Sitting of 5 July 1939

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

  MILFORD HAVEN AND TENBY WATER BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered.
  The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means (Colonel Clifton Brown): I beg to move, in page 52, line 38, to leave out "purpose (b)" and to insert "purposes (b) and (c)."
  This Amendment is purely consequential.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  STIRLING BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BACUP) BILL [Lords].
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NORTH LINDSEY WATER BOARD) BILL [Lords].
    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEMBLEY) BILL [Lords].
    read a second time, and committed
    PORT GLASGOW BURGH AND HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
    "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Port Glasgow Burgh and Harbour," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS [MONEY].
    Committee to consider of authorising payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sum as may be necessary to enable the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings to pay to the London County Council such contribution towards the cost of the con-
    1260
    struction of an embankment wall on the River Thames to be authorised by any Act of the present Session as may, with the consent of the Treasury, be agreed between the said Commissioners and the London County Council (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH CONSUL, MOSUL (MURDER).
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether he has any further information to give with regard to the murder of the British Consul at Mosul; whether any Iraqi agents of Germany have been imprisoned or otherwise dealt with; and how many German nationals have since been expelled from Iraq on this account by the Iraqi Government?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): My Noble Friend has received no further evidence which would modify the position as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 10th May. The question of the expulsion by the Iraqi Government of foreign agents in this connection does not, therefore, arise. As a sign of their profound regret for this tragic occurrence, the Iraqi Government have offered to pay the dependents of Mr. Monck-Mason what His Majesty's Government regard as adequate compensation, and I understand that the necessary Parliamentary sanction for this grant will shortly be sought.
  Mr. Stokes: Is not the Minister aware that it is general knowledge in Baghdad that at least two German nationals have been asked to leave the country?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will see the relevance of the words "in this connection" in the answer that I have given.

  FAR EAST (SITUATION).
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister particulars of the manner in which Customs collections and revenue, collected at

  1261
  Tientsin and Chingwangtao are being held or remitted against the loan obligations of Northern China?
  Mr. Butler: The revenue is being held by the Japanese authorities in a suspense account at the Yokohama Specie Bank on behalf of the Inspector-General of Customs.
  Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any remittances have been regularly paid?
  Mr. Butler: Not without notice.
  Mr. Kennedyasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of propaganda emanating from Japanese sources to the effect that in recent conversations between this country and France, decision was announced that in no circumstances would Britain consent to being involved in a position which would lead to war with Japan; and whether he is taking steps to counteract this?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has not heard of such propaganda. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to supply me with any evidence in his possession.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that the four Chinese accused of murdering a Japanese agent at Tientsin will not be handed over to the Japanese authorities until substantial proof of their guilt has been furnished?
  Mr. Butler: This is one of the matters to be discussed during the forthcoming negotiations at Tokyo, and I have at present nothing to add to the replies which I gave to hon. Members on 3rd July.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the lamentable effect that will be produced in China and in India, and throughout the East, if these men were to be handed over before substantial proof of their guilt had been established?
  Mr. Butler: This is one of the aspects of the questions to be discussed in these negotiations, and I said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, there is no question of handing over these men pending these negotiations.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: May we take it that the reference made last night by the Lord Chancellor to this case was made on the authority of the Government?
  Mr. Butler: I have not seen it.
  Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the issues to be discussed at Tokyo are to be confined to local issues arising at Tientsin?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement of the Prime Minister in which he said that the local issue would be discussed.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the stripping of Mr. John Anderson at Tientsin on Sunday; and what guarantee he has received that this and other indignities will not be repeated and that food will be provided for the population of the International Settlement?
  Mr. Butler: Further reports received by my Noble Friend do not enable me to add anything on the subject of this incident to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) on Monday. No other incidents at the barriers have been reported since 27th June. Only a small quantity of milk for hospital use has entered the British Concession since 1st July, and His Majesty's Consul-General has taken the matter up with his Japanese colleague. In other respects, there seems to have been some improvement in food supplies. The general position remains as stated by the Prime Minister on 28th June.
  Mr. Mander: Are the Government satisfied that, pending these negotiations at Tokyo, everything can and will be done for the British subjects at Tientsin to receive protection from indignities and to receive all the food they require? Are they satisfied that that can be done?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government will certainly do their best to effect these results.
  Mr. Mander: Are they really going to do it?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it intended to proceed with the negotiations at Tokyo even if the blockade and these outrages on British subjects at Tientsin continue?

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister whether all the British ships at any time held under restraint by the Spanish authorities have now been released; and can he give particulars of the number of claims that are outstanding and still pending against the Spanish authorities?
  Mr. Butler: There are, so far as my Noble Friend is aware, no British ships at present held under restraint by the Spanish authorities. The formulation of claims against the Spanish Government is in hand.
  Mr. Day: Have any obstacles been placed in the way of the settlement of these claims?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir, the claims have not yet been presented.
  Mr. Banfieldasked the Prime Minister whether he has satisfied himself that the Spanish Government is sufficiently stable to justify the initiation of trade talks?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Banfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that any economic advantage obtained by the Spanish Government will not be used to the detriment of this country?
  Mr. Butler: We always protect our interests.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he does not propose to take any action that will help General Franco out of his present difficulties? Is there any reason why we should not have an answer?
  Mr. Petherick: Are not these references to General Franco very detrimental to British interests?
  Mr. Shinwell: May I press for an answer? Is there no answer? On a point of Order. I have asked a question which is perfectly in order, as far as I can understand. Am I not entitled to an answer, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: A Minister has always the right to refrain from answering a supplementary question.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is there any reason why the Government should be reluctant to give an answer?
  Mr. Butler: Not at all. There is nothing I have to say.

  GERMANY (COLONIES).
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister whether, in relation to the German demand for colonies, His Majesty's Government have been in communication with the Governments of Belgium, France and Japan regarding the German claims for the return of the former German colonies, at present being administered under Mandate by those Governments; and what is the attitude of the respective Governments on this matter?
  Mr. Butler: There has been no recent exchange of views with any foreign Governments on this question. The attitude of the French Government has been made clear by the French Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs on several occasions, more particularly in their statements on 26th January and 7th February last. The attitude of the Belgian Government was stated by the then Prime Minister on 3rd November last. So far as my Noble Friend is aware the Japanese Government have not recently expressed any views on this question.
  Mr. Day: Can we be informed what is the square mileage of these colonies?

  PERU.
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing importance of the Republic of Peru, he will consider aligning Great Britain with those other Great Powers who have already considered it advisable to raise their chief diplomatic representative at Lima to ambassadorial status?
  Mr. Butler: While my Noble Friend appreciates the importance of strengthening our close and friendly relations with Peru, I would point out that this question cannot be considered in isolation. The establishment of an Embassy in Lima would at once bring up the question of the establishment of Embassies in a number of other countries. His Majesty's Government are not at present convinced that an extension of the number of Embassies is advisable.
  Captain Graham: Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer in view

  1265
  of the very particular reasons which realty outweigh the force of the general argument?
  Mr. Butler: I appreciate the point of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, and my Noble Friend has given every aspect of the question his consideration.
  Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal 0f German propaganda going on in Peru?

  ANGLO-FRENCH-RUSSIAN CONVERSATIONS.
  Mr. Daltonasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a further statement regarding the progress of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
  Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing gravity of the European situation and the necessity of completing the front of law-abiding Powers to deter aggression, he will relieve public anxiety by making a statement upon the progress of the Anglo-Russian negotiations?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): My Noble Friend received the reply of the Soviet Government yesterday, and it is now being considered in consultation with the French Government.
  Mr. Dalton: Is it true, as stated in the Press to-day, that one of the outstanding difficulties relates to new proposals put forward by His Majesty's Government for the further extension of the list of countries to be named in the guarantee of the treaty?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is desirable to enter upon details of what the difficulties are which are yet unsolved, but it would be a mistake to suppose that the difficulties arise from one side only.
  Mr. Dalton: Does the Prime Minister realise that these negotiations have now dragged on for three very long months, and that there has been very great forbearance in this House and in the country, and that we shall have to have a "show down" very soon?
  Mr. Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a doubt is beginning to grow in this country whether the Soviet Government really do want this agreement?
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not necessary to have the resignation of the Prime Minister first?
  Mr. V. Adams: Is it too late to send to Moscow a responsible Minister of the Crown; and does my right hon. Friend recall the success of the visit to Moscow of a former Foreign Secretary not many years ago?
  Mr. McGovern: Is it not rather strange that the Labour party are trying to foist Russia on to this country when they themselves refused to have any industrial or political commitments with them?

  DANZIG.
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the military preparations taking place in Danzig constitute a breach of Article 5 of the Statute governing the constitution of the Free City; whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter; and whether he can make a statement on the recent developments in the situation in Danzig?
  Mr. Butler: Certain of the military preparations which have been reported would appear to constitute a breach of this article of the Danzig statute. As the Prime Minister stated on 3rd July, His Majesty's Government are keeping in touch with the Polish and French Governments regarding all aspects of the Danzig situation. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the Prime Minister's statement on 3rd July.
  Mr. Cocks: Con the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government propose to make a joint demarche with France and Poland on the position?
  Mr. Butler: At present we are in touch with these Governments on all aspects of the question, and I cannot say more at the moment.
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether the announced policy of the Government that this country will use at once the whole of its strength in fulfilment of its pledges to resist further aggression, covers the case of an attempt to bring about a forcible change in the status of Danzig?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of our pledge to Poland which Great Britain will certainly fulfil.
  Mr. Cocks: Can the Minister say at least that if the Poles regard any such action in Danzig as an act of aggression we shall be immediately at her side with all our forces?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will remember that the terms of the guarantee we gave to Poland were directed to a clear threat to her independence.
  Mr. V. Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the illegal proceedings as to the importations of munitions and armed men into the Free City of Danzig, he will take steps, while there is time, to impress upon the German Government the determination of the British people by some physical action such as the mobilisation of the Fleet?
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government will not fail to take any steps which may seem to them necessary or desirable to make their attitude absolutely clear, but this has already been stated with precision in recent speeches by Ministers.
  Mr. Adams: Did not similar action to that which I have suggested in the question have some considerable effect last autumn?
  Mr. Thurtle: Will the Prime Minister consider, as further action, the question of strengthening the Cabinet to impress upon the German Government their determination?
  Mr. Gallacher: Why do the Government not pack up?
  Mr. Mander: Cannot the Prime Minister do something rather better than the broadcast he gave last Sunday night?

  BRITISH SUBJECTS' ARREST, GERMANY.
  Lieut. Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister what is the position regarding Mr. John Lennox and Miss Church who were recently arrested by the German police?
  Mr. Butler: Miss Church and Mr. Lennox are still in the hands of the Secret
  1268
  Police in Vienna. The investigation into their cases appears to have been unexpectedly prolonged, but it is understood that the papers were sent to the judicial authorities on 19th June. His Majesty's Consul-General has repeatedly and urgently pressed the authorities to hasten their consideration of the matter but no charge has yet been formulated against the prisoners. The statements of the authorities indicate, however, that this will not be much longer delayed.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information as to the treatment of these British subjects whilst under arrest?
  Mr. Butler: Miss Church is reported to have been ill and to have received the medical treatment she required. Mr. Lennox is said to be in good health and spirits.

  REFUGEES (POLISH JEWS).
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether he will approach the Polish Government with a view to the admission into Poland of the 4,000 Polish Jews who have been driven into the no-man's land between Germany and Poland and art there suffering great privations?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is making inquiries about the position of these unfortunate refugees.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    HOUSES, CANNOCK CHASE.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the alarm created in the neighbourhood of Wolverhampton at the proposal to erect 200 houses as married quarters for the Royal Air Force on Cannock Chase: why no consultation had taken place with the town planning authority concerned; and whether any report has been received from Professor Abercrombie?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): An estate of 150 houses is being developed by private enterprise at Cannock Chase primarily to meet the demand created by the presence of civilian employés at the Royal Air Force Establishment at Hednesford. I understand that plans of this estate were passed by the Staffordshire County Council and the

    1269
    Lichfield Rural District Council. In these circumstances the need for further consultation or report did not arise.
    Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the latter part of the question? Would it not have been a reasonable thing to have approached the town planning authority and Professor Abercrombie?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. In this case both the local authorities were agreed in regard to the erection of these houses by private enterprise. As a matter of fact, the Lichfield Rural District Council assured me of that when I had the honour of laying the foundation stone of the houses.
    Mr. Mander: I must press for an answer to the last part of the question. Was Professor Abercrombie consulted or not?
    Sir K. Wood: There was no need to do that. The two local authorities were agreed on the matter.

    ACCIDENT, KETTERING (FUNERAL EXPENSES).
    Mr. Lunnasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that an aeroplane crashed on 22nd March last near Kettering during a storm of snow and hail and three men were killed, one of whom was Sergeant J. R. Wiles, a wireless-operator mechanic in the Royal Air Force who had been in the Royal Air Force nine years, and was receiving a wage of over £4 a week and allowed his parents 17s. 6d, a week; why the air authorities have deducted £20 15s. funeral expenses from his estate; and as his father is nearly 60 years of age and only a colliery surface worker, will he say what compensation or pension they will get for the loss of their son?
    Sir K. Wood: The arrangements for the funeral in this regrettable case were made by the relatives, and in accordance with the regulations a total expenditure of £7 10s. was authorised from public funds towards the expenses incurred. The balance of £20 15s. incurred by the parents, therefore, fell to be met from the deceased's estate. Under rules common to the three fighting Services compensation is not payable to the dependent parents, as distinct from the widows or children, of deceased members of the Forces unless the pecuniary and other
    1270
    circumstances are such as to justify an award. An application for a parent's allowance has been received in this case and is being examined by my Department.
    Mr. Lunn: If I send to the right hon. Gentleman correspondence from the parents, will he reconsider the matter, in view of their pecuniary position?
    Sir K. Wood: Certainly.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not desirable, by a system of insurance or in some other way, that compensation should be given to parents when members of the fighting Services are killed in peace time?
    Sir K. Wood: I have already said that in cases where there is pecuniary need, an award is made.
    Sir Arnold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of inquiring into the circumstances in which funerals are conducted, by private arrangement, for members of the Royal Air Force, in view of the heavy expense incurred in a case like this?
    Sir K. Wood: That raises a much wider question, which is outside my Department.
    Mr. Lunn: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that as much as £20 should be stopped from the pay?

    DEPOT, STOKE-ON-TRENT.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to make further use of facilities available at Stoke-on-Trent for the purpose of the Royal Air Force expansion scheme?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to announce that it is proposed to establish a depot for Royal Air Force purposes near the aerodrome at Stoke-on-Trent which when in full operation will employ some 2,500 men.
    Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that where practicable local applicants for employment will be given preference?
    Sir K. Wood: Instructions will be issued that as much local labour as possible should be employed

    MCLINTOCK AGREEMENT.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now report the conclusion of the revision of the McLintock Agreement and when that revised agreement will be available for the information of Members of this House?
    Sir K. Wood: It has been necessary to review this matter in the light of the introduction of the Armaments Profits Duty, but I hope to be able to make an early statement.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that five months have elapsed? Is it not preposterous that no information is yet available to Members of the House?
    Sir K. Wood: I do not think so. It is a reasonable thing for the industry as a whole to reconsider the matter in the light of the proposals now before the House.

    GENERAL LABOURERS, HEDNESFORD (WAGES).
    Mr. Pooleasked the Secretary of State for Air what rates of pay prevail for general labourers employed at the Royal Air Force training camp at Hednesford; and what is the district trade union rate for such labour?
    Sir K. Wood: The rate of pay for general labourers at the Royal Air Force station, Hednesford, is 47s. for a week of 48 hours. This rate is based on an examination of rates paid for comparable employment in the district. I am not aware that there is a district trade union rate.
    Mr. Poole: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the actual rate applicable in the district is less than Is. an hour? Will he make further inquiries as to the rate paid in the district, and see that he pays labourers employed at this camp something more respectible than 47s. for a 48-hour week?
    Sir K. Wood: I have said that the rate is based on an examination of the rates paid for comparable labour in the district. If the hon. Member has any further information to give me, I shall be glad to receive it.
    Mr. Poole: Does the right hon. Gentleman base his average rate on the rate paid to agricultural labourers, or what
    1272
    comparable rate does he employ? The average trade union rate in the district 1s. 3d. an hour.
    Sir K. Wood: Any information which the hon. Member will send to me I shall be glad to receive.

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    CONTROL OF FLYING.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Air whether legislation will be required to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee on the Control of Flying that the licences of aircraft towing advertisements should not be renewed beyond 1st October, 1941; and, if so, what is the latest date by which a Bill to secure this object must be passed?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Yes, Sir, but I am afraid that it will not be possible to introduce the necessary legislation during the present Session. I should, however, make it clear that the date on which such legislation might be passed was not the sole or indeed the main consideration which led the Government to accept the committee's recommendation in regard to the date from which it might take effect.
    Mr. Keeling: May I take it that the Government have every intention to bring this nuisance to an end by October, 1941?
    Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. That is the intention of the Government.

    AIR-LINE PASSENGERS (STATISTICS).
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will state the total number of passengers carried by Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, Limited, during 1938, on their European services; and the total number of passengers that travelled in this country on the main air-lines in 1938.
    Captain Balfour: The number of passengers carried by Imperial Airways during 1938 on their European services was 36,064, and by British Airways 22,276. The total number of passengers who travelled in this country on internal air-lines in 1938 was 147,590

    WEST INDIES SERVICE.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is any British air service between the islands in the West Indies.
    Captain Balfour: There is at present no British inter-island service in the West Indies, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rochester (Captain Plugge) on 11th May last, in which I informed him that a report on the position in regard to the institution of an inter-island service in the West Indies has been prepared by a technical officer of my Department, who has completed an investigation on the spot. This has been examined in consultation with the Colonial Office and detailed requirements for such a service are being drawn up. Steps have been taken to ascertain from local governments concerned certain information which I hope shortly to receive, and as soon as this is available a definite decision can be arrived at regarding the establishment of such a service.
    Mr. Perkins: Are not the Dutch already running an air service to these islands? Why are we lagging behind the Dutch?
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Is it not the case that the airports in the West Indies are either owned or rented by the United States?
    Captain Balfour: Not as regards the proposed air service we have in mind.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that certain Governments in the West Indies approached the Air Ministry about an air service more than a year ago?
    Captain Balfour: That is a different question.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    DIVING-BELLS (SUBMARINES).
    Mr. Cocksasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the French Admiralty have already decided to construct five diving-bells of the type used in saving members of the crew of the United States of America's submarine "Squalus"; and whether the British Admiralty have come to any decision on the subject?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): As I informed the hon. Member on 21st June, the possibility of the adoption of this diving-bell will be considered together with the other questions affecting the safety of submarines. A final decision on the future policy governing the saving of life in submarines can only be made after the Tribunal of Inquiry has reported on the circumstances of the loss of life in His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis."
    Mr. Cocks: Can the hon. Member say why there is this delay on the part of the Admiralty when France has already acted? Is there anything wrong with the Admiralty? Is it not time that there was a new First Lord?
    Mr. Shakespeare: It is quite untrue that the Admiralty are not doing all they can. The Admiralty are examining this matter, but I would point out that until we have final evidence, which only the inquiry can give, it would be unwise to come down on one side or the other.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Have the Admiralty considered the advisability of experimenting with a glass tank so that they would be able to see the apparatus at work in getting them out of the chamber?
    Mr. Shakespeare: We have a number of tanks of our own, and some firms have them also.

    DRY DOCK (TOWAGE CONTRACT).
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether British towage firms were asked to tender for the tow of the Government dry-dock which recently left this country; and why the contract was given to a Dutch towage firm?
    Mr. Shakespeare: When lenders were invited for this towage contract, arrangements were made for two British companies which had suitable tugs to pool their resources for tender purposes since no British company alone possesses tugs which could handle such a towage. After carefully considering all the factors involved, it was decided to employ the Dutch firm.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was it on that ground that the combination of two British towage firms was impracticable, or was it due to the cost?
    Mr. Shakespeare: It was not the impracticability. Cost was one of the factors in the decision, but there were a number of other factors which, on balance; led us to decide on this course.
    Mr. Shinwell:Is it not desirable that the Admiralty should have facilities available at any time for this purpose?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the hon. Member speak up, as we should like to know what he is asking?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am asking whether it is not desirable that facilities should be available at any time for this purpose? Will the Minister look into it?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I will look into it.

    SHIP CONSTRUCTION.
    Captain Pluggeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) what proportion of naval construction work by cost and tonnage is now undertaken in private and Royal yards, respectively; and how these proportions compare with the pre-war period;
    (2) what is the present approximate tonnage of warships under construction in Royal yards and private yards, respectively; and how this volume of construction compares with that in private and Royal yards in the period 1913 to 1914?
    Mr. Shakespeare: As the answer involves a table of figures I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    The cost and tonnage of new construction in hand in private shipyards and in the Roya Dockyards respectively on 20thJuly, 1914, and the corresponding figures for 1st July, 1939 are as follow:

    —

    Private Shipyards.

    H.M. Dockyards.

    Tonnage.

    Cost.

    Tonnage.

    Cost.

    £

    £

    20th July, 1914

    …

    372,000

    37,275,000

    134,500

    13,020,000

    1st July, 1939

    …

    690,000

    Estimated

    22,000

    Estimated

    151,389,000

    5,825,000

    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has taken into consideration the possibility of accelerating the progress of all classes of naval construction now in hand, especially of escort and anti-submarine craft; and if he is satisfied that the maximum number of
    Captain Plugge: Can the hon. Member say why it is that a battleship could be built in the Royal dockyards before the War, but not to-day?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I think the short answer is that before the War we were building a new fleet. As the hon. Member knows, the Royal dockyards are available for the repair and reconstruction of capital ships, a service which they can better perform.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the case that the proportion of orders now given to private firms is far greater than it has ever been in modern history?
    Mr. Shakespeare: That is true. It is a deliberate policy, and an economic policy.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that Government dockyards are not equipped as are private dockyards?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. The Royal dockyards are mainly concerned with repair and refitting, and are at present heavily engaged in the major reconstruction of a number of capital ships.
    Mr. Thorne: How does that answer compare with the statement that we are building some of the best ships in the world?
    Following is the information:
    shifts possible is being worked, and the maximum number of hands employed in the shipyards and dockyards?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The possibility of accelerating the progress of all classes of naval construction is constantly under consideration. Having regard to the

    1277
    programme of work in hand, the ships are being built as rapidly as is permitted by the labour and plant available and by the necessity for co-ordinating the progress of the ships with the supply of components for them. The best arrangement of shifts possible is being worked with the number of skilled hands available.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that only one shift a day is being worked at present, and in the present circumstances ought not steps to be taken by the Admiralty to bring about an acceleration in naval construction comparable to that made by the Air Ministry and the War Office?
    Mr. Shakespeare: It is not the case that one shift is being worked where two shifts would serve a useful purpose. I have recently returned from a visit to a number of workshops in order to achieve the very purpose which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, and I found the best number of shifts being worked, that is two, which was found to be better than three shifts.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: We have been told that, although we are not at war, we are certainly not at peace, and ought it to take three years to build a capital ship?

    CIVIL EMPLOYÉS.
    Captain Pluggeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he regards it as satisfactory that the present number of established men in Admiralty naval establishments amounts to-day to less than one-sixth of the number of hired men employed in those establishments, whereas in 1930 the proportion was under one-third; and whether he will set up an inquiry at an early date in order to investigate the practicability either of bringing about a large increase in the establishment or of enabling a better proportion of the employés concerned to enjoy the protection of a pension scheme of some kind?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that in 1936 a revised complement of established posts to remain in force for five years was fixed in consultation with representatives of the workpeople, and it is not proposed to set up an inquiry into
    1278
    a matter which is dealt with through the recognised negotiating procedure of the Department. As to the institution of a pension scheme of any other kind, I can add nothing to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) on 25th November last.
    Captain Plugge: Does not my hon. Friend think that the recommendation put forward by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service recommending an inquiry into a pension scheme for industrial civil servants, should be proceeded with?
    Mr. Shakespeare: That is a matter which is dealt with by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  PALESTINE.

    TERRORISM.
    Mr. V. Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information with regard to the destruction by Arab terrorists, on 17th June, of the ancient Jewish synagogue and sepulchre at Tiberias, which has for centuries been a place of pilgrimage for devout Jews; and what steps are to be taken to stop such outrages against Jewish holy places in Palestine?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I received a report from the High Commissioner to the effect that considerable damage was done on 17th June by unknown incendiaries to a tomb near Tiberias which is an object of much veneration to the Jews. The Palestine Government, as I am sure the House needs no assurance, is using its utmost endeavour to put an end to outrages from whatever quarter they come, and against whatever object they are directed.
    Mr. Adams: On this particular occasion was not a collection of priceless holy books destroyed? If the British mandate is relinquished, how is security against this kind of sacrilege more likely to be guaranteed?
    Mr. MacDonald: The British mandate will not be relinquished until the British Government and the League of Nations are satisfied that security will be properly provided.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that a lot of holy lives are being destroyed as a result of the mandate? Will he not grant independence to Palestine?

    BRITISH FORCES.
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of CAPTAIN RAMSAY:
    46. To ask the Prime Minister whether he will move to appoint a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the charges made by the responsible leaders of Christian communities in Haifa against the conduct of the British forces operating in Palestine?
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in order for a military officer to put down a propaganda question directed against the Army and then refuse to put it. I am referring to Question 46?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

    JEWISH SUPERNUMERARY POLICE.
    Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the letter addressed to the High Commissioner of Palestine by the religious leaders of the Christian communities in Haifa, making definite charges against the supernumerary police in Palestine as the authors of the bomb outrages in Haifa; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that the High Commissioner for Palestine received on 3rd April a letter signed by the local heads of the various Christian Churches in the town of Haifa containing allegations in general terms against Jewish supernumerary police. The High Commissioner assures me that he is satisfied that there is no truth in the allegations.
    Mr. E. Smith: In view of the fact that these police are carrying on under very difficult conditions, is not the putting in this House of questions of that character to be deprecated?
    Mr. Crossley: Is it not a fact that the most appalling outrages against Arabs have taken place in Haifa involving the loss of over 200 lives; and is it not a fact that the police protection in Haifa,
    1280
    and particularly the watching of the Haifa market, has not, up to now, been adequate?
    Mr. Dingle Foot: Is it not. a fact that these allegations have been made by highly respected members of the community in Palestine, and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there has been the fullest investigation into them?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am certain that the High Commissioner would not have given me the assurance which he has given without the fullest investigation and proof. As regards the watching of the situation in the market in Haifa, I am satisfied that the authorities in Palestine are doing their utmost to prevent any recurrence of these deplorable and disastrous events.
    Mr. Lawson: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the fact that the same charges are being made against British soldiers?
    Mr. MacDonald: There are charges and counter charges in Palestine, most of which cancel each other out.
    Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Would my right hon. Friend not think of sending out a Commission to inquire into this matter?
    Mr. T. Johnston: With regard to the supplementary answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, has his attention been drawn to the fact that an allegation has been put upon the Order Paper to-day against British troops from the same source?
    Captain Ramsay: On a point of Order. May I ask you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker? I put down a question which I subsequently withdrew.
    Hon. Members: Why.
    An Hon. Member: You were ashamed of it.
    Captain Ramsay: Is it in order to suggest that I was making allegations when, in fact, I was putting a question the answer to which I believed would clear British troops of any allegation made against them?
    Mr. Johnston: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House and the country the same explicit assurance of the falsehood of the allegations

    1281
    regarding the British troops that he has just given regarding the allegations against the police?
    Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir, without any hesitation.

    ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
    Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given in the district court in Jerusalem, on Monday, 26th June, when Max Seligmann, styling himself a British lawyer, was accused of illegally smuggling Jewish refugees into Palestine, to the effect that Mr. Seligmann had recently received encouragement in London to carry on with this illegal smuggling; and whether he will take steps to prevent such encouragement to illegal action being given in future?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. But I am informed that, according to Mr. Seligmann's own evidence, what he said was not that he had himself received encouragement in London, but that it was commonly rumoured in Jewish circles in Palestine that His Majesty's Government were not unsympathetic towards illegal immigration. I would like to say, as emphatically as I can, that there is no foundation whatever for any such rumour. His Majesty's Government are using their best endeavours to prevent this traffic, and the numbers of illegal immigrants who are at present landing in Palestine will be deducted from the next quota of legal immigrants.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where the unhappy people who leave Germany to escape the concentration camps are to go?

    ETHIOPIAN CHURCH.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will instruct the Government of Palestine that no change in the status quo regarding the rights, properties, and endowments of the Ethiopian Church in Palestine will be made except in pursuance of a legal decision given by the competent court?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The Palestine Government have no intention to make any change except in pursuance of a legal decision by a competent court.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Government of Palestine has withheld certain rents due by them in April last to the Ethiopian Convent in Jerusalem, in payment for certain premises belonging to the convent and hired by the Government?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have no information on this matter, but I will make inquiry of the High Commissioner.

    LAND ORDINANCES.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish the text of the ordinances brought into operation in Palestine recently to deprive Jews of the right to buy land in certain areas and to restrict it in others?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The necessary powers have been conferred upon the High Commissioner by an Order-in-Council, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  CYPRUS.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. de Rothschildasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the circumstances in which the Acting Colonial Secretary in Cyprus, on 17th June, addressed to the proprietor of the newspaper "Embros" an order that he should publish without addition, omission, or comment of any kind, a statement that the newspaper had been in error in suggesting that the policy of the Government towards the Press in Cyprus stifled expressions of public opinion on matters of common interest such as the price of electric current?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The newspaper "Embros" on 17th June published a statement to the effect mentioned in the latter part of the hon. Member's question. Acting in accordance with the powers given by the law, the Acting Colonial Secretary requested the editor to publish in the next issue a correction which, after quoting the statement referred to, pointed out that it was without foundation. The Acting Governor informs me that in fact the majority of newspapers, including the "Embros," had published numerous articles relating to the price of electric current, and that the Commissioner of Nicosia had actually given the editor of the "Embros" special information on this subject for publication.
    Mr. de Rothschild: Is it forbidden, then, for the people in Cyprus to ventilate their grievances on questions such as the price of electric current?
    Mr. MacDonald: My answer was to the very opposite effect.
    Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this is a very trivial thing for which to impose a censorship, and can he not get a better atmosphere for the newspaper people in Cyprus?
    Mr. MacDonald: If the censorship had been imposed because of that, I agree it would have been for a trivial thing, but no such censorship has been imposed.
    Mr. Mathers: Is not the enforced correction of a very slight criticism a species of censorship?
    Mr. Foot: Is it not a censorship when a newspaper is forbidden to comment on the statement which it is compelled to put in?
    Mr. MacDonald: I shall be making a general statement on the position regarding censorship in Cyprus in answer to a later question.
    Mr. de Rothschildasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been, on the part of the administration in Cyprus, any restriction of the publication in Cyprus of references to that Colony in this House, and more particularly, to those made in the Debate of 7th June?
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding newspaper censorship in Cyprus, especially in relation to "Embros"?
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the Press censorship in Cyprus?
    Mr. MacDonaldAs the reply is long I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make the statement at the end of Questions.
    Later—
    Mr. MacDonald: As hon. Members are aware, there has of late been a certain amount of discussion in Cyprus regarding Constitutional reform. One of the
    1284
    principal means by which an agitation has been conducted has been the circulation amongst the people of petitions asking for changes in the Constitution. The methods by which those responsible have sought to obtain signatures have not in all cases been proper. Thus the Acting-Governor has represented that petitions have been placed in front of villagers by persons upon whose favour they are dependent, and that signatures have been obtained by false suggestions. It was stated, for instance, that a measure of self-government was to be granted to the islanders in the near future, and suggested that those who refused to sign would suffer when self-government came. In other instances the organisers endeavoured to secure signatures by misrepresenting their purpose, declaring that the petitions were against the immigration of Jews, on which Cypriots hold strong views.
    Hon. Members will appreciate that it is not many years since there was serious political trouble in Cyprus and that although the situation has greatly improved since then circumstances in the island are such that the authorities have to watch the situation carefully. The type and method of agitation which I have just described is calculated to disturb good relations in the colony and it illustrates a situation which makes it still necessary that the local Government should retain the power of censoring the Press. Since February, when the censorship was removed from two newspapers, including "Embros," there has been no instance of the imposition of a censorship on any newspaper, apart from one case where a new newspaper, which published a gross indecency, was sup-pressed. A Press bureau has been established at Nicosia under the local Commissioner, for the purpose of maintaining a mutually helpful liaison between the Government and the Press, and obviating as far as possible the necessity for restrictive action under the Press law.
    The undesirable and misleading character of the agitation to which I have referred was aggravated by numerous articles in the Press which the Administration regarded as calculated to disturb further the public mind. To meet the situation, the Commissioner of Nicosia was authorised to see each of the editors individually and he then called upon

    1285
    them to discontinue this harmful agitation. There was no instruction against printing reports of proceedings in this House. It is true that, when on a subsequent occasion one editor asked the Commissioner regarding the publication of certain passages in the Debate in this House on 7th June, the Commissioner, though he replied definitely that he could give no instructions on the point, added that, as he had been asked for his advice, his personal opinion was that publication would not be advisable.
    In the situation which existed at the time I think it was proper for a general warning to be issued to editors, but I agree that the terms of the warning were such that they could be understood to involve a wider prohibition than the situation would justify. I have been in communication with the Acting Governor, who reports that as a result of the measures taken the situation has improved and that the Commissioner has informed the editors that, this being so, they can now use their discretion in the publication of material touching upon constitutional questions, provided they keep within reasonable and proper limits so as to avoid disturbance of peace and order and good government.
    I am satisfied that the great majority of the people of Cyprus are not discontented under the present administration. The policy of the administration is to work in the direction of more representative government; but this process cannot be hurried, and in my view it must proceed first through a gradual increase of responsibility in local government.
    The new Governor, Mr. Battershill, who has had previous experience in the island and whose appointment has been welcomed by every section of opinion there, is proceeding to Cyprus in the course of the next few weeks, and I have asked him to review the position regarding these matters and to let me have his views upon them.
    Mr. Paling: If that report proves anything, does it not prove that there is precious little liberty left as regards the Press in Cyprus? Does it not prove that there is so little liberty among the people that they are not allowed to sign a petition asking for constitutional liberties? Does it not prove that most of the allegations that have been made in this House
    1286
    in questions during the last few weeks are probably true? Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to stop this kind of dictatorship, and try to put into operation the kind of democracy for which he is supposed to stand?
    Mr. MacDonald: There was no question of preventing signatures being gathered for petitions regarding constitutional reform, but this whole movement was taking on a most undesirable character by reason of the misrepresentation and the intimidation which I have described. With regard to the suggestion that there is precious little liberty of the Press in Cyprus, I think it is a perfectly proper principle which the Acting Governor has now announced that editors should be allowed to use their discretion in discussing these matters provided they keep within reasonable and proper limits so as to avoid disturbance to peace and law and good government.
    Mr. de Rothschild: Is it not quite inconceivable that an official in Cyprus should advise a newspaper not to publish a debate which takes place in this House, and could it be considered in any way subversive for the people of Cyprus to read what hon. Members say in this Assembly?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think it is a fact, as I stated in my answer, that the general warning which was issued could be understood to be a much wider prohibition than circumstances justified in any way, and under the new instructions which have been given I am certain that the sort of state of affairs which the hon. Gentleman suggests will not exist in Cyprus.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is in this House alone now that the Cypriots have an opportunity of voicing their grievances, and does he not see the terrible constitutional dangers of suppressing reports of Debates in this House?
    Mr. MacDonald: I quite see that there should be no suppression of debate in this House, or, indeed, of any other reasonable discussion of this matter in Cyprus, but I would ask the House to consider the action which was taken in Cyprus against the background of the statement that I have made.
    Captain A. Graham: Does not this question of the liberty of the Press entirely depend on there being an equal sense of responsibility whether in this country or in any other country, and in view of the fact that the irresponsibility of the Cyprus Press was the main cause of the disturbances of 1931, is it not desirable for Members in all parts of the House to support the Cyprus Government when they demand this sense of responsibility from the Cyprus editors?
    Mr. Foot: Is it not very necessary that Members of the House should be able to judge the way in which these censorship powers are used, and will the right hon. Gentleman cause to be placed in the Library a copy of the article on the freedom of the Press as the result of which a censorship was imposed on the newspaper "Embros" at the end of last year, so that Members can judge for themselves the grounds on which the censorship is imposed in Cyprus?
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that the man responsible on the spot for the government of Cyprus is best qualified to judge?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think the House will appreciate that to take individual cases out of the background of the situation in Cyprus would not necessarily give a correct picture of the position. Nevertheless, the Government are as anxious as hon. Members in any part of the House that the proper liberty of the people of Cyprus should be protected, and that is the intention of the Cyprus administration. I am quite certain, as the hon. Members suggests, that Members of this House will be very careful in their watching of the censorship of the Press arising out of the instructions that have been given to editors to-day.
    Mr. Foot: That was not the question I put. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether there ought not to be made available to Members the article following upon the publication of which a newspaper had the censorship imposed.
    Mr. Daggar: The Minister has told us that a responsible member of the Colonial staff told an editor that he ought not to publish reports of this House. What action has been taken against that member?
    Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member will study my answer carefully he will see that the officer concerned said he could give no instructions on the matter at all. He expressed a personal opinion. I do think the House has an obligation to recognise that the authorities in Cyprus were dealing with an agitation which concerned itself a good deal with misrepresentation and with intimidation, and that some fairly definite and drastic action was required to put a stop to that state of affairs.
    Mr. Foot: Could I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. MacDonald: I did not intend to evade the hon. Member's question. I thought I had made a perfectly proper comment upon it in the answer I gave. If the House wishes for information, of course the House can get it, but I would only say that to take individual articles and examine them independently of the general situation in Cyprus will not give hon. Members a correct picture of the position.
    Sir A. Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the report on the disturbances of 1931 definitely established that Press agitation was responsible for much loss of innocent life, and great damage to property, and will he give every support to the Governor and the officials in Cyprus in taking all steps necessary to avoid serious civil disturbances?
    Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir, and I am sure the great majority of the House will join me in wishing that that should be done.
    Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a perfectly straightforward answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot)? If he is not prepared to put this document in the Library, will he issue a White Paper covering the whole ground? May I ask him, finally, whether he will deprecate the suppression of the statements made in this House this afternoon about Cyprus?
    Mr. MacDonald: There is no question of the suppression of statements made in this House this afternoon about Cyprus. With regard to the first part of the question, certainly, as I have said, if the House wishes for information I will give

    1289
    it, and I am certain the House will consider that information in the light of the whole situation.

    TRADE UNIONS.
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reason for the prohibition of a lecture to be given to the Larnaca Mason's Trade Union; and whether full permission exists in Cyprus for workers to join trade unions?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I have received no report on the incident referred to in the first part of the question, but am making inquiries. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

  KENYA.

    ABYSSINIAN REFUGEES.
    Mr. Petherickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Abyssinian refugees are in Kenya; where they are quartered; how long they have been in the country; whether they are employed; if unemployed, whether they have been offered work and refused; what is the cost of their upkeep out of national funds; and what is the policy of the Government for their future?
    Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much the two civilian and military camps of Abyssinian refugees now on Kenya soil have, respectively, cost the British taxpayer; and whether he can state the Government's policy with respect to these refugees?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply is rather long I will, with my hon. Friends' permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The number of Abyssinian refugees in Kenya is nearly 6,000. They are quartered in a camp at Isiolo, where there is also a camp for Eritrean military refugees. The majority of the Abyssinian refugees entered Kenya in the summer of 1937. It has not been possible to settle the refugees as a community in Kenya or to offer them employment outside the camp, but the adult males are employed on camp maintenance and construction. The total expenditure to be met from United Kingdom funds to 31st March last
    1290
    for both camps was £162,030 and the estimated expenditure for the current year is £70,000.
    The disposal of the refugees is a question of great complexity and has been constantly under examination. A number of settlement proposals in different territories have been considered, but discarded. A certain number may wish to return to their own country, and an assurance has recently been given by the Italian Government that refugees who do so will not suffer prejudicial treatment owing to their having been refugees or to their having taken part in hostilities against Italian forces. As has been stated on previous occasions, however, none of the refugees will be compelled to go back against their will, and no pressure will be put upon them to induce them to return. I am not yet able to announce any definite decision as regards the future disposal of those refugees who do not wish to return.

    NATIVE LAND TRUST.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Native Land Trust of Kenya Colony is primarily concerned with native lands, there has been appointed to the board of this Trust, or there is any intention to appoint, a native member?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The Kenya Native Lands Trust Board has five members, who include the Chief Native Commissioner, two nominated unofficial members of Legislative Council who represent African interests, and a missionary nominated by the Governor. I am satisfied that native interests are well looked after by the board as constituted, and see no reason therefore to change its personnel at present.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Is it the policy of the Government to include a direct representative of the Africans themselves?
    Mr. MacDonald: That certainly is not excluded, and if a suitable African, who is representative of all the Africans concerned, could be discovered, I have no doubt he would be put on, in succession to whichever of the existing representatives retired.
    Mr. Paling: Does the right hon Gentleman mean to say that no African is put upon this board, because there is not one of the necessary ability to serve?
    Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir, but there is a question of different tribes. There is a certain amount of jealousy between one tribe and another. That is one of the considerations which the Government must have in mind.
    Mr. Paling: If there are Africans with sufficient ability, why is it that on all questions directly affecting the interests of Africans, no African is ever put on the board to look after those interests?
    Mr. MacDonald: I do not think that is true as a general statement.
    Mr. Paling: I do not know of one case.

    EDUCATION.
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that Africans pay annually in direct taxation to the Kenya Government £534,502, of which only £12,430, or 2.3 percent., went to aided schools for the elementary education of Africans, and having regard to the small proportion of African children getting any education whatsoever, he will recommend that steps be taken to greatly improve the educational facilities now existing.
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that only 2.3 per cent. of the amount raised by direct taxation from the natives of Kenya is devoted to elementary education, and that of the 100,872 pupils in elementary schools in the Colony in 1939 as many as 61,220 were in unaided schools, he will take steps to increase the provision for native elementary education out of the revenue provided by taxation in the Colony.
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The term "elementary education" covers only one part of the pre-secondary school education of native children in Kenya. In fact expenditure on the education of these children was, in round figures, £55,000 in 1937 and £62,000 in 1938, and is estimated to be £65,000 in 1939. I am communicating with the Governor as to the possibility of making further provision for this purpose.
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that school fees are compulsory in all grant-in-aid schools in the Kavirondo district of Kenya; and is he aware that these school fees automatically exclude the poorer children from the opportunity of
    1292
    education although their parents pay the same tax as those who can afford to pay fees.
    Mr. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative As regards the second part, as my right hon. Friend said in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) on 21st June, the Governor is having an inquiry made into this matter.
    Mr. Riley: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is a question of school fees?
    Mr. MacDonald: It is a question of school fees and the allegation that in some districts children are being sent away from school because of the incapacity of their parents to pay those fees.

  SIERRA LEONE.
  Mr. Footasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the Sierra Leone Deportation Ordinance, and, in particular, to Section 8 (2) which provides that the judge shall not be bound by the rules affecting the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings and may, in his discretion, accept and act upon less than legal evidence, Section 20 (2) which provides that no action or proceeding, whether civil or criminal, shall lie against any public officer in respect of any act done by him for the purpose of carrying into effect any direction of the Governor in pursuance of Section 20 (1), and Section 21 which provides that no writ of habeas corpus or other process calling in question the legality of any order made under this ordinance shall have any effect; and whether he will take steps to prevent these Sections coming into force?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I am informed by the Governor that Clause 8 (2) of the Bill has been deleted and a new provision substituted; that Clause 20 (2) has been modified; and that Clause 21 has been deleted. Certain other amendments have also been made. I should wish to defer a further statement until I have had an opportunity of studying the Ordinance as passed by the Legislative Council. Copies of it are expected shortly.
  Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the Governor's attention to the fact that it is an amazing thing that legislation of this kind should be put forward in any British Colony?
  Mr. Riley: Before the Ordinance is put into operation, will there be some opportunity for considering it in this House?
  Mr. MacDonald: A little later I shall be answering questions with regard to giving the House information. Perhaps the hon. Member will wait for those answers.
  Mr. Maxton: Were the sections that have now been deleted included in the original draft that was sent out to the Colony by the Secretary of State?
  Mr. MacDonald: Certainly not in some cases. I am not certain about other cases, but I think that in every case the answer is in the negative.
  Mr. Footasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Sierra Leone Undesirable Publications Ordinance, 1939, which empowers the Governor-in-Council, in his absolute discretion, to prohibit the importation of any publication which he considers contrary to the public interest and, in the case of a periodical publication, to prohibit the importation of any past or future issue; whether he has considered the provisions of Section 4 (2), which makes the mere possession without lawful excuse of such a publication an offence; and whether he will take steps to modify or set aside this ordinance?
  Mr. MacDonald: A copy of the Ordinance has been placed in the Library of the House, and the hon. Member will see that in Section 3 of the Ordinance as passed, the words "would be contrary to the public interest," which appeared in the Bill as published, have been deleted and a description of the types of literature, the importation of which the Governor-in-Council is empowered to prohibit has been substituted.
  Mr. Foot:Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the last part of the question? Is it still a fact that the mere possession of certain literature unaccompanied by any overt act may be an offence?
  Mr. MacDonald: There has been an amendment regarding that part of the Ordinance also. The Ordinance is in the Library of the House, and perhaps the hon. Member will study it, and then either get in touch with me or put further questions on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now considered the four Ordinances now before the Sierra Leone Legislature; whether he proposes to give his consent wholly or partially to same; and whether the Ordinances are in accordance with the draft Ordinances issued by the Colonial Office some time ago?
  Mr. Stephenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will issue as a White Paper the model Ordinances which were issued to the Colonies, or make them available for Members in the Library, in view of the widespread trouble that has arisen among the workers in the Colonies owing to the introduction of such or revised Ordinances in Sierra Leone and elsewhere?
  Mr. MacDonald: I have so far only received copies of two of the Ordinances as passed by the Legislative Council; there are slight differences between those and the models on which they are based. Copies of the other two Ordinances are expected within the next few days. Pending the arrival of these and of the Governor's report on the Ordinances, I cannot add to the answers which I gave to a series of questions on 28th June. I propose either to place the model Ordinances and the Ordinances as passed in the Library of the House or to publish them in a White Paper. Before deciding which would be the more appropriate course, I am considering the possibility of making available certain other papers connected with them. In either case they will be available to hon. Members at an early date.
  Mr. Paling: Do I take it that it is the practice of these Legislatures to put Ordinances into operation before the Colonial Secretary has seen them or knows what is in them?
  Mr. MacDonald: Normally the Secretary of State sees the Ordinances in draft and has an opportunity of making suggestions and proposing amendments regarding them. That happened in these cases, but I am not certain whether all the amendments which were proposed from London were finally passed in the form which we suggested. Until I have that information on receiving the Ordinances themselves, I am not in a position to make any further statement.
  Mr. Paling: In so far as they do alter the model Ordinances, does the right hon.

  1295
  Gentleman see them before they are put into operation or embodied in legislation?
  Mr. MacDonald: Before they introduce legislation and that legislation is passed by the local legislative council.
  Mr. Maxton: Having regard to the very widespread opposition from all sections of the community in Sierra Leone and the opposition of this House, would the right hon. Gentleman not consider whether he ought not to approach the problem of Sierra Leone in an entirely different way, apart from these Ordinances altogether?
  Mr. MacDonald: When hon. Members have had an opportunity of studying the Ordinances, they will find that many of the points on which objection were taken in the original draft were amended or deleted in the course of the discussions in the Colony.

  FOOD DEFENCE PLANS.
  Mr. Johnstonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has been able to acquire stocks of canned herring for food-storage purposes, under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act?
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am glad to be able to inform the right hon. Member that the Food (Defence Plans) Department have recently contracted with fish canners in Great Britain for large supplies of canned herring surplus to commercial requirements in the immediate future.
  Mr. Johnston: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, will he be good enough to place in the Tea Room of the House a specimen can of that fish, so that hon. Members may be advised of the first-class quality of a commodity that could be substituted for Japanese fish?
  Mr. Morrison: I will gladly do anything in my power to make more widely known the very excellent nutritive quality of British herring.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Will the stocks include the red herring of Transport House?
  Captain P. Macdonaldasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure the supply of food in reception areas in the event of evacuation?
  Mr. Morrison: I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the plans which are being made for this contingency. They include the issue by the Food (Defence Plans) Department of emergency supplies in connection with the official evacuation scheme and plans for increasing supplies in local shops through trading channels. Attention is drawn to the desirability, to which I have referred previously in the House of traders maintaining, and if possible increasing their stocks of essential foodstuffs, and to the suggestion that householders should build up reserves. I am also asking that persons who are making their own arrangements to move from one part of the country to another in the event of an emergency should take some food with them and should buy in advance, as part of their arrangements, the non-perishable foods which they would require for this purpose.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how small tradesmen with little capital are able to lay in the reserves he is speaking about?
  Mr. Morrison: They can do so as far as their ability permits. The cumulative effect of a number of small stocks is very great.
  Mr. Buchanan: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will he make an approach to the Unemployment Assistance Board asking them at least to increase the amount of money received by the unemployed so as to allow them to make the stores he has suggested?
  Captain P. Macdonald: May I ask whether small tradesmen in certain areas, who have reserve stocks, will be given credits in order to replenish them in future?
  Mr. Morrison: The matter is now being discussed with the Retail Trades Association. The point made by my hon. and gallant Friend will be borne in mind. At present that is not the intention.
  Mr. De la Bère: Why should the small man be ignored?
  Following is the statement:
  The following are the plans for food supply in reception areas in the event of evacuation.
  1. Emergency supplies, consisting of canned meat, canned milk, biscuits and chocolate, are held by the Food (Defence

  1297
  Plans) Department available for persons included in the official evacuation scheme, sufficient for their maintenance in their new areas for a period of 48 hours. The supplies would be despatched to reception areas and issued by reception officers, to whom instructions have been sent. The persons to whom these supplies are issued will be asked not to make purchases in local shops, other than minor purchases, during this period of 48 hours, so allowing a margin of time during which additional supplies can be made available in the shops through the ordinary channels of trade.
  2. It is equally undesirable that large additional demands should be made on local shops by persons outside the official scheme who may be travelling or arriving in the areas. Accordingly persons who are making arrangements to move from one part of the country to another in the event of emergency should take some food with them, sufficient if possible for two days, and should buy in advance, as part of their arrangements, the non-perishable foods which they would require for this purpose.
  3. Persons, who have the means and facilities to do so, might with advantage now provide a reserve of non-perishable foods in their own homes, in addition to the stores which they usually keep. The equivalent of one week's consumption is suggested as an appropriate amount for this additional reserve. Such household reserves may be particularly useful in reception areas, to assist in providing for a sudden influx of population.
  As stated previously, a list of suitable foods together with instructions as to the best methods of storage has been prepared by the Food (Defence Plans) Department, and a copy will be forwarded to anyone making application to the Department at Grest Westminster House, Horse ferry Road, London, S.W.1.
  Additional stores should be acquired before the outset of an emergency. In a time of emergency all persons should limit their purchases to the quantities which they normally buy.
  4. The Food (Defence Plans) Department are making arrangements with trading organizations, wholesale and retail, whereby traders will have plans in readiness for increasing the supplies in shops in reception areas to meet the additional demand. These additional sup-
  1298
  plies should be available through trade channels within a period of 48 hours. The plans include meat, flour and bread, milk, sugar, tea and other provisions and groceries. The trading organizations are being furnished with the numbers in the official scheme and margins are being allowed for others.
  5. It is desirable that traders of all kinds should maintain and, if possible, increase their stocks of essential foodstuffs, so far as their individual circumstances permit. Stocking up is the basic insurance against dislocation and the first step towards meeting additional demands due to movements of population.
  I am very sensible of the public service which food traders have already rendered in the ways I have mentioned.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chan- cellar of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in connection with the continual buying and storing of large quantities of wheat which are bought by the Government either for emergencies or promoting trade pacts with foreign countries, he will consider extending the number of those engaged in these operations for the Government?
  Mr. Morrison: I have received representations from the National Federation of Corn Trades Associations with regard to the purchase and storage of Government wheat. These are at present under consideration.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, since the Government do not keep the wheat bought for emergency purposes long in order to safeguard the wheat against deterioration, and since these stocks are available for the requirements of the milling combines who enjoy these advantages without running the risk of a fall in the market, he will introduce legislation to ensure that the milling combines do not obtain these advantages without some payment to the Government?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not agree with the premises of my hon. Friend's question. The wheat referred to is a Government reserve, additional to the commercial stocks of the milling concerns, which stocks they have agreed to maintain at their normal level. The risks of the market in respect of the Government wheat during the period of its storage

  1299
  necessarily fall upon the Government. The milling concerns have agreed to accept Government wheat when the Food (Defence Plans) Department decide to replace it. The price at which they take it is determined by the Department after consultation with the Advisory Committee. I am unable to see what advantage accrues to the milling concerns. On the contrary, I consider that they are rendering a valuable public service in turning over and accepting the Government wheat.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those grain dealers who are outside the large combines have to put up with the fluctuations in the market whereas the milling combines are protected; is he not also aware that this practice is utterly vicious, and is there no one in the Government who will have the courage to stand up to these milling combines?
  Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend's question is based on a misunderstanding of the procedure.
  Sir H. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Member's supplementary questions are most unsatisfactory?
  Mr. De la Bère: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Loftusasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the policy of His Majesty's Government remains as to the acquisition and storage of essential food materials sufficient to tide over a temporary dislocation of supplies on the outbreak of war, or if there have been or will be acquired sufficient stocks to insure fully against a continuous partial interruption of imports during a protracted war?
  Mr. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on this subject in the course of the Debate on the Defence Loans Bill on 27th February last. The food reserves which have been laid down under the Essential Commodities (Reserves) Act are designed as an insurance against the consequences on any severe temporary dislocation of the normal channels of supply.
  Mr. Loftus: In view of the international situation, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not reconsider this policy, and store ample supplies in case of the continuous interruption of communications?
  Mr. Morrison: This aspect of Defence, like all others, is always reconsidered from day to day in the light of the situation as it exists.
  Sir Arthur Salter: If the right hon. Gentleman is impeded in his efforts by the difficulty of finding adequate storage for perishable goods, will he consult his colleague the Minister of Supply Designate, with a view to laying in an extra reserve of non-perishable raw materials, in regard to which the difficulty of storage does not obtain in the same way, so that our ships could be at once transferred in war-time from the carriage of raw materials to the carriage of food?
  Mr. Morrison: We will certainly consider that.

  PORT OF SPAIN.
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the memorial of the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of Port of Spain on the subject of the recent ordinance respecting the extension for a further period to a private company of the telephone service; and whether he is making any recommendation with a view to re moving the grievances against which the petitioners have complained?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not yet received the memorial to which the hon. Member refers; the second part of the question does not, therefore, at present, arise.

  RHODESIA.
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Parliament will have the opportunity of discussing the Royal Commission's Report on the Rhodesias before the Government commits itself to any particular line of policy?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: As the hon. Member knows, previous statements of policy on this subject have been made after consultation between the Government and other parties in the House, and in pur-

  1301
  suance of this practice it is proposed that the leaders of the Opposition parties should be consulted in due course before a statement is made on behalf of the Government regarding the report of the Royal Commission.

  EAST AFRICA (SOIL EROSION).
  Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the serious nature of the problem of soil erosion in East Africa, he will arrange for an expert to report upon the position with the view of deciding upon further measures to deal with the problem?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The problem of soil erosion in East Africa has received the careful attention of experienced officers of the Governments, some of whom have been afforded opportunities to study control measures in the Union of South Africa and the United States of America. It also received special consideration from my Agricultural Adviser during his visit to East Africa two years ago, and the particular problems of some areas in Kenya have recently been re-examined by Dr. Pole-Evans, an authority from the Department of Agriculture, Union of South Africa. Control measures against soil erosion have already been initiated in some areas, and others are under consideration, with a view to a programme of work being drawn up. In these circumstances I do not think that there would be advantage in a further inquiry of the nature suggested.
  Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that very little real progress is being made in dealing with this problem in the light of the extent of it and that there is very great need for hastening matters before the position becomes very much worse?
  Mr. MacDonald: I do agree that there is a great deal of work still to be done, and it is the intention of the Government to press ahead as widely and as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure an increase in the personnel responsible for this kind of work?
  Mr. MacDonald: If there is such a shortage of personnel as to hold up the work I will certainly consider the possibility of that being remedied.

  BRITISH GUIANA BUILDING SOCIETY, LIMITED.
  Mr. Lunnasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the circumstances accompanying the liquidation of the British Guiana Building Society, Limited, he will instruct the Governor to institute an inquiry into the conduct and administration of that building society?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The Official Receiver investigated the affairs of the society when the winding-up order was made. In these circumstances I see no reason for an inquiry of the nature suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Lunn: Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired into this particular case, and, if not, will he do so and reconsider his decision?
  Mr. MacDonald: I am satisfied with the report of the Official Receiver, and I am satisfied that he got all the information possible and that his report is satisfactory.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Captain Strickland: On a point of Order. I wish to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that for the second week in succession questions put down to the Minister of Transport have not been reached. This is due to the fact that 29 questions put to one Minister have taken 45 minutes, including the large number of supplementary questions at the end, owing to the particular form in which questions have been put. I would ask for your guidance whether it is not possible now to reconsider framing the order with regard to questions so that Members who are desirous of asking perfectly legitimate questions of Ministers should have the opportunity of doing so?
  Mr. Assheton: Will you consider, Sir, reducing the number of questions which each Member may ask to one question per day?
  Mr. Mander: Will you bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the possibility of extending by half an hour the time available for questions?
  Mr. Speaker: Without considering these drastic proposals, I should like once more to appeal to the good sense of the House.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS FUND BILL,
    "to provide for the making, in certain cases, of grants to, and to the widows of, persons who have been members of the House of Commons; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid," presented by the Prime Minister; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]
    EXPERIMENTS ON DOGS BILL,
    "to prohibit experiments on dogs," presented by Mr. Groves; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Magnay, Sir Frank Sanderson and Mr. Viant; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE C.
    Sir Charles MacAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Mining Industry (Amendment) Bill): Sir Granville Gibson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Mitchell.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Tiverton Corporation Bill, without Amendment.

ESTIMATES.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 145.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1939.
    Class VI.

      MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £142,997, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal, of the Road and Rail Appeal Tribunal, and of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, the Caledonian and Crinan Can Is; annuities in respect of Light Railways; and other services."—[Note: £200,000 has been voted on account.]
      4.2 p.m.
      The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with your permission, Colonel Clifton Brown, we discussed the Vote for the Ministry of Transport and the Roads Vote together, as we did last year and the year before. If that is agreed on all sides I should like to say that in introducing the Estimates for the Ministry of Transport I am sure I shall be voicing the feelings of all hon. Members in expressing deep regret at the death of Lord Mount Temple, which occurred last Monday. As Colonel Wilfrid Ashley he was a Member of this House for over 25 years, and I hope the Committee will allow me to pay tribute to one who did much to place the Ministry of Transport on a sound foundation during his tenure of office, first as Parliamentary Secretary from 1922 to 1923 and then as Minister from 1924 to 1929.
      With the permission of the Committee I propose, first, to run briefly through the two Estimates that we are taking together, to draw attention to points of particular importance. and then to discuss in more detail some of the different aspects of the Ministry's work which I hope may be of special interest to the Committee. If the Committee will turn to page 136 of Class VI of the Estimates they will see that the gross estimated ex-
      1334
      penditure for the Ministry of Transport is£1,030,297, and that Appropriations in Aid for the current year are expected to amount to £687,300, leaving a net charge on the Exchequer of £342,997. The Committee will no doubt observe that this year the general taxpayer is being asked to provide £40,533 less for the expenses of this particular Ministry than he did last year. The reason for this decrease is that Appropriations in Aid have increased by £72,860, as against an increase in the gross estimated expenditure of £32,327. This increase of over £72,000 in the Appropriations in Aid, which the Committee will see dealt with on page 148, is mainly due to increases of £69,000 in the fees and incidental receipts of the Traffic Commissioners and the Traffic Area Licensing Authorities, and to an increase of £17,000 in the fees for driving tests. This is offset by a reduction of £16,000 in respect of a grant from the Road Fund for the reconstruction of a bridge over the Caledonian Canal.
      The increase in the gross estimated expenditure comes mainly under the head of "General Administration"—£58,000, offset by a decrease of some £26,000 in the provision for the Caledonian Canal, due to the completion last year of certain works of a non-recurring nature. The total staff provided for in these Estimates is 3,244 for the current year, at a gross cost of £867,000, compared with 3,010 last year and a gross cost of £815,000. This increase in staff is due to three main causes: first of all the development of work on trunk roads and other highways; secondly, the necessity for more effective enforcement throughout the country of regulations as to the condition of commercial vehicles and the hours of work of drivers; and, thirdly, to Defence preparations, about which I shall have something more to say later.
      Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman particularise as to the number of additional examiners on the roads?
      Captain Wallace: I think it would be better if the Committee would allow me to display my Estimates first, and then if hon. Gentlemen will ask any particular questions during their speeches they can be answered at the end of the Debate. I have no objection myself to a catechismic form of presenting Estimates,

      1335
      but very often it makes a Minister's speech intolerably long.
      The Roads Vote begins on page 149 and the Committee will no doubt remember that Parliament decided in 1936 that the Government's future expenditure in connection with highways should be voted annually in the same way as funds are voted for all other Supply Services. The assignment to the Road Fund of the major part of the proceeds of licence duties on motor vehicles ceased, but the fund itself was not abolished. The Parliamentary grant is now in the form of a "grant-in-aid," which means for practical purposes that any unexpended balance of the sum voted is retained in the Road Fund instead of being surrendered to my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The grant-in-aid of the Road Fund appears under sub-head A and amounts to £23,540,000, a larger contribution by £1,890,000 than was made last year. The estimated expenditure out of the fund this year is £26,050,000, or nearly £2,500,000 more than the Estimate for 1938; and the difference of £545,000 between this figure and the increase in the grant-in-aid is covered by the larger balance which we had in the fund at the beginning of this year compared with what we had at the beginning of last year.
      I do not propose to deal with the subheads in detail unless the Committee particularly wish it, but I would mention that under sub-head B provision is made for expenditure on the reconstruction of the Menai Bridge. This bridge is over 100 years old, and owing to its exposed position it is subject to very severe stresses in stormy weather, with the result that for many years past it has been necessary to limit the laden weight of any vehicle going over it to 4¼ tons. This may be perfectly adequate to convey the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) but is a considerable inconvenience to some persons who want to use the London-Holyhead trunk road. The new bridge, which I hope will be finished in January, 1941, will be as far as possible an exact copy of the beautiful bridge erected by Telford, which was opened to traffic in 1826.
      I turn a little further on to the appendices on page 151 and the following pages of the Estimates. Appendix 1 gives details of the estimated outgoings
      1336
      of the Road Fund, and I shall have more to say on this subject when I come to discuss the maintenance and improvement of our highway system. Appendix 2, pages 152 to 156, gives a list of major works authorised or in progress at the end of the last financial year, which are being carried out by highway authorities with the aid of grants from the Road Fund. Appendix 3, on pages 157 to 162, gives details of major works of improvement and new construction on trunk roads. This particular appendix is an innovation and is intended to give to the Committee the more detailed information which the Select Committee on Estimates desired.
      There is, of course, a great deal more which could be said on these actual Votes as they are printed, but I feel that the Committee will probably prefer me to devote the remainder of the time at my disposal to the discussion of certain general questions which I believe are of special interest, and so far as queries on the Estimates are concerned, I think the Committee will probably share my confidence that I can leave the answers very safely in the experienced hands of my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who will wind up.
      The first matter with which I wish to deal is road safety. No Member of Parliament, and certainly no Minister of Transport, can fail to be appalled at a casualty list which ran to 6,648 killed and 226,711 injured during the year 1938. We in this country are not alone in having this particular difficulty to face, for road accidents are a problem in every civilised community where motor vehicles are extensively used. The only small modicum of comfort at the moment seems to me to come from the fact that the number of persons killed in road accidents in 1938 was slightly less than the number killed in 1929, despite an increase of 40 percent. in the number of motor vehicles.
      An important contribution has recently been made to the investigation of this tragic problem. It has been made by a Select Committee set up in another place under the chairmanship of Lord Alness. I should like to take this opportunity of repeating here a tribute which I have already paid in public to the thoroughness and the industry with which that

      1337
      Select Committee discharged their task. There is no difference of opinion as to the urgency of reducing the number of accidents on our roads. There are, however, very considerable divergences of view as to the most suitable methods of doing so, and the real fact is, I think, in the words of the Alness Committee themselves, that "there is no single or sovereign remedy."
      It seems to me that there are three factors which we must consider—the vehicle, the road, and the user, whether motorist, cyclist or pedestrian. I will take these three factors in order. I think it will be generally agreed that the modern motor vehicle is extremely efficient and, if properly handled, remarkably safe. Motor manufacturers have always been ready to incorporate in their products the latest safety devices which ingenuity and experience can evolve, and an analysis of some 200,000 accidents involving death or personal injury which occurred in the year ended 31st March, 1937, showed that only 2.4 per cent. of these accidents were ascribed primarily to mechanical failures. It seems clear, therefore, that we cannot look here for a really substantial reduction of accidents. The extent to which the roads themselves are responsible for accidents is a very much more controversial question. The analysis of accidents to which I have just referred gives as less than 2 per cent. the accidents attributable primarily to road conditions. That is not a mere expression of opinion on the part of the Ministry of Transport. The analysis was compiled on the basis of the views expressed by the police as a result of their investigation of all these individual accidents.
      Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it concerned only with the actual surface of the roads, or does it take into consideration bends?
      Captain Wallace: It takes into consideration the primary cause of the accident according to the view expressed by the police, and I do not think it would be possible to find any better lot of people to express an opinion on the cause of any given accident than the police who investigate it on the spot.
      Mr. Messer: Would lighting come in?
      Captain Wallace: No, I do not think so.
      Mr. Tinker: Could the Minister dwell on that point a little more? "The condition of the road" is rather vague.
      Captain Wallace:I have a great deal to get through, and I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I could be allowed to make my speech as I planned it. All these points can be raised later and they will be answered. I am not suggesting that, because the police ascribe less than 2 per cent. of these investigated accidents primarily to road conditions, accidents could not be reduced by more than 2 per cent. if we could make our road system as perfect as we should all like to see it, and, I would add, as perfect as the Minister of Transport would like to make it. The principle of segregation of traffic is accepted by the Ministry for the trunk roads for which they are directly responsible, and we do our best to impress upon highway authorities the desirability of adopting it for their roads whenever possible. A great deal has already been done by eliminating blind corners and other dangerous points, and by remedial measures such as traffic lights and warning signs, and I can assure the Committee that work upon these lines will be continued to the full limit of our resources. But the point I wish to make is that however much could be done by physical improvements on our road system it would not provide a complete solution of the accident problem. No road can be made absolutely foolproof. Further, even if we had unlimited money to spend on our roads the removal of every feature which might, given a careless driver, contribute to an accident could not be accomplished within the lifetime of the present generation.
      We are, therefore, thrown back on the third of the factors which I have mentioned, the road user, and it certainly is significant, although I do not for one moment wish to claim that it is conclusive, that the accident analysis to which I have already referred attributes the cause of go per cent. of the accidents to what is described as the human factor. If by some means all the people who use the roads, and that means pedestrians and cyclists as well as motorists, could be induced to be unselfish, considerate and circumspect on all occasions, there would be no road accident problem as we know it; but I fully realise that this is a counsel

      1339
      of perfection. Of course, if we could do away with human frailties we should eliminate a great many other problems besides that of road accidents.
      Education, judicious propaganda and the development of a system of co-operation between road users of all classes seem to me to offer the best prospects of an early and substantial reduction in the tragic toll of death and injury on the roads; and here we have at any rate something encouraging to go on. Of recent years particular attention has been paid by education authorities to the training of school children in road sense and road conduct, and it is a hopeful sign that in the Registrar-General's figures for deaths due to road transport those for children of under 15 years of age have dropped by one-third in the seven years from 1930 to 1937, and 1937 is the latest year for which the figures are available. I hope that I shall not be accused of stressing the importance of the human element because I am complacent about the present state of our highway system or of stressing it as a means of justifying a lesser expenditure on the improvement of roads than some hon. Members no doubt believe to be possible at the present moment. I should like to assure the Committee that what I have said about the human element arises from a profound personal conviction acquired over 30 years as a motorist and even longer as a pedestrian.
      Unless and until we can make our roads completely foolproof they must be used with regard to their actual condition, and if a driver takes a chance at a cross roads in spite of having been clearly warned of what is ahead of him, surely it is fairer to attribute to him an accident which results from his lack of ordinary care rather than to attribute it to the fact that he was not physically prevented by a flyover or a roundabout from taking a very obvious risk. I am very sorry that I am not yet in a position to give the Committee a fully considered view on all the recommendations for the prevention of road accidents which were made in the report of this Select Committee. There are, as hon. Members who have read the report will know, some 250 recommendations. Some of them are highly controversial; some of them would require legislative action and in consequence could not be discussed this afternoon; and some of
      1340
      them affect other Departments besides the Ministry of Transport, notably the question of what are usually called "courtesy cops," which comes under the Home Office. The Alness Report obviously merits the most careful examination by the Government—
      Mr. Leach: A mischievous document.
      Captain Wallace: —and I feel that it is due to Lord Alness and his colleagues that each one of their recommendations should receive full and unprejudiced consideration. In normal circumstances the three months which have elapsed since the report of the Select Committee was made public might have been sufficient for this purpose, although it is a pretty formidable task; but circumstances to-day are not normal, and the calls upon the Ministry in connection with defence plans have made it impossible to give to our consideration of all those recommendations of the Select Committee the degree of priority which they certainly otherwise would have had. I hope it will be possible to make available to Parliament the views of His Majesty's Government on the Alness Report in the not far-distant future, but on thinking it over I do not see how any speech of tolerable length could serve to deal with that report, and it will probably be necessary to give the House something in the shape of a printed document.
      I turn now to the highways themselves, and I should like at the outset to state our policy as to trunk roads. It is to prepare a long-term programme which can be carried out as quickly as financial circumstances permit. Our ambition is to have a number of major schemes worked out in detail for each of our 30 trunk roads and to have these schemes carried to such a stage that constructional work can be undertaken as and when the money is available. I think the Committee will appreciate that this policy has the added advantage that if, as we all firmly hope, international relations improve and the need for the present gigantic expenditure on armaments diminishes, these road schemes will then be available to absorb some of the surplus labour and energy which would thus be released. In the meantime we are pushing on with the more urgent of these schemes as quickly as we can.
      During the past year good progress has been made in the formulation of schemes

      1341
      and the carrying out of works of major improvement on trunk roads. By major improvement I do not mean small schemes of resurfacing or reconstruction carried on within the limits of the existing highway, but large schemes of reconstruction either on the line of the existing road or on a new line, that is to say a by-pass or a diversion which involves the acquisition and the throwing into the highway of new land. When the trunk roads became the responsibility of the Minister of Transport on 1st April, 1937, the former highway authorities had a number of such schemes in hand or in contemplation. All these, including such works as the Winchester and the Crawley Bypasses, were adopted and have now been proceeded with. In' some cases the schemes were considerably enlarged. The total cost of these schemes which we took over and enlarged represents an estimated liability to the Road Fund of about£4,750,000.
      During the first year after the transfer, that is the first year when the trunk roads came actually into the Ministry of Transport, we put in hand a survey of the 4,500 miles of trunk roads with a view to the formulation of the long-term programme to which I have just referred. That survey has been completed and the long-term programme for some 3,000 miles of trunk road is now ready. Where by-passes or diversions of the existing road are considered to be necessary, Orders have to be made under Section 1 (3) of the Trunk Roads Act to safeguard the line of the proposed road. In the year 1938–39 we announced our intention to make 187 Orders; actually we made 154. These figures compare with 73 and 33 respectively for the previous years, showing, as I think the Committee will agree, a remarkable acceleration.
      In addition to the schemes which we took over from the highway authorities many new ones have been prepared. During the first year of our ownership of the trunk roads, that was 1937–38, commitments were entered into to the extent of £5,500,000. During the second year, additional schemes were added, costing in the aggregate about another £6,700,000 on top of that. Land acquisition on all these schemes has been begun and on a number of them we have reached the stage of constructional work. For each of the first two years therefore we have added to our commitments works
      1342
      costing more than the whole of the commitments handed over to us by the former highway authorities. The Committee will no doubt also observe from the Estimates that for the current year provision is made for further commitments up to a total of £15,000,000. The descriptions of the larger of these schemes, that is, those costing more than £100,000, are set out in Part II of Appendix III of the Estimates. Of course, I am still referring to trunk roads.
      An aspect of this work which I should like to mention for a moment or two is the acquisition of the land necessary for these schemes. Land acquisition in this country is not a rapid process. [Hon. Members: "Or a cheap one."] The Minister possesses compulsory powers of acquisition, but these cannot be exercised until negotiations, frequently prolonged, have taken place with the interests involved. There may be as many as 150 interests per mile of road concerned. Broadly speaking, it takes anything up to two years to acquire the whole of the land for a scheme of any magnitude. I should like to give a few figures to show the extent of the progress of land acquisition. On 31st March, 1938, 303 interests had been acquired and 7,500 were in various stages of acquisition. By 31st March, this year, 2,250 interests had been acquired and nearly 14,000 were in process of acquisition. Our present output is at the rate of over 300 cases a month. The position at the end of last month was that entry had been secured on no less than 415 complete schemes and over 2,000 individual plots connected with 92 other schemes. The rate of progress in land acquisition is now nearly 10 times what it was a year ago.
      Now, as to constructional works. This year everything will be ready to start on a substantial number of schemes of major improvement. The determining factor as to which work shall be put in hand is simply finance. In addition to major improvements which, as I hope I have made clear, can be delayed or hastened according to the circumstances, there is the maintenance and minor improvement of this existing trunk roads, which we estimate to cost this year £3,250,000. This expenditure is necessary to keep our main highways in proper condition. If we neglect maintenance we shall be laying up trouble for ourselves in the future. We have, quite rightly, a

      1343
      high standard of maintenance in this country, and I think it justifies our claim that our roads, whether they are trunk roads, classified roads or unclassified roads, are kept in a better condition than those of any other country in the world.
      So far, I have been dealing with trunk roads, but, important as they are, they represent a part only of the national expenditure on highways. In Appendix 1 of the Estimates the Committee will find some details of the expenditure upon other roads. The estimated payment from the Road Fund in 1939 in respect of grants to highway authorities for the maintenance and minor improvement of classified roads amounts to £6,750,000. Hon. Members will appreciate that that represents grants at the rate of 60 per cent. in the case of Class 1 roads and at the rate of 50 per cent. in the case of Class 2 roads. Similar expenditure by the local authorities on unclassified roads comes under the block grant. Major improvements and new construction, in so far as the estimated expenditure from the Road Fund is concerned, are estimated to amount this year to nearly £11,000,000, towards a total expenditure which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £18,000,000.
      Criticism in connection with this matter is sometimes levelled at our highway policy on the ground that the proportion of new mileage constructed is very low in comparison with that of other countries. That criticism seems to overlook three vital factors. First of all, this country already possesses a greater mileage of roads in proportion to its area than any other country in the world.
      Mr. Macquisten: But not to its inhabitants.
      Captain Wallace: Secondly, there is the high standard of our secondary roads, which form an essential part of the network, and thirdly, the fact that effective road space is constantly being increased by the widening and improvement of existing roads. Many hon. Members will agree with me that if you can widen and improve an existing road it is often much better than putting a new one parallel to it not far away.
      Before I leave the subject of road construction I want to say a few words about the Bressey Report. The Committee will
      1344
      be aware that difficulties have arisen with the local authorities concerned, who have not so far felt able to proceed with further major schemes of improvement in the greater London area on the basis of the grants which the Minister has been authorised to offer. This does not mean that the Bressey Report is in any sense dead. I sincerely hope not. On the contrary a number of important schemes which are among those recommended by Sir Charles Bressey—this was brought out in a question by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith)—are in fact now in process of being carried out. Perhaps on further reflection the local authorities will feel able to undertake some further schemes with the not ungenerous financial help which the Government are prepared to furnish.
      There is yet another topic in connection with roads on which I want to touch and that is the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935. The primary object of that Act was to protect our roads from the evils of unregulated building development. The Act itself covered 43,000 miles of classified road. Since 1935, my predecessors and I have approved resolutions giving the same protection to a further 29,000 miles of road, so that in all over 70,000 miles of road are protected. When Parliament passed that Act, the experimental nature of the proposals was generally realised. It was recognised that in many respects the effectiveness of the provisions which Parliament made in it could be tested only by actual use. Experience has shown that some of those provisions could with advantage be modified. The highway authority associations have represented that the objects of the Act are not being achieved as fully as we originally expected and that this is due to a large extent to its financial provisions.
      The Committee will probably recall that I have power under the Act to make a grant towards compensation only in cases arising from "standard-width" restrictions. I have not the slightest doubt that it was hoped on all sides that speedy progress would be made in the adoption of standard widths, which are designed to safeguard the land required for the improvement of existing roads and the construction of new ones. Up to the present moment, 1,250 miles

      1345
      of road are subject to "standard-width" restrictions. This is not the time to go in detail into why this has happened. As soon as Parliamentary time permits, the Government intend to introduce an amending Bill. I should be out of order if I were to attempt to explain the Amendments contemplated, but I hope that I can be allowed to indicate in the most general terms their main objects. They are to enable me to make grants towards compensation payable as a result of the restriction of access to all roads to which the provisions of the Act apply, and to simplify the present machinery and procedure.
      Before I come to the very important subject of Defence preparations I want to turn for a moment or two to one or two other matters which are engaging the attention of the Ministry at the present moment. With regard to railways, the Government have decided, as the Committee knows, to accept in principle the recommendations of the Transport Advisory Council in their report on the proposals of the main-line railways, now generally known as the "Square Deal." It is intended to introduce appropriate legislation as soon as possible next Session. In this matter I personally believe that the spirit is of more importance than the letter, and I am delighted to see that road and rail interests are getting together and are progressing with the groundwork of co-ordination, without waiting for the passage of an Act of Parliament.
      Overcrowding on the London railways during the rush hours is an urgent personal problem for many workers. Some measures have already been taken to mitigate it, in the shape of longer platforms and improved rolling stock. My predecessor instituted a series of conferences at which proposals to lessen this evil by the staggering of working hours were discussed, and I propose to follow those up as far as I can do so. Obviously, the staggering of working hours is a common-sense solution, but I do not wish for a moment to disguise from the Committee the difficulties that stand in the way. In addition, the London Passenger Transport Board and the main line railway companies are well on the way with a number of important schemes of development and improvement in the London area, and these have been put into force under an agreement by which
      1346
      the Government guarantee the principal and interest on the capital required.
      Considerable progress has been made recently with the electrification of railways. Anybody who changes over from travelling in a steam train to travelling in an electric train will, like myself, appreciate the very great advantages that there are in electrification. A number of schemes have been put in hand, again with capital raised with Government credit. These include the Wirral Railway from Birkenhead Park to West Kirby and New Brighton, with through running over the Mersey Railway into Liverpool; the line from Newcastle to South Shields; the two alternative routes from London to Portsmouth via Guildford and Dorking respectively with branches from Three Bridges to Horsham; and the electrification that has taken place along the South Coast from Hastings to Portsmouth. Last Friday I was present at the inauguration of the Southern Railway's latest scheme, by which the line between Otford, Maid-stone, Chatham, Gillingham, Swanley Junction and Gravesend has all been electrified. This scheme brings the Southern Railway's electrified area up to 770 route miles, which is the most extensive suburban and outer suburban electrified system in the world. As recently as the day before yesterday, the Underground extension to East Finchley was opened to the public.
      The extension of electricity supplies in rural areas is another question to which my attention is frequently directed at Question Time. I do not see in the Committee my hon. Friend who regards this business as so extremely unsatisfactory, but, whatever he or any other Member of the Committee may say, it is not true to say that electrical development in the rural areas is not proceeding. There is a progressive increase in the number of applications for consent to the erection of overhead lines, and planned yearly programmes are being carried out by the different supply authorities. These must in due course result in greater availability of supplies, even in the more outlying areas, although there will inevitably be small hamlets or isolated individual premises which, owing to their position, cannot be served on an economic basis. I realise that much remains to be done in this field, but let me remind the Committee that neither I nor the Electricity Commissioners have any power to require

      1347
      undertakers to give a supply, or to lay down the terms on which supplies are to be given. That means that many of our difficulties cannot be removed without legislation. As the Committee will be aware, the Government published, in June, 1937, an outline of their proposals for legislation on the general lines recommended by the McGowan Committee. Unfortunately it has not so far been possible to proceed with this legislation, but, as I have already said, we regard the matter as one of great importance, and we intend to deal with it as soon as circumstances permit.
      Finally, I come to an aspect of the work of the Ministry of Transport to which for many months past we have been forced to devote a great deal of special attention. An efficient transport system is an essential ingredient in our economic life in peace. In case of war, its ability to continue functioning on a scale adequate to cope with the demands which would be made upon it becomes, as I think the Committee will agree, of absolutely vital importance. The Minister of Transport is the responsible Minister for the railways, canals, docks, harbours, and roads of this country, as well as the electricity supply, and it is not surprising that in these circumstances the preparation of the necessary plans for the maintenance of all these in an emergency has lately become the most important work of the Ministry. The reference to the special Defence Plans Section which is shown on page 139 of the Estimates is no true indication at all of the staff of the Ministry employed on defence preparations. In the Railways Department, the Road Transport Department, the Harbours and Canals Department, the Road Engineering Department and the Establishment Department of the Ministry, and in the Traffic Commissioners' offices, a large number of officers are engaged, either wholly or part-time, on this kind of work, and I should like to pay a tribute to the unremitting labour of all ranks for many months past. I am glad to say that, as a result of their intensive and ungrudging work, a position has now been reached where it can be said with confidence that, if the need should unhappily arise, the Ministry of Transport would be well able to play its part in the national effort. Electricity
      1348
      also is receiving full attention, but that is done through the Electricity Commissioners, and their expenses are not included on my Vote.
      To come to actual details, it is proposed, as regards the railways, that in time of war the undertakings of the main line railway companies and the London Passenger Transport Board should be controlled by the Minister on behalf of the Government. The machinery and procedure of control have been settled, and instructions have been issued to the railway companies and the Government Departments concerned. A great deal of planning of movements for which the railways would be needed in case of emergency has already taken place, and it will continue as further needs in the various Departments arise. Detailed plans for rail transport in connection with civil evacuation have been prepared, and are ready for use if required. Work on air raid precautionary measures on the railways includes both the provision of protection and the accumulation of stocks of plant and stores for necessary and urgent repair work. The value of works of this kind, completed or in hand, and of the stores purchased or on order, runs into several million pounds, and it is considered that the railways will be well prepared and equipped to meet an emergency and to maintain the essential services required.
      As regards docks and harbours, there is a complete organisation, both at headquarters and at the ports, for dealing with the diversion of shipping should this become necessary, and for securing the most effective operation of all the ports. Port Emergency Committees have been established at all the principal commercial ports, and machinery has been set up to secure effective co-operation between the Port Emergency Committees and all Departments concerned. Special attention has been given to measures to secure what we called, in the discussions on the Civil Defence Bill, the "due functioning" of all ports in war-time, and the provision of additional facilities at the ports which may be required for the handling of traffic diverted to the ports from the more vulnerable areas. In the case of canals, an advisory committee comprising representatives of the Canal Association, the Association of

      1349
      Canal Carriers, and the Government Departments mainly interested has been set up; air raid precautionary measures have been under examination, and considerable progress has been made in the provision of such matters as stop gates and machinery for carrying out emergency repairs to locks.
      As regards roads, a Road Transport Defence Advisory Committee was set up last September, and that committee is consulted on all schemes devised for the organisation and control of road transport in time of war. A scheme of organisation for goods vehicles was announced in February. This provided for the division of the country into about 500 sub-districts, within which operators were asked to form shadow groups of vehicles which would be manageable road transport units in time of war. At the end of May, over 316,000 vehicles had been grouped into about 7,000 groups, representing approximately 65 per cent. of the vehicles to which the scheme applies, and I think I can say, without having any additional figures to give to the Committee, that we are getting on very well with the grouping of the remaining 35 per cent. In order to provide a register in which all reserves of vehicles for war purposes would be recorded, with the object of preventing overlapping, operators were asked to complete census forms. I think the Committee will appreciate the danger of overlapping when various organisations think they have commandeered the same lorry. At the end of May, particulars of 441,770 vehicles were registered in traffic area offices, and these are estimated to represent 89 per cent. of all the goods vehicles in the country, I should like to pay a tribute to the public spirit, promptitude and efficiency with which these road transport people have come forward. What are called public service vehicles—which means passenger vehicles like coaches, charabancs and so on—do not present the same problem. They run on recognised routes, and it is not necessary to provide for them the same kind of local organisation; but a certain measure of control will undoubtedly be necessary, and I have actually issued a pamphlet on the subject this morning. As part of the scheme of control of both goods and public service vehicles, a scheme of fuel rationing has been completed, and can be put into operation when required.
      1350
      In connection with the schemes for the construction and improvement of roads, war-time requirements receive regular attention, and priority is being given to works of importance on roads which will be essential for defence purposes. Plans will be completed for organisations to supervise Government road works in wartime, and for dealing with matters relating to the supply of road materials. Under the powers conferred by the Civil Defence Bill, reserves of bridge repair material have been accumulated by the Ministry in order to facilitate the prompt repair and replacement of road bridges which may be damaged by enemy action, and arrangements have been made whereby a number of highway authorities throughout the country are also accumulating bridge repair materials for this purpose. Special measures are to be put in hand to ensure the continued functioning of electricity supply undertakings in time of war. The most important of these are the creation of a national reserve of transformers and switchgear and the duplication or provision of additional connections to vital factories and other premises, as well as protective measures for individual undertakings. Measures have been taken also for the protection of the grid sub-stations, and for the safeguarding of supplies to vital factories.
      I hope and believe that the Committee will sympathise with me on an occasion like this. One has to choose between being accused of being too casual on the Estimates, if one goes through them too quickly, or, on the other hand—and this is more likely—being accused of being a bore. The Ministry of Transport is one of the youngest of the Departments of State, but its activities touch many aspects of our national life. I have tried to give the Committee, within a reasonable compass, some account of its work. To do so it is necessary to select certain subjects to the exclusion of many others. The problems with which this Ministry is faced in many directions are, I think, none of them capable of easy and drastic solution. I hope that what I have said this afternoon will be enough to show that the Ministry which is concerned with the provision of transport is itself not static but on the move.
      5.2 p.m.
      Miss Lloyd George: I should like, first, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on assuming his new office, and to wish him a successful and, if I may say so, a fruitful tenure of office. He has spoken about many aspects of the work of the Department. He has spoken about the Square Deal. I hope that it will be a square deal not only for the railways, but for the public and the roads as well. He mentioned electrical development in rural areas, and assured us that it was proceeding. He said that he hoped they would tackle the problem when circumstances permitted. I have an uncomfortable feeling that those circumstances will not permit as long as this Government is in office.
      Of the many aspects of his work which the right hon. Gentleman has touched upon this afternoon, none is so vitally important as the heavy toll of life on the roads of this country. He spoke of the figures—6,000 killed and 226,000 injured in 1938. When we heard that nearly 4,000 people had been killed in air raids in Spain in four months, I remember the indignation that was felt all over the world. The British Government proposed an inquiry to see whether this frightful slaughter of 4,000 people in four months in war time might not be stopped. Yet we have had 6,000 people killed on the roads of this country every year for the last 10 years. We lose more lives each year on the roads than the Italians lost in two wars—in Abyssinia and in Spain. A disaster in the mines, the sinking of a great liner or a tragic occurrence such as happened recently to the "Thetis" arouses tremendous feeling in this country and a determination that an inquiry must be set on foot to see that such occurrences cannot take place again.
      I believe that, in spite of the fact that there appears to be, because this has been happening so long, a certain complacency, there is a growing feeling in this country that action of a far more radical and drastic character should be taken in order to curtail this loss of life on the roads. The Minister has told us of a good many things which have been, and are being done, in order to bring down the figures, but the test of what is being done is whether the figures are on the decrease. I think that the figures themselves show that the measures which are being taken
      1352
      are totally inadequate. It seems to me that the question that hon. Members must put to themselves is whether everything is being done that can humanly be done to reduce the casualties. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the very wide divergence of opinion that undoubtedly exists as to how this can be done, and as to the main factors that are responsible for the accidents. I do not think anyone could deny that the human element has played a very large part in the tragic figures, but when the right hon. Gentleman puts the figure, as he did this afternoon as high as 90 per cent., he put it very much too high.
      Captain Wallace: I did not put the figure at that. That is the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry.
      Miss Lloyd George: That was an inquiry conducted by the police for the Ministry of Transport. The Minister has not yet made it clear that he repudiates that investigation, conducted on behalf of the Ministry.
      Captain Wallace: Unless somebody is in a position to speak with more authority than the police on these occasions, I do not see that we have any alternative but to accept their view.
      Miss Lloyd George: That brings us back to the same point. The right hon. Gentleman does not repudiate the figure. Therefore, I take it that he accepts it. I would bring in some evidence, if I might, of an expert character. I believe that a great deal can be done to neutralise what the right hon. Gentleman calls human frailty. A good deal can be done by propaganda, by example, and, above all—the right hon. Gentleman did not mention this—by penalty, to improve the conduct of the motorist and of the pedestrian. There are many of us who would like to see the punishment fit the crime more often. Many of us would like to see severer sentences on motorists who inflict injury through sheer callousness and recklessness. I believe some more heavy, but quite just, sentences would save more lives than any number of circulars issued by the Ministry. It will be very difficult to deal with these cases in a satisfactory way until you have special courts to deal with motoring offences. But although you may have powerful deterrents, erect your signs, issue your warnings and have your patrols, the

      1353
      reckless and foolish driver is not going to be radically altered by any psychological process devised by the Minister, and certainly not by any legislation passed by this House. The Minister said, "Yes, but if you cannot adapt the roads to the drivers, you must adapt men to the roads." I suggest that the roads must be made for man, and not man for the roads. If he follows that principle he will be able to reduce the accidents far better.
      The second question is that of inadequate roads. There is very great divergence of view, again, on this. The Minister of Transport—and here I get myself into the same controversy with him as I did before—accepts the view that only 2 per cent. of accidents on the roads are directly traceable to bad roads. The figure actually given in evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords was only 1.5 per cent. I am glad that he has accepted a higher figure than that, even if it is only a little higher. The late Minister of Transport said that only three out of every 200 accidents are due to bad roads. On the other side, we have the evidence of the county surveyor of Oxfordshire, who, after very detailed inquiry in his own county, came to the conclusion that four out of every five accidents in the county would not have happened if the roads had been constructed on the lines recommended by the Ministry itself; and two out of every four, he said, would have been prevented if defects in the roads had been removed. That would not be a matter of very heavy expenditure. When these statements were pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, he dismissed them very summarily, saying that he did not want to be easily led aside from the task of improving the standard of driving by will o' the wisps, laying the blame at other doors. I do not know whether the Minister is of the same opinion as his predecessor, but I gather from his speech this afternoon that he is.
      That evidence should not be dismissed so summarily. There is the evidence that comes from Germany that the construction of the Autobahns there resulted in a reduction of 34 per cent. In two years in the number of persons killed—and that was at a time when the number of motor vehicles had increased by 32 per cent. A comparable reduction in this
      1354
      country would have meant a saving of 2,000 lives in two years. That would have been a remarkable achievement. There is also, finally, the evidence of the Select Committee itself. They had the benefit of expert evidence, both from the Ministry and from practical motorists and associations of motorists. I do not know whether the Select Committee of the House of Lords were the will-o'-the-wisps to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor was referring, but the Select Committee, after hearing all that evidence, came to the definite conclusion that bad and inadequate road conditions are important contributory factors in the accident problem. They stated categorically that if these road defects were rectified, there would be a substantial reduction in the number of accidents. That is the first conclusion to which they came after hearing all that evidence. The second conclusion was that, unless more rapid progress—and I would ask the Government to notice this—was made in remedying these defects, there must come, with the increase in traffic, a further increase in the number of accidents. That is a very serious consideration. Their final conclusion—and these are the words of the Committee themselves—was that
      "nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of a very greatly accelerated programme of road construction and improvement."
      It was in February or March of this year, when we were spending enormous sums on armaments, when they decided that, so serious was the congestion, nothing should stand in the way of a greatly accelerated programme of road construction. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he contemplated issuing some kind of a document showing the view of the Government on the conclusions of the Select Committee. I very much hope that he will issue a White Paper of that kind, and trust that he will not make it an excuse for further delay. I hope that a White Paper will be issued as soon as possible so that action may be taken upon it.
      There is a great deal to be done to improve existing roads. We have the evidence of experts, and of our own eyes, that there is a tremendous field of work to be done in removing road defects. There are the questions of bad surfacing, narrow roads, lack of roundabouts, and

      1355
      high hedges at cross roads, and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee could point to instances of which they know. I have in mind at this moment one of the main arterial roads of this country—Watling Street—where there are four or five highly dangerous bridges, one hunchback, and two or three where it is quite impossible for two cars to pass each other. This is on one of the great highways of the country. There are countless examples of that kind.
      I cannot conceive why we cannot put these things right now, and why there should be delay. We need new roads as well; no one will dispute that fact. Our roads are more densely crowded with cars than the roads of any other country, and the congestion is increasing. I believe that during the last seven years the number of cars has increased by 800,000, and that only 280 miles of important new roads have been constructed. That means about 3,000 new cars for every additional mile of new road construction. I hope that I am not doing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman an injustice, but I do not think that he mentioned the question of rural roads. I am sure that Members on all sides of the Committee will deprecate the suggestion that the need for new roads and better roads in rural areas is not quite as urgent as it is in the urban areas. We have to remember the exodus that takes place into the country places from the towns every week-end, and particularly in the holiday periods. Apart from that, if the agricultural marketing system of this country is to be made efficient—and it is one of the first essentials of a prosperous agriculture that it should be—then the whole rural road system of this country will have to be completely reorganised.
      There is also the question to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, of traffic congestion in and around London. It is growing. It causes enormous delay, as he said, and entails great loss to the business community. It is not only so in London. The approaches to London are also congested. I heard of a woman only last Saturday, on one of the roads leading out of London, who was able to do the "Times" cross-word puzzle in one traffic block. It happened on the Staines—Basingstoke road, one of
      1356
      the main roads out to the west. The traffic block lasted 40 minutes, and I think that that was pretty good going—I mean for the "Times" cross-word puzzle. Extensive tests as to the traffic blocks in London are dealt with in the Bressey Report. It was found that the average speed in Ludgate Circus and Commercial Road is only five miles an hour. I believe that the slowest journey recorded was three miles an hour. Between Euston Road and Trafalgar Square the average was seven miles an hour, and on the slowest journey it was six miles an hour.
      The Bressey Report pointed out the urgent need for an alternative thorough-fare which would relieve the existing lines of traffic from Ludgate Circus to the Mansion House. I do not think that there is any hon. Member in this Committee who will deny the vital and urgent necessity for that. They have made, as the Minister said, many other major recommendations for the relief of traffic in London. So far, I believe it is true to say, hardly one of these recommendations has been implemented. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to ride away on that by saying that there were certain difficulties with local authorities, which is, I believe, correct, and that they are not satisfied with the grants that have been offered to them. In all these fields, particularly in fields of a very large character, the Government ought to undertake a far larger proportion of the financial responsibility than they are doing at the moment.
      It is vitally necessary that these improvements should be made, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the decision which has been taken on this matter up to date. It is a vital consideration in peace-time, but it has become a vital matter in Defence. Imagine what might well happen in London in the first few hours and days of war. You will have a vast population going from the centre of the Metropolis out into the country. If the average speed, travelling East and West, is less than six miles an hour in the normal, peace-time conditions, what will it be like in the first rush of an evacuation? If general mobilisation is in progress, you will have large-scale troop movements, with equipment, and it is possible that the elaborate scheme of the Minister of Health will break down.

      1357
      It is more than a possibility that, owing to this great evacuation being carried out, the railroads and the railway stations will be among the first objectives of enemy air attack. If there should be a direct hit at one or two points, it may delay the thing for an hour or two, or for very much longer. The delay of an hour or two might throw out of gear the whole of the evacuation scheme, and it might be necessary to use the roads in order to carry out the scheme. There might easily be a very dangerous situation in those circumstances, and a disaster of the first magnitude. We have only to remember what happened in Spain when refugees going from Barcelona were machine-gunned and bombed. Everyone knows, whether you consider it as a Defence or a peace-time measure, there is a vital and an urgent necessity to improve the roads that serve London in order to allow the free flow of traffic out into the country.
      There is one other point on the question of Defence to which the Minister referred, and with which I should like to deal. I refer to the question of the diversion of sea traffic in war-time. It is obvious that there are ports which will be so vulnerable that their use will have to be restricted in time of war. The Port of London will, I suppose, be the most vulnerable in the country. I understand that a committee has been set up by the Minister of Transport, with representatives of the Board of Trade sitting on it, to look into this matter. I do not know how far its deliberations have gone, but an eminent shipowner said the other day that, if an emergency arose—and we do not know how many days or weeks we may be from such an event—no one yet knew what the plans were and whether there were facilities available in the ports to which it is intended to divert the traffic.
      I hope that we may get some information later on with regard to that matter. I only know of one instance, and that is Holyhead, where in the last War the harbour was used to a very great extent both by merchant ships and ships of war. The facilities that were available at that time no longer exist. Since then one pier has gone, and another pier is in process of being taken down by the L.M.S. Railway Company, and when this is done there will be no berthing facilities for any ships at all, except the
      1358
      mail boats between this country and Ireland, which will need all the berthing facilities which are available. I do not know whether there are examples of that kind in other ports in the West, but I realise the importance of this matter. The Minister may not want to give the disposition of these docks, or to give a very detailed answer upon this question, but we ought to know whether in fact this is merely a paper plan, or whether the facilities are actually there if an emergency arises and traffic has to be diverted.
      I would like to refer once more to the question of road accidents. I believe that the test of the policy of the Government must be found in the figures, and there is no indication, as far as I can see, that any impression is being made upon them. Before the last election, the Prime Minister, in a broadcast, announced that the five-year plan which was to be launched by his Government was to cost £100,000,000. The Secretary of State for War, who was then Minister of Transport, went further still, as he so often does, and said that the programme was the greatest ever contemplated. He said that it would cost £130,000,000. The other day, when three years of the five-year plan had gone, nearly four years, we were told that the total amount expended on the scheme had been £31,000,000. The Government have re-fused, I understand, even to spend £2,000,000 in giving a grant to increase the number of motor patrols, a measure which the Select Committee recommended as a safety measure of vital importance. The matter was discussed in another place, and the answer given was that the increase of these patrols was turned down on the question of expense. I do not say that that is the fault of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; it rests with the Treasury. I hope, how-ever, that the Minister will make it one of his most important functions to impress himself upon the Treasury.
      Captain Wallace: These are matters which come more within the purview of the Home Office.
      Miss Lloyd George: I will not pursue the matter any further, but I would say that the Minister made it perfectly clear in his speech that finance was the deter mining factor in regard to the construction of roads or the improvement of existing roads. Therefore, whether it is

      1359
      on one side or the other, we come back to the same point from which we started. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that safety on the roads should be the determining factor. I cannot believe that we cannot afford to make the roads of this country safe, although we are spending a great deal of money on armaments. Germany is spending astronomical sums on armaments, and yet she manages to build great roads. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tackle this problem in earnest. The local authorities, particularly in the rural areas, are so overburdened that they cannot take up any more financial commitments. Motorists pay very generously towards the general revenue, but they get only 3d. out of every Is. they contribute put back on to the roads. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will resume a policy of road construction, which I believe to be still the major factor in this heavy toll of human life on the roads.
      5.33 p.m.
      Mr. Herbert Morrison: The hon. Lady apologised to the Committee for the length of her speech. May I assure her that the speech was not one minute too long? We should have liked to have heard more of it. It was an exceedingly valuable contribution to the discussion of these vital matters, and I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee when I congratulate her upon her able and important contribution to the Debate. I join with her in welcoming the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Committee in making his first exposition of the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport, and in wishing him a happy tenure of office until the moment comes when, if the policy of the present Government is pursued, he will soon be transferred somewhere else, and he lays down his office and either goes up or down, according to the luck of things at the moment.
      Conservative Governments tend a little to play about with the Ministry of Transport. Ministers come and Ministers go. Some of them know what they are doing when they arrive, some of them know what they are doing by the time they have left, and some of them do not know what they are doing at any time. Instead of using this office as one of convenience and transit the Government ought to take it seriously as a very important institu-
      1360
      tion of State, which requires continuous and informed attention. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will energetically set about mastering the affairs of his Department, some of the activities of which, as he will know from his experience at the Treasury, are frustrated by the Treasury. It may be that having been in the past an instrument of frustration there and knowing the tricks of the Treasury he will be effective in doing battle with them.
      I should like to know what has become of the £100,000,000 or the £130,000,000 for the five years road programme— £100,000,000 according to the Prime Minister and £130,000,000 according to the present Secretary of State for War. We should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary why the promise was made and what was the information and the policy upon which the promise was based. It was a promise to the country made at the General Election and one must presume that the Prime Minister would not make that promise unless he believed it could be carried out. What were the factors which caused him to believe it could be carried out? As it has not been carried out and is not in fact within miles of being carried out, what are the factors which prevent it from being carried out? After the Parliamentary Secretary has explained away the £100,000,000 mentioned by the Prime Minister, perhaps he will do the same in regard to the £130,000000 mentioned by the present Secretary of State for War.
      The Secretary of State for War when he was at the Ministry of Transport made all the promises and got all the headlines, and he is leaving his unfortunate successors to face up to the non-delivery of the goods. I would advise the present Minister of Transport to settle scores with the Secretary of State for War as soon as he can. It was the same in connection with the Bressey Report. That inquiry was instituted in a terrible hurry, as a result, I think, of a private conversation I had with the Minister at the time. I expected to hear more of it from him, but it was such a good idea that he ran away with it really before I knew where he was, and he took the whole credit for it. That inquiry was made and the report was produced. I am not sure that the Minister of Health knew about it before it was done, despite its town planning features. The headlines were there, great

      1361
      things were to follow, and we know what has been the result. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, as was the case with his immediate predecessor, will take his job seriously, and regard it as an opportunity to do a job of work and not merely as an opportunity to get headlines, which I suggest was the case with the present Secretary of State for War.
      Reference has been made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) to the casualties on the roads. I need not add anything material to what has been said on that matter, because there are other matters which I wish to introduce into the discussion. I should like the Minister to examine whether all the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and any amending legislation that has been passed are being fully utilised and administered by his Department. I do not wish to refer to the matter in detail, but in the Debate last year I gave particulars of a great series of provisions in existing legislation which I thought the Ministry had not yet utilised. I hope very much that all this legislation is being looked over by the Department with a view to seeing whether the powers which they now have are being fully utilised and administered in the interests of safety.
      There is another subject I wish to discuss which has been outside the field of Debate so far, but I shall not spend a great deal of time on it. I refer to the staffing of those public corporations for which the Ministry of Transport is responsible. The right hon. Gentleman is answerable in greater or lesser degree for two of these corporations, the Central Electricity Board and the London Passenger Transport Board. There is another corporation of very great importance, the British Broadcasting Corporation, for which the Postmaster-General is responsible. These public corporations, which are tending to increase, are a new form of public administration of economic and trading undertakings of the very greatest importance. Another one is about to be set up for the management of air transport services. I am a little concerned as to the method of recruitment, training and promotion of the staffs of these public corporations. I have no doubt that much of it is done in a very good way. I have no reason to suggest that there are any irregularities in the recruitment or
      1362
      promotion of staff; nevertheless, it is the case that if the work were done badly and if the recruitment were incompetently done, so that there was an insufficiency of competent and able people recruited to these public corporations, or if there were jobbery, political favouritism or personal favouritism in the making of appointments to these public corporations, I do not know of any way, as things are, whereby the public interest could jump in and promptly deal with the situation and put things right.
      The Minister has no power of intervention as to appointments, and I think that is right, because I do not see that any political Minister should be responsible for the detailed management of these great economic undertakings. One cannot put a question in the House because the Minister has no direct responsibility. Therefore, if these things did become the subject of improper influence in the making of appointments or, apart from improper influence, if the system of recruitment and promotion were such that the best service was not being obtained for these corporations, a serious situation would arise in the undertakings. As I have said, these public corporations are a new form of economic management on a large scale, and they are public authorities, public institutions, and the Government ought not to be indifferent as to their methods of recruitment and promotion.
      There is a vital need in industry generally, and in the growing number of public concerns, for the attraction to them of men of competence and ability, and for the training of those men, to ensure that there is a proper supply of them. Take the London Passenger Transport Board. There is at the head of that Board two exceptionally able men, Lord Ashfield and Mr. Frank Pick. They are not reproductions of each other, they are different men, but between the two of them they make a great combination and possess very great qualities. There are other able men in the London Passenger Transport Board, but when Lord Ashfield and Mr. Pick leave the undertaking, or pass away for some reason or another, I am not sure whether first-class men are going to be there to take charge of that undertaking at the top. It is not healthy for any undertaking that there should be two first-class men at the top, and that there should not be a dozen first-class men im-

      1363
      mediately below them. The bigger the undertaking the more essential it is that in the second grade of officers and in the third grade of officers there should be exceedingly able and competent men who are able to take responsible decisions on their own responsibility, because the vastness of the undertaking makes it inevitable that one or two men at the top cannot and ought not to try to manage the undertaking in detail.
      Sir Patrick Hannon: I understand that Lord Ashfield's policy is to train men to follow those at the top, and that his whole organisation is based on that principle. I understand it is a fact that there are excellent men coming forward.
      Mr. Morrison: It may be so. I am no saying whether that is so or not. I cannot speak with authority for what is in the mind of Lord Ashfield, but in my judgment there is a case for inquiry in regard to these public corporations generally, and I believe there is a case for inquiry in regard to the London Passenger Transport Board. We must try to attract to the services of these vast undertakings in the various grades of management and responsibility men and women who are fully suitable and fully competent for the tasks that are to be done. There are first-class people in the Transport Board and in other great undertakings, very able people, but what I am not satisfied about is whether the whole system of recruitment and promotion of staff has been comprehensively considered and developed. What did the London Passenger Transport Board take over? They took over a vast miscellany of undertakings. They took over, for instance, the London County Council tramways. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) will know that in the administrative staff of the London County Council, as in the case of His Majesty's Civil Service, there is an elaborate and carefully thought out system of recruitment and promotion, calculated to get the right men in the right positions and to train men of ability, and so on. There was nothing of that kind in the Metropolitan Railway. I would not trust myself to say what I thought of the old Metropolitan Railway. If I was asked how they did their recruitment I should say some brutal things.
      Sir Percy Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the District Railway?
      Mr. Morrison: No, the Metropolitan Railway. There was a traffic combine including the Metropolitan District Railway and the District Railway. There was no doubt about the system of recruitment and promotion, but it was nothing like that which obtains in the Civil Service. I doubt whether it was properly thought out. Is it not time that the Ministry of Transport, in conjunction with the Treasury, asked whether, since this great merger came about, there has been an adequate inquiry into the recruitment and promotion of the staffs? I do not think there has been any such inquiry. It may be that an inquiry will find that everything is all right. I am not convinced it is, and I suggest that the right hon. and gallant Member should collaborate with the Treasury and consider whether a Departmental Committee should be appointed to carry out such an inquiry, with two first-class business men accustomed to big undertakings, two first-class municipal officers, members of the Civil Service Commission.
      Mr. Ellis Smith: And representatives of the trade unions.
      Mr. Morrison: Yes, as I was about to say, representatives of the trade unions. You must have individuals with exceptional business aptitude. Civil servants sometimes show that, but sometimes they cannot; they are not encouraged by Conservative Governments. It is a different problem from that of the Civil Service, but in the general run the administrative and clerical staff problem is the same as in the Civil Service and, therefore, I think the Civil Service Commission can function in regard to these appointments. I beg of the Committee not to think that I am attacking anybody, certainly not Lord Ashfield and Mr. Pick, for whom I have a very high regard. I am putting forward a problem which, I think, is worth consideration and investigation. There are problems of management as well which are worth consideration. This is important when you have this development of public corporations. The Government are bringing forward yet another, and if you get a Labour Government there will be a whole series of them in the process of socialisation, which will come with great speed. It is, therefore, of the most

      1365
      profound importance, whether we have a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, that these problems in respect of this new form of quasi-public enterprise should be investigated so that we can get the best out of them.
      I want to refer to certain problems in connection with road and bridge works. Reference has been made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Anglesey to the Bressey Report. Sir Charles Bressey was an exceedingly able and conscientious officer of the Ministry of Transport as chief engineer when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) were there. We thought a lot of him, and his report is an exceedingly valuable contribution to a comprehensive study in regard to the things needed to be done in connection with the highways and bridge problems of the Greater London area. The report was very well done. There are differences of opinion on details—that is inevitable—but it was competently written and will be of great value to the Minister and to the authorities in the Greater London area. But little is happening under that report, for which I am very sorry. When we have to face expenditure of this vast character ought we not to realise that we cannot handle the negotiations on the basis of a normal grant? The capital cost of this job will be £80,000,000 to £120,000,000. It is true that there will be a grant, but that is an enormous sum of money, and it would mean a vast sum of indebtedness being placed upon the ratepayers. When you get into such enormous amounts, sums running into many millions of pounds, and you are also faced with compensation for property owners, I must tell the Minister quite frankly that we just cannot do it; we cannot contemplate it on the basis of an ordinary grant.
      I also say quite frankly, that unless we are assured of very generous terms, I would not put that vast amount of capital expenditure in front of, or equal to, capital expenditure for the clearance of the slums of London. If it comes to making roads for a motorist to reach the place where he wants to get 10 or 15 minutes earlier or clearing the slums of London, rebuilding the schools and assisting the vital services, I say that as a matter of social priority I cannot put that highway matter first. It would be wrong, and I think most hon. Members will agree
      1366
      it would be wrong. I cannot expect the Minister to agree, and it is right that he should not agree. He is the Minister of Transport and he puts transport first. But local authorities, who are charged with a whole series of services and are faced with capital expenditure, must have an order of priority, and unless the grant is exceptionally good we just cannot contemplate going on with it, with all the good will in the world; and I can assure the Minister that there is no lack of good will. I hope to be able to have conversations with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to see if we cannot arrive at an equitable and fair financial agreement about these great projects, in which case no one would be more happier to proceed with them than I.
      When the Ministry or the Treasury—I do not know which it was, but most likely it was the Treasury, because I have found the Ministry of Transport more reasonable in recent years than they were some time back—fixed the grant, they knew perfectly well that they were sentencing the Bressey Report to death. If the Treasury said they would like to do this but that there were enormous demands on their capital and revenue resources, and they would have to hold it over, it would be a fair proposition, and I would not argue too much about it. I know the grave financial problems which are facing the Treasury. If they mean that, why do they not say so, instead of offering the normal amount which they know we cannot accept and putting the responsibility of saying "no" on the authority? If the Treasury want it done they will have to talk a financial language which we can understand. The dangers of compensation in these Bressey proposals are enormous. I ask the Minister to consider the problem of the extraordinarily high compensation costs we shall have to pay for these improvements. We are demolishing an old bridge and building a new bridge over the Thames at Waterloo Bridge, which the Committee has already heard about. We are doing that at a total cost of about £1,250,000. We are now to get a grant, although not as much as we ought to get.
      On the north side of a river a development is taking place in connection with the Lyceum Theatre with a big roundabout in the Strand. It is quite right that the work should be done, but

      1367
      we should have preferred to wait until the new traffic bridge over the Thames had been completed and then see what is necessary to be done on the north side. We are asking for special powers; and we are getting them. But what have we to pay for this construction, including compensation for property, and the making of a big roundabout at the northern side of Waterloo Bridge? We are building a new bridge for £1,250,000 but we have to pay over £2,000,000 for one roundabout. It makes my heart bleed. It is only after negotiations with all the resources and ingenuity on both sides, County Hall and the Ministry of Transport, that we have a grant which will make it possible for us to do this and not make more than a reasonable call upon the ratepayers. We are going ahead. We have to buy the land, and it is very expensive. We have to buy the buildings, but we have to do more than that. We have not only to compensate people for their property and reimburse them for any expenditure that they have already incurred. I can understand that. If a man has spent money he is entitled to be compensated, as things are: I am not going to argue that point. But we have also had to compensate people for profits they have never made, but which they might make in the future when that property was developed. We have had to sign on the dotted line because we knew that unless we did, the Bill would not get through Parliament.
      I say that Parliament as an institution is one of the biggest conspirators against public improvements being made, because when Parliament has the choice between compensation for private interest, not only up to what is reasonable but up to speculative amounts in the future; when Parliament has to choose between private and public interests, Parliament gives it to private interests nearly every time. As long as Parliament does that and is anti-social-minded, as long as Parliament has a bias in favour of private interests, we are going to be robbed in these public improvements and their speedy development is going to be obstructed.
      Apart from those things, there is the difficulty of loans. We float loans, and sometimes we do well, and sometimes not so well. The last loan, a part of which
      1368
      was required for highway purposes and a part for Civil Defence purposes, was floated at an unlucky moment and a difficult time. The trouble had nothing to do with the credit of London, which everybody knows is first-class, whether there be a Labour majority or a Conservative majority on the Council. The Conservative newspapers have been good enough to say that it had nothing to do with the credit of the Council. If I thought that there had been any jiggery-pokery about the business last week, I should have been up in the air about it at once, but I am assured that was not so, although unfortunately the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe), who is the leader of the opposition on the London County Council, very foolishly tried yesterday to make political capital out of it. It is no good the Government or the Minister asking us to raise money for capital expenditure, for we cannot raise an unlimited amount. Consequently, the question of finance is of great importance.
      There is another point I want to mention in connection with highway improvements in general and in relation to the Bressey Report. It is that it is important, in considering these schemes, that the amenities of public open spaces should be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is intimately connected with the county government of Surrey, tells me that there is a scheme by which it is proposed to cut right across some Green-Belt land. I should not like that. Obviously, the highways ought to go on the edge of or round Green-Belt land, and not through it; and I hope that the Minister will be very careful about these things.
      I suggest to the Minister that he and his Department might well give consideration to highway and bridge works, and other employment-making schemes in relation to the whole problem of employment and unemployment. Frankly, in view of the present problems of public finance and the present state of employment, which still leaves us with about 1,500,000 unemployed, and in view of the fact that many unemployed could be absorbed on work that is, on the whole, of a more urgent character, in the construction of adequate defence against enemy aircraft by way of shelters and so on, I do not intend to press the Minister

      1369
      to go forward at this moment with gigantic schemes of road and bridge improvement. Blind corners and dangerous roads require immediate attention and the Minister ought at all times to go on with that work. There are other urgent things that ought to be done. As was indicated by the hon. Member for Anglesey, there may be some specific problems in connection with particular roads which require to be dealt with urgently. The Minister will realise that if he wants a road for military purposes, he will not have an earthly chance in his negotiations with the local authorities as to the allocation of cost between the State and the local authorities. All those things are perfectly open for consideration, but I would not press the Minister at the present time to go in for a wholesale scheme of highway and bridge development, for there are other things that are more urgent.
      There is also another reason of profound importance. Not only in relation to roads and bridges, but in other respects as well, the Department ought to be preparing for that day, which is inevitable under the present social and economic conditions, when unemployment will again become a grave and serious menace to the country. A time must come when rearmament will slow down or stop—and we all hope that the state of the world will make that a quick possibility rather than a slow one—but whatever happens, we know that, by the working of the present social order, a time will come when grave unemployment will exist again. It may come with the cessation of rearmament. Indeed, the financial and economic repercussions of this vast rearmament expenditure may intensify the problem, and there may be a terrific figure of unemployment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan and I were at the Ministry of Transport during the last big unemployment crisis. Everybody, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), was clamouring that we should put into operation a large-scale road, highway and bridge improvement and construction programme in order to provide employment. What was the problem? It was that when we came into office no schemes, or at any rate very few, were adequately ready. We
      1370
      were criticised and denounced in the House because we did not move more quickly, but it is true to say with regard to big railway improvement and railway electrification schemes, or big dock and harbour schemes, that from the moment one decides to go forward with the scheme, and it passes through the stages of the engineers getting to work on the plans, the various interests being settled, the arguments of the people concerned with amenities being settled, and all the other things being dealt with, including possibly legislation, two years may elapse before work on the scheme can begin. Consequently, the Labour Government could not get to the peak employment in respect of roads and bridges until they were almost out of office. I am not making a political argument. It was rough luck on us and life was hard, but it was not our fault.
      It is administratively indefensible that such should be the position. It is wrong. Everybody knows that within a limited time, we shall somehow or other drift into another period of unemployment, no matter what may be the colour of the Government, unless we prepare, and the moment for making preparations is now. Now is the moment for working out details for having investigations by engineers, and settling, as far as possible, with the interests, and investigating what legislation may be needed to speed up the machinery. I beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to regard the Department to which he has been appointed, and in which we wish him all luck, as a Department that lives for to-day; I beg him to regard it as one of the key Departments of to-morrow, when the crisis of unemployment may come. I beg him to do that for his own sake, or for the sake of his successors, whoever they may be, whether Tory or Labour—he ought not to worry about that, and I am sure he will not. I am gravely concerned about this, and I want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be concerned about it, as I believe he will, so that when the time comes, whoever holds that office will have no reason to curse the memory of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for not having made as much preparation as possible in the time at his disposal. I have had such an experience once, and I hope it will not be the lot of any other Minister to go through it.

      1371
      There is also work that ought to be done in respect of electrical development. The electrical supply industry has made great progress, but relatively it is in its infancy when one thinks of what can be done. There is almost no limit to the possible expansion of the electrical supply industry. This question ought to be looked at from the point of view of the time that is coming. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will drop the feeling that he must go easy with things and not be too drastic. I believe that in this Ministry there is everything to be said for being comprehensive, thorough-going, vigorous and imaginative. If the Government failed in their scheme of electrical reform, it was because they did not take a broad national view. The question of electrical supply should be looked at from the point of view of the nation organising a great industry. If I want to send a letter from here to the North of Scotland, it costs me three-halfpence, and if I send a letter round the corner, it costs me three-halfpence. That is the sort of economics that we must have in the electrical supply industry. It is only if the industry is running as a national concern, with a regional organisation, if you like, that the rural areas, for which the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey spoke, can be treated, not at once, but in due time, on a basis of equality, from the point of view of tariffs and supply, with the built-up urban areas. Let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman press on with that.
      So it is with docks, harbours, inland waterways and railway improvements. So it is in the case of what I want to see, and what I believe will come—a complete link-up between the main-line suburban railways in Greater London and the underground railways. I want to see the day when there will not be a single mainline terminus left in London, except for long-distance journeys. I believe that every suburban terminus should be linked up with the tube railways so that we may have through runs in all directions. This would of itself quadruple the value of the railway and underground transport system of London. That is useful work to which the unemployed can be put in future.
      Mr. E. Smith: The same thing applies to the Northern towns.
      Mr. Morrison: In the Potteries, it applies on a smaller scale. In South-east Lancashire, in particular, there is a problem almost identical to that of Greater London. Let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be making preparations with regard to this, and also with regard to railway electrification. The Southern Railway has set a very fine example, and they have not had to be kicked into it by this Government or any other Government. They have done it as a matter of good business. It is rare that one finds in the railways business men with courage and initiative, and I want particularly to compliment the Capitalist Southern Railway on their pluck and enterprise in going in for electrification.
      Why do not the other railways do the same thing? The London and North-Eastern are slowly coming on, pulled on by the Transport Board and a certain amount of State guarantee. The whole matter was investigated by the Weir Committee when I was at the Department, and a case was made for it. It was estimated that there would be a 7 per cent. return. The railway companies came to my doorstep and said, "You want us to do it—how much will you give us?" I asked them when they were going to get into a decent business enterprise frame of mind, instead of a public assistance frame of mind. "If you cannot run the railways efficiently, tell me," I said, "and I shall know what to do with them; but if you can do it, if there is a 7 per cent. return, you ought to go ahead and electrify the railways." But they would not do it. They had got into the mood that the capitalist in trouble has to be subsidised out of public funds. People talk about persons not genuinely seeking work—I would like to apply a proper test to capitalists who do not genuinely seek enterprise. I got tired of those railway directors who came to me, and I asked, "Can you or can you not run your undertaking? If you can, then do it; if you tell me that you cannot, I will draw a Socialist deduction from that answer before you are out of the door"
      We cannot in this matter discuss the legislative stage, but there is here an administrative problem for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider. I feel that he ought to run the Department in the spirit, not only of meeting the

      1373
      troubles of to-day and settling the problems that come to him in the minutes from the permanent officials of the Department and otherwise, but to look ahead in respect of all the industries and services for which he is responsible, and in particular to look ahead in connection with that evil day, which, unfortunately, almost inevitably will come, of depression and unemployment, and see to it that, whether he or somebody else is at the Department, the Department, which on the whole is a very enterprising and praiseworthy one, will be ready for speedy action, instead of being delayed because preparations have not been made.
      6.15 p.m.
      Sir Ralph Glyn: Most of us will agree with the ideas which have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), though not perhaps the personal views which were expressed by him on certain questions. I am certain he must realise that hon. Members are with him in feeling that we have to set our minds to forming "a sort of "to-morrow" committee. We must look ahead to that time which will strain the patience of everybody, and do what is possible to give a chance to inventive power, to absorb not only the labour but, to a great extent, the material as well, which will then be available. My right hon. and gallant Friend the new Minister of Transport has come into that office at a time of exceptional importance. Some of us who know the work which has been done in connection with war preparations feel the utmost confidence in the officers of his Department. They have worked extraordinarily well with the railway officers concerned, and if, as I trust may not be the case, those preparations are put to the test of war, I think people will be surprised to find the length to which they have gone.
      That all points to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney mentioned just now, namely, the importance of recruitment for such organisations as the London Passenger Transport Board. The right hon. Gentleman knows the work which has been done by Lord Ashfield and Mr. Pick. I have had experience of it, both in the past and recently, and I know that one of the features of Lord Ashfield's administration is the way in which it has picked up young men of promise wherever they are
      1374
      to be found, and enabled them to go through all the different departments. Those young men will, I am sure, in due course be worthy successors to the present administrators. It is not an easy business running the transport of London. People are very ready to complain, but those who complain sometimes overlook such matters as the cost of making tubes. The difficulties in the way of getting ex-tensions made, in the public interest, is not confined to roads. It applies also to the extension of railway facilities.
      I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about distributive termini. We no longer want termini of the old type, except for long-distance trains. But when the right hon. Gentleman blames some people for not having jumped into electrification on the lines of Lord Weir's report, I would remind him that the 7 per cent. was a speculative estimate and also that electrification has a detrimental effect on the coal industry. There is another matter which must be remembered. Since the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office improvements in the steam locomotive have been abnormal. Now the period during which a locomotive can operate without going into the shop has been extended by nearly 35 per cent. and in the last three years far greater tractor power has been developed, to the advantage not only of the railway industry but of the mining industry as well.
      In all these matters we must remember that a proposition which looks simple may have repercussions and effects on other industries which cannot be overlooked. It is in that connection that the advice of the Ministry of Transport has been of great service. It is essential that schemes should be got out now in complete detail, in regard to the development of railway and road communications, harbours and electricity undertakings. We must be prepared to face a time when it will be essential to throw aside all prejudices and old political ideas, in order to provide work for men who will be thrown out of work as a result of the present armament programme. We shall have to utilise, as far as we can, the plant and the tools in these factories for more useful purposes, and I am sure that can be done in many cases. The essential thing, however, is to be ready. It is not the slightest use merely talking about these

      1375
      things. We ought to be satisfied that schemes are in existence and I believe that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport will find a readiness on the part of all public utility undertakings to come forward with such schemes. Then it would be possible to have a priority list and see exactly what can be done, so that when the moment comes, as come it will, when peace breaks out—because peace must break out some time, although we are living in a sort of semi-war condition now—we shall be ready for it. The greatest test of statesmanship will be to be ready for that time. Therefore I hope that the words uttered by the right hon. Gentleman who has had experience as a Minister of Transport will be taken to heart and that we can look to the present Minister to keep Parliament informed of the progress which is being made along the fines indicated.
      Several hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have referred to the question of road accidents. It is an astonishing fact that far more people are killed and injured on the roads of this island every year than were killed and injured in the South African War. That seems to be due to many causes. One, undoubtedly, is the difficulty of controlling "the speed of vehicles which ought to be limited as to speed. I see no use in putting the figure "20" on the back of a lorry which, when you are travelling behind it you find to be going at 55 miles an hour. Either take off the figure "20" and let it travel at 55 miles an hour, or limit it strictly, but do not let us delude ourselves about these things. If the speed limit is the law, let it be carried out. It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise something which would make a screaming noise if a vehicle went beyond a certain speed. The police should be provided with some instrument of that kind, to be put on to such vehicles. Then the public would know whether the drivers of those vehicles were conforming to the law or not.
      There is, as a result of what is called the "square deal," a real prospect of such an association between road and rail that the hours of workers on the roads will be regulated so as to overcome the danger of accidents due to fatigue.
      1376
      I believe we shall establish a system which will bring about a collaboration between rail and road for the benefit of the public, and if my right hon. and gallant Friend can see his way to the introduction of the necessary legislation at the earliest possible moment, it will be to the advantage of all concerned. As he said, during this interval committees are meeting and work is progressing. Those concerned are receiving the utmost help from the officers of the Ministry, which shows that it is not their fault that this legislation has not been introduced but that it is owing to the congestion of business in Parliament.
      As regards the question of electricity supply, I happen to be a member of the original Committee of the House of Commons which set up the electricity scheme. We have learned a lot since then. All sorts of predictions were made, but the experience which we have had has taught some of us, even if we did not feel like it at that time, that this matter of electricity supply transcends any party prejudice. This is a national service and as such must be used for the good of the country. Just as the London Passenger Transport Board has now been accepted by everybody, so, I believe, we shall arrive at a time when regional authorities will be set up throughout the country to undertake the supply of electricity to all who require it, both for light and for power. It is obvious that unless you have a paying load by day, thrown into your distributive area, in rural districts, you cannot provide current at a price which the consumer will pay. As I say, we are not living in normal conditions. We have to face these things and carry them out irrespective of what people used to think 50 years ago. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the possibility of having a sort of revival of the McGowan Commission, to see how far the situation has deteriorated or improved since that body reported.
      There is one curious aspect of this risk of war which we are all considering. One has read in history about the old fire-ships which used to be sent out when wind and tide were favourable to set the enemy's ships alight. I notice that the Air Ministry's balloons when they break loose do infinitely more damage to our own cables than the old fire-ships ever did to the enemy. It is clear that you get

      1377
      "shorts" in those circumstances and not only is railway traction interfered with, but there is also serious interference in certain districts with the supply of light and power. An enemy might feel that, with a favourable wind, he could send some of these things drifting down on us with the result that our present overhead equipment would be interfered with seriously.
      There is an enormous amount of work to be done by all who are interested in these matters, apart from the schemes which it will be necessary to take into consideration when employment becomes a difficult problem. In the meantime I urge my right hon. and gallant Friend to consider what he can do at present to allay the anxieties of many electricity undertakers by seeing that the present appalling number of companies is not increased. I think there are about too now. If the power to purchase is allowed to continue, that number in the next five years may be something like 200. At any rate we want to stop the extension of this system. We want to rationalise it and to bring the private companies and the local authority undertakings into a common scheme in which nobody will suffer, because the consumers will increase their consumption. This is a vital service in peace or in war and should be properly organised. I urge my right hon. and gallant Friend to consider the representations which have been made by electricity undertakings of all kinds and I trust he will be able to give some assurance that the two outstanding cases, namely Notts and Derby, and Wessex, are being seriously considered with a view to seeing that the legislative delay—which is not the fault of the consumer or the companies but is due to pressure of business in Parliament—is overcome and the matter met fairly and squarely. This question of electricity supply is of greater importance than ever and I envy the right hon. Gentleman the chance of tackling this question on national lines. If he does so, I am sure he will go down to history as a Minister of Transport who was very sorry to leave his job, and whose job was very sorry to leave him.
      6. 30 p.m.
      Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I do not propose to talk about road accidents because other hon. Members have already done so much more ably than I could. I propose to
      1378
      quote only one sentence from the Alness Report to which the Minister referred:
      "The committee also realise that many of their recommendations have already been made by other committees, but that is no reason why these recommendations should not be endorsed by them, for all too few of the recommendations made by committees in the past have been acted upon"
      I hope that, having reflected on that passage, the new Minister will decide to do very much better than his predecessor. He has, as others have pointed out, not merely the immediate task of improving road conditions and so on, but he has the long-distant one to which the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) referred—and I am very glad that he did, because I believe that it is one of the vital problems of this country to-day—that we should, as far as possible, be planning for that time when the armament machine is put into reverse gear.
      I wish to talk about the intermediate period of national emergency. We seem to be reaching a stage when every expenditure will be considered justifiable under the heading of "National emergency," and every expenditure which cannot come under that heading will have to be postponed to a remote and happier time. It seems to me to be essential that, as far as possible, since we cannot hope to protect every interest and every individual in the event of war, in this armament expenditure, we should select those forms of expenditure which also have a peace-time value, and which will ultimately enrich the nation; and in that respect I think a great deal can be done with regard to transport facilities. In war it is obviously essential to have the greatest possible mobility. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) drew attention to the terrific chaos and pressure of traffic on roads out of London, and every Member of this House must have thought at different times of the terrible chaos that there might be at the outbreak of war on account of traffic jams. The hon. Lady referred to somebody who during a traffic jam was able to do a cross-word puzzle while waiting in her father's car. In the event of war presumably we should not have cross-word puzzles even in the "Times."
      The Minister referred to the number of authorities with whom he had to deal before new roads could be built, and I

      1379
      think that is the main obstacle to progress in this question of road building. He said that "the determining factor is finance, and nothing else," and that does suggest that there must be some change in the existing method of expropriation and compensation. During his speech I heard one hon. Member use the word "nationalisation," and another hon. Member said that that would involve kicking out tenants. If we go on like this, with increasing pressure on the roads, the choice will have to be between kicking them out and killing them off.
      I want to refer now to another matter which has been discussed, namely, the supply of electricity. Over three years ago we had the publication of the McGowan report. It was not a very drastic or a very revolutionary report, or so it seemed to us on this side of the House, but, as far as I can make out, nothing has been done to convert its recommendations into legislation. I have the honour to represent a rural area, and on Monday of this week the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question, said:
      "The importance to agriculture of the application of electricity is fully recognised, and it is hoped that the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of electrical distribution will stimulate the development of supplies in rural areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July; col. 910, Vol. 349.]
      But what are the Government's proposals? We do not know, even three years after the publication of that report. What we do know is that at a time when more people than ever before realise the vital importance of agriculture to this country and deplore the drift from the land to the urban areas, very little progress indeed is being made in supplying electric current to increase the comforts of the agricultural worker or to simplify work and cleanliness on the farm. The earliest legislation on electricity supply, to quote from the McGowan report, was the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, which was based on the idea that
      "the supply of electricity should be regarded as a public service"
      That is surely what most hon. Members on this side would feel, that the supply of electricity should be regarded as a public service. But as time went on this service came more and more under the control of private companies, which obviously have to make a profit, and it is asking too much of them, under the
      1380
      present decentralised scheme, to expect that they can worry as much as they should, from the national interest point of view, about the rural areas. Every Member of this House, probably, has had case after case of people in rural areas who have written to find out how much it would cost them to get electricity supplied to their house, and who have had quotations sometimes running into three figures, or sometimes, as in the case of many people in my constituency, have been unable to get a definite quotation at all, yet the McGowan report recommended that if
      "other consumers are within a period of three years supplied through the same main,"
      the people who had put up the money to get electricity brought to their homes ought to get a refund. As it is, they get no refund at all, and I should have thought that that is one step which could have been taken without very great difficulty and which might help a good deal in bringing a supply of electricity to the rural areas. The report also talks about the necessity for "commercial enterprise, including salesmanship." Is it an example of commercial enterprise to charge people for meters? It certainly discourages people. Nobody wants to pay a rent to hear a clock ticking away in the kitchen to remind him of how much he is spending on electricity. Is it commercial enterprise to discourage would-be new subscribers by putting on them the entire burden of paying for a new supply and not giving them a refund if that supply later benefits others as well? Yet despite that lack of commercial enterprise, on the whole a lot of these companies are doing very well. There is, to my mind, a sinister and significant passage in the McGowan Report which runs:
      "Any attempt to carry through a scheme of reorganisation on a voluntary basis is bound to fail, and legislation must confer definite and adequate compulsory powers."
      I have been studying the figures of some of the West of England enterprises, and I believe that over the last three years the average dividend they have paid has been over 7 per cent., and that on the whole the tendency of the dividend is to rise. The figure of 7 per cent. is not very high if you compare it with some of the armament dividends that have been discussed in this House recently, but it seems to me to be too high for what is

      1381
      called a public utility and is fast becoming a public necessity. While consumers have to pay a flat rate of 8d. a unit for lighting, that interest seems definitely too high. The Electricity Commissioners, as far as I can make out, do their best to see that the community gets a square deal, but far too much is left to gentle persuasion, and it is not easy to persuade people gently, at any rate where dividends are concerned.
      It seems to me more than ever important now to improve and increase electricity supplies. It will probably be easier, despite the rather alarming idea of deliberately escaped balloons drifting across the countryside, to maintain electricity supplies in war time throughout the country than to maintain adequate supplies of coal or certainly of gas. As I understand it, the grid system would enable London, for example, to be supplied with power, in spite of air raids, with the help of generating stations in other parts of the country. I hope the Minister who winds up the Debate will be able to give the Committee a few more details as to what these war emergency plans really are, to cover electricity, roads, railways, harbours, and so on. If that could be done, I think the ordinary people in the country would be more willing to see a postponement of other transport improvements which they badly need, but which cannot come under the national emergency programme.
      6.40 p.m.
      Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: We need to bear in mind the improvements that have been brought about in road conditions as well as to emphasise the difficulties that still remain. We have surely got to the stage when we regard these improvements as a guide to better things rather than with any sense of complacency, into which the present figures would never allow us to fall. Therefore, I would suggest, for example, to the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) that there is another aspect of the German experience than that which she put before the Committee. She mentioned that the fall in the German accident figures was 34 per cent. since the institution of the Autobahn road, but taking the number of motor cars on the road, the figures fell during the period to which the hon. Lady referred from 4 per 1,000 cars to 2.68.
      1382
      That was a high initial figure. In this country in 1930 the figure was only 2.8 per 1,000, and we have, with all our difficulties, achieved a reduction to 2.1 per 1,000, or nearly 25 per cent., in the period from 1930 to 1937. Therefore, one has to consider, when we regard the problem in its essential proportions, that these factors on which we have concentrated, have definitely contributed and got their value.
      Again, if the hon. Lady looks at the emphasis which is given in the Alness Report to the human factor and to the state of the roads, she will find that the committee emphasise, just as my right hon. and gallant Friend did to-day, that the greatest proportion of accidents still remains due to the human factor. Therefore, when we are considering the hopes that we can rest on the two suggested solutions of segregation and education of the users of the roads, I still come back in my mind to consider that it is on the education of all forms of users of the roads that we can pin our hopes for the future. I feel—and here I am in entire agreement with the hon. Lady—that the figure of 280 miles increase in improved roads over seven years was one which did require a great deal of looking into, and I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will maintain the start that was suggested. It was stated in another place that 883 miles were included in the schemes at present under contemplation. In Lancashire we are rather sad to feel that the North and South road is not to be proceeded with. We realise the necessity for giving priority to Defence matters, but we hope, and after what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said to-day we are assured, that when the first opportunity comes such a scheme as that will receive his immediate attention.
      I feel that when we consider the other side of the matter, namely, the practical method of dealing with the human factor, we have had some guidance with regard to the motorists which is most valuable at the present time. Although I saw my right hon. and gallant Friend rather smilingly put the responsibility first on to the Treasury and then on to the Home Office, I am sure that as an administrative problem the question of motor patrols cannot be absent from his mind. Therefore, I would again emphasise strongly the success which the Lancashire experiment has had. When we have an

      1383
      experiment like that, which in the two years which it has operated has reduced the accidents over a comparative period by no less than 46 per cent., as against 5 per cent. for the rest of the country, we have indeed something which is producing a practical result. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will not be content with having continued his pressure to maintain the scheme in operation up to September this year, but will see that it goes on and is continued in other counties. Further, we want to press, and the Minister wants to press, as far as he in his Department can secure administrative measures, to see that the system of motor patrols is not allowed to become a matter of routine, but that shock tactics are definitely employed on the various roads, not merely in special places, but throughout the country, where we ought to know by now that accidents do occur, have occurred, and are likely to occur in future. The Lancashire experience in that regard does show us a way which has brought about practical results, and it can give some guidance to the rest of the country. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will not merely continue it for a time but will see that it is increased throughout the land.
      There is one other aspect of the matter which ought to receive his administrative consideration. I was impressed by what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said about the unexplored possibilities of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I am sure that if the Road Traffic Act has unexplored possibilities, its powers and regulations must have still greater possibilities inherent in them. I feel that cyclists, who are without legislation, might receive some regulative attention. It seems absurd that the absence of bells, the state of their brakes, and the absence of any duty to report accidents, should obtain today when cyclists are not only concerned in some 70,000 accidents, but are held to be responsible for 22 per cent. of those that occur. I suggest that these points might be considered so that these small duties, which no serious minded cyclist would resent, should be put upon them in the general interest.
      In regard to the last class of road users, the pedestrians, if I may again be excused for a little optimism, I think there is one
      1384
      bright patch. We have seen during the past year or two a distinct improvement in the number of children involved in fatal accidents. Taking the age group, 5 to 15, the improvement is something like 25 per cent. That, I am sure, is due in no small degree to the fact that 92 per cent. of the local authorities have taken the trouble to ensure that the teaching of road dangers and road behaviour has been brought into the schools and impressed on the children, that there has been co-operation between teachers and parents to bring the training practically before their eyes, and that in general a sense of road consciousness has begun to develop.
      It is easy for any one of us to be cynical or pessimistic from our experiences on a motor drive or from experiences that are brought to our attention, but when we sit back in a calmer frame of mind and compare conditions to-day with what they were a few years ago, and look at the statistics, not from the point of view of finding one special cause, but from the point of view of a general improvement or otherwise, then we are bound to note that the advance is going on. We are bound to note something else, that even with the enormous increase of motor vehicles and the consequent increase of our difficulties, there are certain lines of approach which are becoming manifestly the best for us to follow at the present time. While I am prepared to consider and advocate the policy of segregation to which the Alness Committee referred, I feel that education and continually impressing on all users of the road other people's problems and points of view, is the only method by which we shall achieve the greater results. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will not rest on what he has expressed to-day, but will see that this education is widened in extent and increased in volume until the results are such that we can look at road transport without feeling the disquiet which we still experience to-day.
      6.53 p.m.
      Miss Wilkinson: I want to raise two or three practical points on which I should like a reply from the Minister. I refer to the problem of river crossings in the big towns. I have had several questions down to the Minister with regard to the crossings on the Tyne east of Newcastle without getting much satisfaction. One

      1385
      of the difficulties of those of us who come from the north is to impress on the Minister that, although it is 300 miles away, it is an important area, and its traffic problems are just as important as those of London and of the south and south-east areas. The River Tyne is divided into two main areas. There is the north bank, which is one series of important munition works and includes the important shipping yards of Swan, Hunter and others. Across the river we have in North Durham what has been a depressed area, and Jarrow the classic distressed area, with a high unemployment rate, and a great deal of encouragement has been given to men on the south bank to get jobs on the north bank. A great deal has been done by the employers on the more prosperous bank to bring workers across. They are in the position, however, of having no crossing of the Tyne between Newcastle and the sea except the Hebburn ferry. It has been run by one of the firms, and they have now decided that it does not pay to run, and it is being closed this week.
      Captain Wallace: I understand it is proposed to carry on until 30th September.
      Miss Wilkinson: That must be later information. The last letter I had stated that it was closing on 7th July. We cannot go on in this condition of uncertainty. The ferry was to close in the earlier part of this year. It was then postponed until 7th July, and now the Minister informs me it is to be carried on until 30th September. This ferry carries 1,500,000 passengers a year, and an important ferry like this cannot be carried on a basis of short periods in this way. We want some sort of finality. With regard to the Jarrow ferry, I have been in communication with the Ministry for the last three years. Here is a position which is getting increasingly dangerous. We are running a ferry which the Minister has been warned is not in a fit condition to carry the enormous amount of traffic that is passing across. The Minister's predecessor gave a grant which enabled this ferry to continue, but as it is a heavy burden on the rates, the local authority could not provide another boat. We have been in discussion with the Minister's predecessor about the possibility of a tunnel. It is true that there
      1386
      have been discussions between the Northumberland County Council and the Durham County Council with regard to a tunnel, and the Minister is giving a grant for the survey, but I would remind him that a considerable time has been spent on this question. If we are to have a tunnel within an appreciable time it seems to me that the Minister might make some further effort to get the project expedited.
      While we are waiting for a tunnel we have this ferry whose gangways, pontoons, and everything connected with it are dropping to pieces. I am sorry to be so blunt, but that is the fact. I took the Minister's predecessor down and he was horrified. I am prepared to horrify the present Minister if he will come there for that purpose. The fact is that the pressure on the Jarrow ferry is increasing not only from passengers but from vehicles, and very heavy vehicles are being carried although a certain limit has been placed upon them. I do not want to horrify the Minister too much, but may I ask what will happen if I have to put a private notice question one day because the Jarrow ferry has foundered with some 200 workmen and five or six vehicles? I am not exaggerating when I say that the position is very nearly as serious as that.
      Captain Wallace: The Jarrow Corporation will get into trouble.
      Miss Wilkinson: The Jarrow Corporation will not get into trouble, because the matter is now in the hands of the Ministry of Transport. The Jarrow Corporation can do no more. It has had 10½d. added to its rates, which are already 22s. Until recently it has borne an important national burden which ought not to have been placed on one town which was providing an absolutely necessary traffic service. The Minister, perhaps, does not realise that there is no crossing of the whole of the important stretch between Newcastle and the sea. This is really 100 years out of date. If, in addition, we have the foundering of the Jarrow ferry it will not be the Jarrow Corporation that will be in trouble, because the Jarrow Corporation, through me, has over and over again pointed out this danger, and it has positively washed its hands of the job. It cannot do anything else. Unless the Minister will provide the town with the means by which this can be done, he cannot say that the corporation will be in trouble. It is the Minister who will be in

      1387
      trouble, and I shall have the greatest pleasure in seeing that he is unless something is done about it. He has shrugged his shoulders too long.
      I do not know whether etiquette prevents my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench speaking, but I hope he will be able to say a word, because the whole position is really serious. When the Jarrow ferry is packed, the only other means of crossing is to go all the way to Newcastle and back, an expenditure of time and money that these people cannot afford. Many of the men who live between Jarrow and Hebburn have to go a long distance and then have to travel in this open boat in all weathers to get to their work in winter, wet through, and come back under similar conditions. These are not things that promote national efficiency, and I do not know anything more inefficient than the way the Ministry of Transport has dealt with this whole problem. I appeal to him to see whether something cannot be done. I can almost repeat the form of reply which the Ministry will give him—that the matter is under consideration, that a grant has been made, that the matter is being inquired into, that the engineering suggestions are being considered—but this is the reply that has been given for so long. I should like him to see whether he cannot exercise pressure, to put it no higher.
      7.4 p.m.
      Colonel Ropner: I hope the Minister and the Committee will forgive me if I follow the example of the hon. Lady and deal with a matter of local interest, though one of considerable concern to the whole of the West and East Ridings of Yorkshire. I refer to the long-standing scandal of Selby toll bridge, and in particular I desire to ask the Minister whether he really has no means of compelling the West Riding County Council to adopt a more helpful attitude instead of pursuing the course of obstruction which it has followed for so long. I will not attempt to describe in detail the very considerable inconvenience and expense entailed by the existence of this toll bridge. A moment's examination of the question would show anyone that all the inhabitants of the district suffer, that trade and industry are handicapped and that the normal development of the town is made infinitely more difficult by the existence of this toll
      1388
      bridge. Nor will I ask the Committee to listen to a detailed account of the efforts that have been made for a large number of years to get redress of this grievance. It will suffice for me to say that I know that Lord Bingley, for the whole of the 25 years during which he represented the Barkston Ash Division, and myself for the last eight years, have devoted a large amount of time and trouble to endeavouring to find a solution of this problem.
      I must, however, go back as far as 1936, for in that year an eminent firm of civil engineers recommended to a joint committee of the East and West Riding Councils a plan the execution of which would have entailed the provision of a new toll free bridge very near the existing structure and, secondly, the widening and improving of the approaches on each side of the bridge. I may remind the Minister that the River Ouse is the boundary between the East and West Ridings. This scheme was approved by the West Riding Council which, however, since that date has become the villain of the piece. In March or April, 1937, certain roads became scheduled as trunk roads for which the Minister's Department became responsible. The road through Selby and over the toll bridge became one of the trunk roads and, as the Minister had become responsible for this road, he did what I think the law compelled him to do. He held a local inquiry, as the result of which the plan which had been approved by the West Riding Council was scrapped, and in March, 1938—I would ask the Committee to note how the years pass—the Minister announced that the trunk road would be diverted and that a new bridge would be constructed lower down the river, about a mile outside Selby. Of course, that gave the Minister his trunk road, but it did not give Selby a free bridge, and I think it was for that reason that at the time of his announcement the Minister also said that, in spite of the fact that that part of the old road which will be by-passed, including the approaches to the toll bridge, and the bridge itself will become once again the responsibility of the County Council, as soon as the by-pass and the new bridge are completed he would make a grant of 60 per cent. of the cost of buying the tolls and 75 per cent. of the cost of constructing the new bridge if the councils would find half each of the remaining sum.

      1389
      I have said in Selby, and I am glad to repeat it here, that I have always considered that offer extremely generous, and I have consistently refused to press the Minister to increase the amount. It was very quickly accepted by the East Riding Council, which is the poorer of the two, but unhappily for Selby it was turned down by the West Riding Council, the Highways Committee of which, it appears to me and many others, are acting like a lot of spoilt children who will not play at all unless they can have the toy which they liked best three years ago. The Minister and his predecessor, and I think probably two or three Ministers before him, have told me that they have no power to compel the West Riding Council to accept the Minister's offer, but I have known occasions upon which, when Ministers have been pressed, they have discovered powers the existence of which they had not previously appreciated and I very much hope that, if the Minister has no direct power of making the West Riding Council co-operate with his Department and the East Riding Council, he will find some way of bringing indirect pressure to bear. I presume that the West Riding Council frequently asks his Ministry for grants from the Road Fund. I know how difficult it would be for the present Minister to act in an unreasonable manner or with a hard heart, but I hope that in dealing with this unreasonable council he will act in an unreasonable way and will put every difficulty in the way of making grants to it. Nothing is more certain than that the West Riding will eventually have to co-operate in freeing the toll bridge and constructing a new one, but I want to see, if I can, that Selby does not have to wait another 30, 40 or 50 years before this grievance is put right. I should add that I have never even met anyone who has any financial interest in the bridge but the harm it does is a grievance from which this not unimportant town has suffered far too long. I do not know that I am very hopeful that the Minister will give me grounds to suppose that he can act in the way that I should hope, but perhaps he will assure me that he is not altogether powerless in face of the stupid stubbornness of the West Riding Council.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Richards: I rise to bring to the attention of the Minister two or three questions which, I think, are of consider-
      1390
      able importance. On 8th February, this year, I addressed a question to his predecessor in these terms:
      "To ask the Minister of Transport upon whose instructions are summonses in connection with the keeping of records and working excessive hours instituted in the north-western traffic area."
      The reply I got was:
      "Proceedings for the offences to which the hon. Member refers are instituted by the traffic area licensing authority or the police authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1939; col. 961, Vol. 343.]
      I had put that question because I had a suspicion that instructions to prosecute were not always given by the traffic area licensing authority, but by certain underlings. These prosecutions bring considerable hardship upon a body of men who are very hard working and generally possess no more than a lorry or two. They are often fined very heavily, in some cases so heavily that they have had to leave the business altogether. Shortly after that question was put I got a letter from a gentleman in London, who was quite unknown to me, saying bluntly that the answer which I had been given was quite untrue, and that 99 per cent. of the summonses were instituted by a body of clerks who had set themselves up as the enforcement officers in respect of this Act. He added that the police instituted proceedings in a very small number of these cases and were reluctant to do so as long as the "enforcement officer stunt continues." He added:
      "No one has authorised these clerks to act in this way and in some cases they often institute legal proceedings themselves."
      I have made inquiries and have no reason to doubt the bona fides of that gentleman, and I am quite prepared to give a copy of the letter to the Minister. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to reveal the writer's name, because he happens to be a public official, and it is marked "Private." He goes on to give details of a case that took place in London:
      "On 12th December, 1938, at the Thames Police Court, a small man of the working class with a few lorries was fined with costs a total amount of £20 because he did not keep a record as he might have done, and the driver was fined as well. The summons was obtained improperly, that is, it was applied for by a person with no knowledge of the facts, and, further, the examiner who saw and copied the records was an essential witness, and for him was substituted an official who

      1391
      was not a witness in the case at all. The latter went into the box on oath, and the wretched defendant had no grounds to suspect the Ministry of Transport of such deception and was convicted. Subsequently the magistrate, Mr. Harris, reopened the case and asked the false witness to tell him the truth. He then publicly rebuked the Traffic Commissioners and said these matters were most irregular, and at a later stage he interrogated the solicitor's partner and expressed his great anxiety at such conduct."
      I have evidence of something of the kind in the north-western area and here is evidence, at first-hand apparently, from London, and I have thought it my duty to bring this serious matter to the attention of the Minister.
      The second matter which I wish to bring to his attention concerns the general attitude of the Department towards county councils. I have no specific case to put forward like that which has just been presented by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), but I feel that the attitude of the Ministry to-words county councils requires some justification. Until quite recently district roads or by-roads were the concern of district councils. I am not here to say that the district councils looked after those roads as we expect them to be looked after to-day, but after they had passed from the control of the district councils, with their parish politics, and had been taken over by the county councils we found that in some cases this happened: men were taken away from the district roads altogether and the county councils concentrated their activities entirely upon the main roads. I know several by-roads on which no man is employed and to which no attention is being paid, though those are the roads which the country people use. They use the main roads occasionally, but they are not so vitally interested in them.
      The main roads are built largely for motorists who merely want to pass through the district, and the local people are more vitally interested in the roads that lead to their homes and to their villages. In a great many cases these roads are absolutely neglected by the county councils. At the same time the county councils will spend thousands of pounds upon cutting off a corner or widening a main road, and if we ask why that is done the answer is that they get a grant from the Ministry of Transport for it but no grant for the by-roads. I think that
      1392
      is very wicked. It is misleading the county council into spending extravagant sums upon widening corners, whereas if the same money had been spent on improving the by-roads it would have done a much greater service to the people of the district. It is rather natural that the Ministry, and in some cases the county councils, should be concerned with these main roads, but the border counties in Wales have to supply good roads for the motorist, who simply passes on and leaves behind very little that is of any benefit to the district. I take it that the function of a county council is to provide roads first for the people of its own area and not to think primarily of the people who only whizz through the district as fast as they can.
      I regard the Minister of Transport as in a very real sense the custodian of the aesthetic values and beauties of this country and we feel concerned about the way in which some of our old roads are being spoiled by the activities of his Department. I often feel thankful that we have in this country none of the so-called national roads of the Continent. There is nothing more charming than some of the Welsh lanes and English country roads, and the Minister ought to do all he can to preserve the amenities of the country districts in that respect. I am no enthusiast for the German ideas, of which we have heard something to-day. It will be a sad day for England when we have roads of that kind and not the meandering English and Welsh lanes to which we are accustomed. I was rather disappointed by what the predecessor of the present Minister said one day in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) about a new bridge in Carmarthen. The Minister said proudly that he had spent nearly £100,000 in putting up what he called a magnificent bridge. While it is true that he had put up a fairly decent bridge and an efficient bridge he had destroyed an essential link in the history of that old town by destroying the old bridge.
      At Atcham, near Shrewsbury, the Ministry had the wisdom when putting up its own bridge to preserve the old bridge, and we have an opportunity there of comparing the aesthetic values of the two, and anyone who has passed that way can have no doubt that the old bridge is far superior to the new from the

      1393
      aesthetic standpoint. I venture to say that the same thing was true of the old Carmarthen Bridge. In its situation across the river, just below the castle, it was an essential part of the life of that town. When he has proposals of that kind before him the Minister ought to consider carefully whether in building the new he cannot retain the old for future generations. I am tempted to say that because I understand that the county council of Caernarvon are very anxious that a new main road should be driven through the ancient town of Conway. Conway is one of the most beautiful towns in this country; it has no parallel, except, possibly, on the Continent. It is the most perfect medieval town in the whole kingdom. Perhaps as a Welshman I have no great reason to be proud of the past history of Conway, because it reflects rather a dark chapter in the history of my nation. At the same time we have forgotten all that, we have absorbed the conquerors of Conway and the other towns of North Wales and we regard them now as an essential part of the Welsh community, and it is an interesting fact that a great number of those Norman-French people who came to Wales with Edward I have played an important part in Welsh life. From that point of view we value the old castle and the old town of Conway tremendously, and I think it is part of the duty of the Minister to resist county councils when they want to do a mad thing like driving a main road through that ancient and beautiful town. County councils are in many cases simply Philistia incorporated and incarnate, and from the national point of view I hope the Minister will stand up to them, and will, when introducing his new and very necessary schemes, do everything to preserve the charms of the old.
      7.29 p.m.
      Mr. Lipson: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) has made an interesting speech and raised some questions of great importance. In particular I should like to support his plea to the Minister to maintain the amenities of our countryside, though he will probably find it extremely difficult to reconcile the preservation of our winding, meandering English lanes with demands to round-off corners? I hope that he will resist some of those demands to round off blind corners. We are told that they are made
      1394
      in the interests of safety, but I am not sure that they make for safety. When a driver comes to a blind corner he realises that there is a considerable amount of danger unless he drives with very great care. I think the evidence of accidents show that accidents occur on open roads where the drivers can disregard reasonable precautions and can go as fast as they like. Therefore, it is in the interests not only of aesthetic beauty, but of safety that I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the plea that has been made to him.
      The hon. Member raised, also, the interesting point of the relationship between the Ministry and the county councils. Our experiences in Gloucestershire of expenditure on rural roads are rather the reverse of those which apparently apply in the Welsh counties which the hon. Member had in mind. Since our rural roads have been taken over by the county council we spend very considerably more than was spent upon those roads by the district councils and we do not get a specific grant for that purpose.
      Mr. Macquisten: There is no grant at all.
      Mr. Lipson: When we raised that point we were told that the grant is included in the block grant, and that really there is some kind of grant for the purpose. I would like the Minister also to bear in mind what was said by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) with regard to the choice which the London County Council would have to make if it were asked to spend millions of pounds on implementing the Bressey Report as against the claims of housing, health and education services. That is the problem which faces every local authority in the country. The heavy expenditure of county councils in regard to the roads is at the expense of many other vital services. I hope that the Minister will try to be as generous as he can in his grants to the local authorities in the schemes that they put up.
      I believe that road safety is the biggest problem with which the Minister has to deal. It is a legacy—I suppose he would call it a damnosa hereditas—from his predecessors. His reputation as a Minister of Transport will depend very largely on his success on tackling this problem. His predecessors have failed to bring

      1395
      down the actual number of casualties on the roads, but their failure is only comparative when one takes into account the large increase of motor cars. We are told that 1,000 new cars go out on the roads every day. It is something to have checked the increases in road casualties, but we cannot be content with figures of over 6,000 deaths in a year and about 220,000 injuries. I hope that the public will be reminded forcibly and effectively of those figures. I would like to know whether it would be possible to distinguish, in publishing the number of the injured, between injuries of a mild kind and those which have involved treatment in hospital. Many of the 220,000 injuries may have been minor casualties. Perhaps the figures do not make the impression upon the public mind that would be made if it were stated in any particular return how many of the cases were of people who had been injured so seriously that hospital treatment was necessary.
      Some controversy arose between the Minister and the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) as to the value of the police returns of the factors responsible for accidents. The Minister must accept those returns, because the police have no interest in weighting one factor against another. Though there may be a difference between the Minister and the hon. Lady as to the actual percentage, it must be clear to everybody that the human element is overwhelmingly the biggest factor in producing these accidents. Whether you take the figure as 90 per cent., which is given by the police, or some smaller percentage without the specialised investigation which the police have made and put forward as true, one has to look to the human element. The Minister has referred to the Alness Report, and I hope that some action will be taken to deal with the recommendations in that report. The report should not be pigeon-holed, nor should we be told that for some reason or other it is not possible to take action. Some of the recommendations require the spending of money and others require legislation, but others can be carried out without action of either of those kinds.
      In particular, I recommend the proposal that there should be a round-table conference of the three users of the roads: motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. It
      1396
      is not quite accurate to divide people into those three categories, because some of us belong to all three and most of us belong at least to two, but all three have a common interest in safety on the roads. At present too often they are at cross-purposes. I believe that some good might come of a conference between the representatives of the three organisations which speak for these bodies. Anyhow I appeal to the Minister to try to bring them together. At least he would have the satisfaction of knowing that he had done something which could not do any harm and might possibly have good results.
      The Minister has told us that the question of motor patrols rests with the Home Office. Of course there is co-operation between Government Departments, and I trust that the Minister will impress upon the Home Office that, from the point of view of the Ministry of Transport, the Lancashire experiment is of very considerable value in saving life on the roads and that it should therefore be supported, encouraged and extended. I hope also that the Minister will bring to the notice of the Home Office another recommendation of the Alness Report about the way in which offences should be dealt with when they are of a minor kind and when the offender is willing to plead" Guilty" The suggestion is that it ought not to be necessary for the offender to appear in court in person.
      Mr. Ede: Does the hon. Member realise that unless the defendant appears in court the police cannot recite his previous convictions? That is the difficulty, if one wishes to inflict an adequate penalty upon motorists who are persistent offenders against the law. A motorist can prevent that now, merely by staying away from the court.
      Mr. Lipson: The Alness Report suggests that this should be done for trivial offences. I have in mind road obstruction or going the wrong way in a one-way street. Does not the Minister think that his task would be made much easier too if the penalty for a serious offence such as driving a motor vehicle when under the influence of drink were dealt with in some cases by confiscation and in other cases by the impounding for a time of the motor vehicle? I believe that this practice is in force on the Continent. It follows an old Greek tradition that when

      1397
      a crime is committed you deal not only with the person who has committed the crime, but with the instrument of the crime. If a punishment of that kind were inflicted, I believe it would have a strong deterrent effect.
      Another matter to which I wish to draw attention is the registration of cyclists. This reform is long overdue. When an accident takes place in which a cyclist is involved it is possible for the cyclist to get away and there is no means of identifying him. If it is necessary to have all motor cars and motor cycles registered, I do not see why the ordinary cyclist should not be registered too. In conclusion, if the Minister can do anything to deal with this great evil of road accidents and to lessen the great tragedy which exists today, he will have the co-operation of Members in all parts of the House, and if he succeeds in his task he will win the gratitude of the whole country.
      7.44 p.m.
      Mr. Leach: I would add my congratulations to those which other hon. Members have addressed to the Minister on his accession to his present office. He starts with very considerable advantages in that his two predecessors were neither of them brilliant successes. If he will forgive my striking the personal note I would say also that he is regarded as a favourite in this House. I was very sorry indeed to hear him admit, in his opening remarks to-day, that he is a motorist, and has been for 30 years. It is true that he qualified the statement by saying that he was also a pedestrian, but in point of fact that is a meaningless qualification, because, once the pedestrian becomes a motorist, in 99½ per cent. of the cases the pedestrian side of him becomes from that time totally submerged. I do not envy the Minister in the work that lies ahead of him. He is faced, as many Members have already pointed out, with a very tragic problem of road fatalities, against which the whole of the measures employed by his Department up to now have completely failed. And he has a lot of very bad and false advisers seeking his ear. They include, in far too many instances, Members on the back benches on his own side; and they include the swagger Automobile Club, who want a paradise for the motorist. They include county surveyors, and a number of chief constables who have wrong ideas about winding roads and the
      1398
      sins of pedestrians and the sins of children. Probably the worst of all his advisers, and the most mischievous, are the seven peers who have issued a report on the prevention of road accidents.
      The Minister has promised us to-day that he will produce a paper giving the Government's opinions on the Alness Report, and he even went to the length of paying tribute to the thoroughness of the way in which the Committee have done their work. I want to present another side to that glowing testimonial, and to the belief, which the Minister clearly holds, that this report is a document which is very seriously worth his attention. Many newspapers are pressing very hard that legal effect shall be given to the findings of this Select Committee; I hope the Minister will pause for quite a long time before he obliges them. There may be in this document, among the 231 recommendations—I understand that the Minister counted 250, but I have counted 231—there may be, among that lot, a few minor ones that are worthy of consideration. I think the Minister will have no difficulty in spotting those, but I want to deal with the key recommendations contained in this document.
      According to their Lordships, there are no road-hogs in this country, but only so-called road-hogs. Nowhere is it admitted that speed has anything to do with. road fatalities; and I was gravely concerned to note that, when the Minister himself was discussing this tragic problem a little while ago, he never used the word "speed" either. It is significant. So their Lordships want a lessened imposition of the speed limit, with a view to its ultimate elimination. They want restricted speed areas to be reduced in number or extent; they want the complete segregation of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians; and it is to be noted that several Members of the House have agreed quite warmly with that recommendation this evening. On the sins of cyclists, pedestrians and children, my Lords waxed really eloquent. I ask hon. Members to listen to this:
      "Children under seven cause 23.9 per cent. of the accidents to pedestrians."
      So we are led to suppose, from this statement, that the responsibility of infants and tiny children for avoiding accidents is exactly the same as that of the motorist. Any legislation passed on that supposi-

      1399
      tion would be a wicked innovation in British law. Having let go on the sins of babies, their Lordships say, on the shortcomings of pedestrians and cyclists:
      "It would seem…that many pedestrians are unwilling to sacrifice any of their rights to the common cause of safety.…There is much thoughtless conduct amongst cyclists which is responsible for many accidents."
      There you have the key-note to all the recommendations which follow in this report. They go on to make them. They recommend that no cycling under 10 years of age should be allowed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I hear approval of that recommendation in the Committee, and I ask the Minister to note it. The Committee recommend that all child cyclists should be banned. They also recommend that all cyclists should be registered and compulsorily insured. It might be thought, of course, from that recommendation in regard to insurance, that their Lordships meant a life insurance for the benefit of the widows or relatives of the cyclists. They do not. They specify third party risks, so that, if the cyclist should run down and kill a motorist, he should be made to pay.
      Mr. Silverman: Has my hon. Friend ever heard of a cyclist running down and killing a pedestrian? It must be very rare.
      Mr. Leach: Other recommendations are that cyclists must carry white patches, and red reflectors or red rear lamps, as well as two brakes and a bell. All these things are imposed upon the cyclist in order to enable the motorist to drive as fast in the dark as in daylight. Further, cyclists must not carry bulky luggage, or ride more than two abreast, and, if there is a cycle track, they must come off the highway.
      Now as to the unfortunate pedestrian. If the pedestrian steps heedlessly off the causeway, he is to be prosecuted. That is, of course, supposing he is still alive. The motorist who is driving a silent car at 50 close to the kerb to avoid the road camber, is relieved of all responsibility; presumably no prosecution will lie if the heedless pedestrian is killed, whether he is a full-grown man or a baby of two. Their lordships do not define the term "pedestrian," and it necessarily follows, I think, that it would be open for the courts to punish a child of seven or under
      1400
      for heedlessly stepping off the kerb. Where an accident occurs to a pedestrian who is on the highway where a footpath is available, his right to damages is to be denied. He is to be forced to use pedestrian crossings only at dangerous places, but wherever there is a pedestrian crossing and he fails to use it, his right to damages in the event of accident to himself is to be taken away. One sees from this report that it is the view of their lordships that the chief menaces, indeed almost the only menaces, to road safety, are children, pedestrians and cyclists. In other words, the principal sinners are the victims themselves. For every motorist killed on the highways, 20 other people die on the highways, and their lordships blame the 20 others.
      Let us leave for a while this tale of deaths and manglings, and the extraordinary conclusions reached in the Alness Report, and turn to what the Committee have to say in regard to roads and road improvements. They recommend that no main roads should be less than 300 feet wide, and that a vast new construction programme should be undertaken, that bridges and tunnels should be provided for pedestrians to take them off the roads altogether, and cycle tracks to take the cyclists off as well. They recommend multitudes of traffic lights and road signs, and bars and barrier rails in the streets of towns. They want more arcaded streets, as at Chester, a permanent army of road inspectors and accident officers, and greatly improved road surfaces. They want lay-bys and draw-ins every few miles, and the removal of telephone and telegraph poles and electricity standards wherever they are by the side of the road
      I have in mind a road made by the Manchester Corporation by Lake Thirlmere, on its western side. It is the most beautiful road in England. It is only a few miles long. On one side are over-hanging rocks and steeply rising hills and forests, and on the other side is the Lake, with magnificent views of Helvellyn. The road winds and twists so that you can rarely see more than 30 yards ahead of you. It contains no pedestrian paths, no cycle tracks and no Belisha crossings. It contains all the defects which the seven peers point out in this report, and of which they seek to get rid. But nobody gets killed on it. It would cost at least £10,000,000, I estimate, to put

      1401
      it right in accordance with the terms of this report. Further, these gentlemen want roadside trees removed. No doubt that would provide a lot of work for the unemployed, because there are millions of roadside trees. They want humps taken out of bridges. The practical difficulties in the way of doing that are not mentioned—
      Mr. Macquisten: They are not great.
      Mr. Leach: There is a great deal of difficulty. Then they want more roads that are exclusively for the use of motorists, on the German plan. They demand service roads for lorries and vans and more ring roads and hundred-yard-wide by-passes. Suddenly it seems to have occurred to these gentlemen that the proposals they are making in regard to road safety, as they see it, are going to be a trifle costly. What do they say about that? They put in a naive little after-thought paragraph, which is, I think, the gem of the whole report. Here it is:
      "The Committee have not carefully considered the question of the cost of giving effect to their recommendations."
      That appears to be the truest and most uncontrovertible statement in the whole document. I ask the Minister to envisage the prospect of all the recommendations of this report being put into law and practice. Thousands of millions of pounds will have been expended in the process. A vast network of broad, straight highways with surfaces like billiard tables will cover the land, with tunnels and bridges every 200 or 300 yards, at which will cower the unfortunate pedestrians. A few million acres of agricultural land will have totally disappeared. Cycling paths will be empty, because cycling will then have become too hazardous for anyone to undertake. The nation's beauty spots will have become things of horror, advertised by flaming petrol stations and gorgeous hotels. All the main streets of the principal cities will be railed off by steel and wooden barriers. The reign of the motorist will have become supreme. What trees and vegetation are still left will be away from the ordinary means of communication. Our water supplies will have become seriously menaced; an arid wilderness of roads will ensure that.
      Will road fatalities have been prevented by these—what the seven Lords think are
      1402
      improvements? Of course not. It is along the highways that death most commonly occurs in its worst form. The winding village street may entail a few bumps, but no deaths. The seven Lords envisage the complete disappearance of all speed limits, and that traffic on the roads will have become faster than on the railways. [Laughter] If that appears amusing, I recommend hon. Members to read advertisements which appear in the motoring journals as to the capacity of up-to-date motor cars on a free highway. They are commonly advertised to do 100 miles an hour, and up to now no trains are doing that. Fewer pedestrians will be killed, because they will not be there to be killed; the motorists will kill one another. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Do not lead me into temptation. The motorists will kill one another, as they do in America and on the autobahnen of the German State. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, who begins his office under such auspicious conditions, will see that precious few of these mischievous recommendations are adopted by him.
      Mr. A. Edwards: I understood the hon. Member to suggest that there are more motor accidents on the Autobahnen than in this country. Has he any statistics to support that?
      Mr. Leach: The only statistics I have seen in motoring papers and so forth—I cannot vouch for them—lead me to the conclusion that more people are killed as a result of accidents in Germany.
      8.5 p.m.
      Mr. Higgs: From time to time various Ministers of Transport inform us that there is to be a rationing of oil fuel in the event of war. On several occasions in this House I have advocated the greater use of home-produced fuel. Unfortunately, although the Minister on each occasion has looked into the matter, nothing further has been done, but I am convinced, from the correspondence I have received on each occasion I have mentioned the matter in the House, that a large number of firms are very anxious to do something about the development of an engine suitable for using gas and producer-gas. I have received a letter from the Research Department in Birmingham, and I will, if I may, read an extract:

      1403
      "During the last two months we have had a very large number of inquiries from firms and transport and gas undertakings all over the country. These include: the Birmingham and Midland Omnibus Company; Messrs. Cadbury Brothers, Limited; South Metropolitan Company, London; Stewarts and Lloyds. In the case of Cadbury Brothers they have definitely decided to convert one of their vehicles to run on gas as an experiment, and are actually proceeding with this at the present time. The Birmingham and Midland Motoi Omnibus Company are also looking into the possibility of a quick method of conversion of Diesel engines. With regard to engine makers, Messrs. Crossley Motors, of Manchester, are giving special attention to the converting of Diesel engines to run on gas, and you will be interested to hear that Messrs. Roots—as a result of tests on engines from Messrs. Cadbury Brothers—have decided to produce at the Humber Works, Coventry, a private car for operating on gas, which is stored in special lightweight steel containers."
      The difficulty about using this type of vehicle is that the gas bottles increase its weight, and hence increase the taxation, I am not asking the Minister to alter the taxation; that is beyond his sphere. But he is in a position to grant a remission of taxation to experimental vehicles, so that the matter may be investigated. In the case of a steam vehicle there is a remission of taxation on one ton. Why cannot something similar be done in regard to these vehicles? Experiments will not be seriously developed until this omission is rectified. These vehicles are running in Germany. Twelve months ago there were more than 1,000 vehicles there, and there were 40 filling stations. In France there were 120 vehicles running, and 25 filling stations. Again in France all owners of 10 vehicles or more have to use one vehicle running on home-produced fuel.
      We all remember how during the last War gas was used by means of a bag on the top of the vehicle, and during the crisis last year the Birmingham Research Laboratory received quite a number of inquiries with regard to the conversion of their vehicles. It is possible to convert a vehicle with very slight minor alterations. I am not asking the Government to carry out experiments, but only to encourage the carrying out of experiments, and to grant remission of taxation on a certain number of vehicles. The cost of running vehicles on gas is less than that of running them on petrol. The Government at present are to a great extent subsidising hydrogenation; and why they should not
      1404
      consider this to be in the same category I cannot understand. In this country a large number of lorries and delivery vans often have to run 40 to 60 miles a day. These vehicles are very suitable for work of that description, as they could run 100 miles on one charge. I understand that the cost of running would be about equivalent to that of running on petrol at Is. a gallon. In the Research Laboratory something like £5,000 or £6,000 is being spent on this experiment. What they are asking for is further experiment, and I am convinced that a large number of firms will be prepared to go in for experiments.
      During the Debate, hon. Members have referred to casualties on the roads. I do not think the picture is quite as black as it is painted. It is serious enough certainly, but we must give the Minister credit for improvements. In 1934 there was one casualty to every 10 vehicles, in 1936 one to every 12 vehicles, and in 1938 one to every 13 vehicles. Looked at in that light, surely there is an improvement. We are not satisfied with the conditions as they are, but the Minister must be given credit for such an improvement. I wish also to refer to the question of pedestrian crossings. We had in Birmingham last week an experiment which was successful to a certain extent. In my experience, pedestrian crossings are recognised far better in Birmingham than they are in London. One day last week I endeavoured in London to cross at 15 of these crossings, and in no case did I get an uninterrupted passage. It is no use spending money on these crossings unless their use is enforced. The Minister should give a lead in the direction of helping pedestrians to get about in the manner they are entitled to do. Public vehicles, in particular, should set the example.
      I had an opportunity last year of speaking on this Vote, and I mentioned the matter of "halt" signs. I congratulate the Department on having increased the number since then, and I hope they will continue to make progress. It is most difficult for the motorist to know who has the right of way when he is crossing a main road. I cannot see why still more use cannot be made of road signs. Where the word "Halt" is painted on the road, it has to be repainted every few months. Surely there is some

      1405
      method of giving a clear indication of which vehicle has the right of way without going to the expense of painting the roads in the way they are painted at the present time.
      Another matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister—already several questions have been asked in this House about it—is the reduction of the age limit of children who are carried free on omnibuses. Until recently it has been the custom to carry children up to the age of five free on omnibuses in Birmingham and district, and now by Order of the Minister the age has been reduced on omnibuses from five years to three years. The Minister has said that he has not power to alter the age limit, but I believe that the age has been reduced by his order. It is causing considerable dissatisfaction in cities like Birmingham and in other large areas, where mothers have to travel eight or nine miles into the town to do their shopping and cannot bring their children with them as they used to do. It is a ridiculous anomaly that the age limit of five still remains on the tram-cars. It is absurd that women living in one district can bring their children into the city, and women in other districts cannot. I believe that there are ways of getting round this problem if the Minister wished to do so. I have no doubt that if he could find a way out, it would give considerable satisfaction to a large percentage of the population in and around Birmingham.
      Most of the items concerning cyclists in the Alness Report have already been referred to, but I would remind the Minister that in 1926 the Transport Advisory Council were asked to report upon the subject. The Minister, in presenting his report last year, referred to what the Advisory Council had reported, and their report with regard to cyclists was practically the same as that contained in the Alness Report. Why is it that some of these recommendations have not been put into force during the last 12 months? I have asked the Minister several questions to-night, and I do not expect to receive a reply to all of them. I know the impossibility, in the short time at his disposal, of his being able to do so, but I beseech him to say at least a few words in reply to what I have said with regard to the gas-producer vehicles
      8.19 p.m.
      Mr. Poole: I appreciate that the Minister, with the enormous amount of ground which of necessity he has to cover in a job such as his, was not able to refer specifically and in detail to many of the points with which perhaps some of us would have liked him to have dealt. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I touch upon one or two subjects to which he referred only very indirectly. I support very heartily the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) regarding the lowering of the free travel age limit on the omnibuses of Birmingham. I know that it has been done through the application of the Traffic Commissioners, and that the position of the Minister is difficult, but I believe that a way can and ought to be found to get over the difficulty, unless the Minister desires to put upon the people who have been forced to go from the centre of that city to live on outlying housing estates an intolerable burden whenever they require to go into the city for shopping and other purposes.
      The question of the safety of the roads has been the favourite subject of hon. Members' observations to-day, and there is very little that I desire to add. But in view of the precedent which has been established by at least two hon. Members in referring to specific cases in their own divisions, I venture once again to bring to the attention of the Minister the case of two particular roads, which I ask him again to consider with the authorities concerned in order that the matter may be dealt with expeditiously. I refer to the kingstanding Road and the Walsall Road, Birmingham. Both of these roads are scheduled to be dual carriage-ways, and in both cases the dual carriage-way has been left partially completed. There is nothing more calculated to cause danger than to have a section of a road with a dual carriage-way which merges into a single carriage-way and which again, a few hundred yards away, becomes a dual carriage-way. The. kingstanding Road, in particular, carries an enormous omnibus traffic, a large number of cyclists use the road, which has no cycle track, and a portion of it is a dual carriageway, while on other portions it is a single carriage-way. I have myself, when motoring on that road, made the mistake of failing to observe that the road had again

      1407
      become a dual carriage-way, thus finding myself going along the wrong side of the road. There is a grave risk to users of the road, and there have been numerous accidents both to pedestrians and cyclists. I have asked questions of the Minister several times, and I have been assured that the City Council are proposing to do something in the matter. I now ask him to request the City Council to get a move on and to complete the dual carriage-ways on both the Kingstanding Road and the Walsall Road at an early date.
      The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) spoke of drunken drivers. A driver convicted of driving under the influence of drink ought automatically to lose his licence. There ought to be no question about it. While there is probably a unanimity of opinion on the desirability of that, is it not strange that in every case where a local authority is called upon to approve of plans for new licensed premises, one of the things they invariably specify is the provision of a good pull-in for motorists. It is an anomalous position to compel all licensed premises to provide a good pull-in for motorists and then to say to a motorist who has been convicted of driving under the influence of drink that he has committed a bad offence and ought to lose his licence. This is an interesting point upon which I should welcome the observations of the Minister.
      Colonel Sandeman Allen: There are very often passengers in the motor car.
      Mr. Poole: It would be far better for passengers to put up with the inconvenience of going without drink rather than to tempt the driver or cause him to suffer the agony of seeing his passengers have a drink and not have one himself. It is better to go without your drink than that some one should be hastened into eternity as a result of an accident caused by the driver being under the influence of drink.
      Captain Strickland: Does every motorist who has a drink get drunk?
      Mr. Poole: I confess that I am not an authority on the question of drink, and I must yield to the hon. Member in his greater knowledge of the subject. I really
      1408
      want to speak on the importance of an efficient transport system in this country. The prime job of the Minister of Transport is to see that we get an efficient transport system. It is abundantly necessary in peace, for the sake of the industrial life of this nation, and it will be more abundantly necessary should we ever unfortunately find ourselves at war. The whole of the supplies for this country, the whole problem of evacuation from our large cities, is bound up with a satisfactory and efficient transport undertaking.
      I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the Transport Advisory Council and its recent sittings. I should like to refer to certain findings of that Council in their bearings on the question of an efficient transport system. One of the tragedies of the post-war years has been the haphazard way in which transport has been allowed to develop in this country. Because of the rapid development of the internal combustion engine, we had a new form of transport which was allowed to develop for many years, willy-nilly. I am not stating any case against road transport. There is a great place for road transport in the life of the nation; but we have allowed haphazard methods to creep in, and now, somewhat belatedly, an attempt is being made to put our house in order.
      Until 1918 the railway companies enjoyed a transport monopoly and regulations were formed on the basis of a transport monopoly for the railways. In 1921 we had the Act which put the railway companies under specific charges. I must refer to this question in order to emphasise what I desire to say. Under these regulations the railway company in charging for the transport of commodities was compelled to establish standard rates, based on a classification which was extremely involved and which had many defects. It was, however, a definite classification, which was available, and anyone on making a study could, with difficulty, arrive eventually at the actual charge for the transport of the particular commodities which he desired to send from one part of the country to another. Along with the Act of 1921 standard rates, exceptional rates, period rates, bulk rates and all sorts of other rates were laid down. Subsequently, there came very fierce road competition, which has resulted in the last few months in the demand for a square deal for the railway companies, which was

      1409
      referred to the Transport Advisory Council. We have now the report of the Transport Advisory Council.
      I hope that the Minister of Transport will follow the precedent set by members of the Government on many occasions, and that is, that having appointed a committee to inquire into a case they take no notice of the findings of the committee but frame their legislation on completely different lines. I hope the Minister will do that. I hope that he will not accept the findings of the Transport Advisory Council on this matter, because if he does he will perpetuate the chaotic conditions of the transport industry, and the result will be great hardships to many users of transport in the country. The findings of the committee in certain specific directions are bound up with the question of an efficient transport system. Two of their major findings are that classification and the fixing of standard rates should be repealed, together with the exceptional rates and agreed charges. That is a very sweeping suggestion to make, and I am wondering whether this body is the most competent to consider the matter.
      I know the composition of the Transport Advisory Council, and I do not agree that railway managers, members of the Society of Road Operators, and even the general secretaries of trade unions are the best people to form a judgment as to what is the best thing to happen to the transport industry. In every case you have a vested interest. You have specific vested interests concerned in this problem. I have yet to learn that if you put in one room the various people with vested interests concerned in a problem and expect them to bring out the best for the industry, you are in the long run to bring about the best thing for the industry. I believe that what has been brought out by this Council is not something which is in the best interest of the industry but something which will give a reasonable measure of agreement between the vested interests concerned. The old system of rating was cumbersome and the charges depended to a certain extent on the influence of the person who made the application for the rate. That may seem a sweeping thing to say, but I assert that under the old classifications of rates it was possible for influence to have a bearing. I know it was so from some years experience of railway rating; but
      1410
      for the Council to suggest the alteration which they have done is one of the most dangerous recommendations that have ever been made. The railway companies now, not the Railway Rates Tribunal, and the road operators also, will decide their own charges. Without reference to anybody, without reference to any scale, without reference to any classification; they will decide what is the charge for the transportation of any commodity between any two given points.
      I know that the right of traders to appeal to the Railway Rates Tribunal remains, but that is an onus upon industry—an onus to appeal against what they consider to be an unfair charge. I do not think that it is an onus that rightly ought to be placed upon industry. The result will probably be that industry will pay the charge fixed by the railway companies and the road operators, and will pass the charge, be it reasonable or excessive, to the consumer, who will ultimately have to pay it in the price of the commodity that he buys. One of the most sinister things in the whole of the recommendations is that there is no recommendation made regarding the publication of the charges. That is extremely important. The one safeguard to members of the public against exploitation in transport charges is that there should be published the charges operative between any two given points for any special sets of commodities. Does the Minister realise what will happen if he implements the findings of this Transport Council? It will be possible for one man to have offered to him a charge for a particular commodity and for another man to have a totally different charge offered to him for the same kind of commodity between two given points, because there will be no compulsion upon either of the transport industries concerned to publish its charges. That will lend itself to a very dangerous practice and make it possible for influence to govern the charges which will be made. There will be no guarantee that all men will get equality of treatment.
      There is much more that I should like to say. I should like to ask the Minister a question. He will agree with me that it is desirable that there should be the greatest measure of efficiency in our transport industry. Will he also agree with me that the transport industry is of much more importance, say, than the British

      1411
      Broadcasting Corporation or even of greater importance than the Post Office? If it has been considered necessary that the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Post Office should be placed under some form of co-ordinated ownership and control, why is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposing to tinker with the transport industry? Why is he allowing two sections of the industry to drift into the position into which they have drifted, rather than taking the bold step of co-ordinating the whole transport system under public ownership and control?
      The Temporary-Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle): The hon. Member is now out of Order. What he is suggesting would involve legislation. He is not permitted to discuss that.
      Mr. Poole: I bow to your Ruling, but what I desire to say will be apparent to the Committee. One essential factor in a satisfactory and efficient transport system is a satisfied and properly treated staff.
      I want to refer to the problem which is facing one section of the transport industry and to appeal to the Minister to use his influence in the matter. I refer to the men who are employed in the railway industry. They are recognised as a fine body of men, who have always played their part in the industrial life and have given public service in local government and also in this House. A month or two ago, in the year1939, in the 20th century, an application was made on behalf of these men that the minimum rate of wages payable to any adult employed should not be less than 50s. a week. I ask whether 50s. a week is a reasonable rate of pay to men engaged in the transport industry of the country? There are to-day 101,000 such men who are on a rate of pay less than 50s. a week, and I ask the Minister of Transport to use his influence and see that the 50s. minimum is given to them. You cannot expect men to play their part in the transport system unless you are prepared to do the right thing for them. A square deal should not only be given to the owners but to the men employed. Granted that it will cost over £1,000,000; is that too much to ask the transport industry to pay to those men who have less than 50s. a week on which to live? If any square deals are to be conceded,
      1412
      then I think the square deal should first be given to these men. The tribunal said:
      "After careful examination of minimum rates in large ranges of different trades and industries and making full allowance for the special factors referred to, the Tribunal are of opinion that a strong case has been presented for making an increase on the lowest rates a first claim as soon as the financial position makes any substantial concession possible."
      The Tribunal admit the claim but refuse it at the moment because they say the financial position does not allow it. I suggest that the first charge on the industry should be the lives of the men who are engaged in the industry, their wives and children. They have invested everything they have in the industry. It is an industry which has always been loyal and not one to exploit the national situation. I am not speaking at the moment for any of the trade unions which are operative in the industry. I am speaking purely on my own responsibility and as one who has served the whole of his industrial life in the industry. I know these men. The Minister will want these men probably in the days which lie ahead, and I warn the Minister that there is a feeling among them that they are not prepared to be exploited much longer, and they are going to demand that there shall be a 50s. minimum for all men. It is a reasonable demand. Many of them are in blind-alley occupations and have no hope of promotion. There are 41,000 labourers in the engineering departments and 8,000 gangers. The chance of promotion is one in seven, therefore, six out of seven are doomed as long as they stay in the transport industry to remain on a basic rate which is less than 50s. a week, and in some cases as low as 42s. For men with wives and families that is much too low a rate to be paid in one of the most important industries of the country.
      I want to touch on the general question of the motorist and to ask the Minister exactly what rights the motorist has. I find that he pays in taxation about £47,000,000, and in Petrol Duty about £10,000,000. That is a total contribution, through these two taxes, of about £58,000,000. The Minister of Transport says that he is proposing to spend £18,000,000 in road construction during the year, so that the Exchequer is going to make a substantial profit out of the motorist. I do not think the motorist would

      1413
      mind paying for the roads, which everybody uses, if he felt that he had some right on the road. I know that the pedestrian is in the same position. When we are pedestrians we curse the motorist, and when we are motorists we curse the pedestrian. I am both, and perhaps my sympathies are in the main with the pedestrian. I give this figure of taxation as to the amount which the motorist contributes, only in order to ask the Minister of Transport a question. I want to bring him back to the city of Birmingham, and I want to ask him whether the motorist has any rights on the roads and streets of our cities. If he has none, or only very limited rights, I want him to explain to the motorist the extent of his rights.
      The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is now quite out of order as this has nothing to do with the Minister of Transport.
      Mr. Poole: The rights are given in the Highway Code of which I am speaking, and that is a matter with which the Minister of Transport has to deal. Under the Highway Code there is an instruction—it is also mentioned in the Road and Rail Traffic Act—that a motorist may leave his vehicle just for so long as is a" reasonable time" The interpretation of what is a reasonable time is left in every case to the local authority, and I want to ask the Minister whether he is not prepared to compel the local authority to define what is a "reasonable time," and not leave the motorist at the mercy of the police in any particular locality. In Birmingham a man can leave his car for what is a reasonable time, but no one will define it or define what has been the measure of obstruction.
      The Temporary Chairman: I do not think we can discuss the interpretation of the Highway Code on this Vote. It is a matter outside the Ministry of Transport.
      Mr. Poole: In conclusion I want to ask the Minister whether he will consider extending the provision of courtesy "cops." I should like to see more courtesy "cops" on our roads, and fewer motorists being "copped." I hope we shall have an extension of these courtesy road patrols and that the motorist will get a warning instead of being persecuted as he is at the present time. May I remind the Minister again of the very grave situation which is growing up in the railway industry and ask him to make inquiries
      1414
      and find out whether what I have stated is not the present situation? I would ask him to realise that there is a great responsibility on the Minister of Transport to see that the country is not involved in a major industrial dispute in the next few months, which will be the result if the matter is allowed to drift and the trade unions are left to decide this question with the railway companies, who have met them in every case with a blank refusal. In order that we may be saved this industrial struggle when we can ill afford it, I would appeal to the Minister to direct his attention to the conditions of employment on the railways of this country.
      8.45 p.m.
      Colonel Sandeman Allen: The Committee has had a variety of problems placed before it this afternoon. I was interested to hear a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), predict that there will be a great depression and great unemployment when rearmament ceases. That is a problem which needs consideration. I do not think it will be as bad as some hon. Members believe. I feel that if rearmament ceases, it will be because we have before us an assured period of peace, and undoubtedly that will bring a world trade boom. Trade is being held up because of a threat of war, and once that threat is removed, there will be a trade boom. Therefore, I think we ought to avoid being Jeremiahs and to look forward to the future more cheerfully. Obviously, when rearmament ceases, there may be a short period during which there will be a readjustment of industry, and during such a time, if the Minister has plans ready, they can be used to great effect and value.
      I wish to congratulate the Minister of Transport on the new method of presenting the Estimates. That method is a great improvement, but I wish that the Department would adopt the practice that is followed in the Service Estimates, and interleave the Estimates with coloured pages giving detailed descriptions of some of the progress that is being made. On 15th May when my right hon. and gallant Friend made his first public appearance as Minister of Transport before the industry, he said in the course of his remarks that up to the present plans have been approved for dealing with over 3,000 miles of trunk roads, of

      1415
      which 885 miles will be by way of new construction, comprising diversions varying from a quarter of a mile to 15 miles. The promise of this new construction is encouraging, but I should be glad if we could hear a little more about it. I asked the Minister whether he will issue a White paper describing the plans, so that we may be able to form a much more accurate judgment of what is to happen in future. I know that there are a great many difficulties in building new roads, such as the difficulty of land acquisition, to which the right hon. Member for South Hackney referred, but surely, in a great many cases, it is easier to plan new roads and routes and avoid built-up areas than it is to widen existing roads or to use an existing road for one-way traffic when another road is built perhaps a quarter of a mile away. I want to raise one matter which enters very much into the question of road accidents. The new Act enforcing parking for lorries during the rest period necessitates a far greater laying out of lay-bys and draw-ins for lorries. On the new by-passes, there are not nearly enough draw-ins which would enable the men, when taking compulsory rest, to take the lorries off the road and thus make the road less dangerous for ordinary traffic.
      When the Finance Bill was in Committee, I tabled an Amendment for the purpose of enabling monthly licences for motor cars to be issued. That Amendment was not called, and I was given to understand that the Minister already has the power to issue regulations for monthly licences for motor cars. I hope he will use that power. In the Budget, there was a very big rise in the tax to be paid by motorists, and this year undoubtedly the motorists have to pay a very large proportion of the increase of taxation. It is time that Government Departments began to study the convenience of the public to a far greater extent and to give the public greater facilities, particularly in these difficult times. During four months of the year, it is possible to get monthly licences, and therefore, the principle is established. At the present time, the issue of quartely and monthly licences costs the Government £747,000 in collection expenses. Practically the whole of that amount is covered by the 10 per cent. surcharge on the quarterly and monthly licences. There is
      1416
      no reason from the point of view of expense why the Minister should not permit the issue of monthly licences throughout the year. I do not ask for a decrease in the surcharge, although I think that ought to be considered; but I do not think it is within the power of the Minister to decrease it. A surcharge of 10 per cent. on the annual licences is a great deal of money, and covers the cost of collection of the motoring taxes. Therefore, it is of no use the Minister arguing that he would lose a great deal of money by allowing monthly licences to be issued during the whole year.
      If this were done, I do not believe the Treasury would lose any money because at the present time a great many people take out licences from April to the end of September only. If there were a fine September, a great many motorists would take out a licence for an extra month, and the same would apply at the end of February and at Christmas time. It is not only the owners of the cars, but the manufacturers and the agents who would like to see monthly licences issued. Even with the quarterly licences, one can see in the sales of cars a check between each quarter and a hold-up until the next quarterly licences are due to be issued. If there were monthly licences, there would be a much more even flow of sales of both new and second-hand cars. It cannot be argued that it would not be easy to have a system of monthly licences, for the machinery would be quite simple, and would not substantially increase the cost of collection. I could give the Minister half a dozen schemes that would be easy to work. For instance, it could be done by means of stamps. There could be 12 stamps on the licence; each year would have its own coloured stamps, and each month there would be a new shape so that the police could easily see whether the car was duly licensed for a given month. There is no reasonable excuse for denying to the public this privilege to which it is more than ever entitled at the present time.
      Mr. George Griffiths: Before the hon. and gallant Member leaves this subject, may I ask whether he would suggest that there should be monthly dog licences, monthly wireless licences, and so on?
      Colonel Sandeman Allen: It would not be in order for me to discuss monthly dog licences.
      Mr. Sexton: And monthly marriage licences.
      Colonel Sandeman Allen: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Poole) mentioned the Transport Advisory Council and the Square Deal. I cannot understand why the powers of reference of that committee included the power to examine matters concerning a Square Deal for the railways, but no power to examine road restrictions, so that the question of road restrictions could not be discussed. There seems to be far too much bias towards the railways in our transport arrangements to-day, not only at the expense of traders, but also at the expense of coastal shipping. Coastal shipping is subject to foreign competition and it is a disgraceful thing that to-day practically all ships of 200 tons and under engaged in the coastal trade are foreign-owned. Hardly one is British-owned. They are mainly Dutch and are going in and out of our small ports all the time. This is a matter which is not, I suggest, being seriously enough considered in consultation between the Minister of Transport and the President of the Board of Trade. I think we ought to put our heads together to see what can be done to improve the condition of coastal shipping.
      There is one other question which I would put to the Parliamentary Secretary. Can he give an assurance that commercial vehicles which have been approved for allocation by the Traffic Commissioners will not be commandeered by the Service Departments without reference to the Traffic Commissioners? I have been told that the Service Departments may take these vehicles as and when they require them. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look into that point and that he will be able to allay the misgivings which exist on this subject at present.
      8.57 p.m.
      Mr. Parkinson: No one can complain that we have not had a great variety of subjects presented in the course of this afternoon's Debate, and the Parliamentary Secretary has a very formidable array of questions to answer.
      Mr. Batey: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that this is the winding up of the Debate on this side?
      The Temporary Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Parkinson: I desire at the outset to congratulate the Minister on his first speech in his new position and to assure him that he enters upon the duties of his office with the good feeling of all Members of the Committee. We realise that there is a lot of work to be done in his Department. One thing which struck me forcibly was the Minister's reference to the enforcement of regulations. That seemed to suggest the idea that regulations are not being enforced at the moment to the knowledge of the Department. I hope it also means that if regulations are not being enforced, the matter will be dealt with by the Minister.
      I wish now to return to the question of accidents on roads to which so many references have been made. The Minister said that in 1938 there were 6,648 fatal accidents on the roads, and he mentioned that that number was slightly less than the number in 1929. I am not sure that that is a fair comparison. I shall be told that there are more cars on the road to-day than there were in 1929, but there has been an interval of 10 years in which to remodel existing roads and make new and better roads. Another statement which interested me was that less than 2 per cent. of the accidents were due to road conditions. What did the Minister intend to imply by that? Did he refer to conditions of surface only, or to lay-out, lighting, and so forth? I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us, if he can, some idea of what is meant by "road conditions" in this connection.
      The Minister also said that in the event of war the railways would play their part, but in case of a national emergency there are other things besides the railways to be considered. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the canals, but he did not say anything about the construction of new heavy roads in order to relieve the railway system in the event of a national emergency. It is only to be expected that if such a calamity as war did occur, the railways would be liable to be broken here and there as the result of air attacks. If the railways are broken, what alternative lines of supply will be available? It appears to me that we ought to have some large, major, strongly-built roads for use in case of necessity. I do not suggest that this is absolutely essential, but, in my view, it would be a good thing to have an alternative system in case the railways were broken.

      1419
      I have in mind the case of the great factory which is being built at Chorley. The railway runs through the centre of that area, but I do not know what would be done if that railway were broken as a result of aerial bombing. It is very difficult to envisage how supplies would be got out from that great factory and distributed through the country wherever they were needed. I do not know of any great road in existence which would relieve the railway in that case. I do know that on the main road running through Wigan and Preston to the North, within 100 or 200 yards of this great munition works, there is a railway bridge where the road is so narrow that it is not safe for two cars to pass on it. I raised this question two or three years ago with the present Secretary of State for War, who promised that the matter would be attended to and, later, sent me a letter to the effect that the railway company were to take the matter up as an alteration was due. That alteration has not taken place yet. I hope the Minister will have some inquiries made into that and see what can be done.
      Almost every speaker in this Debate so far has referred to the total of road accidents as appalling. I want hon. Members to understand that the accident rate during the last three months has been going up. When are we to expect a substantial reduction? Each month we receive startling figures of the number of deaths due to road accidents. In May the number was 553, which is an increase of 25 per cent. over the total in the same month of last year. The Alness Report on the Prevention of Road Accidents was published at the end of March. In that month the number of deaths on the road was 457. In April, while the Government were considering the report, the number of deaths rose to 513. Now we have a figure of 553. What figures may we expect for June and July? I do not know how it works out, but I am told that there is a greater number of accidents during the midsummer months than at other periods of the year, and one will not be surprised to find an increased figure for those two months. The Government are still considering the report which finds that our present road system is inadequate. I do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) on this matter. I
      1420
      think that the report contains some valuable recommendations which, if put into operation, would help to reduce the number of road accidents. The present road system is agreed to be inadequate and out-of-date. The report concludes:
      "Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of a vastly accelerated programme of road construction and improvement."
      We have been having a vastly accelerated programme during the last eight to ten years. Every year the Minister has come to this Table and made a statement as to what was going to be done in the coming year. Not very long ago we had a five-year programme laid down. Has that been justified? Has it been carried out as it ought to have been carried out? Are they so far forward with the work of the five-year programme as to satisfy the Department? If not, they are very much lagging behind. What stands in the way? Not finance, surely, when we observe that road transport now pays to the Revenue sums greatly in excess of the present expenditure on the roads. Nor would there appear to be any legal or administrative difficulties in the way so far as trunk roads are concerned. The Minister has full power to build and improve trunk roads and to acquire land for the purpose wherever he considers it necessary. The Minister to-day said something about the acquisition of land and what a very difficult matter it is. I think there ought to be some short cut whereby the Minister could earmark any land required for public services and let questions of arbitration and that kind of thing be considered afterwards.
      There is also the question of the secondary roads, because not many improvements have been made on Class 2 roads. A large number of these Class 2 roads really ought to be transformed into main roads and something done to make them better. As to the congested areas in the Northern part of England, I do not know whether the Minister is aware of them, but there is a large number of bottlenecks where traffic is held up regularly, and where that happens and there comes a whole line of cars, the danger of accidents, of course, is very much greater. I think the time has arrived when in the large towns in the North of England, and in other places besides the large towns, something definite should be done whereby there could be that steady flow

      1421
      of traffic which would not cause such congestion. I am sure that casualties on the roads are greater than they ought to be. I know that I cannot debate the question of the patrol system in parts of Lancashire and elsewhere in Great Britain, but I want to call attention to the statements by Earl Howe, Chairman of the British Road Federation, that the experiment had shown that casualties on the road could be reduced by 46 per cent. The Government ought, therefore, not only to continue the experiment, but to extend it throughout the country. Earl De La Warr, replying for the Government, agreed that where the mobile police had been tried they had been successful. He refused, however, to accept the motion that the Government should pay the whole cost of motor patrols on the ground that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was already faced with very heavy expenditure in other directions. If one cared to be cynical or critical, one could read into that statement that money is of greater value than life, and that the Government are not prepared to find the money necessary to protect the citizens of this country, even on the roads. I have every sympathy with the patrol experiment. I know what it has meant in Lancashire. I have been among it, more or less, and the way in which it has been carried out there is a great credit to the chief constable, the deputy chief constable and every officer who has taken part in the work. They have done their work well, and I am sure that, having done their work so well, it is something which ought to give the Government, or at least the Department, heart to see that something more is done in that direction. At the bottom of page 35 of the Report on the Prevention of Road Accidents there is the statement:
      "One witness—the County Surveyor of Oxfordshire—affirmed that in his county 76 per cent, of the fatal accidents might have been prevented by road improvement, and that dual carriageways alone would have reduced the accident toll by 42 per cent. The Committee realise that these are two extreme points of view. The truth, as so often happens, probably lies between them."
      That is a glaring example of bad roads, or else a glaring misstatement by a man in charge and responsible. Whichever way it is, I hope the Minister will do something to make things better for the future. Next I want to raise the question of level crossings, about which the British
      1422
      Road Federation made a very striking statement. They said:
      "It is not sufficiently realised that, even exclusive of 'occupational' crossings…of which it is estimated that there are 10,000 or more, there are still over 4,000 public level crossings in Great Britain, of which 200 are in Greater London. Moreover, on our main trunk roads, which are under the direct control of the Minister of Transport, there are 112 level crossings, making one for every forty miles of such roads."
      They go on to say that at the present rate of clearing these crossings away, it will be done in about 200 years. We know that these things are a danger, and why they are tolerated I do not know. They ought to have been dealt with in earnest a long time ago with a view to the danger which they create being removed at the earliest possible moment. They go on to say:
      "Apart from the danger at the actual crossing, an investigation carried out by the Automobile Association in 1938 on 380 such crossings showed that traffic on the most important roads in Great Britain is interrupted nearly 8,000 times daily between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. by the closing of level crossing gates"
      I think we are agreed that that is something which ought to be dealt with. It is a positive danger; it has been a danger for a large number of years, and no great attempt has been made to deal with it. I hope the new Minister will accept the responsibility for doing something really to overcome this difficulty.
      I have not said anything about bridges yet, but there is a large number of weak bridges in this country. It is quite a common thing to find on a bridge a notice stating that vehicles of over five tons in weight must not go over it. All these things want wiping out. There ought to be something of greater security, something which will meet the traffic needs of the country, and if a bridge is not strong enough, it ought to be cleared away. Recommendation No. 130, on page 51, is as follows:
      "The committee recommend that all level crossings on main roads should be bridged or tunnelled as soon as possible."
      In paragraph 131 they recommend:
      "The committee recommend that on important roads hump-back bridges should be abolished as soon as may be, for it is impossible to see approaching traffic until their summit has been reached."
      This is the kind of thing with which we have to deal, and with which the Minister will have to deal. Really the Minister is

      1423
      under the sort of challenge that is given to every new Minister to do better with his Department than those have done who have gone before him. On the question of road accidents I have just mentioned that the Minister has great powers and great opportunities to do good. When we realise that the taxation of motors provides such a tremendous amount more money than is required or spent on the roads of this country, it is time that some Minister dared to tell the Treasury people that he will not carry on as Minister of Transport unless he is permitted the kind of freedom which would enable him to deal with many things which at present are held up through lack of money. There is a need for very heavy and strong roads, because when munitions are being run about the country they cannot be taken on roads which are full of twists and turnings and bottle-necks. The roads will have to stand up to a very heavy strain and they will have to be built at the earliest possible moment. Speaking at the annual general meeting of the Shell Transport and Trading Company, Limited, on 20th June, Lord Bearsted, the Chairman, said:
      "Year after year the roads of this country are not only falling further behind the best modern standards but are also becoming increasingly and more dangerously inadequate for the traffic they are called upon to carry. Year after year the efforts to grapple with this problem become more out of relation to the volume of work which is obviously needed. The annual expenditure on our roads has remained practically stationary for the last 14 years."
      That is the kind of statement which I hope the Minister will take into consideration, because obviously road development ought to be going on year after year giving better conditions. We ought to have stronger, wider and straighter roads. The Ministry should see some of the Clause 2 roads which I have seen built on the corkscrew pattern. Some of the main roads in the North of England used to be the same, and there are quite a large number of Class 2 roads made upon their pattern. That pattern is dangerous. Inadequate road development is false economy, and the roads constitute one of the few objects of public expenditure which can be described as directly remunerative.
      The direct relationship between road expenditure and bad conditions has
      1424
      recently been underlined in the Alness Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Prevention of Road Accidents which, moreover, stressed the urgent necessity of inaugurating a long-range policy of road improvements. It is pointed out that since 1910 the number of vehicles on the roads has increased by over 2,000 per cent. while the increase in new road construction is only about 2 per cent. We have had a five-year programme before us now for about three years and we have not yet seen the results of the work which has been done. We have the promise that a large amount of the roads has been surveyed. I think the Minister said that 3,000 out of 4,500 miles have been surveyed and that work was ready to begin. When are we to begin that work? Shall we hear again from the Minister the same story 12 months hence or shall we be told that all the roads have been surveyed and that many miles have been put into actual condition? I hope we shall get some real help.
      There is another matter I should like to raise, and that is the question of lighting. In Lancashire we have a beautiful road, which cost £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, running from Liverpool to Manchester. It is a really magnificent road through very nice country. At the Liverpool end the City of Liverpool attend to the lighting and at the Salford end the borough of Salford do the same. For probably 12 or 14 miles there is no lighting at all except at the junctions. I want to point out to the Minister that on that road there have been several terrible accidents which ought never to have occurred. Until some proper method of lighting is introduced, there will continue to be these reports about that road. What is the use of building roads if you are not going to complete them? I do not consider that a road is complete until it has been well finished and well lighted, so that drivers can see what they are doing. They cannot in this road. There are many dangerous crossings. I have been along it and I have lived in that particular area all my life with the exception of the last few years. The matter has been raised not only with the present Minister but with his two predecessors. It has been raised by questions in the House and in Debate for three or four years, but nothing has been done. The danger is there and we cannot get any move on.

      1425
      The Minister seems to think that the whole of this work ought to be done by the local authorities. The local authorities between Salford and Liverpool are not prepared to do it. I think the Minister ought to have the power to compel them to do it out of finance provided by the Treasury or a grant given to them by the Ministry, and they ought to be compelled to do it in the interests of the lives of the people using the road.
      It is no use looking at the thing from the point of view of saying that it matters nothing at all. Every life lost matters, and is a loss to the country. Something really ought to be done. The Select Committee, in paragraph 149 on page 158, refer to the Departmental Committee on Lighting which reported 18 months before and say:
      "That committee recommended that street lighting should be made uniform, particularly on trunk and Class I roads."
      Their report was issued two years ago, and nothing has been done. Is it not possible for the Minister to do something with a view to getting greater safety on this road? It is the worst road I know. I do know many badly-lit roads, but this is a road where we have no lighting at all, and I think that either the Minister or his officials ought to travel on it in the dark when they would see what is required in the interests of safety.
      The next point to which I want to refer concerns regulations. I notice that on page 22 of the Alness Report there is a recommendation for the simplification and consolidation of existing regulations. The committee say that there are at present over100 regulations which a motor driver should observe and some 2,000 regulations which road transport as a whole, including those engaged in the manufacture of vehicles, has to master. The committee favour the simplification and consolidation of existing regulations and, even more, the elimination of many technical offences of a kind which might probably be left to the judgment and good sense of road users. That is the position that we are putting before you. The Alness Report is a very valuable one. A large number of its recommendations really go to the root of the matter, and would help in solving the excessive number of deaths on the roads. We do not want a miniature war going on in peace time. We do not want 6,000 or 7,000 of our people killed on the road, another
      1426
      1,000 in the mines, and 200,000 or 300,000 injured on the roads, through being hit or knocked down. Whether carelessness is attributable to the driver or to the pedestrian, there is at least some responsibility on the Department to take in hand all the things that come to their notice with a view to working out something which will make for safety.
      Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted and, 40 Members being present—
      9.28 p.m.
      Mr. Macquisten: I am very glad that the office of Minister of Transport was not abolished some years ago, as was proposed as a protest against the increase in the number of Ministers. One of the principal reasons why I am glad is that you would not have had the present Minister. I have always had sympathy for Ministers of Transport, because they at least have never had a square deal. They have had no real power given them and the treasure chest promised them in 1909 was stolen from them. The first burglar was my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Good roads are the essence of all civilisation. Successive Minister of Transport have never had an opportunity of carrying out the ideals which, no doubt, imagination has held out before them. They would need the support of the Cabinet, but no Government of any kind has ever shown the slightest imagination on the road question. They only seem interested in conserving the more obsolete railways. Take the horse power tax. It is a monstrosity. Far the juster tax is the petrol tax, no matter how high it be. For as the driver of a small bus said to me, "As we pay the tax we collect it, while if I have to pay a large sum at the beginning of the season it may be wet and I shall not recover it."
      What we really need is proper motor roads—roads for motors and nothing else. We look on calmly at the dreadful slaughter that has been going on for all these years and do nothing drastic to stop it. This House has been since 1896 a meeting of homicides in respect to road accidents. The old oligarchic, aristocratic Parliaments in the 30's at least' had the humanity to say to the railways, "You will not run these dreadful instruments amongst the public. You will build your own roads and fence them in so that no one can be slain." Yet a railway is a far

      1427
      safer thing than a road, because it travels on rails; I and you have only to keep off them to be safe while on the road you may be killed at any moment on the pavement. Looking in a shop window, you may get it in the small of the back. What we should aim at is building roads restricted to road transport alone, and do not build them through the populous places but through places where there are no houses, and see that you take the land on each side so that, if there is any building, the Government will get the benefit. You should have these roads all over the countryside and when the motors come out on to the ordinary public roads, where they are mixed up with horses, cattle, human beings and children they should not be allowed to go at any high speed. That is the only remedy.
      We want to get the population dispersed through the countryside and get our factories put out in rural areas. Of course, there is immense opposition in the country districts, where they do not want these things, but let the people who like to live in lonely dignified solitude go to the great wide open spaces, like Africa and Vancouver and elsewhere in Canada. They have no right to keep our poor people crowded in towns in those beastly tenements and flats, keeping them out of a goodly heritage, which is to go out to the country, to work in the country and live on their own portion of God's own land. [Interruption.] That is not revolutionary. It is only plain horse sense. It is what happened in Queen Elizabeth's time, when she ordained that no man should be employed unless he had an acre of ground of his own on which to grow his own food. It is quite a modern idea to get somebody else to grow food for another man. That is how the law vacations came in—to allow the lawyers and judges to get away to the country to grow and reap their own crops. The railway companies and the motor transport undertakings have come together to get a "Square Deal." I am very sorry, because it will be a nasty deal for the public. A thing that is square has sharp corners, and that will prove to be the case with this square deal. A great monopoly will exploit the public.
      Now I wish to turn to local matters. Why does the Minister of Transport not help us in the Highlands? He is laying
      1428
      down 9-foot roads in place of 14-foot with a better surface, I admit, but with only a little turning place here and there for vehicles. If two indignant Highlanders meet, it is a good job they no longer have their old claymores, or there would be a lot more tragedies on our roads. Then, why does not the Ministry of Transport give us piers? There used to be lairds in Scotland who could afford to build piers, but they cannot do it now on account of the burden of death duties and high taxation. Carradale has long wanted a pier and a harbour too, and there is a place in Mull where nearly 30 lives were lost a year or two ago because there was no pier, nothing but a ferry boat 50 years old. The county councils cannot undertake to provide them. In places like Mid Argyll a penny rate yields only a few pounds. These piers are needed, especially for the summer visitors who are pouring into the Highlands. What is the good of steamer transport being provided if there are no piers? We have got the lairds still, but now they have no money. The last man who could afford to repair a pier at an expenditure of about £3,000 was a laird in Morven. Nobody else could afford to pay the money to build the piers, for timber is prohibitive, and if they are made of ferroconcrete the steamer crushes its sides in when it comes alongside.
      We suffer a lot from the Minister of Transport. Let him go up to the Taynuilt-Oban road, where he will find 12 miles of road which are essential to the people of that neighbourhood dug up in summer time by contractors. They take the road up all at once. In the old days it used to be taken up by the county councils a section at a time, but now that the Ministry of Transport has come in the contractor just suits himself at his own convenience; and he brings in men from the sister isle and Scotsmen do not get the same chance of working on the road, which is another cause of complaint. I come back to the question of narrow roads. Look at what happened at Campbeltown Tarbert where there was a road 18 feet wide which has now been replaced by one only 16 feet wide, and very dangerous for charabancs. Everybody is protesting against these narrow roads.
      Now I have another matter to put before the Ministry of Transport and all

      1429
      the county surveyors and it is a very simple proposition. I suggest to the Minister of Transport that he should see Mr. Huggins, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, who is over here at present. In Rhodesia they do not waste money upon building great broad roads all fit for motors. They build roads with strips down the centre about two feet six inches wide and two feet nine inches apart. You can build 100 miles of that type of road for about the same cost as for 10 miles of our roads, which have the same type of surface all across the road. It is just as though the flange had not been invented for the wheels of railway trains, and we ran the trains along a broad steel plate stretching right across the track. All that is needed for the roads is two strips of chips and bitumen four or five inches deep and you can build hundreds of miles of road for a small outlay. Such roads stand up to anything. There have been enormous floods in Rhodesia, and I have just had word that the road strips have stood up to them. There is an opportunity for us to introduce such roads into the Highlands. I wrote to the road surveyors suggesting it, but they all pooh-poohed it. It was something new and they did not like it.
      Mr. Thurtle: They are Conservatives.
      Mr. Macquisten: I do not know what they are—they are officials. Whether they are Government officials or local road surveyors they will not take up the scheme, although if it were adopted we could have our rural areas equipped with splendid roads from the point of view of motorists, and roads which would be infinitely more humane for cattle and foot passengers. As it is we have a road on which the cattle can skate but cannot walk. Could I get the local surveyors to take up my suggestion? No. It was largely a case of the official mind and official obstruction. I put the proposal up to the immediate predecessor of the present Minister, but with all his inventiveness and all his beautiful orange groves it was too new even for him, and I could not get anything done. I suggest to the present Minister that he should see Mr. Huggins, from whom he can get full information. I had the full data from the Minister of Transport in Southern Rhodesia, and I printed it and circulated it broadcast, but it has had no effect. In one or two places where they did try it
      1430
      they put down only a few feet and did not make it properly then, largely, I expect, because they were obstructed by road surveyors.
      Then the ferry services in the Highlands ought to receive more attention. There ought to be a ferry across from Ardentinny. About a year and a half ago we could have bought two fine Dutch ferry boats for very little, but we could not get financial assistance. A ferry there would shorten the distance from Glasgow to Cowal by about 60 miles, but we could not get any assistance for that project. All we have got is something in the nature of an Irishman's rise—we have got our roads narrowed to nine feet. Certainly they are roads with a good surface, but what is the good of that if the motorist meets another car, because there is no room for one to pass the other? I ask the Minister to take notice of us in the Highlands. The Sassenach comes up in his tens of thousands in the summer, and we ought to make conditions there better as a preparation for his coming.
      9.44 p.m.
      Mr. Woods: I am satisfied that the problem of accidents is by far the most important one with which the Ministry has to deal. When the Select Committee were appointed many of us were hopeful that it would stimulate a very resolute attitude on the part of the Ministry to tackle the problem along the lines of the recommendations in the report. My impression now is that there is a fatalistic attitude which says that, in view of the volume of traffic on the roads to-day, we must accept something like 6,000 fatal casualties a year. Not only the Minister but other speakers seemed to find some satisfaction in the fact that there has been a slight reduction. It is a fluctuating figure. We can take, as the Minister did, the figure for 1929 and claim that although there has since been an increase of 40 per cent. in the number of vehicles on the road there has nevertheless been a slight reduction in the number of casualties; or we can work it out in a ratio to the number of people, as did one hon. Member, who rejoiced in the fact that we have now got down to one casualty per 13 vehicles licensd. That is a very unhappy position to contemplate. Not only is 13 a very unlucky number

      1431
      but the percentage of accidents is tragically high.
      We appreciate that there has been some reduction, and that is the most hopeful thing. It has demonstrated that fatalism is not justified and that there are possibilities, especially when the figures are analysed in areas and when additional precautions have been taken. It has been demonstrated not only in this country but in all the great countries of the world that it is possible by adequate care and attention definitely to reduce substantially the percentage of road accidents. I hope that the Minister will not take the fatalistic view of accidents but that he will accept that problem as his major responsibility and that he will see that he justifies his high position by reducing substantially the accident percentage.
      The Minister made an almost automatic division of road accidents into three categories, those attributable to defects in the vehicles, those to defects in the road and those to the personnel. The figure given attributed to the unsatisfactory condition of the road or the construction of the road is the microscopic percentage of two. All of us who have had any experience on the roads, or who have had accidents or observed other accidents, have been overwhelmingly convinced that that figure is not correct. If you took into consideration the surface of the road, blind corners and wrong ramps it should be possible to make up a higher figure, but very few accidents can be definitely put within one of the three categories. The majority of accidents are a combination of various factors. While there is a man at the wheel it will naturally follow that the human element enters into all of them in a far greater percentage than is given in relation to the state of the roads.
      Arising out of the Ministry taking over the 30 main roads two years ago, we were very hopeful that there would be a considerable acceleration in the improvement of the roads and that we should speedily see results. Two years have gone by and, with the best will in the world to see and to appreciate all the improvements, I fail to see anything substantial. The road that I know best is that between London and York where it crosses the Leeds-York Road. My definite impression is that during the past two years there
      1432
      has not been an improvement and that there has been a reduction in the percentage of improvement. Practically nothing has been done on that road for the past two years. In spite of the fact that it is the A.1 road and is strategically the most important road for military purposes, as it runs right to the East Coast and carries a large percentage of traffic, including very heavy industrial traffic, nothing has been done.
      Those of us who have seen the major continental roads get the impression, when we come back and travel on the A1 road, that more than half of it, from London to York where it crosses the York-Leeds road, is little better than a country lane. One change that we have seen since it has been under the administration of the Ministry of Transport is a few additional big notices indicating that over certain stretches overtaking is prohibited. It may be economical to put up notices of that kind but they do not by any means increase road safety. In spite of the existence of those notices, those who use the road are aware that invariably there is overtaking, because there is no supervision of the road and there is very much slow-moving heavy industrial traffic upon it.
      I am specially interested in this matter because my experience convinces me that a large part of the responsibility for road accidents is due to the unsatisfactory state of road signs. This matter does not receive very much attention in the report of the Select Committee, but at the bottom of page 51 there is a reference to this subject in these words:
      "The Committee recommend that signposting should be not only uniform but also more efficient."
      Then it refers to the attention of the driver being diverted from the road and to the position of many of the signs. I raised the matter with the Minister's predecessor and he expressed himself as satisfied. In view of the report that is now before us I hope that we shall not get it reiterated that road-signing is satisfactory. The reply I received from the Minister's predecessor was that if I could tell him any special places he would look into the matter. The answer to that is that any cross-country run in England will reveal to any motorist the utter inadequacy of the road-signing system in this country. It is fairly good on the

      1433
      main roads, but directly you get on to the cross-country roads you are always concerned as to whether you are on the right road. The driver has to stop at every turning in order to inquire from pedestrians the right way.
      Only last Saturday I travelled from Burslem, the constituency of one of my hon. Friends, to York. On entering Leek the first thing you arrive at is a round-about, with a strange symbol that the motorist has no time to absorb because it looks a strangely monstrous creature. Then he passes this roundabout, and there is no sign on a single one of the main roads off that square saying where it leads. I had to stop and ask a policeman. I wanted the road to Buxton. He told me that nearly everyone finds a difficulty at this point. I complimented my hon. Friend on the beautiful town in which he lives, but I mentioned that there was this defect in the middle of it. He said: "There is not a week goes by but motorists are fined half-a-crown for getting mixed up at that roundabout."
      When you get on the Buxton road you travel North-East for about a mile from Buxton, and you come suddenly to a big signpost which says: "To Derby and London." Buxton has disappeared. The motorist immediately tells himself, "I am on the wrong road. If I am on the road to London and Derby I am not travelling North-East." Once again you stop and ask: "Is this the road for Buxton?" and they say, "Yes, about a mile further on. "In Buxton you find a sign" To Glossop and Chapel-en-le-Frith." You turn into the road, but you find that it is a dead end and that the road really referred to on the signpost is the next one. A little bit farther on, through Glossop, there is a signpost that should have taken me out on to the Yorkshire moorland road, but the road is stopped. There is no alteration in the signpost. One of the Automobile Association notices is put up. It is left to the kindness of that organisation to do the Ministry's job.
      I hope that the Minister will not take these criticisms as a joke, but will realise that the motorist needs to use all his attention when he is on the modern road. He does not require to be worried and concerned. If you have a worried motorist looking for the road at every notice he sees, there you have a nervous motorist who is more likely to have accidents. I
      1434
      appeal to the Minister to take this matter up, and see that the country is provided with better roads specifically designed for motorists. I hope, too, that when he tackles that matter he will see that no houses of any kind are built along those roads, but that they will be preserved as motor roads, in the way in which major continental roads are, and that the signing of all the remaining roads is done efficiently on a thorough-going system which will make it possible for any motorist to find out easily where he wants to get, and to get there with safety to himself and other road users.
      9.56 p.m.
      Sir P. Harris: I think it will be generally agreed that we have spent a very profitable warm July afternoon in discussing this subject of traffic and roads. I congratulate the Minister on his maiden effort in his new capacity, and on the success of his endeavour to cover the whole of the problems of his Department from every angle. He is the third occupant of his office in the present Parliament, and there were three Ministers of Transport in the last Parliament. An impression is growing up that this Department is used as a stepping-stone to higher office, and I know I am expressing the general desire of the House when I say that this Department should not be used merely as a passage for entering some higher Cabinet post. It is a job that requires special knowledge and experience, and a full grasp of every phase of a very big subject. I should like it to be regarded in the same way in which. the office of Postmaster-General is regarded—as a post to be filled by a man who is properly qualified and who, so long as he discharges his duties efficiently and competently, will be allowed to remain there.
      This afternoon we have been discussing mainly, quite rightly, the Alness Report. It is a terrific indictment of the Ministry of Transport. It is not often that the other House takes the law into its own hands and decides to appoint its own Committee. It is something very suspiciously like a vote of censure on the Department. I think that any impartial person, including the Minister, will agree that the report is a very competent and capable report. The committee was a very distinguished committee, including no great revoluntionaries or impulsive

      1435
      Radicals, but mainly composed of members who support the Government. The chairman was particularly qualified for his job. At one time, during the critical period of the last War, he was in this House as Lord Advocate, and later he occupied the high judicial post of Lord Justice Clerk in Scotland. It can therefore be assumed that he weighed the evidence, and that he and his colleagues only came to their conclusions as a result of sifting the information, facts and figures which were brought to their attention. I suggest, therefore, that the committee's recommendations should be taken seriously.
      I know that the Minister has promised us a White Paper. That is all right, but I hope it will not be used to score cheap debating points, but that the Government will either accept some of the recommendations of the committee or, where the recommendations in the opinion of the Departments are not sound, will answer them and put forward alternative constructive proposals. The committee heard evidence from 75 witnesses, and the report runs to nearly 800 pages. They took a considerable time to do their work, and they made no fewer than 200 recommendations, which is almost a record. I think they were justified in not making general, sweeping statements, but going into every point in detail and making practical proposals. It has been pointed out several times, but we are going to repeat these points until we get the Minister to be active, that our roads carry double the number of cars carried by the roads of any country in Europe—13 per mile, as against only seven in Germany, six in France, and so on. As has been pointed out already, the committee say that our present road system is inadequate and out of date, and does not meet the traffic needs, the convenience, or the safety of road users.
      There was an agitation some time ago to abolish the Ministry of Transport. I remember that many people at the time suggested that the Department was superfluous. I do not agree with that view. I think that the Ministry of Transport, run by an energetic Minister who means business, can do great work. But, if the Department is not going to be active, I would like to see it swept away and its work divided between the
      1436
      Home Office and the Ministry of Health. I am not advocating that; I think it would be a retrograde step; but, if the Department is not going to function, if it is not going to have a competent Minister who means business and is not merely the servant of the Treasury, we might as well be without it. Three years ago we passed an Act providing that the Minister should take over 4,500 miles of trunk roads. That was against the spirit of our local government, and I was not very much attracted by the idea, but the justification put forward for it was that the Ministry was going to be far more progressive and energetic in improving the roads than the local authorities. Our friends on the Alness Committee have, however, pointed out that, since the Act came into operation, less work has been done on trunk roads than was done during the five preceding years—that, in other words, since we have had one central authority managing these trunk roads, not more, but less work is being done. Meanwhile, the number of motors on the roads is increasing at the rate of 500 a day, and there is very little new road construction. In paragraph 12 of the report, the committee point out that:
      "If more vigorous action is not taken in the future than in the past, there will be complete strangulation of traffic, for saturation point has almost been reached."
      That is very strong language for Noble Lords in another place who have carefully weighed their evidence, but over £100,000,000 of taxation is now being paid by motor owners and users, of which only £67,000,000 is being spent by the Department in road construction and maintenance. I think I am right in saying that in 1932, when only £55,000,000 was being raised in taxation from the motor trade, we were actually spending more than that figure, In the meantime, the toll of the roads continues. We have heard a great deal to-day about the number of killed. The figure remains static at about 6,500. Even more sinister in many ways is the number of those who are injured. Over 250,000 are injured each year in one way or another on the roads. The report points out, quite rightly, that road congestion and accidents are closely related. It is in built-up areas that most accidents occur. The Minister came here fortified by a statement from the police that, after a careful study of all the accidents, they

      1437
      came to the conclusion that 92 per cent. of them were caused by pedestrians. Of course, if the pedestrians had not been on the roads there would not have been these accidents.
      Captain Wallace: I certainly did not say that 92 per cent. were caused by pedestrians. What I did say was that the police had said that over 90 per cent. were caused by the human factor.
      Sir P. Harris: Of course. They were caused by the human factor. A large percentage were caused by children, who wish to play in the street and are rash and foolish. But it is running away from the problem to trot out a statement of that kind, which is very superficial. Controversy has also been caused by the Minister pointing out that the Select Committee has stated that only 1.2 per cent. of accidents are due to defects in road design. We do not want the Ministry to get away with that. That is a cover for their misdeeds and their failure to do their job. Reference has been made to the county surveyor of Oxfordshire, who said that 75 per cent. of the accidents were due to road defects, such things as humpback bridges and blind corners. Obviously he is talking about roads in the counties. Where there are congested streets in the towns there are other causes of accidents than road surfaces; but in the counties anyone who drives his own car as I do myself knows that many roads are simply death-traps, quite unsuited to modern conditions or the high-speed car, especially those roads where there is no speed limit outside the towns.
      The Select Committee said that they were not particularly impressed by the evidence from the Minister's Department regarding the organisation and working of the Department so far as road accidents and road construction were concerned. In their report, they said that they formed the impression that there was in these matters a lack of vision and driving force in the Department. We want the Minister to provide that driving force. He has a great opportunity. If at the end of 12 months he is in his present position and has failed to show initiative and vision, we shall call him to account. He should get out of the old rut, show a new spirit, and stand up to the Treasury and other influences which are at work to curtail the activities of his Department. The Minis-
      1438
      ter said—perhaps because he was so recently Financial Secretary—that he would get on with much of his work as quickly as financial circumstances allowed. That shows the Treasury mind. He has to get rid of that Treasury mind. This Department is vital. I would go further, and say that it is an essential part of National Defence. A year ago I was for a couple of months a member of the Evacuation Committee. The whole problem of evacuation depends on transport. On a Sunday we see appalling congestion at the various London exits. Sometimes one is held up at one of these exits for anything up to two hours; what the traffic problem would be like at these exits in time of war, I dare not contemplate.
      One of the works of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of War was to appoint the Bressey Committee. It sat for three years and produced a magnificent report, with proposals for improvement. That report, as far as I can understand, is to be pigeon-holed and forgotten. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us how many of the schemes it proposed are to be implemented. It is true that some of these things, particularly the scheme suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), to get around the congestion at the Bank of England and the Mansion House by extending the Victoria Embankment, would probably need legislation, but at least one of these things the Government already have power to carry through—that is, the Cromwell Road extension. The Minister said that it would be such a long job because of the difficulty of buying land; because there were various interests to be bought out and a number of law cases were involved. As far as I can ascertain personally, most of that property is already bought, and there is no reason why a great part of that scheme should not be pushed through without further delay. From the point of view of evacuation, that scheme is urgent and should be completed without delay, even if it means working three shifts a day and going to considerable expense. Anyone who goes through Hammersmith Broadway at any time knows the terrific congestion there.
      It may be argued that the scheme of evacuation contemplated involves the use not of the roads but of the railways.

      1439
      Anyone who knows our underground railway services in London knows how terribly congested they are. The unfortunate victims—I think that that is the right word—who have to go to work in the early morning and return after office hours know that it is almost a life-and-death struggle. I do not suppose that the Minister ever comes to work by that particular route. I suggest that it would be very good training for him in his office if, instead of coming to the House of Commons, or going to the Ministry of Transport in his limousine, he came by District Railway and had to straphang, and had to struggle to get in and to get out. I sometimes marvel at the patience of the London public. I do not know why they put up with it. I remember the Act of Parliament which was passed by this House. I think that the Minister of Labour will also remember it because of our co-operation at that time. It is a long time ago. It was when we had a Labour Government. He co-operated with me in opposing the Bill, the object of which was to set up a complete monopoly of London traffic. Trams, omnibuses, the District Railway and the tubes were all to come under one control, and the justification for that was, first, that we were to have cheaper fares, and, secondly, more efficiency and less overcrowding. In the last few years during this monopoly we have had fewer facilities, less study of the public, and now on the top of it we have higher fares.
      I ask the Minister of Transport what he is prepared to do in the matter of higher fares? He will probably say that the matter is not within his power, that it is a question for the Railway Rates Tribunal, and that he is not the responsible authority. But he is the champion and custodian of the travelling public who have a right to look to him to give a lead and to champion their cause. In view of the fact that Parliament deliberately set up this traffic monopoly, if the poor unfortunate passenger does not like the District Railway, he can go by omnibus, but even that is under the same management. If he does not like the omnibus he can turn to the tramways, but he is still at the tender mercy of the London Passenger Transport Board. The
      1440
      only alternative is to walk, and if you walk you are liable to get run over.
      The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has a great opportunity. He has a great Department. We had two kinds of Ministers before him. We had a Minister who was a great artist at propaganda. He got himself over personally magnificently, but the only monuments of his work are the Belisha beacons. I do not know what is to become of them. Are they to be continued, and are they still to be entitled to grant? Does the Minister still encourage the construction of these picturesque barbers' poles with oranges upon them, as a Noble Lord in another place rightly described them? The record of the other Minister, who is now Minister of Supply designate, was masterly inactivity. Therefore the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not a very high standard to live up to, and he will justify his office if he takes his courage in both hands and is determined to spend the money that rightly belongs to his Department and carry out the five-year programme promised by the Prime Minister, but which is now four years overdue.
      10.20 p.m.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austen Hudson): It is always rather a difficult task to wind up a Debate on the Ministry of Transport, owing to the diversity of subjects covered by our Votes, and today is no exception. It stands to reason, therefore, that my speech is bound to be somewhat disconnected if I am to deal, as I want to try to deal, with the majority of the questions raised by hon. Members. Naturally, most attention was paid to the appalling question of road accidents. Some 6,648 deaths on our roads last year is, indeed, a terrible figure. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) gave some striking illustrations of what that figure means. Of that total you have 60 per cent. who were killed in a restricted area and 40 per cent. in an area not subject to the speed limit. If you again divide up the figure—I am only going, in this connection, to take the road deaths—you have 3,046 people who were pedestrians, 1,401 who were cyclists and 2,201 others.
      Further, when we look at the report of road accidents we see that the tragic figure of over 6,600 can be divided into a

      1441
      variety of other categories. What I want the Committee to realise is that we have to see how far the different recommendations, such as those made by the Alness Committee and those that have been made in the Debate to-day, can affect one of the groups into which road casualties are divided. Often people have come to one and said, "If only you did some particular thing you could reduce these accidents by an enormous amount," but when you look at the figures you find that, unfortunately, there are only a very few who would be affected by the reform put forward. I wanted to show the Committee from how many different angles this problem has been examined, and I wish to make it quite clear, as this was asked by the hon. Member for Anglesey and also by a number of other hon. Members, that my right hon. Friend is not shelving the report. He does intend to issue his report upon it at the earliest possible moment. Whether it will be in the form of a White Paper, I do not know. When you have 250 different recommendations—I think that is the number—it is extremely difficult to know what is the best form in which to put your proposals about them, so that they can be presented to Parliament. My right hon. Friend is certainly not taking a fatalistic view. Of the recommendations I sincerely hope that we may be able to adopt a number, but there may be others which, for various reasons, we shall have to tell the House it will be impossible to carry out.
      I want to say something about the police figures as to the causes of road accidents. That matter was dealt with by several hon. Members. The hon. Member for Anglesey said that she considered the figure of 90 per cent. which was given as the figure in which the human element played the predominant part was too high, just as she said that the 2 per cent. given as due to road conditions, was too low.
      I think there is some confusion of thought about this matter. I was asked for some description of the road conditions which were said to be the primary cause; I am told that they include such things as the wheel of the vehicle catching in a tramway track, the tramway track being in bad repair, the view being obscured by a blind corner or a bend, a slippery road surface, a road surface in need of repair, and other road conditions. It seems to me that where road accidents
      1442
      occur you very often can attribute the cause to either the 90 per cent. or the 2 per cent. Suppose you have an exaggerated case where a motorist drives down a narrow road at 80 miles an hour and meets with an accident. He might say that if the road had been only a modern road and properly banked up, 80 miles an hour would have been a perfectly safe speed and that, therefore, the primary cause of the accident was the state of the road. On the other hand the common-sense view would be that he was going too fast for the road on which he found himself. That is why there may be some confusion of thought, and when divergent figures have been given in evidence, probably one of these two points of view, or something between them, was in the mind of the witnesses.
      Several hon. Members have said that they consider the road patrol system, usually called "courtesy-cops," had demonstrated its usefulness and its value, and they hoped we should be able to continue them. We agree as to the value of these road patrols but their wages do not come under this Vote; they come under the Home Office Vote, and, therefore, while we appreciate the very good work which these road patrols have done, I am not in a position to say that there is anything we can do in the Ministry of Transport about them.
      Mr. Silverman: Cannot you make representations to the Home Office?
      Captain Hudson: We are in constant touch with the Home Office, but I am explaining that on this Vote it is impossible to make any definite statement on that matter.
      I do not want to say a great deal about road construction because figures were given by my right hon. and gallant Friend showing that they are going up year by year; and the various big schemes which have either been started or continued in the current year will be found in the appendix to the Estimates. I think the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) was in-accurate in saying that we are spending less on trunk roads year by year. That is not my information, and if he will look into the matter I think he will find that his statement is not correct. I must say perfectly frankly that it is no use hon. Members asking why it is that the Ministry does not get on faster with this

      1443
      work, suggesting finance has nothing to do with it. Of course it has. When we are having to find these enormous sums for defence it is obvious that the amount of money which will go to the roads is affected. Finance does play a very important part in the speed at which we can continue road construction.
      Sir P. Harris: I was quoting paragraph 112 of the Alness Report.
      Captain Hudson: I was dealing more with the Estimates as presented to-day. My information is that the statement is inaccurate, but, in view of what the hon. Baronet has said, I will have another look into the matter.
      The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) mentioned the subject of level crossings. I agree that there is a large number of them—I believe 1,300 on classified roads and 111 on the trunk roads. Twenty-five of them were eliminated in 1938 and 1939. It is not the fault of the Ministry of Transport that more were not eliminated. We want to get rid of these level crossings as quickly as possible, and, for that reason, a grant of 75 per cent. is given to the local authority for carrying out that work. Unfortunately, in many cases it is rather an expensive job, involving the making of bridges and the necessary ramps. It has been a disappointment to the Ministry that level crossings have not been eliminated much more quickly in the past, but we are hopeful that we shall be able to get on with this without undue delay.
      The hon. Member for Wigan also mentioned the subject of lighting. As he probably knows, my right hon. and gallant Friend has no powers as regards the lighting of roads, except in the case of trunk roads, and there he has an express power, laid down in the Trunk Roads Act, which allows him in approved cases, to give 50 per cent. towards the lighting of trunk roads. Personally, I should like to see the local authorities take more advantage of that 50 per cent. grant. Particularly near the big towns and cities, it is an enormous boon, and helps enormously in the matter of road safety, if the main roads are adequately lighted; but certainly, to light the whole of the East Lancashire road from Liverpool to Manchester, for instance, would be a very large and expensive undertaking. It could be done, but it would be a very
      1444
      expensive business. At the present time, the sole power of my right hon. and gallant Friend is to give 50 per cent. in the case of trunk roads, of which the East Lancashire road is one.
      I want now to deal with the Bressey Report. I was very sorry to hear the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) say that the London County Council cannot do it. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman went further and said that he did not think they ought to carry out their part of the work. As the Committee knows, the Ministry of Transport can only carry out the Bressey schemes as far as they affect trunk roads. In the case of trunk roads, it is within my right hon. and gallant Friend's competence to carry them out or not. But most of the schemes in the Bressey Report have to be initiated by the local authorities, and in a majority of cases the local authority is the London County Council. If they will not initiate the schemes, my right hon. and gallant Friend has no power to do so himself. I want to make one thing plain. It is not true to say that we do not want to proceed with the scheme and that we offered 60 per cent. of the total cost, knowing that it was a ridiculous offer and one that could not possibly be accepted, as a way of getting out of a very expensive scheme. We considered, and still consider, that 60 per cent. of the total cost—that is, of property and road making—is not a normal offer and is not an unreasonable offer.
      We had very great hopes that the London County Council would find themselves able to go forward with the scheme on that basis. There have been several conferences with the London County Council on the matter, and I know it is a very great disappointment to my right hon. Friend that, so far, we seem to be at a deadlock. They say they are unable to proceed, and we do not find ourselves able to increase the grant. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey said she thought the carrying out of these schemes would be a help to evacuation in time of war. I would remind her, however, that such schemes would take a long time to carry into effect and the war would have to be postponed for some 20 years, if the execution of the Bressey scheme were to have the effect which the hon. Lady suggested. I would tell her this seriously,

      1445
      however, as regards the roads out of our big cities—and I am thinking particularly of London in this connection—a scheme has been worked out for evacuation purposes by which a large number of these roads will be made one-way roads.
      Mr. Benjamin Smith: They will be that in any case.
      Captain Hudson: They will be made as far as possible one-way roads, and will be cleared as far as possible for evacuation use.
      Mr. Ede: Does the Ministry intend to publish at an early date a statement showing which roads are to be restricted in the event of evacuation? If they wait to publish it on the night when the evacuation takes place, it will result in hopeless confusion.
      Captain Hudson: That would have to be considered, but I am not so certain that the publication of a statement showing the roads which you intended to use for evacuation, would be quite as successful as the hon. Gentleman seems to think—and that for obvious reasons. As I say, a scheme has been worked out with the police, the A.A. and the R.A.C., and we hope that it will be such as will allow evacuation to take place without any undue congestion.
      Mr. Ede: Are local highway authorities outside London included among those who are to be consulted?
      Mr. E. Smith: One would think from to-day's Debate that London was the only part of the country to be considered. Has this matter been worked out for the whole country?
      Captain Hudson: I said that I was dealing particularly with London, but such schemes have been worked out for other parts of the country. As regards the local authorities I think I am right in saying that they have been consulted. I wish to refer now to the part of the Bressey Report with which we are proceeding. The Cromwell Road extension was mentioned. We have already started work on that and a lot of property has already been bought. We hope that the whole thing will be completed in from two to three years.
      Sir P. Harris: That is a long time.
      Captain Hudson: It is a long time, but the scheme is a very large one. We are also proceeding with the Coulsdon to Crawley road, and the Crawley by-pass, the Staines by-pass and the Maidenhead-Slough by-pass. Works already begun or about to begin are Dartford Tunnel approach road in Kent; North Circular Road bridges in Middlesex; Blackwall tunnel duplication, Wandsworth Bridge and the Southern approach to Wands-worth Bridge. We are safeguarding routes on the south orbital road—part in Surrey—Teddington road, North orbital road. Dartford Tunnell approach road—part in Essex—Lea Valley Road, Colchester—Bishop's Stortford Road;Chelms-ford—Canvey Island Road and Waltham Abbey by-pass.
      I wish now to deal with the five-year programme. I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney to explain exactly what was meant by the five-year programme, or as he called it, the five-year plan. We asked local authorities for schemes which they could put in hand in the next five years, and schemes have now been approved to the value of £106,000,000. We have offered the appropriate grants to those schemes, and it really is not the fault of the Ministry of Transport if the local authorities are not now proceeding with their schemes. These are all ones which are up to them. They submitted the schemes, we have approved the grants, and it is up to them now to proceed with them as quickly as they can. I was also asked whether the schemes would be ready should unemployment, unfortunately, be with us again within the next three or four years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Again?"] I think the hon. Member said "in the future," when the war preparations were out of the way. I think I can give that assurance. These plans will be ready. I appreciated what the right hon. Gentleman said; I think, if I may say so, he made a most helpful speech and did not try to make any party point. He said that the difficulty that he had when he was Minister was in having schemes ready and surveys made. We are endeavouring to get these plans ready so that they can be put in hand at the earliest moment when the money is available. In the meantime, the lists that I gave of the Bressey schemes show that in many cases we are safeguarding the route, so that houses

      1447
      and buildings cannot be erected on the lines which ultimately the roads will have to occupy. There was also a very interesting part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech dealing with the staffing of public corporations, and all that I would say about that is that it is a very wide question which my right hon. and gallant Friend would like to consider in all its implications.
      As regards electricity supplies, that question was particularly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett). We are well aware of the urgency of the problem, and we hope that it may be possible for legislation to be brought forward at no very distant date. We have already done a considerable amount of work, so that when legislation comes to be brought forward a good deal of the preparation will already have been done. My right hon. and gallant Friend's predecessor saw a number of deputations to try and get what agreement he could in the electrical world in order to bring forward as far as possible a non-contentious Bill, but I think the Committee knows that such a Bill is bound to be contentious. I believe that hon. Members opposite will have a certain amount to say about it. I believe they have said that they will fight it tooth and nail, and, therefore, we shall want a certain amount of Parliamentary time in order to put the Bill through. It is obvious to Members of the Committee who realise what a lot of emergency business is going on in the House at present that it would have been utterly impossible in the present Session to have carried through this House an Electricity Supply Bill. We realise its importance and its urgency, however.
      As regards Jarrow ferry, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) is not present at the moment, and I would only say exactly what she expected me to say, namely, that we are offering 75 per cent. for a consulting engineer and a mining engineer to make the preliminary survey for a tunnel at Jarrow, and that will be, I think, of assistance to them, but we cannot undertake responsibility for the ferry which is there at present.
      Mr. Ede: Does the hon. and gallant Member exclude the possibility of a tunnel
      1448
      being constructed where there is already a survey, namely, between the two harbour boroughs?
      Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend's predecessor went into that, and finally decided on the site of the tunnel at Jarrow. He went up there himself, and although I should like notice to give an exact answer, I think after careful consideration the site of the tunnel was finally fixed at Jarrow. In regard to Selby Bridge, this has been one of the most difficult of the by-pass schemes. We propose now to make a by-pass clear of the built-up area, costing about £100,000 less than the original scheme, which would have gone through a part of the built-up area, only a quarter of a mile from the existing toll bridge. When the new by-pass and bridge are built the old road and bridge will cease to be a trunk road and will revert to the county. In spite of this, the Minister has promised to give a grant towards the purchase of the tolls of the old bridge and the construction of a new bridge in the same way as if it had been an ordinary Class 1 road. He is offering 60 per cent, for the purchase of the tolls, and 75 per cent. for the new bridge, leaving only 40 per cent. and 25 per cent. for the local authorities to find. The present position seems to be that the East Riding is prepared to co-operate, while the West Riding is not helpful and the Selby Council seems to be very doubtful about the whole thing. I hope that even now the local authorities will be able to come together and be more helpful. We will try again to see what we can do with our powers of persuasion.
      In regard to the diversion of shipping, it is intended that should a port be put out of action in war time ships intended for it would be notified of their new port of call while still at sea. The places selected for them to go to would be chosen according to the size of the ship, type of cargo, and the facilities at the port. We have already had practice exercises with the various port authorities to see how this plan would work, and I am glad to inform the Committee that we have no doubt that such a plan could be operated successfully in time of war. We have discussed the matter with the shipping interests, though in the first exercises we did not notify the ships whose positions we were using for the purpose of our exercises. As regards the

      1449
      ports themselves, there are measures which are to be taken—as hon. Members know from the Civil Defence Bill—for the due functioning of the ports in time of trouble, and also for the provision of additional facilities for which grants can be given. Proposals have been invited in the case of Wales from Newport, Cardiff, Barry, Port Talbot, Swansea, Fish-guard and Milford Haven. We have not yet received from the first six the plans of what they want done, but we hope to do so in the near future, and Milford Haven has sent us a request which is now being considered.
      Miss Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman has made no reference to Holyhead, and my question whether there will be no facilities available in case of diversion of traffic.
      Captain Hudson: I think Holyhead is one of the railway ports for which we have asked for additional facilities. We have not yet heard from Holyhead, but we hope to hear shortly what their proposals are. There is no doubt that, should war come, all these ports will be of immense value and, according to the draught of shipping that they can take, each will be able to be used, some for coasting traffic, some for passengers, others for cargo and so forth, but each is being carefully considered on its merits. I can assure the hon. Lady that we have not by any means neglected the very important ports in that part of Great Britain.
      I am afraid I have to disappoint the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Colonel Sandeman Allen), with regard to monthly licences. We have considered the matter very carefully and come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible administratively to carry it out. We have particularly had objections from the police. If you have monthly licences, you have no fewer than 12 expiry dates. It would be almost impossible for them to check up on the licences, and I am afraid we cannot carry the suggestion into effect. The system of quarterly licences, on which you can now get a rebate, ought to meet the case. I am sorry I cannot say anything more helpful than that.
      Mr. Poole: In the case of wireless licences you have 365 expiring dates.
      Captain Hudson: You do not carry a wireless licence about in a picture frame in a car. We have considered this sug-
      1450
      gestion very carefully, and it seems almost impossible to carry it into effect.
      The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green raised the question of higher fares in London. My right hon. Friend has no powers in the matter, but he received a deputation on the subject and went most carefully into it. The House has decided that the question of fares should be taken away from the Minister and given to the Railway Rates Tribunal, and, therefore, whatever his own feelings might be, he has no power whatever to interfere, even if he felt that he ought to do so.
      Sir P. Harris: Could not evidence be tendered from the Department before the Railway Rates Tribunal?
      Captain Hudson: If Parliament has decided to remove the question from political influence, I do not think it would be right for a Government Department to give evidence one way or the other. That is the position at present, and I am afraid my right hon. Friend cannot be held responsible for higher fares.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) asked about instructions in prosecutions for not keeping records. I will inquire into the case, but it is a matter for the chairman of the Traffic Commissioners, who again has been made by the House an independent authority, and, therefore, it is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend could intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) asked my right hon. Friend whether he could remit the tax on a certain number of exceptional vehicles in order to allow them to experiment with producer gas. I am afraid that it would not be possible to do that without a new Clause in the Finance Bill.
      I think I have now dealt, as far as time permitted, with the questions which have been raised by most hon. Members, and where I have not been able to deal with them I can assure hon. Members that what they have said in the Debate will be read and that we shall try to meet their point of view. I will only say in conclusion that in spite of the fact that emergency preparations are putting a heavy strain on my Department, a strain both from the point of view of personnel and finance, nevertheless we are endeavouring to see that the transport needs of the country do not suffer, but are adequately

      1451
      maintained and expanded to meet modern conditions.
      10.56 p.m.
      Miss Lloyd George: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
      Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £142,897, be granted to His Majesty for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 155.

      Division No. 219.]

      AYES.

      [10.59 p.m.

      Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

      Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

      Pearson, A.

      Adamson, W. M.

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

      Ammon, C. G.

      Hayday, A.

      Poole, C. C.

      Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

      Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

      Price, M. P.

      Barnes, A. J.

      Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

      Pritt, D. N.

      Barr. J.

      Hills, A. (Pontefract)

      Richards, R. (Wrexham)

      Bartlett, C. V. O.

      Isaacs, G. A,

      Ridley, G.

      Batey, J.

      Jagger, J.

      Ritson, J.

      Bellenger, F. J.

      John, W.

      Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)

      Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

      Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

      Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

      Broad, F. A.

      Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

      Rothschild, J. A. de

      Bromfield, W.

      Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Sexton. T. M.

      Buchanan, G.

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

      Shinwell, E.

      Burke, W. A.

      Kirkwood, D.

      Silkin, L.

      Charleton, H. C.

      Lathan, G.

      Silverman, S. S.

      Cluse, W. S.

      Lawson, J. J,

      Simpson, F. B.

      Cocks, F. S.

      Leach, W.

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

      Collindridge, F.

      Lee, F.

      Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

      Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

      Leonard, W.

      Smith, E. (Stoke)

      Daggar, G.

      Leslie, J. R.

      Smith, T. (Normanton)

      Dalton, H.

      Logan, D. G.

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

      Macdonald, G. (Ince)

      Stephen, C.

      Day, H.

      McEntee, V. La T.

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

      Dobbie, W.

      McGhee, H. G.

      Stokes, R. R.

      Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

      McGovern, J.

      Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

      Ede, J. C.

      Maclean, N.

      Tinker, J. J.

      Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

      Mander, G. le M.

      Viant, S. P.

      Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)

      Marshall, F.

      Walkden, A. G.

      Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

      Mathers, G.

      Watkins, F. C.

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

      Maxton, J.

      Watson, W. McL.

      Frankel. D.

      Messer, F.

      Westwood, J.

      Gallacher, W.

      Milner, Major J.

      White, H. Graham

      Gardner, B. W.

      Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

      Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

      Garro Jones, G. M.

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

      Wilkinson, Ellen

      George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

      Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A

      Naylor, T. E.

      Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

      Grenfell, D. R.

      Noel-Baker, P. J.

      Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

      Oliver, G. H.

      Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

      Owen, Major G.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

      Paling, W.

      Sir Percy Harries and Sir Hugh

      Groves, T. E.

      Parker, J.

      Seely.

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

      Parkinson, J. A.

      NOES.

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

      Cruddas, Col. B.

      Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

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

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      De la Bère, R.

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

      Aske, Sir R. W.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hambro, A. V.

      Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

      Dodd, J. S.

      Harmon, Sir P. J. H.

      Bernays, R. H.

      Dugdale, Captain T. L.

      Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

      Bossom, A. C.

      Duggan, H. J.

      Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

      Boyce, H. Leslie

      Duncan, J. A. L.

      Higgs, W. F.

      Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

      Eckersley, P. T.

      Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

      Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

      Edge, Sir W.

      Holdsworth, H.

      Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

      Edmondson, Major Sir J.

      Holmes, J. S.

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

      Emery, J F.

      Hopkinson, A.

      Bull, B. B.

      Emmott, C. E G. C.

      Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

      Campbell, Sir E. T.

      Entwistle, Sir C. F.

      Howitt, Dr. A. B.

      Carver, Major W. H.

      Errington, E.

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

      Cary, R. A.

      Erskine-Hill, A. G.

      Hunloke, H. P.

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Everard, Sir William Lindsay

      Hunter, T.

      Channon, H.

      Fildes, Sir H.

      Hutchinson, G. C.

      Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

      Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

      Christie, J. A.

      Furness, S. N.

      Jennings, R.

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

      Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

      Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

      Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

      Gledhill, G.

      Keeling, E. H.

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Gluckstein, L. H.

      Kellett, Major E. O.

      Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)

      Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

      Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrese)

      Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

      Gower, Sir R. V.

      Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)

      Crowder, J. F. E.

      Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

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

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Petherick, M.

      Sutcliffe, H.

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

      Pickthorn, K. W. M.

      Tasker, Sir R. I.

      Lipson, D. L.

      Procter, Major H. A.

      Thomas, J. P. L.

      Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

      Raikes, H. V. A. M.

      Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

      Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

      Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

      Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

      Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

      Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

      Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

      M'Connell, Sir J.

      Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

      Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

      McCorquodale, M. S.

      Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

      Turton, R. H.

      McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

      Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

      Wakefield, W. W.

      Macquisten, F. A.

      Rickards, G, W. (Skipton)

      Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

      Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

      Ropner, Colonel L.

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

      Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

      Rosbotham, Sir T.

      Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

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

      Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

      Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

      Marsden, Commander A.

      Rowlands, G,

      Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

      Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

      Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

      Medlicott, F.

      Salmon, Sir I.

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

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

      Salt, E. W.

      Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

      Samuel, M. R. A.

      Wise, A. R.

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

      Selley, H. R.

      Womersley, Sir W. J.

      Munro, P.

      Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

      Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

      Nall, Sir J.

      Shepperson, Sir E. W.

      Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

      Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

      Snadden, W. McN.

      York, C.

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Somervell Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

      Peake, O.

      Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Peat, C. U.

      Spens, W. P.

      Mr Grimston and Captain

      Perkins, W. R. D.

      Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

      Waterhouse.

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

      Original Question again proposed.
      Mr. Mander rose—
      It being after Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Sir F. Fremantle.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  DIVISIONS (GOVERNMENT MAJORITIES).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: I desire to take the earliest opportunity, after the result of the Division which has just been taken, to ask the Patronage Secretary whether he has any statement to make on behalf of the Government with regard to what action they desire to take. It is obvious that it is not possible for a Government with a majority of 230 to carry on when night after night in this House their supporters give them a majority of less than 100; and when, as has been the case to-night after a long day's Debate, they have a majority
  1454
  of only just over 30, it is perfectly clear that there is something fundamentally wrong with the position of the Government. Many rumours are going about with regard to possible changes in the Government, and it would almost appear that the Government is in a state of disintegration.
  Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is raising something which took place in Committee. It would not be in order to raise such a matter in the House.
  Mr. Mander: I quite appreciate that, and I shall not make any further reference to any proceedings which took place in Committee, but I would ask the Government seriously whether they would make some statement with regard to the future position they are going to take up in this House, in view of the general failure which has evinced itself on many occasions during the last few weeks, not only in Committee, to which I cannot now refer, but in the House on Second Readings and occasions of that kind.
  Mr. McGovern: Send for Molotov and Maisky.
  Mr. Mander: When you have a Government with a majority of 230 able to obtain a majority of only 30 to-night, it requires some explanation. I ask the Patronage Secretary to say whether he proposes to adjourn the House for a few days to enable the Government to consider their position?
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: What is the position of the Liberal party? Fifty per cent. of them have obviously been dining out to-night.
  Mr. Mander: I should have thought the position of the Liberal party to-night was exceedingly powerful and effective. On a Liberal day, at the end of the Debate we have reduced the majority of the Government to 30.
  Mr. Maxton: Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Member opposite, because he cannot defeat the Liberal party, proposes to starve them to death?
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Garro Jones: A short time ago I ventured to interrogate the Prime Minister as to the growing habit of Ministers receiving public engagements to dinner outside this House. I desire to ask to what extent this dining habit is spreading to back-bench Members. It is not only the absence of hon. Members opposite of which I complain, but the purpose for which they are absent. Can the Patronage Secretary give any explanation of where they are? The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite mentioned that 50 per cent. of the Liberal party were dining to-night. At least, they were dining within the precincts of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: The dining habits of Members of this House have nothing to do with the Government.
  Mr. Garro Jones: The Government exercise increasing supervision over the
  1456
  absence or presence of their back bench Members. There are one or two Government Whips stationed at the exits in the Division Lobby, and we can be sure that if those Whips received instructions to prevent the egress of Members to-day, the Government would have had a stronger majority. Is the Patronage Secretary arrogating to himself the functions of Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker alone is entitled to grant leave of absence for any prolonged period. Although the right hon. Gentleman might not give six months' leave of absence, if he divides his total strength into two shifts he is carrying the rights of the Patronage Secretary a great deal too far. I think to-night will have given him a lesson far more powerful than anything we can give him by mere words. He has received a strong reprimand by votes.
  Mr. Pritt: I am sorry to find myself for once in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). I am in favour of his allowing them all to leave the House all the time.
  Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Eleven o'Clock.

  PHOENIX GROUP OF ISLANDS.
  PHOENIX GROUP OF ISLANDS.
  MINIMUM WAGE-LEVEL.
  MINIMUM WAGE-LEVEL.
  INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
  INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SCRAP IRON EXPORTS.
  SCRAP IRON EXPORTS.
  COMMERCIAL PROPAGANDA (HERRING INDUSTRY).
  COMMERCIAL PROPAGANDA (HERRING INDUSTRY).
  JAPANESE MERCHANDISE IMPORTS.
  JAPANESE MERCHANDISE IMPORTS.
  STEAMSHIP "BARONESA" (EXPLOSION).
  STEAMSHIP "BARONESA" (EXPLOSION).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (WEST RIDING).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (WEST RIDING).
  SOLICITORS (CONVICTIONS FOR FRAUD).
  SOLICITORS (CONVICTIONS FOR FRAUD).
  LICENSED PREMISES (PLAYS).
  LICENSED PREMISES (PLAYS).
  WOMEN POLICE.
  WOMEN POLICE.
  ALIEN WOMEN (BRITISH HUSBANDS).
  ALIEN WOMEN (BRITISH HUSBANDS).
  HOUSING (ONE-BEDROOM HOUSES).
  HOUSING (ONE-BEDROOM HOUSES).
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  LONDON-PARIS AIR SERVICE.
  LONDON-PARIS AIR SERVICE.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE CONTRACTS.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE CONTRACTS.
POST OFFICE.
  CHRISTMAS MAILS (INDIA AND NEAR EAST).
  CHRISTMAS MAILS (INDIA AND NEAR EAST).
  STAFF TRANSFERS.
  STAFF TRANSFERS.
SCOTLAND.
  HERRING INDUSTRY.
  HERRING INDUSTRY.
  FREE MEALS IN SCHOOLS.
  FREE MEALS IN SCHOOLS.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  DOCKYARDS WORKERS (BONUS).
  DOCKYARDS WORKERS (BONUS).
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS, SOUTH WALES.
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS, SOUTH WALES.
  RESERVE OFFICERS (CALLING UP).
  RESERVE OFFICERS (CALLING UP).
BRITISH ARMY.
  MILITIA.
  MILITIA.
  LANCASHIRE TERRITORIALS.
  LANCASHIRE TERRITORIALS.
  SOLDIER'S DISCHARGE (E. RAFFERTY).
  SOLDIER'S DISCHARGE (E. RAFFERTY).
  FURNITURE-MAKING INDUSTRY.
  FURNITURE-MAKING INDUSTRY.
  SHOP ASSISTANTS (HOURS OF WORK).
  SHOP ASSISTANTS (HOURS OF WORK).
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  PRACTICE BLACKOUTS.
  PRACTICE BLACKOUTS.
  AIR-RAID WARNING SIRENS.
  AIR-RAID WARNING SIRENS.
  WATER SUPPLIES.
  WATER SUPPLIES.
  PETROL STORAGE.
  PETROL STORAGE.
  SIERRA LEONE.
  SIERRA LEONE.
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
  IMPERIAL DEFENCE (MALAY STATES).
  IMPERIAL DEFENCE (MALAY STATES).
  WEST AFRICA (MEDICAL SERVICE).
  WEST AFRICA (MEDICAL SERVICE).
  CYPRUS.
  CYPRUS.
  INCOME TAX (COLONIAL TERRITORIES).
  INCOME TAX (COLONIAL TERRITORIES).
  TAXICAB FARES.
  TAXICAB FARES.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (STATISTICS)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (STATISTICS)
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES.
  TRAFFIC LIGHTS, TOTTENHAM.
  TRAFFIC LIGHTS, TOTTENHAM.
  OVERCROWDED TRAINS, LONDON.
  OVERCROWDED TRAINS, LONDON.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES (FREIGHT CHARGES).
  RAILWAY COMPANIES (FREIGHT CHARGES).
  ISLE OF SKYE (ROAD BRIDGE).
  ISLE OF SKYE (ROAD BRIDGE).
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (FARES).
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (FARES).
  JARROW TUNNEL.
  JARROW TUNNEL.
  HEBBURN-WALLSEND FERRY.
  HEBBURN-WALLSEND FERRY.
  COMMERCIAL GOODS VEHICLES (RE-WEIGHING).
  COMMERCIAL GOODS VEHICLES (RE-WEIGHING).
  RAILWAY SERVICE, DURHAM.
  RAILWAY SERVICE, DURHAM.
  BLACKWALL TUNNEL (TRAFFIC DELAYS).
  BLACKWALL TUNNEL (TRAFFIC DELAYS).
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION, ROCHESTER.
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION, ROCHESTER.
  ESHER AND COBHAM BY-PASS.
  ESHER AND COBHAM BY-PASS.
  COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES (NEW ROADS).
  COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES (NEW ROADS).
  FOOD DEFENCE PLANS.
  FOOD DEFENCE PLANS.
  COAL DISTRIBUTION (INQUIRY).
  COAL DISTRIBUTION (INQUIRY).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NEWQUAY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
TIVERTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BURNHAM AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEMEL HEMPSTEAD WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BOARD) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (OXFORD) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SLOUGH) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SWAFFHAM WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

REFUGEE PROBLEM.
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON rose to call attention to the nature and magnitude of the refugee problem created by the political conditions in some countries and to the opportunities for its alleviation afforded by the economic needs of certain other countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have placed on the Order Paper the Motion that stands in my name in order to give me an opportunity of bringing to your Lordships' notice a human problem of great complexity arising out of the disturbed political conditions in many parts of Europe. There have been great tragedies from time to time in the history of the world, caused either by the convulsions of Nature or by human action, or by a combination of the two, but never has a single catastrophe created such a volume of human misery and suffering as that which is involved in the problem of either the actual or the potential refugees in Europe. There is no immediate solution of the problem, but I think if all the facts of it were generally known every country would wish to do whatever was possible in order to provide a remedy.
My first object in putting down this Motion is to remind your Lordships of the nature and magnitude of the problem in the hope that as the result of what may be said in your Lordships' House every possible remedy may be examined. At the outset let me mention the various voluntary organisations which have undertaken the task of relief, and some of which have supplied me with the facts that I am laying before your Lordships to-day. They are the Council for German Jewry, the German Jewish Aid Committee, the Christian Council for
1012
Refugees, the Catholic Committee, the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, the Arts and Letters Refugee Committee, the International Student Service, the International Hebrew Christian Alliance, the International Christian Committee for German Refugees, the International Solidarity Fund, the Save the Children Fund, the Armenian (Lord Mayor's) Fund, the German Emergency Committee of the Society of Friends, the British Committee for Refugees from Spain, the British Committee for Refugees from Czecho-Slovakia and, lastly, the Co-ordinating Committee for Refugees, on which most of those I have mentioned are represented. Lord Hailey is the Chairman of that Committee, and I had hoped that he would be present to-day to take part in this discussion. He would have been here had the debate taken place on the date originally fixed last week, but unfortunately the change of date was not convenient to Lord Hailey, and he is not able to be present to-day.
There are sixteen different organisations which are known to me, and there may, for all I know, be others. All these organisations are administering funds which have been subscribed by the charitable public for the relief of refugees, and they are trying, within the limits necessarily imposed upon all voluntary work, to bring relief to at least a fraction of the sufferers. These organisations are unanimous in wishing me to bring to the notice of the Government and Parliament the inadequacy of their combined efforts to alleviate more than a fraction of the numbers involved. They assure me that they have received every possible sympathy and help from the officials of the various Government Departments with which they have been brought in contact, and they also recognise gratefully the generosity with which the public has responded to the various appeals.
Your Lordships may perhaps not be aware of the number and variety of these appeals. May I mention some of them? The Baldwin Fund alone has produced £500,000; the Mansion House Fund, initiated by the late Lord Mayor, has exceeded £350,000, and many thousands of pounds have no doubt been raised also by other funds. The Council for German Jewry has raised, since 1933—they are

1013
quite a small Jewish community—no less a sum than £3,000,000, of which £700,000 was contributed during the period covered by the Baldwin Fund. Then £1,000,000 has been subscribed for sufferers from the Spanish war, either for the relief of refugees in this country or for the temporary accommodation of Basque children, or in fitting out food ships for Spain. Lastly, £184,000 has been raised for the Chinese victims of the war in the Far East. Altogether, in a few years, £5,000,000 has been raised through private charity in this country. And let me say what the representatives of these societies cannot say for themselves, how splendid has been the voluntary service which they have contributed. As a work of human charity what has been done and is being done for these unhappy refugees is indeed beyond all praise, but the problem far exceeds the scope of private charity or voluntary effort. My first object, therefore, is to give your Lordships some idea of the nature and the extent of this problem, because, if once that is understood, it will become apparent, I think, that the problem is far larger than can be dealt with by private charity.
This refugee problem is no new one. As a result of the War and of the settlement after the War, a large number of persons found themselves Stateless and without the means of providing themselves with identity papers. Many others had to be moved from one country to another. The work of providing for these people was undertaken and successfully carried through by the League of Nations, a work which will ever be honourably associated with Fridtjof Nansen; but just when it was thought that the refugee work of the League of Nations was completed and it was actually proposed to close down the Nansen Refugee Office at Geneva, a vast new refugee problem, far greater than had ever been known before, was created by the wholesale persecution of Jews in Central Europe—a persecution which began in Germany, then extended first to Austria and subsequently to Czecho-Slovakia. And it is not only those of the Jewish faith who have swelled this vast tide of human suffering. Thousands of Christians also have been included in this persecution. In the first place, the definition of "Jew" or "non-Aryan" includes persons of only partial Jewish descent perhaps with one Jewish grandparent
1014
or even with one Jewish great-grandparent. The persecution also pursues Communists, Social Democrats, even persons of mildly Liberal views. I myself, I have no doubt, would be a victim of such persecution if I lived in Germany. And so far as the persecution of Czechs in Czecho-Slovakia goes to-day, the Czech victims are persons whose only fault is that they have been loyal and patriotic citizens of Czecho-Slovakia. All these people are forced to choose between the probability of a living death in a concentration camp or exile from their country.
Each successive occupation by Germany of neighbouring States has done much more than merely extend the area of her oppressive laws, because those who were persecuted in Germany at the beginning of the Nazi régime, sought refuge in Austria and then later, when Austria was occupied by Nazi troops, they fled for safety to Czecho-Slovakia, where they were again overtaken after a few months. The number of such people who have succeeded in leaving the German Reich since 1933 is about 300,000. But their settlement is only a fraction of the real problem, because the most distressing feature of this whole matter is the condition of those who have not yet succeeded in escaping and whose piteous appeals are received in this country almost daily. In the territories now under the German Reich there are still some 850,000 Jews and, of course, a very large number of non-Aryan Christians who may be ultimately forced out of their respective countries and whose present condition, even before that happens, is one of the greatest possible destitution and insecurity.
But that is not all. In Hungary there are about 500,000 Jews already subject to rigorous anti-Semitic laws and threatened with probable exile in the near future. In Poland the Jews number 3,000,000, or 10 per cent. of the whole population. Although there has been a Jewish community in Poland since the twelfth century, the Poles to-day are showing an inclination to follow the German example, and they sometimes complain that whereas great efforts have been made in other countries to receive the Jewish victims of German persecution, no such efforts are being made to receive the Jews from Poland, who, up to now, have been treated with far greater humanity. In Rumania also there is a

1015
Jewish population of 1,000,000 which constitutes a very real problem and increases the tension in Eastern Europe.
I do not suggest, of course, that all the Jews in Poland or Rumania or Hungary must necessarily be included in the number of those for whom some refuge in another country must be found. What I do mean is that a proportion of such people must be included, and the outbreak of anti-Semitism in Central Europe recently has made for these people a position of great insecurity and anxiety. In addition to those from Central Europe, 420,000 Russian and Armenian refugees under the protection of the League of Nations have still to be settled. Lastly, there are the victims of the Spanish Civil War. I am told that the number of Spanish refugees in France at the present moment is 300,000. Even those who are willing and able to return to Spain cannot do so more rapidly than at the rate of 6,000 a month, and, of course, there are many who will never be able to go back to Spain at all and for whom some permanent home must be found elsewhere. It has been estimated that some of those might go to Mexico and the Mexican Government have offered to take about 25,000 to 30,000. Transport has to be found for those people. The British Committee for Refugees from Spain have arranged transport to Mexico for 1,800 Spanish refugees at a cost of £25,000. It is obvious that private charity cannot provide transport for all of them.
Such, my Lords, is the nature, such is the magnitude of this refugee problem. I hope I have said enough to show that it is quite beyond the scope of private charity; but let me hasten to add that I am not suggesting for a moment that all these unfortunate people can be accommodated in lands under British control or that they should become a charge upon British taxpayers. If such an idea were to get about, it would, I am afraid, turn what is now a very genuine feeling of sympathy into one of great anxiety and possibly actual hostility. I will deal in a moment with the machinery required to deal with a problem of this sort, but first let me correct another impression which I think is very prevalent. It must not be assumed that all these people, whose condition at the moment is so piteous and whose future is so hopeless, are in themselves helpless or inefficient,
1016
and that their transfer into other countries must necessarily mean a burden upon the country which receives them. That is far from the case. Many of these people are of high technical skill and great educational attainments. They are well able, if allowed, to render real service to the countries in which they settle in return for any help which they may receive. Even those who have the least to give can do something, because, after all, they have to be housed, fed, clothed and warmed, and the provision of housing and food and clothing and fuel will bring employment to the persons who supply these things.
It is a complete fallacy to suppose that every foreigner who obtains employment in this country necessarily deprives a British workman of employment. All the economists who have written on this subject—I believe without a single exception—have agreed that that is not the case. The whole of our past history confirms the views of these writers. I am sorry that the noble Lord who leads the Opposition in this House is not here to-day, because he, too, has written on this subject, and I am sure he would bear me out in my contention that it is quite fallacious to suppose that a job given to a foreigner is necessarily taken away from an Englishman. Moreover, we have official confirmation of this view, because in December last the Home Secretary stated in the House of Commons that 11,000 refugees had been settled in this country and as a result about 15,000 British workers had been employed who otherwise would not have been employed. Sir John Hope Simpson, writing on this point at a somewhat later date, puts the number rather higher and states that 20,000 British workmen have received employment as a result of German immigration.
When I was speaking of the philanthropic aspect of this question, I gave certain facts and figures to show that the private organisations and the charitable public had responded with zeal and generosity to the appeals made to them. I contended that the problem was not merely a philanthropic one; but if we were to compare what this country as a whole has done with what other countries as a whole have done, it would appear that their contribution had been very much greater than ours—not only large countries like France but also small countries like Holland and Belgium. The

1017
noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, gave the figures in this House last December when he stated that the number of refugees in France was 250,000; and of course many more have been received from Spain since then. He stated that Holland had received 25,000 compared with our 11,000. I think it is time that, in accordance with our traditional policy, this country should make a greater contribution to the solution of this problem because it has always been a tradition of this country to welcome on our shores the political refugees from other parts of the world. Our industries have materially benefited in the past from these successive immigrations, and they may very well do so again in the future.
That brings me to the second part of the Motion which I have placed on the Order Paper. I am anxious to present this problem to your Lordships as one of opportunity rather than as a hopeless problem of human misery. There are in the world to-day many tracts of country which are under-populated and the economic resources of which need capital and labour for their development. Countries capable of such development within the British Empire are Australia, New Zealand, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, British Guiana and British Honduras. Outside the British Empire there are many South American Republics: Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Paraguay. There are also Portuguese East Africa and parts of Angola. Of course, I may be wrong about one or two of these, and there may be others that I have not mentioned, but those are the countries which have been mentioned in this connection by those who have spoken and written on the subject—countries which are under-populated and under-developed and which need capital and labour for their development. Some of them are at this moment actually seeking for loans and have notified their intention and willingness to receive immigrants if the immigration can be financed.
The problem, therefore, is to find some means of relating the needs of the individual refugees with the economic needs of the countries that are under-developed and might be willing to receive them. It is impossible, when speaking of countries that might benefit from a large immigration, not to mention Palestine, a country
1018
which was offered to the Jews in which to build their National Home, the country where they have so conspicuously demonstrated their capacity for successful settlement, the land to which those now being persecuted in Europe look most longingly, and which I am confident, if they were allowed, they could with their capital and labour in a very few years make the most prosperous country in the world. This is not the occasion to revive the unhappy controversy which was aroused by the White Paper of the Government, but I think it is relevant to the matter that we are discussing to-day to say that the moment chosen for the reversal of policy foreshadowed in that White Paper has accentuated the cruelty of the announcement contained in it.
So much for the possible areas of reception; I come now to the question of machinery. The present plight of those who are unwanted in their present surroundings must, of course, be the first consideration. It is quite impossible for these unhappy people to wait for the ten or twenty years which might be required before some of the larger schemes of development could be completed. I fear they would be dead long before that period was up. But if only one or two of these large schemes could be examined and decided upon quickly, and if financial provision could be made for them, then it would not be necessary for those who may ultimately be destined to occupy them to wait until the schemes were completed, because then their temporary accommodation in first countries of refuge would become a simple matter. They would probably have to be accommodated in camps, because from all the inquiries I have made I think the accommodation available for them in private property is practically exhausted to-day. The conditions in a refugee camp might not be entirely comfortable, but I am quite sure that most of these people would much prefer living in a refugee camp in this country to living in a concentration camp in Germany. It is only when there is no prospect of an ultimate destination that the questions of transport and temporary accommodation present insoluble problems, and of course, as I have already said, the numbers involved are far too great for individual case treatment.
The problem, thus stated, is clearly not only beyond the capacity of voluntary

1019
organisation in this country, but also beyond the scope of any one country alone. In other words, it is an international problem and requires an international agency to deal with it. Surely here is a task for the League of Nations, which on its humanitarian side has already done such admirable work, and which has acquired so much experience in dealing with this very subject of refugees. I cannot help thinking that the Inter-Governmental Committee which was established as a result of the Evian Conference, and which took the work out of the hands of the League of Nations, was a mistake. It was a mistake not because the participation of Governments was not necessary—it is obvious that the decisions of Governments are required before anything can be done—but because the representatives of Government are not the best people to do this kind of work in the first instance. In my opinion it is essentially a work for experts, and what I would venture to suggest is that an international body of experts should be set up at once, with the duty of examining and recommending schemes of settlement, and then getting into touch with the various Governments and trying to arrange with them, and through their co-operation, the necessary means to enable schemes to be carried out.
That, I think, is the remedy needed for this problem which, as I have stated, is really an international one; but in the meanwhile the work of these voluntary organisations must go on, and there are some minor administrative changes which I think would help if they could be carried out. At the present time there are no fewer than six Government Departments concerned with the work of refugees—the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Home Office, the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Trade and the Board of Education—and I think it would greatly assist matters if all the refugee activities of these various Departments could be co-ordinated under one member of the Cabinet, whose duty it would be to assist voluntary organisations in their work in carrying out the policy of the Government as settled from time to time. If and when some change of policy was required it would be easier for such a Minister to present the case in its broadest aspect from a national and not a departmental point of view.
I have spoken of the necessity of an international organisation in providing schemes for the settlement of refugees in parts of the world that are at present undeveloped, but there is one aspect of this problem which particularly concerns this country. We have no undeveloped areas; we are not underpopulated; but we are in this country faced with a declining birthrate, and consequently a declining population, and those who have studied the question are somewhat alarmed at the figures which confront them. Professor Carr-Saunders, one of the leading authorities on this subject, has estimated that the population of this country will be reduced by one-half in the next hundred years. Is it not very foolish, with that decline in population, to insist on the repatriation of every refugee child introduced into this country for educational purposes, when it reaches the age of eighteen? After we have borne the expense of maintaining them, rearing them, and educating and training them, when at last they reach the stage when they are able to render some return for the money and service given to them, we are ordered to turn them out of the country, so that their contribution shall be given to others, and not to the country which has provided all the expense of training them. I feel that to insist upon that policy is really little short of madness.
My reason for suggesting that there should be closer co-ordination between Government Departments on this refugee problem, is the hope I have that as a result of that there would be wider appreciation of British interests, and that the whole subject would be treated not merely as one of charity, but as an opportunity of meeting some of our own needs. At the present time, although, as I have said, all the authorities on the subject are agreed that the immigration of foreign labour is not detrimental to British interests, although the Home Secretary has given figures in Parliament to prove that those authorities are correct, although the whole of our own history and experience confirms their opinion, yet the policy of the Government towards the refugees from abroad continues to be based on the very fallacy that the Home Secretary has helped to disprove.
The Government's policy, to-day, assumes that this foreign immigration is an evil, and tries to keep it within the

1021
narrowest possible limit. One Department states that these refugees must not be a charge on public funds and insists that there must be private resources behind each one, to provide for them during the whole period of their sojourn. Another Government Department insists that they must not take up employment in this country which could be taken by British workmen. A third Department declares that all the children admitted into and educated in this country must be repatriated at the age of eighteen. I cannot think that if there was a single Minister who looked upon this problem from a national point of view, he could possibly approve of all these regulations.
Let me sum up the case which I have tried to present. In Europe, to-day, there are hundreds of thousands of individuals whose condition is one of abject misery, and who are subjected to cruelties and persecution which would be punishable by the laws of this country if inflicted even upon an animal. The Government may perhaps reply to me that we are not responsible for their condition, that it is not we who have been persecuting them, and that we have neither the power nor the duty to provide for their escape. I hope that that is not the answer, not at least the only answer, that I shall receive, because if it is, it would mean that for these unhappy people death was the only possible release from their sufferings. Certain it is that private charity alone in this country can offer an alternative only to a very small proportion. If any effective remedy is to be found, it must be provided by Government action, and by the action of more than one Government. That is my first point.
My second point is this, that there are considerations of British interest, national self-interest, as well as considerations of humanity in support of the case which I am laying before your Lordships. These unhappy people, so miserable, so helpless in their present surroundings, are capable of rendering real service to countries which are undeveloped, under-populated, or faced with the danger of a declining population; and, as our country is included in the last category, for us this is a problem not merely of philanthropy but of opportunity which it is for us to take or to miss. And the co-operation of Governments which I am suggesting is not in sharing a burden, but in sharing
1022
a profitable investment. It may perhaps seem to some of your Lordships that this investment of which I speak is rather an unconventional one, and no doubt the Treasury would so regard it, but the purchase of Suez Canal shares was an unconventional investment, though one which we have never had cause to regret. And to see the profit in this investment in human lives requires insight, imagination, vision—qualities which are not associated with Departmental officials. What is required above all is a second Nansen, a man with vision, energy and the personality and force of character to bring about this co-operation among many countries, which is absolutely essential if this great problem is to be solved.
In conclusion, let me submit one final consideration to His Majesty's Government. They are anxious, I know, to bring about a general settlement of the friction and enmity which exist in Europe to-day. Their great efforts to make this country strong are combined, I am convinced, with a sincere desire to remove the causes of war, if possible. If and when such an opportunity should arise for general discussion of matters in dispute between various countries, and if they can create an atmosphere in which discussion may be fruitful, then I hope that they will demand, as an essential feature in this general settlement, a real contribution by the German Government to the solution of this great international problem which their present rulers have created. I beg to move.
4.42 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, we have all listened with great sympathy and admiration to the singularly interesting, comprehensive, and constructive speech of the noble Earl. I do not propose to follow him into the larger issues of this vast and complicated problem which he has put before us. I only wish to emphasize, in a very few sentences, one particular point. It is the position of the refugees in our own country, for whom there seems to be no immediate prospect of emigration elsewhere. I imagine that the number of these refugees in our country at present is about 35,000, though I noticed that the noble Earl spoke of only about 11,000, but no doubt the Government are in possession of the full figures. We have heard from the noble Earl much about the very striking voluntary contributions

1023
which have been given for the aid of these refugees. We have heard again, with astonishment and admiration, of the splendid help which the Jewish community have given to the members of their own race. It is most satisfactory that the fund associated with the name of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, should have reached half a million, and I like to think that the Church of England in its own various dioceses within a few weeks raised £50,000.
But it is becoming increasingly plain that these resources are not in themselves adequate, and must very soon be exhausted, though I feel that the generosity of the Jewish community appears to be almost illimitable. Others may speak with fuller knowledge than I can, but I very much doubt whether the resources of certainly the Baldwin Fund, and similar funds which have been gathered around it, will suffice, with all their various agencies, to support the refugees who are dependent on them for much longer than this present year. I have been told that there is a suggestion that another appeal should be issued in the autumn. Your Lordships can judge how far in the present circumstances, which we all know only too well, there is the slightest chance of any large response to such a new appeal. In these circumstances it is becoming increasingly plain that it has not been enough to provide an inlet for these refugees: the urgent and immediate question is to provide an outlet.
There are only two courses, indeed, that seem to be open. The first is a fuller absorption of many of these refugees into our own country. There I quite agree with what has been said by the noble Earl. I am not speaking of the scholars and thinkers and artists who, to a large extent, have been able to take a place, and an honoured place, already in the life of our Universities and of our country. Nor am I speaking of the highly skilled technicians, whose value to our own English workmen has already been indicated by the noble Earl. I am thinking rather, first of all, of the children. I have every reason to believe that numbers of these children, particularly of the Czechs, are children of quite extraordinary intelligence and promise. I do not see at present that they have any future in their own country, but it would
1024
seem to be a thousand pities if these extremely clever and promising children, already most grateful for their temporary education in this country, should not be encouraged to stay to complete their education and training, and, finally, to take their positions in this country. I think that nothing but benefit could accrue from the absorption of a good many of these intelligent children.
Then, again, as the noble Earl pointed out, there are those, somewhat older, who are being trained in one way or another in agriculture and other industries, but who at present are under the necessity, when their training has advanced to some extent, and after they have reached the age of eighteen, to be repatriated elsewhere. Having regard to the need of work upon the land, for which many of them are now being trained, again I suggest that it is a short-sighted policy to insist upon their repatriation, and that there are multitudes of them who could very well be absorbed in this country. But that way out necessarily affects mainly the younger refugees. What about the bulk of the older refugees who are in our midst, and who are still entering this country? The offers of hospitality, which have been very generous, and the personal guarantees which have been given for their maintenance, cannot be continued indefinitely. I have heard from a great many of their perplexity to know how long they can fulfil these promises of hospitality and of support. My trouble, which I am most anxious that the Government should relieve, is to know what is to be the position of these older refugees when the resources of private charity inevitably fail, and when there is no provision for their emigration. We have given them a door of entry; what is now the immediate and pressing problem is to provide a door of exit.
When we look around—this is where I hope the Government will be able to give us some reassuring information—there does not seem to be any country, even any of those to which the noble Earl alluded, which is willing to help. I do not hear much of any of our own Colonies or Dominions who are willing to do more than accept a comparatively small infiltration. None of them seems to contemplate receiving any large-scale settlement. We heard at one time a great deal about British Guiana. I had myself occasion to investigate the possibilities of British

1025
Guiana for immigration in connection with another body of refugees, for whom this country had contracted great obligations and who, in the magnitude of the present problem, it seems will be entirely forgotten, not wholly to the credit of this country. I mean the Assyrian people. We made every investigation, assisted by experts, in British Guiana, and what has since transpired appeared then—namely, that the experts were divided and that in any case, even if a people not accustomed to a more or less tropical climate could settle there, their only chances of maintaining themselves involved an immense outlay of capital in the way of roads, communications, and the like. Unless the Government can give us more reassuring information I doubt whether we can regard British Guiana as an open door. I do not know what has been thought of the possibility of Rhodesia or other places, but at present it seems as if there were no doors open through which these people could pass into a more or less settled life.
I beg the Government, if possible, to tell us whether or not they are facing the possibility of great numbers of these refugees being left on our hands without the chance, which was held out to them, of being settled in another country. Their position in that case would be almost worse than when they came. They would still be destitute, dependent upon a failing charitable support, and with this addition to their hopelessness that the hopes that had been extended to them had failed. If the Government this afternoon can lift that burden of anxiety as to the immediate future which presses very heavily upon some of us, I should be most grateful.
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure you will agree that this debate could hardly have opened more auspiciously than with the extraordinarily accurate and impartial survey of the facts of the refugee situation to which we listened from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I was extremely happy to hear after that the most reverend Primate supporting his plea for more rapid and effective action on the part of His Majesty's Government on behalf of refugees. Those of us who were concerned some years ago with the Assyrian problem will recollect with gratitude the constant preoccupation that the most
1026
reverend Primate has shown with the refugee situation in all parts of the world. There is a common assumption underlying this debate, which is shared by all those except perhaps the inhabitants of the countries from which refugees come, and that is that these refugees are a common responsibility of every civilised nation, and that each country has to play its part, according to its economic resources and according to its opportunities for offering temporary asylum or permanent refuge, in providing the means of life for these helpless and persecuted people.
The question surely that is before our minds first and foremost this afternoon, and is naturally one that confronts every member of the British Legislature is: Is this country really making its rightful contribution? Are we doing our share in the common effort to provide these victims of intolerance with a fresh start? Before answering this question I should like, if I may, to remind the House of some of the many incentives—they have been referred to already by the noble Earl but perhaps I can mention some which he omitted—that we have to be hospitable to refugees. As he put it, this is an opportunity and not a question of simple charity. At a time such as this, when exclusive nationalism and fanatical intolerance flourish in so many parts of the world, it is surely a privilege to show that we at least are not suffering from any relapse into tribal mentality and that we remain to-day, as we have always been in the past, tolerant of opinions that differ from our own and sensitive to sufferings and injustice outside the boundaries of this country and outside the boundaries of the British Commonwealth. We can show this most plainly by opening wider our own doors. It has often been said that the degree of real civilisation attained by a country—and this has not been said by merely one sex—can be measured by its attitude to women. Now that the struggle for women's rights is a thing of the past, and in most though by no means in all respects there is equality of status and opportunity as between the sexes, a more appropriate criterion at the present day would be the attitude of a country towards the homeless and unprotected refugee.
Besides—and this is a point I do not think was mentioned by the noble Earl

1027
—the average refugee is definitely not merely an economic but a spiritual or, to use the modern terminology, an ideological asset to his adopted country. He has been driven into exile just because he believes in democracy, in freedom of thought, of assembly, of speech, in following his own private conscience instead of obeying blindly the commands of an all-powerful State. If these ideas are, at bottom, what distinguish our social institutions from those of totalitarian dictatorships, then surely the men and women who cherish them in these days are worth protecting. It is a little curious to my mind that Governments seem always more concerned with refugees as producers and consumers of material goods than as gratuitous retailers of inexhaustible spiritual wealth. There is another reason—and again a reason to which the noble Earl did not refer, at any rate at any length, in the course of his speech—why we should take advantage of this lamentable situation. We cannot ignore that our Government and our country are partly, at any rate, responsible for the stream of refugees that has poured out in recent years from Germany, Austria, and Czecho-Slovakia. It was, after all, the Treaty of Versailles, so humiliating in its effects, that brought about that national inferiority complex without which the revolution of 1933 would not have occurred. And it is only too true that the multitudes who are fleeing and who have fled during the last six years from Germany with little more than the clothes they wear on their backs, are victims of the folly of the allied statesmen in the post-War years as well as objects of unmerited persecution by their own Government.
We have—and I think it is as well to remind ourselves of this—an even more immediate and direct responsibility for the Jewish, Austrian, German and Czech refugees from the provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, because it was undoubtedly the Pact of Munich last September that handed Czecho-Slovakia over to Germany as the price of peace. I am not referring to the political merits of the case. I think that this debate has kept itself free from political controversy. I am merely asking your Lordships to envisage certain of the social consequences of this agreement. The Lord Mayor's Fund, and the considerable Government credit, only part of
1028
which has been used, were an acknowledgment, I think, of this responsibility, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that it cannot and will not be discharged until we have provided an asylum or support for a larger number of those for whom the new régime is intolerable.
I hope that these considerations, added to the more weighty considerations put forward by the noble Earl and by the most reverend Primate, may help to persuade the Government to adopt a more liberal policy towards refugees; for dissatisfaction with Government policy to-day towards refugees is by no means confined to Party politicians or even to eager humanitarians with warm hearts but woolly heads. I should like to quote, with your Lordships' permission, two passages from a book by Sir John Hope Simpson, to whom the noble Earl has already referred, and who is, of course, acknowledged as one of the greatest living experts on the refugee problem. He says, referring to the contribution made by our own country:
"Great Britain's record in the admission of refugees is not distinguished if it were compared with that of France, Czecho-Slovakia or the United States of America. The strictly enforced, restrictive and selective policy of immigration which she has pursued since the War—particularly the emphasis placed on the admission of aliens only with economic resources adequate to their re-establishment—has kept the number of admissions to figures that have little significance in the total numbers of post-War refugees."
Again he goes on to say, after referring to financial contributions given by the British Government towards the relief of refugees outside this country:
"It is doubtful, however, if this international work"—
to which he rightly pays tribute—
"largely personal and periodic, is a sufficient contribution when measured by the standard of those made by other countries. Owing to the excessively cautious post-War immigration policy, Great Britain had ceased to be a country of asylum on a large scale. Her initiative and role in international work would be greatly strengthened if she could show a braver record as a country of sanctuary."
The number of the refugees whom we have allowed to come to this country—the figures have already been given by the noble Earl, but I venture to repeat them because I think they are more eloquent than any words—has been estimated at not more than 25,000 which is approximately the figure for the refugee

1029
population in Holland. It has also been calculated—and I do not think the noble Earl mentioned this—that with our much larger population, if we had been as hospitable as our little neighbour across the Channel, we should have given shelter to approximately 138,000, or more than five times the number of those who have actually found their way to our shores. To me it is deeply disappointing, and I think this disappointment will be shared by other speakers, that a magnificent tradition of hospitality to exiled aliens, which made this country the principal haven for fugitives from autocratic Governments in the nineteenth century, should be abandoned at a time when the refugee problem is more acute and more difficult of solution than it has ever been before.
I submit, and in this submission I think I shall have the support of both the previous speakers, that this problem is too immense and too complex to be capable of solution by the generosity of philanthropic individuals and organisations. The number of refugees and potential refugees in Europe is so vast that nothing but a scheme organised and administered and financed by Governments, with the whole weight of official backing behind it, can possibly provide permanent homes and permanent work for a substantial proportion of these people. Such a scheme would probably comprise a short-term plan, to which the noble Earl referred when he spoke of camps, for temporary accommodation in camps and settlements during which the refugee would probably be equipped for his later life, and a long-term plan for permanent settlement in undeveloped territory in South America or in Africa or wherever else is available. It seems to me that the essential thing is this. Whatever scheme may be devised in the immediate or in the distant future to meet this problem, we are bound to realise that private resources are rapidly drying up, and that nothing in the least effective can be done until the Governments concerned have accepted financial and administrative responsibility for the bulk of this floating refugee population.
Those are all the remarks that I wish to make about the problem in its broadest aspects, but with your Lordships' permission I will conclude with one or two references to the situation of Spanish refugees in whom I have been particularly
1030
interested for several years. I should like first of all to acknowledge with gratitude the assistance we have received from the Government in dealing with these refugees. Provided that we did not make any request for financial support every facility was given us. I should also like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the generosity of the British public which has made it possible to maintain and support 4,000 Basque refugee children in this country for more than two years. There are still further ways in which the Government could help us in dealing with these children from the Basque Provinces. I will not weary your Lordships by enumerating them this afternoon, although perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to present my suggestions informally after the debate.
Another and a much larger problem is the question of the refugees in the South of France and in Algeria, to which the noble Earl referred in the course of his speech. I should like particularly to ask the Government what action they contemplate taking about the 5,000 odd refugees who are now settled in the neighbourhood of Oran. I understand negotiations have been in progress and that they started from the point where the Government intervened or agreed with the French Government that the refugees should be landed in British ships from Valencia at the Port of Oran, and it is generally accepted that the Government have resumed some sort of special responsibility in regard to these people. The problem of emigration is very simple in this case, because Mexico has offered to take them, provided the cost of their transport is paid.
The second question I should like to ask regarding the refugees from Spain is this. The noble Earl referred to the 300,000 refugees who are in camps in the South of France. When speaking of those who would be taking a great risk, to put it mildly, if they returned to Spain, he did not mention any figure, but I would like to suggest that it would be approximately 40,000. These are the people with whom we are specially concerned, people who would risk imprisonment or severe penalties of one kind or another, if they returned to Spanish territory. As the noble Earl said, our Committee sent 1,800 of these refugees to Mexico, where they have landed and

1031
where they have been very cordially welcomed, but this one ship cost about £25,000, and it is perfectly obvious that without financial assistance it will be impossible to deal with even a majority of this total number of Spaniards who cannot return to their native country.
The next question relates to the members of the International Brigade who are now mostly in camp in the South of France. I am thinking particularly of Germans, Austrians, Czechs, Italians and Poles, who cannot be repatriated whence they came. The noble Marquess will recollect that His Majesty's Government, in consultation with other Governments, devised a scheme which was accepted by the Non-intervention Committee for the repatriation of foreigners serving on both sides in the Spanish war. This was adopted by the Republican Government and they actually sent out the foreigners assisting them without waiting for similar action on the other side. In view of the consideration which His Majesty's Government must have given to this problem, and in view of its extreme urgency, because these unfortunate men cannot be taken back to their native countries and not even to Mexico, I should be very much obliged if His Majesty's Government can suggest any solution. If they feel that their generosity is being called upon in excess, I would merely like to point out that there is a precedent on which they have acted before, that is, the contribution they have made to the work of the International Red Cross. I understand that the International Red Cross in the South of France is engaged, at the moment, particularly, in bringing families together, in enabling husbands to trace their wives, wives to trace their husbands, parents to trace their children, and children to trace their parents. I understand they are in dire financial straits. The noble Marquess will remember that about a year ago His Majesty's Government presented the handsome gift of £5,000 to the International Red Cross for the relief work they were doing in the South of France.
I apologise for detaining your Lordships at such length, and I will conclude by making one further plea—this time not a plea for financial assistance—to His Majesty's Government. The refugees
1032
from Spain are not, like the other refugees from other parts of Europe at the present time, under the wing of the High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations. I am perfectly certain that it would greatly facilitate the whole task of providing them with shelter if the High Commissioner were given power by the League of Nations to concern himself with the refugees from Spain. If this matter is brought up at the next meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations I sincerely hope that it will have the full support of His Majesty's Government.
5.15 p.m.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken traversed a very wide field and emphasized what have already fallen from the noble Earl who moved the Motion—how wide and complex is this problem. I do not propose in the very few remarks that I would like to make to follow him into many of the wider ramifications of this subject, except only to say that it is obvious from the speeches that have been made that the refugees coming into this country are of many classes. They include Jews, non-Aryans, Spaniards, Czechs and others, and yet under the policy of His Majesty's Government, with which they are confronted when they get here, they are all treated exactly the same. I feel that to allow people to come in on the distinct understanding that someone has guaranteed every portion of their expense, that they may do no work whatsoever whilst here, and may merely stay here until they are passed on elsewhere, is not a very generous and not a very dignified attitude for a great country such as this to take up. With the adult population, apart from certain friends, I have nothing personally to do, but I would like specially to impress upon His Majesty's Government a more liberal attitude in respect of the children for which I have the honour to have some responsibility. They likewise, are treated, all of them, no matter what their age, their religion or their circumstances on coming into this country, on exactly the same footing. They may come in provided they have been guaranteed either by an individual or by an organisation, on the understanding that they will be repatriated on reaching the age of eighteen, as the noble Earl who moved the Motion stated.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Re-emigrated.
LORD GORELL: I think it may well be argued that in respect of some of the older children, whose characters are to some extent formed, it may be the most helpful course that they should have a period of training in a settled country and that it would be to their best interests that they should then pass on to another part of the world, but the same arguments do not quite apply to much younger children. We have heard, and I should like to emphasize, the argument as to the fall in population here. What we are in fact asking people in this country to do is to take into their homes and to guarantee children for a certain length of time. Then, when they have got fully assimilated into the life of this country, when they have become, it well may be, popular inmates of a family, those who have brought them into this country are under an obligation to see that they leave this country again. It is perfectly obvious that there are great difficulties in keeping up a supply of guarantees and charity and help subject to those conditions, and though organisations such as the Council for German Jewry, with great generosity and foresight, have undertaken the relief of obligations in many particulars, still there remain these legal obligations to provide, not only full subsistence for the child while here, but also the means of re-emigrating it on reaching the age of eighteen.
I am told—I speak subject to correction by some noble and learned Lord—that there is no legal machinery by which a child of foreign parents can be legally adopted into a home in this country. That would seem to demand a remedy. If a young child of refugee parents, themselves unable to come, can get away from intolerable conditions and be brought to this country and then make its home here, and if then those who have taken it up desire to make it their child, it would seem only reasonable in those circumstances that there should be some legal machinery by which such a thing could be possible. I am told also that there is under consideration something that may be called "informal adoption." I do not know quite what can be meant by such a term as "informal adoption," but all that I would urge is that the policy of the Government in all these respects should
1034
be more liberal in their treatment, at any rate, of the children.
In saying so, and in conclusion, I think it only right to add that one must differentiate, as far as that is possible, between the Government and those who are carrying out the dictates of the Government, or the officials charged with insistence upon what may seem to be rather harsh requirements. I think there can be nothing but praise for the efficiency and also the human kindness with which they are carrying out their duties; but their hands are tied. I think, from what has already fallen from the noble Earl and other noble Lords, that it is obvious that this fear of the refugee is vastly exaggerated and there really is a very strong case now for the Government widening their requirements and treating this matter less in a legalistic and a little more in a humane and human spirit.
5.23 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I speak as a member of one of the private organisations to which the noble Earl who introduced this subject referred. I should like on their behalf to express gratitude to him for the ability, sympathy and illumination with which he has opened this subject. I should also like to echo and emphasize the tribute just paid by the noble Earl to the Home Office officials and the officials of the other Government Departments, and also to the Government representatives abroad, for the sympathy and courtesy which are constantly behind us in dealing both with refugees and with their friends. There can be no doubt that the gravity of the whole refugee problem has increased immensely since a year ago, when the Evian Inter-Governmental Committee was created. I wish to support the noble Earl in asking for the fullest possible co-operation between the different Governments concerned, and for action by those Governments. I propose to try to give some grounds which seem to me to justify action by the Governments rather than, or in addition to, the voluntary organisations. In particular I would lay marked emphasis on the importance of co-operation between this country and the United States of America, for I believe that it is on co-operation between those two great Powers that the salvation of the refugees depends.

1035
It is not necessary, after what has been said, to rehearse the multitude and variety of the refugee movements. I would only say that they are all due to political causes. They all constitute grave political problems, and in my opinion they cannot be dealt with adequately except with the aid of political remedies. The scale is great and increasing in greatness, and the refugee problem demands herculean efforts to tackle it adequately. I think we should be conservative and prudent in our figures. I will take the very low, conservative estimate of the number of refugees, including the Spanish refugees, who should be emigrated into countries outside Europe as 500,000. That is a low figure; but for the number, whatever it is—and it cannot be less than half a million—two things are wanted: first, countries of permanent refuge outside Europe for the vast majority; and second, money to settle them. Neither of these things can be secured without energetic action by the Governments concerned. I am not unaware of the difficulties, and I can well appreciate the immense pressure of this additional difficulty to those weighing upon the Government at the present time. I would only ask the Government two questions. First, is it right to leave the refugee problem unsolved? It cannot be right. The second is, do you wish to see it solved? If you do, then the wish carries the consequence that the Governments are bound to act.
The noble Earl referred to the formation of the Evian Inter-Governmental Committee with some disappointment. I think that the great justification of that particular machine is that it was inaugurated by the United States of America, who would not come in otherwise, and that it is the pledge of their co-operation in large-scale Government action. I should like, if I may, to pay a tribute to Sir Herbert Emerson, the High Commissioner, for the energy and thoroughness with which he is so actively discharging his task. The Evian Inter-Governmental Committee has established the principle of Government action in certain departments, and that is much to the good; though I realise that the condition is attached at present that the financing of new schemes must be left to private organisations, a condition which I think can hardly be fulfilled if the refugee
1036
problem is to be adequately tackled in the future.
Next, it has gone some distance, I understand, in securing facilities from the German Government of a financial kind for the involuntary migrants, who otherwise would depart, and do depart, stripped of their possessions. But the Inter-Governmental Committee have so far—at least, as far as the public and the refugees are informed—made little progress in persuading countries of permanent refuge to open their doors. I believe, and I have taken some trouble in investigating the matter, that there are three particular territories or kinds of territory which might be seriously regarded as territories of permanent refuge: the British Dominions; the Colonial Empires, our own and others; and South America. With regard to the first, we all know that the British Dominions are self-governing, and they have their own rules. Australia has already expressed its readiness to admit 15,000 German refugees during the next three years, and I hope is ready to take more. It was an interesting and encouraging sign last month that the New South Wales Labour Council passed a recommendation to admit refugees to trade unions. I think that we may have intimations of a more favourable attitude in the future from Australia. New Zealand has not, so far, declared its attitude officially, but it is clear that there is plenty of room for refugees in New Zealand if the imagination of the people could be aroused. South Africa has 5,000 German refugees, and it may not be possible to take very many more. Canada has already made arrangements for the reception of, I think, 400 families of Czech refugees. I hope that that is not the limit of its accommodation. Although agricultural conditions in Canada are severe, there is plenty of room.
Let me turn to the Colonial Empires, and I will speak only of our own. It is understood that the Colonial Empire of Great Britain is not ideal in its conditions for European settlement. I believe that the British Government will do its best, and already have taken very considerable steps, to elicit the sympathy of the Governors in many British Colonies, the West Indies amongst others. So far, the main contributor of offers is, as the most reverend Primate has stated, British Guiana. I think that at any rate it would be well to do the utmost one can to accept

1037
the principle of investigating the possibilities there with the greatest possible speed and thoroughness. The actual settlement proposed in the first instance is of 3,000 to 5,000 persons, though some people think that that is too large a number and the estimated cost is £200,000. Ultimately, if the conditions prove to be favourable, it should accommodate 50,000 to 60,000 persons.
There are many difficulties, difficulties of soil and so forth, and the distance from civilization; but there is one very important matter which I think is encouraging from the point of view of settlement of refugees there or elsewhere, and that is the promise which the Prime Minister made in another place that transport, in the largest sense of the word, is to be found for refugees settled in British Guiana. This constitutes a big offer. I am told that the value of the offer for the total settlement of the number of refugees contemplated, is £6,000,000. If the Government would make it known, especially to the United States of America, that it is prepared to spend a sum of £6,000,000 on rail and road transport, and so on, for the settlement of a large number of German refugees in British Guiana, that would be an immense incentive to the United States to do something of a corresponding character in South America.
I turn to South America. I believe that South America offers greater possibilities for the permanent settlement of refugees than any other part of the world, but there is, at present, great nervousness on the part of the Governments of South America, and the nervousness is very largely on political grounds. Some of the greatest of the South American States exclude Jews, the very persons for whom we are most anxious to find a refuge. This applies especially to Brazil, the Argentine, and Colombia. All of them are rich territories with great agricultural possibilities. The countries more immediately hospitable are, as one noble Lord said, Mexico, Chili, the Republic of Dominica and Ecuador. Here I would like to call special attention to the question of co-operation with the United States. Ecuador offers facilities, so I am told, for 10,000 families at the cost of £200 per family. She also offers to make some contribution towards transport facilities.
It is here, or in some similar South American Republic, that I believe the co-operation
1038
of the United States will prove invaluable. Already the United States Government is voting a sum towards South American development of £20,000,000, and it is asking the Senate or the Chamber to vote in the near future another £100,000,000 for South American development. If the United States would set aside £6,000,000 of this large sum which they have already voted, and the larger sum which they are expecting to vote for South American development, towards refugee settlement in Ecuador or some other Republic, they would provide very grateful citizens and helpers and friends of the United States, and forge a further link still of those links which they are anxious to forge between North America and South America. Their money would not be lost, and they would have most faithful colonists. I hope your Lordships will forgive the detail with which I have referred to countries for refugees. I have done so because I want to make it as plain as possible, first, that there is plenty of room in the world for refugees, and that there are very many countries in which the refugee would be an asset; and secondly, that we shall not get the refugees into that large room without vigorous Government action.
I know it is still said that the refugee problem is one for private organisation and that the State has no responsibility except that of opening a door. I wish to devote my final remarks to reasons why, in my opinion, the action of the State is called for. First—and I think this is fundamental to the point to which the noble Earl has just referred—the existing refugee problem everywhere is a direct result of the policy of various Governments. It can be fairly argued—and a historian is bound to express a judgment—that violence and anti-Jewish persecution and the other causes of other refugee movements are the results in a very large measure of mistakes in policy by the various Governments during the fourteen years which immediately followed the Armistice. Although the results of those mistakes in policy could not be foreseen at the time, I think it is not unreasonable to say that for the consequences of those mistakes in policy some great responsibility must be accepted by existing Governments.
Next, reference has been repeatedly made to the very large amount of money found, especially through the magnificent

1039
generosity of the Jews, by voluntary organisations. I should like to pay tribute to the wonderful work done by the German Emergency Committee of the Society of Friends during these years, who have raised over £60,000 publicly, and I think another £60,000 in the way of guarantees; and also to the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, which has raised over £90,000. The total figure raised is a very large one indeed. But, large as it is, the amount of money required to settle 500,000 refugees—which I regard as a conservative figure—in countries outside Europe is entirely beyond the resources of private charity unaided. As the most reverend Primate pointed out, the charitable public are not so likely to respond to the appeal for the temporary assistance of refugees in the future if the outlet does not appear to be very substantial. The lag of emigration behind the new entries has been increasing at an alarming rate. I will give four different figures of the German Jewish Aid organisation. In January, 1938, 150 new entries were registered and there were 77 emigrations in that month. A year later, in January, 1939, there were 2,001 registered entries and only 197 emigrations. In April, 1938, there were 255 registered entries and only 49 emigrations. In April, 1939, there were 4,333 registered entries and only 311 emigrations.
I think the figure that has been given for the refugees now in England has still been understated, even by recent speakers. The official Government figure at the end of May was 35,000 German refugees in England, and at the end of June there is no doubt that they amounted to 40,000. Again, comparing our efforts with the efforts of France, both on the financial and on the receiving side France is far and away the largest country of refuge in Europe. It has received 300,000 Spanish refugees and 210,000 other refugees. In addition, the French Government have been spending since the end of January, on Spanish refugees, at a rate of between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 francs or something like £30,000 or £40,000 per day. If all these facts are borne in mind, the conclusion is inevitable that, whatever was the case a year ago, the refugee problem is now entirely beyond the scope of private charity and private organisation.
1040
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the great needs are, first, the energetic opening of all possible countries of refuge by Government action, and, second, the co-operation of the Governments in financing settlement schemes in some way—there are various ways which are possible—to enable large numbers of refugees of different nations to settle in whatever part of the world is open to them. I would also urge that the British Government should take every opportunity they have to collaborate with the Government of the United States and to take the initiative by action and offers of their own, asking the Government of the United States what they also are prepared to do. The problems are great, but they are not insoluble. The answer depends on the answer we give to the two questions which I asked when I began: First, is it right to leave the refugee problem unsolved? Second, do you wish that it should be solved? If you wish that it should be solved, then the Governments are bound to act.
5.48 p.m.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I would remind your Lordships that every refugee arriving in this country comes here either for permanent settlement or in transit to some other country of permanent settlement. We have had, both from the most reverend Primate and from the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken, two extremely, I might almost say unusually, practical contributions to this problem, because both of them have laid their fingers on the weak spot—namely, the outlet for the refugees who are coming to this country. I am particularly glad that the right reverend Prelate referred to the need for co-operation with the United States of America, because that country is the largest single recipient of refugees for permanent settlement in the world, receiving as it does between 27,000 and 30,000 German and Austrian refugees every year for permanent settlement. A very large number of the refugees in England at the present time have visas for the United States, which they will be able to make use of as soon as the quota permits during the course of the next year or two. Therefore it is vital that we should co-operate very closely with the United States of America, both in the immediate task and in the final task of discovering an area for permanent settlement.

1041
Palestine also has taken a limited number for permanent settlement, unfortunately not as large a number as we would have hoped. Australia has been referred to. There is a possibility, as the result of the examination of the prospects in the Kimberley district by a delegation that has gone there, that Australia may be able to contribute rather more than they have already offered to do. This of course has nothing to do with the Government because the Dominions have their own outlook. I have just returned from South Africa where I found, as has been said, they have received a considerable number of refugees, but they are not prepared to take any large additional number. I cannot but feel some sympathy with their attitude on this point. We then come to the smaller areas—the areas which might be called infiltration areas. It should be clearly understood that the total contribution which these infiltration areas can make to the receiving for permanent settlement of refugees now in our country as transit refugees is a very limited one. I have seen refugees, nearly one hundred in number, sitting in Swaziland; hardly any of whom have any work or any possibility of obtaining work. I have seen refugees in Southern Rhodesia who have no work, who cannot obtain work, and who contribute to the refugee resistance of such countries when it comes to the question of further settlement. I believe that we cannot rely on infiltration for any serious contribution to the settlement of this problem.
It is increasingly difficult to receive more transit refugees in Great Britain until we can find a means of outlet. It is true we are training large numbers. We are training them, of course, not only in Britain but in France. I have visited within the last few days admirable training schools in France where hundreds and hundreds of refugees are being taught modern methods of earning a living; but they are methods which cannot be employed in this country any more than they can be employed in France. They are only suitable to be used when a country of permanent settlement is found for these refugees. In passing, let me say that my own inquiries as to the number of refugees in this country agree entirely with the figure mentioned by the Bishop of Chichester. I believe there are to-day about 40,000 refugees, and I do not honestly think we can complain too much
1042
of the attitude of the Government in receiving refugees at the present time in view of the difficulties which are inevitable in a country like ours. I do not say all has been done that might have been done, but on the whole I think there has been a gradual and regular improvement in the number of refugees received in Britain during the course of the last six or eight months.
What we need rather more than mere willingness on the part of private organisations to finance the receiving and temporary settlement of refugees in this county is a policy. The system of sending a few refugees here, sending an inquiry to Northern Rhodesia, sending a few infiltration refugees to this part of the world or the other, represents a lack of policy and not a real contribution to the finding of a large-scale outlet for the enormous number of refugees who are coming in, who have come in, and who will and must come in if they are to be saved. I am inclined to think we might combine a consideration of the development of our own Empire with the possibilities of mass settlement. There has been in the last few days a number of letters in The Times dealing with what is called our "undeveloped estate." There was a leading article only a few days ago pointing out that British capital was not being used in the development of our own Empire or, at any rate, not being adequately used. I would only say in this connection that it seems we might possibly combine the development of the British Empire with the development of a permanent and large-scale mass settlement of refugees.
I am inclined to think that British Guiana offers very considerable possibilities. Noble Lords will have read the Report of the joint British and United States Commission of Inquiry, which seems to me to offer at least some hope of a fairly large-scale, possibly a very large-scale, settlement within the next five or ten years. But we should make an immediate start. The Government offer to spend a sum of money is a very valuable one. I did not know it amounted to anything like as much as was suggested by the right reverend Prelate—£6,000,000—but at any rate it is an offer which we should definitely make use of. Let us begin with, perhaps, one or two thousand settlers and build up the possibility of a really large-scale settlement in that country immediately,

1043
within the next few years. There is another factor in connection with British Guiana. It is in the British Empire. Recommendations have been made by noble Lords in this House who have led delegations to that country, including Lord Halifax and Lord Snell, that it would be of value to develop British Guiana not from the point of view of refugees, but from the point of view of the British Empire. It seems to me that these recommendations might be pulled out of their pigeon holes and used now with the object of combining two valuable objects at the same time.
Moreover—and here comes in a suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester—the United States is profoundly concerned at the present time with the development of a check on democracy in South America. British Guiana, if developed, might be a very bastion of democracy against the encroachments of other nations into the democratic régime of the South American Republics which is causing such immense concern to the United States. It seems, therefore, that we might get some co-operative effort between ourselves and the United States in connection with the development of a democratic part of the British Empire in South America. There is another point in this connection. Reference has been made to the potential refugee problem of countries such as Poland and others in Eastern Europe. Poland, as I understand the political situation, at present is to some extent an ally of Britain or, at any rate, has some connection with the democracies generally. Poland has recently been demanding Colonies for the settlement of her own surplus population. We might very well make available this mass settlement plan for some at least of the surplus population of Poland, and thereby make a contribution to that better understanding between Poland and the democracies which would, I fancy, be of some value in the present political state of the world.
I have only one further observation to make. The Government did promise, when we had a debate on this subject in December last year, that they would consider the possibility of giving help themselves. I think they want a bit of encouragement in that. I would rather like to suggest that perhaps the Jewish Palestinian
1044
organisations, who have succeeded in building up a very remarkable example of settlement in Palestine, might make a contribution to the possibilities of settlement, shall we say, in British Guiana by sending perhaps 400 or 500 of their best trained young pioneers, who have themselves built up the development in Palestine, to start the ball rolling in the settlement in British Guiana and thereby make it possible for British Guiana to make a start, while at the same time creating another 500 vacancies in Palestine for the refugees who are trying to come out from Germany and Austria. I believe if we were to put some such suggestion to the Jewish Agency to co-operate in this development, it would encourage the Government to give them the aid which is vital from the Government at this time, because of the almost impossible task which the private organisations are attempting to undertake.
6.3 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has so admirably stated the case that to support his arguments would be only to repeat them, but I should like from my personal experience of some German refugee cases to contribute one point which may be of great practical importance. I have been acquainted with several cases of German refugees and their families who are destined for the Dominions, and I see reason to ask the Government to give great attention to the importance of closer co-operation between the Home Office and the Dominion Governments. Great interest is felt in the Dominions. They realise that they are looked to as the chief controllers of semi-populated or unpopulated lands, but as they are very far from the countries where the problem is created they are naturally not so moved as those living nearer to those countries. To some extent, therefore, they take their cue from the home country.
I think that the home Government might use their good offices with the Dominion Governments to a greater extent than they have done. If more were done in the way of assistance to the refugee problem it would be a good service for the Empire. The Dominions realise that not to help the Mother Country in a high degree in a crisis of this kind would be a disservice to the Empire, and they are doing a great deal,

1045
but they might well do more. The opinion of the outside world on the contribution that they make is keenly held, and is not to be disregarded. The potential activity is very great in the Dominions. Australia, for instance, has made a definite promise to take 5,000 refugees per annum, and the Labour Party in Australia, which at one time was thought to be hesitating in its welcome to refugees, has particularly urged that the Australian Commonwealth Government should not insist on a money test but should be more liberal in its acceptance.
Apart from the question of the numbers to be taken there is a very important question of avoiding delay. What happens is that among the melancholy crowds of applicants at our Consulate at Berlin or elsewhere in Germany the Consul selects an extremely small number. He gives a visa in cases which have been accepted for Australia or New Zealand as the case may be. The result is that the refugee arrives in this country. The sum of ten marks which may be taken out of Germany is probably exhausted. He and his family are here without cash, and they are dependent entirely upon the hospitality which can be furnished by one of the relief committees. I know from experience of several cases that prolonged delay occurs. Months are lost during which what small provision of hospitality there is is exhausted. I have known a case of a cottage which happened to be vacant and has been placed at the service of one of the committees. This contribution in the way of hospitality, which might have served for a dozen cases, has served only for one. Time is used up on a single case which should have provided for a large number, and the result is a waste of the already inadequate resources in the way of hospitable provision. There is also the injury to the morale of the refugees. They become disheartened; they have very often nothing to do; they are prohibited by the conditions of their permit from doing any serious work, either paid or unpaid, and very great evil results from delay alone.
I would like to suggest that the Home Office might co-operate more closely with Australia House and the other Dominion Offices so that if possible the Consul at the place of origin might give a visa which would enable the refugee to go practically direct to the Dominion. Another evil which arises because of delay
1046
is that the guarantee which the Aliens' Department requires becomes expensive, and is a deterrent to the comparatively few people who can afford to undertake the considerable risks of guaranteeing a refugee. The guarantees available are limited in number. Not many are willing or able to undertake them and the stock of guarantees ought to be made to go as far as possible. But it is a very big problem to make the available money go as far as possible as long as we are dependent unfortunately on private resources. Constant appeals come, as the noble Earl said in his speech, to those who may be thought to be willing to respond. They come from individuals, particularly in Germany, and largely from Germans who happen to know some person in this country, or who have the enterprise to write to a person whom they do not know. The result is that the most needy and desirable cases are commonly not selected, and the privilege of the guarantee goes perhaps to a family which belongs rather to the well-to-do class, known to people in this country, who are not the most likely to make successful emigrants to a Dominion. It would be infinitely more profitable if a more systematic plan were in operation by which the committee here, with their agents in Germany who are acquainted with the cases, were able to use the guarantees to the best advantage, selecting the cases which are the most desirable. On an actuarial basis the given funds could be made surely to go further than they go now. It would be both more economical and more efficient.
Apart from this point, I would specially like to urge that the Government should at least consider financial help to the business of investigation of the possibilities of settlement. The case of British Guiana has been widely advertised and examined, but look at the immense delay which has already occurred and how small an investigation has been made of possible countries of destination in the months which have elapsed since the greatest public interest was roused after the unhappy events of last November. Particularly I would like to support the noble Earl's appeal for the admission of larger numbers to this country. The Home Secretary has effectively refuted the theory that the refugee is an economic injury to the country in which he settles.

1047
On all accounts, I hope we may see the consent of the Government to financial assistance on a new principle. All the experts have expressed themselves strongly in favour, and I think, moreover, the appeal is justified by the very considerable increase in public concern on this question, in spite of rival interests and preoccupations. One keeps hearing of new local committees. One was formed in Westminster the other day. It happened to meet in my house. Everywhere the country is deeply roused on this question of refugees. At all events let us not pretend that there is a possible solution on the lines of private charity because it would be hypocritical to urge that solution is possible on those lines. Unless we are to face the spectacle of vast numbers of victims of persecution, for the most part highly civilised people, including children, women, invalids and old people, continuing to live a life of misery as a result of extreme poverty and degrading humiliation, then we must realise that the time has come for Governmental action. Would it be inappropriate if the Government decided that the unused portion of the money allocated to Czecho-Slovakia quite recently, or some portion at least of that money, should be used for the finance of the relief problem in other ways than was intended when the grant of £10,000,000 was announced?
The noble Earl has made an unanswerable case. It is unhappily true that we in this country have not come up to the highest standard. We have done about the same as Holland has done, and about one-fourteenth of what France has done. We have got a character for humane feeling to maintain. We are, to a great extent, a Christian country, and it will be a disaster if we do not in this extraordinarily urgent crisis live up to our traditions. There are cases where the Government may very well resist the claim to Governmental finance, but this is not one. There were people who thought that after the Czecho-Slovak disaster Governmental finance should not be provided, but that was rightly held to be a case for Governmental action, and I think the case of the refugees in general is, in principle, a parallel case. What we have done has not been quite proportionate to our
1048
opportunities. We have more means than others to take effective action. To whom much is given of them much is expected.
6.17 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, at the conclusion of an extremely interesting debate, I am sure your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I have only two points to raise. They are points which have already been touched on by other speakers, and I only wish to emphasize them. I want to draw attention to conclusions which I have the impression have been reached by one of the bodies which deal with refugees in this country—the British Committee for Refugees from Czecho-Slovakia—conclusions which seem to me reasonable, and in dealing with them I think I can keep within the terms of the noble Earl's Motion. This Committee, which has its seat in Mecklenburg Square, has occupied itself for some time with emigrants from the Czech and Sudeten and Austrian regions. It will be borne in mind, I trust, by your Lordships, that not only the natural inclinations of this Committee—which is one composed, I may say, entirely of Englishmen—but also the enforced and frequent contacts that the Committee is obliged to maintain both with the Ministry of Labour and the trade union organisations, preclude altogether any possibility of foreign labour being preferred to home labour where such immigrants are concerned. In fact, so strict is the supervision that I am informed that hitherto only a very few immigrants from the countries I have mentioned have been able to find permanent posts in this country. In addition to that, your Lordships will realise that, unless I am much mistaken, any firm occupied with Government contracts is forbidden to employ foreign labour, which seems natural enough.
I should like to suggest, these being the circumstances, that two problems arise out of the present situation with regard to such immigrants. One is that, which I think the noble Earl touched upon, of a possible shortage of skilled labour in certain trades in this country, a shortage which we have reason to believe does exist. At the present time only very few immigrants from the areas I have mentioned are allowed to stay permanently, and of these it is

1049
almost entirely skilled labourers who are allowed to stay. I should like to suggest that His Majesty's Government might consider the possibility of increasing this quota. After all, it is established, I think, that there is a shortage, and in that case there would obviously be no unfair competition. The second problem, upon which I think the most reverend Primate touched, and which seems to me to be a much more thorny one, is that of admitting here as permanent citizens children from these countries, in view of the declining birthrate, a subject lately discussed in your Lordships' House. These children would naturally have to be selected with great care, but it seems to me that if that were done it is extremely possible that such stock might be a real acquisition to the country. I should like to suggest that His Majesty's Government should therefore consider extending the scope and increasing the number of the permits which are being granted at present. These permits are so far nearly all for temporary stays only in this country, with re-emigration in view.
I must say that I have so far been principally thinking of Aryan immigrants, but as a matter of general interest to your Lordships I should like to add in passing that I am informed that, in view of the very real and well-known shortage of agricultural labour in this country, there is already a definite demand for Jewish agricultural labourers from Central Europe, and that apparently, odd though it may seem, such experiments as have been tried in that line have been up to now, even in remote country places in England, completely successful. Therefore, to sum up, everything seems to point to the necessity for the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour to review once again the situation as it stands at present and to make a fresh declaration of the situation as a whole, in particular in view of what I suppose we can only call the failure of the Evian Conference, and in view, particularly, of this golden opportunity of satisfying our own glaring needs from the need of these very unfortunate people.
6.22 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, since the subject of refugees was last debated in your Lordships' House, it so happens that I have succeeded the
1050
noble Viscount below me, Lord Samuel, as Chairman of the central body dealing with the problem from the Jewish point of view, with all that tenure of that office involves of constant responsibility and anxiety. But I would in passing point out that the various refugee organisations do not work in water-tight compartments according to their particular faith or particular section of belief, but so far as possible they work in harmonious collaboration. It may be not inappropriate if I give your Lordships a very brief outline of the problem as we see it and as we endeavour to cope with it.
In the first place we have to recognise that life in any accepted sense of that word is no longer possible for any Jew or person of Jewish descent in greater Germany. If your Lordships doubt the truth of that proposition, it will perhaps suffice if I tell you that of the 80,000 Jews still alive in Vienna no less than 45,000 are to-day in receipt from Jewish communal sources of such measure of actual food as will keep body and soul together, while the remainder are rapidly dissipating what remains of their capital. To such tragic ruin has that once prosperous and enlightened community descended. In the second place, we have to recognise that with the limited means at our disposal we must concentrate upon the rescue of the young and fit, and in the main sacrifice, however reluctantly, the old and the infirm. We must bring out those who are still sufficiently vigorous and adaptable to start a new life in a strange country and under unfamiliar conditions. In the third place, we have to make provision for the maintenance of those whom we bring out until we are able to settle them in final re-emigration.
Our problem in this country is therefore twofold: first, the temporary maintenance of the transmigrants, and secondly, their ultimate settlement abroad. Neither of those two tasks is easy, nor is becoming easier with the passing of time. Very large sums, as your Lordships have been told this afternoon, have been contributed by the Jewish community in this country, and those who have given them at least have the double satisfaction of knowing, first, that they have taken a hand in a work of urgent humanity, and secondly, that most of the money which they have contributed is being spent in this country, with consequent benefit to the trade of this country.

1051
In passing, when I say that large sums have been contributed from Jewish sources, I should like to take, if it be neither irrelevant nor impertinent, the opportunity of expressing our thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for lending the prestige of his name to his appeal, and for making the very human and humane speech with which he inaugurated it. The money which we spend is happily not spent in unproductive relief alone, for we make every effort to train refugees to this country in agriculture and in craftsmanship in order that they may be able to compete with life in the countries for which they are ultimately bound. Recently, in the interests of economy as well as of greater facility of occupation, we have started on a considerable scale a camp at Richborough, near Sandwich. If any of your Lordships doubt the quality of the men who are being brought to this country or the spirit which animates them, I trust that you will take the opportunity, if you should be in that neighbourhood, of visiting the camp. You will not only be warmly welcomed but you will see the spectacle, at once heartbreaking and heartening, of lawyers, doctors, writers, musicians, side by side with shopkeepers and artisans, breaking up the ground for the planting of vegetables, laying concrete roads, making gardens and performing all the manifold tasks of a camp with a co-operative cheerfulness and energy which are beyond praise. The inhabitants of that camp have received many touching kindnesses from the local residents, and I would instance only one, that of the teachers in the Isle of Thanet, who have given up much of their evening leisure in order to devote themselves to teaching English, nightly, to the refugees.
Those measures, and measures like them, do not exhaust our problem. There are those in this country who proclaim, perhaps less vocally now than a little while ago, that by bringing in these refugees we are taking work away from the British workman and neglecting our own unemployed. The overwhelming answer to that contention is the one to which Lord Derwent made reference, that in all our activities we proceed with the consent of the Government Departments concerned and with the concurrence of the trade unions as well. It is idle to suggest that either of those are going to
1052
encourage us, even if we wished to do so, to displace British by foreign labour. Equally, nothing is further from our own minds or our own purpose or our own intention. We do endeavour to bring into this country people who are fit and proper persons to obtain admission to it. I am told at times that by our activities we are increasing anti-Semitism in this country. If it be so it is a very slight, and in my opinion a very transient, increase. I want to say only one thing on that aspect. We have had good cause in the past years to look closely at the world, and we have seen in almost every civilised country anti-Semitism being used as a smoke-screen for the covert advance of Nazi doctrines, and I cannot but believe that those who, whether from ignorance or prejudice, accept those doctrines in this country are, consciously or unconsciously, playing directly into Nazi hands, and in that way, by accepting those doctrines, doing a disservice to their own country.
We have not only the problem of dealing with these people in this country, but we have the problem of finding outlets, to which reference has been made this afternoon. Before I leave the aspect of work in this country I should like to express our sincere gratitude to the Government and to Government officials with whom we have been dealing during these years. We have tried to show the measure of our gratitude by working with them in co-operation, and by trying to obey not only the letter but the spirit of their regulations, and by making such effort as was within our power to lift some of the burden of extra work which has fallen upon the always patient, kindly and tireless officials at the Home Office. But we have been overburdened too, and if sometimes you hear criticism of the efficiency of the Jewish refugee organisations, you will perhaps bear in mind that they were extemporized almost from one day to another in order to deal with a sudden crisis, that they have been expanded to meet successive crises, and that we have never yet had a respite in which to sit back and survey the whole field. You will perhaps not forget, also, that we have been for years trying to maintain a miniature Whitehall, without a Civil Service to conduct administration or a House of Commons to vote supply.
As regards the other aspect, the provision of outlets, not a little has been done

1053
by means of infiltration, but I do not pretend that that is the way which we should choose in which to solve the problem if other opportunities were discernible. We are always looking for other outlets, whether it be in Northern Rhodesia, British Guiana, San Domingo, the Philippines, or elsewhere. In all those countries investigations have proceeded, and the reports of some already have been received; but mass settlement takes money and time. Indeed, in the case of British Guiana the report itself recommends a preliminary period of experiment to be carried out with a number of some 3,000 to 5,000 refugees, at an estimated cost—and I think an underestimated cost,—with all respect to the right reverend Prelate, not of £200,000 but £600,000, the results of which, since it is in essence a period of experiment, cannot possibly be known for two or three years. Therefore we have to ask for patience, and we have also to beg that you will remember that if the position here sometimes seems static it cannot be liquefied overnight. I would ask you also to remember that those who are responsible know their responsibilities and are anxious only to live up to them. But I have personally come to the inescapable conclusion that it is impossible that voluntary contribution alone should deal both with the problem of maintenance and with the problem of settlement, and indeed the problem of maintenance becomes increasingly onerous in proportion as the problem of settlement remains unsolved. It is perhaps not unreasonable to suggest that at least where the development of the resources of a British Colony is the secondary object and the primary effect, in such cases as those the British Government should go further in offering assistance than the provision, however valuable it may be, of means of internal transport within the Colony, such as is envisaged in the British Guiana Report.
We have, I hope and believe, done our best in circumstances of difficulty and of delicacy, and although we have made mistakes, and shall make more, at the same time we have not, in our preoccupation with our immediate problem, forgotten our duty to our own country. I do not propose to indulge in superfluous protestations of the loyalty to Great Britain of British Jews. This is our home, and to many of us has been so for generations. But we were all immigrants
1054
once, as, in very different conditions, were some of your Lordships, and, just for that reason, because we enjoy and cherish the blessings of freedom, of tolerance, and of security, we feel ourselves now compelled to hold out a rescuing and a welcoming hand to those of our faith whose world, from no fault of their own, has crashed in chaos about them.
6.42 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I wish at this late hour to speak on two points only. First, I do hope that, in discussing this grave and delicate problem, everybody who speaks about it, or who works among the refugees, will emphasize the fact that in the present state of the world, and at this period of the world's history, the days of mass migration and mass settlement are over. That was the phenomenon of the nineteenth century, when vast numbers of Italians went to the Argentine, when Poles, Czechs, Irish and British went to the United States, and when our own Dominions expanded. Look at the change that has come over the British Dominions. Canada with a stationary population, a country twice the size of India, yet with only 10,000,000 people, and a Government taking a positive risk in saying that they can admit 400 refugees a year. No, I am convinced that, owing to widespread, in fact universal, economic forces, particularly the relation of agricultural prices to industrial prices, which is one of the root facts in the whole position, the era of mass migration is definitely over, and that all migration must take the form of what is called infiltration. And I am not at all sure that that is not a desirable thing.
Let us be frank about anti-Semitism. No one, I think, will accuse me of being the least bit anti-Semitic, but let us be frank. What is the danger? It is that of forming too big a block of Jews all together, whom their surrounding neighbours feel are an alien and a different race. Much better is the British system. Why is there less anti-Semitism here probably than elsewhere, and why is anti-Semitism in Great Britain confined to certain small districts in the East of London? It is because the Jews have come here and have scattered among the population; they have merged into the general population, and have not lived in a ghetto. Do not let us make any new ghettoes in the new world whether in

1055
British Guiana or elsewhere. Let it be a process of infiltration.
May I say a word about British Guiana, having been there? Do not encourage undue optimism, and do try out the experiment with a very small body first. Noble Lords opposite talk about making roads. Well, I have been on the roads of British Guiana. They are all made of burnt earth because there is no stone to make roads. Every bag of cement has to be imported because there is no lime. And the moment you are away from the seashore you are into that vast tropical forest, the most intractable forest in the world, because all the timber is so heavy that it will not float down the rivers. That is not peculiar to British Guiana. It is common to Dutch Guiana, French Guiana, the whole of the northern part of Brazil north of the Amazon, the hinterland of Venezuela, and the southern part of the Republic of Colombia, all of which have practically no population at all in spite of the efforts of centuries to get some mastery of that forest. No, it must be an inevitably slow penetration.
The reason why that belt of the tropical world has remained almost uninhabited, just as a great part of the tropical forest of Africa was sparsely populated by native Africans, is that it presents physical obstacles to man's existence such as obtain nowhere else in the world, not even in the frozen north of Canada. The Dutch have tried bringing in Javanese. And look at the history of attempts to develop British Guiana. Attempts have been made to form colonies of Barbadoans from an island only a few hundred miles away. Barbados is also in the tropics, with a negro population of tropical people, yet the climate and the physical conditions of British Guiana are so fundamentally different from those of Barbados that those efforts were not successful. The most successful schemes in British Guiana have resulted from the introduction of natives of Southern India. People coming from Madras and Southern India have made good there as rice cultivators, having been habituated for generations to a climate similar to that damp, humid, tropical climate which is a feature of that part of tropical South America. Study what the French have done to try to develop the Colony of Cayenne, which is an identically similar country to British Guiana, and you will
1056
realise that we do not just depend upon the report of one set of experts. Everybody in British Guiana knows that what is wanted is more capital; they want more development, they want more people, in the hope that their Colony will flourish. But do not encourage people to believe that mass migration is possible in that part of the world, even with the expenditure of £6,000,000 on a railway through that vast forest. No, it must be by general infiltration.
But that brings us back to—what? My other point this afternoon is this. We have to face the fact, and I hope the Government will face the fact. We have got to tell the people of this country the truth fairly and squarely that these refugees whom we have admitted, and rightly admitted, will probably be in our midst a great deal longer than was originally anticipated, and, inevitably and rightly, we must relax some of the restrictions on their employment in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, put forward the views of the Committee in Mecklenburg Square. I have just returned from the United States of America, where the Czechs are regarded as the best labour in that country—men who have a remarkable power of turning over from one industry to another. We have in our midst these Czech refugees of different ages. I am perfectly certain that there is absolutely no reason why these Czech children of school age now being taught English in this country should not be British subjects permanently to the enrichment of this country.
I may be prejudiced because one of my ancestors was a pure-blooded French Huguenot. There was the same outcry in the time of Queen Anne that British labour was being displaced, but the Huguenots were the making of many British industries and are some of the best stock in this country to-day. I am convinced we have nothing to fear in a free country like this if we bring the children of these refugees up not as a segregated community who must be watched day and night to see they do not do anything improper and under the threat that they are going to be sent to some other country. The psychological effect on the child is deplorable, and I am convinced it is the duty of the Minister of Labour to take the matter up with the sensitive Trade Union Congress and try to do something to relax

1057
the regulations regarding the employment of refugees, particularly the employment and the future of refugee children in this country. I say that all the more because the prospect in the future countries of settlement is so difficult at this stage in the economic history of the world.
I believe that the present British Government, and the officials of the Foreign Office, and the Home Office, have been most liberal in admitting threatened families of refugees and the politically persecuted from Central Europe. The stream that has come in quietly here is the result of liberal treatment by this country. Of course you can say there ought to have been more, and so on, but on the whole it has been liberal. I do hope we shall not have the phenomenon of which I am afraid, of these refugees coming to this country from the persecution and torture and tyranny of Central Europe, their first month here one of absolute thankfulness and delight, but finding themselves month after month forbidden to take employment, supported by charity—what kind of population are you thus going to make in this country? The effect on the refugees, the effect on this country, is going to be bad. I want the Ministry of Labour the Home Office, and the Trade Union Congress to co-operate from now on to see if they cannot be more liberal in what refugees of all races and all faiths who have come here, persecuted, may be allowed to do to encourage them to become useful citizens of this free country.
6.54 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to take the point the noble Lord has just made because I must admit to your Lordships I am considerably puzzled by two rather contradictory streams which seem to me to have run through this debate. Most, if not all, of the noble Lords who have spoken have had personal experience of the various refugee committees which are set up, and therefore have spoken with personal and expert knowledge which I cannot claim; but I am emboldened to speak to your Lordships for just a minute because there is a point of principle on which I wish to press the noble Marquess who is going to reply on behalf of the Government. I was struck by a phrase which fell from the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Listowel)
1058
when he said—I am not sure whether he gave it as a matter of opinion or as a matter of fact—that this country was ceasing to be a country of asylum. I am not quite sure how far that is justifiable. I gather from the noble Lord who has just spoken that he feels strongly that the policy of this country has been a liberal one, and therefore I must assume there is a difference of opinion. One thing is clear, and that is that very great numbers of potential refugees are being kept out.
The point to which I would direct the attention of the noble Marquess is, what is the policy of the Government on the main question? We have been proud of the role that this country has for centuries played as a country of asylum. I do not think we can deny that while we may have the right to be proud, at the same time we all know it is a policy which has redounded to our great profit. Is that still the policy of this country or is it not? Is it just possible that a situation has arisen in which sectional interests are so powerful and so vocal that they have succeeded in each case in making a good individual reason for opposition to immigration, and that our national policy has therefore in some measure become overlain by a concatenation of sectional oppositions? The question of great principle is this: Is it still true to-day that a stream of refugee immigration is of value to this country or is it not? The noble Earl who introduced the Motion spoke of an investment. What I want to know from the Government is, do they still feel that our historic and traditional policy is right? Are immigrants an investment—a long-term investment if you like, which may carry with it some temporary liability? Many of your Lordships must have given prizes at school. I wonder how many of your Lordships have spoken to the school boys about character being their greatest asset. Is that true or is it not? If it is true, surely we must still maintain our traditional policy of being a country of asylum?
I am left with the impression, from the speeches of noble Lords who have spoken with great knowledge, that we cannot claim to-day that we are still a country of asylum in the same measure as we have been in the past. Do not let us drift into a condition of refusal when a long-term policy, even if accompanied by some temporary liability, might in the end redound greatly not only to our honour but

1059
to our profit. Is there a case for inquiry? I speak with great diffidence because I do not know; but I hear it stated on all sides by those who advocate the admission of more refugees that we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces in keeping them out. What a double tragedy if not only we are contributing to the tragedy of these unfortunate people who are being condemned to a living death in other countries, but at the same time we are refusing to profit by what would be to ourselves an opportunity and a benefit!
6.59 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA): My Lords, there was, at any rate, one part of the speech of the noble Earl who introduced this Motion with which I found myself in very considerable agreement, and that was when he referred to the difficulty of co-ordinating the work of what he called six Departments, although I myself believe only four are concerned. I must therefore apologise if at some stages I appear to be rather disjointed in my arguments, because it has been a very considerable effort to co-ordinate the various briefs with which I have been furnished. While I am on that point I must point out that a Minister is actually co-ordinating this work of refugees in the person of the Paymaster-General, Lord Winterton, and I think, therefore, that that particular criticism of the Government falls to the ground. But, as a Government, we welcome most sincerely the Motion which Lord Lytton has put down as it gives us an opportunity to explain to some extent our policy with regard to a problem which has touched what by a paradox I may call a nerve of Christian sympathy in the hearts of all whether they call themselves Christians or whether they call themselves Jews. I furthermore fully agree with the noble Lord when he stressed the wide extent of the problem with which we are faced. This problem of anti-Semitism has, of course, occurred very often before in the history of the world. Usually it has burned itself out fairly quickly, but I do not think that the world has ever witnessed the problem in so vigorous and in so acute a form as the one in which it presents itself to us to-day.
1060
Furthermore, while agreeing with him and with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, when they said that to some extent the measure of our civilisation can be judged by the attitude we adopt to this problem and the way in which we tackle it, I do not think that so far we need be ashamed of what the reaction of ourselves and other civilised countries has been when this problem was first presented to them. I would like first to speak of those countries which were nearest to the problem—those countries of first refuge, of which we have heard so much. I confess that the debate has taken a turn different from that which I expected, in so far as great emphasis was laid on the countries of first refuge and comparatively little emphasis was laid on those countries where ultimate settlement might be expected, but in regard to the countries who have been asked to contribute to this emergency I would like to say how much I agree with those noble Lords who praised the work both of Belgium and Holland. Those countries have contributed, one might almost say, out of all proportion to their populations to the help of these refugees, and I can assure your Lordships that this country will do all it can to help those countries in the natural difficulties in which they might find themselves involved as a consequence. I would also like to pay tribute to the way in which Poland, which has been mentioned during the debate, has treated the refugees from Czecho-Slovakia. It has done it in a most generous and warm-hearted manner. Finally, there is France, which, as has often been pointed out, has not merely got this particular problem of the Jewish refugees from Germany to deal with, but also the very grave question of the refugees coming over the border from Spain.
Nor, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most of your Lordships, though there has been some difference of view, has Great Britain during these last years had anything to reproach herself with in the attitude that she has adopted as a country of first refuge. There was, of course, the Lord Baldwin Fund; there were the extraordinarily generous contributions made by British Jews; there were the local refugee committees set up, and the private houses that were offered. At the present moment there are 40,000 refugees in this country. They are made

1061
up in various ways and in various categories. For instance, we have allowed in just under 7,000 children, who have been admitted, it is true, on the condition that they are re-emigrated at the age of eighteen, but the Home Office is already in consultation with the movement for the care of children from Germany as to the possibility of absorbing some of the younger children who cannot rejoin their parents in another country. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the noble Earl's point, and the point that has been made by other speakers, is under active consideration by His Majesty's Government at the present moment. I think that would also have reassured the most reverend Primate had he been here to hear me say it.
Then there are 3,700 families who have been given temporary asylum by means of visas up to June 30. There are 700 agricultural trainees now in this country, and there are 1,400 industrial trainees; and so it goes on. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go right through the whole list of categories, but, as your Lordships know, the Richborough Camp, which is the responsibility of the Council for German Jewry, has already received 2,000 men, and authority has already been given for 400 more to go there. One other category I would like to mention in particular. Mention has been made of refugees as an investment. I think there is no better investment than intellectual accomplishment, and I am proud to be able to say that English scholars have played no mean part in taking charge of the German scholars and students who were forced out of their chairs or out of their professorships. I have no doubt at all that in that respect the intellectual strength of the country has been immensely fortified. Therefore, I do not think it can really be said, taking all the difficulties into consideration that either Poland or what are loosely called the Western Powers have anything really to reproach themselves with in regard to their first reactions to the solution of a problem that is not one of their making.
It is unfortunately true not merely that the problem was grave when it first started, but that it is not becoming any less grave as the years pass. Mention has been made of those additional refugees who came upon charity from Spain and I was particularly asked some
1062
questions by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about Spanish refugees. The first question was what was happening to Spanish refugees at Oran. The Treasury is considering the possibility of giving a grant of financial assistance for the payment of their emigration to Mexico. I was also asked what plans we had for those of the International Brigade who could not be repatriated. Well, the Germans and the Austrians of that Brigade have already been accepted by Sweden.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Marquess how recently that offer has been officially made by the Swedish Government?
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: To tell the noble Earl the truth, I am not a spokesman really for the Foreign Office, and it was only because my advisers told me that it had been made that I made that statement. Finally I was asked what we could do for relief among refugees in the camps in France and North Africa. I would remind the noble Earl that we gave £100,000 to the International Commission for the assistance of refugees in Spain, and this sum has partly been spent to relieve the Spanish refugees in France and North Africa. Furthermore, as the noble Earl himself said, His Majesty's Government have given £50,000 to the British Red Cross for relief among men of military age in the camps in France. Therefore in that particular respect our efforts have not been negligible.
May I turn to another aspect, that is the aspect of the Czech refugees, who it has been suggested in the course of the debate have some special claim on our attention? It will be remembered that after the events of March 15 His Majesty's Government announced that we intended to continue to apply for the purpose for which it was originally intended the free gift to the Czech Government of £4,000,000 which under the Agreement of January, 1939, was to be used for the payment of the expenses of the emigration of refugees from the territories ceded by Czecho-Slovakia as defined in the White Paper issued at the time. It is obvious that the application of that Agreement in the circumstances now prevailing has given rise to very considerable difficulty. In any case the commitments of the fund for refugees

1063
who have already left Czecho-Slovakia are so heavy that the amount available for future immigration would, I regret to say, be limited. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the Government have contributed very largely to the possibility of large numbers of Czechs being able to emigrate. There again I feel that His Majesty's Government and the British people have nothing to be ashamed about. Of course I do feel that these matters are quite clearly palliative. I mention them because I think it is important we should not under-estimate what we have done in this matter, any more than we should over-estimate what we have done.
It is quite clear—here I agree with every speaker who has taken part in the debate—that we must in this matter plan not in terms of years but of decades. We must try to have a long-view policy in this matter, and it seems to me we must not merely bring into our plan countries with a settled administration and settled population who are able to absorb a certain proportion of these refugees, but we must apply our whole minds to the question of whether we can use those territories which have not been tapped either by private or by public funds. Infiltration is, of course, of the very greatest value. Thirty thousand a year are going to America, 5,000 a year for three years are going to Australia, 75,000 in five years are going to Palestine. At least 50,000 of those will certainly be refugees and a large proportion of the remaining 25,000 will in all probability be refugees. Those contributions, and many smaller ones, are clearly of the greatest importance. It is because the British Empire, as is sometimes forgotten, cannot shoulder this burden alone, that international action is of such tremendous importance. The two international bodies which are dealing with this matter are the High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations and the London Inter-Governmental Committee for Refugees, which has as its Chairman the Paymaster-General, Lord Winterton, to whom I have already referred, while Mr. Myrom Taylor, representing the United States, Senator Bérenger, President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French Senate, and many other representatives of ambassadorial rank or of the rank of High Commissioner are members of it.
1064
I mention these facts in order to make clear the importance and influence of that Committee.
I cannot share the view expressed by my noble friend when he criticised that Committee and said that the work should never have been taken out of the hands of the League of Nations. I would remind him that that Committee is able to do two things that the League of Nations would not be able to do. In the first place, it is able to bring in the United States Government, which I think he will agree is of the highest importance; and secondly, through that Inter-Governmental Committee and through the fact that America is represented on that Committee, we are able to work in far closer co-operation in matters affecting refugees than we should have if it had not existed. Moreover, as Sir Herbert Emerson, who is the League Commissioner, is also the Director of the office of the Inter-Governmental Committee, the two organisations can work in the closest harmony together. That Committee, when you get down to it, has two functions to perform, and those are the functions upon which the success or failure of the solution of this emigration problem is going to depend.
The first function is obtaining conditions under which the refugees can leave their country of origin with a reasonable capital and reasonable equipment for the new life that they are taking up. I do not think that I need weary your Lordships with an account of the negotiations of Mr. Rublee, who was then the Director of the Inter-Governmental Committee, with the German Government. I would only say that I am sorry that, so far, the conditions that he eventually secured have not been implemented. The second function of this Committee to which we must all turn our minds is the question of permanent settlement: where are you going to put your refugees when you have got them out? Of course, if they have capital the problem is less hard to solve than if they have no capital, but sooner or later you have to decide where they are going to remain as permanent citizens.
It has been suggested by many speakers this evening that we could absorb many more of them into our population. I am the last to deny the virtues and the value that we should get from immigrants of the right type, but I must confess that I

1065
thought that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, under-estimated the danger of a growth of anti-Semitic feeling in this country if any very large increase of the Jewish population of this country were attempted by any Government. It is, of course, a matter of opinion; it is difficult to prove what one feels. But I have the strongest feeling that any very large increase in the Jewish population of this country would provoke an anti-Semitic feeling which I cannot disguise from myself is an underlying factor in England in common with almost every other country in the world. I would therefore urge on all those who have suggested that course the necessity for the greatest caution in advancing in that direction. It is not that I say for a moment that that course may not be the right one in the long run to pursue if cautiously pursued, but I would say that it is not one which I should care to see embarked upon rashly or at very great speed.
Then, if England is not to be the final place of refuge, we come to those other places, such as South America and British Guiana. We need not go into details of the possibility of settlement in those countries at this stage. I think the real argument underlying every speech that was made was not whether British Guiana could or could not be made a place where many thousands of Jews could settle, but rather whether or not the Government would put up the money to enable them to go to British Guiana or to South America or the rest. That, I think, was the fundamental question which was raised. And I can only reaffirm the policy which the Prime Minister clearly laid down, which is that whereas we are prepared to go to the very limit of our resources in supplying services and administration, and even transport, we do not feel justified at this stage in giving actual financial assistance to these schemes.
I think it is unnecessary for me to go into all the various points that have been raised during the course of the debate. As a matter of fact my rather general speech has probably covered most of them. For instance, I think that by implication I have answered Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I say that the policy of His Majesty's Government still remains the same as regards England as a country of asylum, and I for one should be very sorry indeed if ever we were to depart from it. We are adopting wherever possible
1066
as generous a policy as we can. The Ministry of Labour, for instance, has given or is giving special permission for Czech agricultural labourers to work where there is a proved shortage of English agricultural labourers. We are trying to give to all our regulations—which, after all, were carefully framed and devised to protect our own population—the most liberal interpretation possible; and equally we are determined that every aid that we can give for further settlement of the refugees in our Colonies or in South America or anywhere else in the world we will freely give. With that assurance I hope that my noble friend will agree that we have done all that can reasonably be expected of us at this stage in the very grave and drastic problem with which we have found ourselves so suddenly confronted.
7.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not at this hour and with this audience propose to detain your Lordships for more than a moment, but there are one or two things that I want very much to say in reference to the very interesting speech to which we have just listened. I confess I felt a little depressed. First there was Lord Harlech, who told us that the day of large settlement was over; then there was my noble friend Lord Dufferin, who told us that there was great danger in infiltration. There does not seem to be much else. I do not say that for the purpose of making a debating point; I hope my noble friend will fully understand it is not that. I do feel that the problem is immensely difficult and that a great deal of what both noble Lords said is quite true; and yet, unless we do face it and find a solution, we are in the presence of a terrific human catastrophe. Therefore I very earnestly beseech the Government to set about making a definite plan.
The noble Marquess said that he was in favour of it, but he will forgive me for saying that I did not see much trace of a definite plan after that very encouraging statement. That is why I distrust, let me say it quite frankly, the Inter-Governmental Committee. The noble Marquess mentioned some of its members. I happen to know some of them, and nothing would surprise me more than to hear that they were going to make a definite plan on any subject. I am quite

1067
sure that the Inter-Governmental Committee will never do anything, because they will never like to commit their Governments to a definite proposition. Therefore I most heartily agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Lytton at the outset; that what was required was an expert committee, which no doubt would be drawn from all sorts of different nationalities, including, if necessary, the United States, for there is no difficulty in getting a United States expert to sit on such a committee. Let them meet and draft a definite plan to be worked towards in all activities. I am sure that unless that is done we shall never get far.
There is no such definite plan. Nobody knows what we are aiming at, or what we are doing. We make a little movement towards infiltration, and then inquire about the possibilities in British Guiana, but nothing comes of it. I therefore hope the Government will realise that the London Committee will never be able to do this particular piece of work and that there should be an expert committee to draw up a plan. I agree that it would be better to do it under the machinery of the League. As to the difficulty about the assistance of the United States, believe me that no longer exists. There is no longer that horror of Geneva which at one time paralysed assistance from the United States. I beg the Government to consider that aspect, because until you have a definite proposal which you can bring before each Government in turn, and ask them what they will do, I am very much afraid that none of the measures which are at present in operation are going to ward off the catastrophe which I see looming nearer
1068
and nearer to civilisation out of this refugee question.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I think my Motion has served a useful purpose, because we have had a most interesting discussion. A significant fact is that every speaker who has taken part in it has supported my contention, that this refugee problem was one which was quite beyond the scope of private charity. The noble Marquess who replied for the Government will therefore hardly expect me to be entirely satisfied with his statement, that in spite of that opinion the Government were of opinion that public funds could not be devoted to the relief of refugees. I quite understand that the noble Marquess is not in a position to alter the policy of the Government as a result of a discussion in this House, but I do hope that the Government will take note of the unanimity of the opinion expressed in this House, an opinion which represents that of all the organisations, without exception, that are engaged in refugee work, to-day, and consider seriously making some change in their policy to meet that unanimous opinion. If that is done I shall feel that this discussion has served some purpose. I thank all your Lordships who have taken part in the discussion, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, may I remind your Lordships that we meet at three o'clock to-morrow?
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.