather. That might apply to the summer or the winter, and it would be immaterial which month of the year it was. The essential point would be to make a comparison with the exact state of the ground, which might exist either in summer or winter. The hurdles that have been put up have had the exact effect of cutting up the tracks and making the unsightly courses which have been complained of.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The hurdles were put up to stop people riding on the tracks which had been worn badly by horses on other occasions.
LORD BARNBY: That may be a matter of opinion, but I do know that Regulations prevent people jumping the hurdles, which would be an easy way of getting out of it. It is suggested that these-Regulations have been agreed to by some body. I am not certain what body that is, but I am quite certain that they have not been agreed to by the Richmond Park Riders' Association.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Can the noble Lord tell me when that Association was formed? Was it at the same time as the conversations?
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I can tell the noble Earl. It is a society formed owing to the extreme indignation at the action which you are taking.
LORD BARNBY: There is another body called the National Horse Riders' Association. The noble Earl has referred to the Horse Owners' Association, and I have no wish to confuse the House as to these bodies. May I sum up by saying shortly that what we have heard this afternoon confirms the belief that real anxiety exists as to what may be the result of precipitate Regulations, which appear to amount almost to persecution in the discriminatory action against one set of users of one of His Majesty's Parks, which is for the general convenience of the public. On that ground I venture to voice the fear that exists, and to make an appeal to the noble Earl to give the House an assurance that there will be a delay in the imposition of these Regulations, until some method has been found of having them examined and of making sure that no public interest would be impaired.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask the Leader of the House a question on the matter of procedure? If a Bill is rejected in this House, or the other House, the same question cannot be put twice, but with Regulations like these, if the Regulations are rejected by this House is there anything to prevent revised Regulations being drawn up immediately afterwards? It is true they would have to lie for twenty-one days before each House, but there would not be so very much delay, for it appears to me that something might be produced which would meet The criticism that has been made.
LORD BAYFORD: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider the question of adjourning this debate? The whole matter has been sprung upon the House very suddenly, and why should not the debate be adjourned?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I understand that the statutory time for these rules lapses to-morrow, and therefore there is not much room for delay. If your Lordships choose to oppose these rules what could be done would have that new rules might be made and they would have to come before both Houses of Parliament and go through the process of lying on the Table for twenty-one days, or whatever the time is. I understand

797
that the First Commissioner would be quite prepared to consider these conditions with the riders, and therefore I think probably your Lordships would agree that the best thing would be that these actual Regulations should be withdrawn and the matter could be considered again.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, with the assurance of the Leader of the House that the proposed Regulations will be the subject of conference with representative bodies representing the riders in the Park, I beg leave to withdraw.
LORD STRABOLGI: That was not the assurance at all. The assurance was that these Regulations were to be withdrawn and new Regulations made.
LORD BARNBY: What I understand to be the proposal of the Leader of the House is that the Regulations which have formed the subject of this afternoon's debate will be cancelled, and that new Regulations will be drawn up which will go through the usual procedure, so that
798
this House will in its turn have full opportunity of considering them.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Unless this Motion is carried, will not the Regulations take effect automatically?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Will the noble Earl accept the Motion for nullifying these Regulations?
LORD BARNBY: That is my Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and the said Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CEFN AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1939.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Cefn Mawr and Rhos-y-medre Gas Company, Limited:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes past seven o'clock.