Sitting of 25 July 1939

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Southampton Harbour Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    JAPAN (IMPORTS).
    1. Mr. Gallacherasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and value, respectively, of non-ferrous metals, rubber, oil, and raw cotton imported by Japan in each of the last 10 years, and the sources of supply?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am having a statement prepared, which I will send to the hon. Member.

    Bulgaria.
    2. Mr. Cocksasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now say what steps are being taken by which British purchases of tobacco, fruit, cereals, and other products from Bulgaria could be increased; and whether he has had in mind the fact that the whole export trade of Bulgaria amounts to less than £10,000,000, and that a comparatively little help from Great Britain would make a great difference to her economic independence?
    Mr. Stanley: As regards imports from Bulgaria in general, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on nth July to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Sir J. Leech). As I have informed the House, the question of increasing purchases of oriental tobacco is being examined, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. Cocks: Are the discussions which were proceeding with Bulgaria a fortnight ago proceeding satisfactorily?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that there is political significance in this matter?
    Mr. Stanley: The discussions are proceeding satisfactorily, and I hope soon to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

    JAPAN-KIND RICE.
    3. Mr. Hannahasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that finest Australian Japan-kind rice is being sold with the words "Foreign produce" erased, on labels displaying Japanese girls, and "Empire produce" substituted; and whether he will take action to prevent this?
    Mr. Stanley: I understand that Japan-kind rice is a recognised name for a type of rice produced in Australia, Spain, and other countries. Japan-kind rice grown in Australia is properly described as "Empire produce," but if my hon. Friend would send me particulars of any case where the labels to which he refers have been applied to Japan-kind rice grown in a foreign country, I should be pleased to consider what action could be taken.
    Mr. Hannah: Does my right hon. Friend know that I have here a label definitely altered, printed by the Co-operative Wholesale Society?

    JAPANESE SHIRTINGS (IMPORTATION FROM EIRE).
    8. Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to prevent the importation of Japanese poplin shirtings into this country from Eire, at prices below the cost of production in this country?
    Mr. Stanley: I have no information about the imports to which the hon. Member refers. During the last three months, imports of cotton goods from Eire under what would appear to be the appropriate headings, amounted to £85. Foreign goods, when imported from Eire, are subject to the same rates of duty as those charged when they are imported direct from the country of origin.

    NEWS FILMS (DISTRIBUTION).
    10. Colonel Sandeman Allenasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain restaurants wishing to exhibit extracts from the news-reel films of Their Majesties' visit to Canada, have been refused supplies by British news-reel producing companies because the latter are bound by their arrangements with exhibitors not to distribute their films for such purposes; and whether he will investigate this undesirable restaint on news-films distribution with a view to remedial action?
    Mr. Stanley: I understand that most of the news-reel companies confine the supply of their films to their regular cinema customers; but this is not a matter in which I have any power to intervene.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
    12. Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that he has now received the views from the various trade organisations he has consulted on the question of the advisability of amending the existing law relative to the clear marking of goods which are offered to the public for sale with a clear indication of their country of origin, he can state what action he now proposes to take?
    Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 4th July to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).
    Mr. Day: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it time that British subjects were made acquainted with the facts that merchandise and supplies sold in Great Britain came from aggressor countries?
    Mr. Stanley: It is as a result of that that I gave the answer to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, to which I am now referring the hon. Member.

    CHINA.
    16. Mr. Kennedyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has observed the record fall in the United Kingdom trade with China during the first six months of this year, attributable to the Japanese capture and isolation of Canton and Kongmun and other Chinese ports; and whether any action is being taken to counteract the effect of the Japanese occupation?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware that the imports from China in the first six months of this year were less by about £760,000 than in the corresponding period of last year. Our exports and re-exports were, however, both slightly greater. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government will continue to watch the situation closely with a view to taking any appropriate steps that may appear necessary and practicable in order to protect this country's trade with China.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    CANADIAN LUMBER.
    4. Miss Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate conversations with the Canadian lumber trade to discuss the possibility of concluding an agreement for the increased utilisation of British shipping?
    Mr. Stanley: This matter appears to be one for consideration in the first instance by the shipping industry. Any help I could give would, of course, be available.
    Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be much more likely to lead to a successful conclusion if these conversations were initiated with the full weight of His Majesty's Government, and will he consider that?
    Mr. Stanley: I doubt whether that is the case. I think that on the whole these matters are better initiated by the industries which are running his particular business, but, as I say, the Government will be only too pleased to assist in any possible way.
    Miss Ward: In view of that answer, will my right hon. Friend consider asking the shipping industry whether they would like to initiate conversations?
    Mr. Stanley: It seems eminently a matter that is more suitable for the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee when it is set up.

    BRITISH SEAMEN AND LASCARS.
    Mr. Windsorasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the number of lascars employed in British ships for each of the years 1930–38, inclusive;

    1221
    (2) the number of domiciled British seamen employed on British ships for each of the years 1930-38, inclusive?
    Mr. Stanley: Particulars as to the domicile of seamen are not available, but I will circulate in the Official Report such information as is compiled.
    Following is the information:

    The numbers of British seamen and lascars employed on sea-trading vessels registered in the United Kingdom, which were employed at some time during each of the years 1930 to 1938, were as follow:

    Year.

    British seamen (other than lascars).

    Lascars (British subjects and foreigners).

    1930

    160,865

    56,416

    1931

    140,553*

    55,373

    1932

    131,277

    52,117

    1933

    125,839

    49,080

    1934

    124,993

    48,293

    1935

    125,765

    48,009

    1936

    129,775*

    47,307

    1937

    132,299

    48,658

    1938

    131,749

    50,702

    * Of the 108,882 British seamen recorded at the Census of Seamen taken on 26th April, 1931, the birthplace of 98,956 was stated to be in the United Kingdom, the corresponding figures for the Census taken on 15th June, 1936, being 101,887 and 91,176, respectively.

    SCANDINAVIAN AND RUSSIAN TRADE.
    5. Miss Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider initiating conversations with the Scandinavian countries and Russia to discuss the possibility of concluding an agreement which will ensure for British shipping a fair proportion of the carrying trade between Great Britain and these countries?
    Mr. Stanley: The question of increasing the employment of British ships in the trades of the Soviet Union will be one of the subjects for discussion in any trade negotiations with that country. The possibility of enlarging the scope of British shipping employment in trade with the Scandinavian countries will be borne in mind in any negotiations which may take place in the future for a revision of the trade agreements with those countries.
    Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it might be useful to have a Ministry of Shipping in view of
    1222
    the number of problems that ought to be reviewed in connection with shipping?
    Mr. Stanley: On Tuesday afternoons, when I answer questions dealing with shipping, I am always rather favourably inclined to that suggestion.
    Mr. A. Reed: Will not my right hon. Friend impress on the Shipping Federation the necessity of getting boats suitable for this trade, and can he find out how many are suitable for this timber trade?

  WHEAT, FLOUR, AND BREAD PRICES.
  6. Mr. De la Bè: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the Board of Trade have no control over the price of bread, and the price of bread in London is regulated voluntarily in accordance with the Food Council's scale, but the Food Council have no authority or control in this matter, he will introduce legislation to give the necessary control or authority to the Food Council to deal with these matters?
  Mr. Stanley; No, Sir: The voluntary regulation of bread prices has worked satisfactorily for a number of years. As my hon. Friend will remember, the question of granting powers to fix maximum prices for certain commodities (including articles of food) was the subject of debate in this House as recently as 10th February last.
  Mr. De la Bè: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is one central, vital fact arising out of this question, and that is that the Millers Mutual Association, a price-fixing association, have falsified the price of flour for many years, and will the Board of Trade no longer seek to evade this issue, which is very important?
  Mr. De la Bè:asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, since the present price of flour is 27s. a sack in London and the present price of wheat is the lowest on record, he will have an inquiry made as to the relationship between the present price of flour and the low record price of wheat;
  (2) whether, since the present price of flour is 27s. per sack of 280 lb., he will set up some body to investigate the origin of and justification for this price, since the cost of production of good Kansas

  1223
  wheats, entirely satisfactory for flour for bread making, is, approximately, 16s. per sack of 280 lb. delivered?
  Mr. Stanley: As I informed my hon. Friend on 20th June, the Food Council keep a continuous watch on the relation between the prices of wheat, flour, and bread. I see no reason for the institution of a special inquiry such as is suggested. I would point out that the price of 27s. a sack of flour includes a quota payment of 5s. 6d. under the Wheat Act. I am informed, moreover, that the London price of flour cannot be related solely to the price of Kansas wheat, which is one of the cheaper wheats.
  Mr. De la Bè: Is my right hon. Friend aware that quota payments are quite beside the point, and that the chairman of the Food Council told me himself that they had not got the necessary powers or authority, and will he take steps to give the Food Council the necessary powers or authority? Will he be kind enough to answer?
  Mr. Stanley: One of the results of the Bill which we discussed on 10th February would have been to give this power, but my hon. Friend was one among the majority of the House who voted against such a Bill being passed.
  Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of the relations between the selling price of flour and the selling price of bread, bread is coming down ½d. a loaf on Monday?
  Mr. De la Bè:reIs it not a fact that I have asked for a Departmental Committee to consider this whole scandal, and that the President of the Board of Trade has resisted me time after time? On a point of Order. My right hon. Friend told me that he would answer Question No. 14 with Question No. 7. but actually he did not do so. I think he omitted unintentionally to answer it, so may I have an answer to No. 14 now?
  Mr. Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman answered it.
  Mr. De la Bè: With great deference and respect Sir, I am afraid he quite forgot to do so.
  Major Carver:asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware
  1224
  that although a heavy fall in the price of wheat has taken place, and a consequent reduction in the price of flour, yet the retail price of the loaf of bread, which constitutes the daily purchase of most families, has not altered for some months; and what action he proposes to take to prevent profiteering amongst bakers?
  Mr. Stanley: The price of bread in London is regulated voluntarily in accordance with the Food Council's scale, under which the price of the 4-lb. loaf varies by ½d. for every 4s. rise or fall in the price of a sack of 280 lbs. of straight run flour. If the price of a sack of flour does not rise above the figure of 27s., to which it was recently reduced, the price of the loaf should be reduced to 7½d. on the 31st July. The Food Council's scale sets a standard which is followed in many other parts of the country.
  Mr. De la Bè re: What is the use of this Food Council scale if it is permitted to be falsified? We shall never get any further with this. Is it not a national scandal and utterly vicious that this price-fixing association should go on?
  Mr. Stanley: We are going to get a ½d. off the loaf next Monday.
  Mr. De la Bè re: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the high price of bread is not the fault of the bakers, but of the Millers Mutual?

  HERR WOHLTAT'S VISIT (CONVERSATIONS).
  Mr. Arthur Henderson:asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement on the visit of Dr. Wohltat, Marshal Goering's trade delegate, to this country?
  Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement which the Prime Minister made yesterday in reply to a question by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. Henderson: May I ask whether Dr. Wohltat had any conversations with the Board of Trade, and also whether it is intended, as a result of his visit, to resume the trade negotiations between representatives of the F.B.I. and the German industrialists which were suspended as a result of the German annexation of Bohemia and Moravia?
  Mr. Stanley: In answer to the third part of the question, no official of the

  1225
  Board of Trade, of the Department of Overseas Trade, or of the Export Credits Department had any meetings or discussions with Dr. Wohltat during his recent visit. With regard to the second part, the position remains exactly as announced by me after the events of March, that in view of the political situation existing the conversations had to be suspended.

  RISKS ASSOCIATIONS.
  Mr. A. V. Alexanderasked the President of the Board of Trade whether such companies as the Special Risks Mutual Association now have to register in the insurance section of the Companies Department of the Board of Trade, and to make a deposit of £20,000 under the Insurance Companies Act, 1909?
  Mr. Stanley: I am advised that the business carried on by the association to which the right hon. Gentleman refers and by certain other associations of a similar character is not of a class which falls within the ambit of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and they are not required to make any deposit under that Act.
  Mr. Alexander: Does not the right hon. Gentleman propose to take some action to prevent the very serious risk of losses to large numbers of people being inveigled into joining such associations?
  Mr. Stanley: As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is setting up a committee to deal with exactly these points.
  Mr. Shinwell: Would associations such as that referred to in the question undertake war risk insurance on behalf of the Board of Trade in time of war?
  Mr. Stanley: Not except by agreement with the Board of Trade.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MILITIAMEN (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
    Miss Ward:asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that married militiamen separated from their wives but making a regular allowance, will be entitled to receive appropriate allowances under the regulations?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Any claim of this kind will be referred to the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee and will be dealt with as the committee recommend.
    Miss Ward: Am I to take it from that answer that there is nothing to prohibit a married militiaman separated from his wife drawing an allowance?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, my hon. Friend may so assume.
    Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has been stated by certain commanding officers that an instruction was issued by the War Office that no such allowances were to be paid and that I am very glad to have my right hon. Friend's assurance?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think that my statement is more authoritative.
    Mr. Thorne: Would a widowed mother who has had sons who were her chief support called up under the Military Training Act be entitled to make an application for assistance?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Certainly.

    SOLDIER'S DEATH, FORT GEORGE.
    Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. MacManus, Gailes Street, Glasgow, whose son, Private William Lynch Lawson, was killed at Fort George while serving with the 1st Battalion Highland Light Infantry, through the explosion of a steam cooker, and that his mother was refused a pension or compensation; and what steps does he propose to take to rectify this injustice?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I understand that the soldier was not, in fact, supporting Mrs. MacManus, or his stepfather, before his death, and, further, that the latter is not incapable of self-support.
    Mr. Gallacher: Does the fact not remain that this woman's son lost his life while in the service of the War Office, and ought not the War Office to pay some compensation to a mother for a son whom she has lost in their service?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that the lady in this case was not dependent on

    1227
    the soldier. It would be quite unreasonable to suggest that an allowance should be paid to someone who was not previously dependent. That would not be the case under the civil law.
    Mr. Gallacher: But under the civil law the mother has not of necessity to be dependent on a son in order to get compensation if he is killed and if he is killed in the service of the War Office surely she is entitled to compensation?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think the civil law is as I have stated.

    BUILDING CONTRACTS.
    Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that military camps are being erected under contract terms on a cost plus percentage basis; that contractors are employing men at rates exceeding the standard trade union rates and which exceed the rates paid to permanent employés in the districts; and whether he can make a statement on this matter?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Most of the contracts for the larger Militia camps were placed on the basis of prime cost plus a fee for profit, overhead expenses and the use of certain tools. Most of the smaller camp contracts are on a fixed price basis, or on a cost basis with the contractor's remuneration calculated as a percentage of an estimate of the prime cost. The cost plus percentage of cost basis has been used in one exceptional case only. The cost plus fixed fee contracts contain a stipulation that rates in excess of those for the time being awarded by the wage fixing machinery of the building industry shall not be paid. I am aware that, in order to provide the necessary labour, "exceptional margin" rates, higher than those normally payable in the districts, concerned, have been fixed by the industry for some of these camps but I have learned of only one case in which the rates of wages, etc., paid were in excess of those required by the working rules of the industry, and immediate steps were taken to have the wages reduced in that case.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain areas where these camps are being erected the inflation of wages has caused much local difficulty in other employments?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is very unfortunate that he made use of the phrase that wages would be reduced? It is obvious that this is an inspired question, but will the right hon. Gentleman remember that it is the modern idea that where excess rates are paid they get the best results and the greatest amount of co-operation?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I was not aware that this was an inspired question, although inspiration may take strange forms, but the wages are fixed by the industry itself.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is there any reason why the wages should not be in excess of those in a particular wages agreement and by what right does the right hon. Gentleman take steps to bring about a reduction?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: To pay the higher wages would be a breach of an agreement with the industry, and of course we wish to observe it, so that the fair system may prevail both for those concerned and also for the taxpayers.
    Mr. Fleming: Will my right hon. Friend consider investigating the rumours going around in Manchester that at Kinmel Park, in North Wales, wages are being paid at the rate of £7 and £8 a week to unskilled workers?
    Mr. De la Bè:re How do these wages compare with the soldier's wages?
    29.Mr. Gordon Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for War by what method firms are asked to tender for Government work; whether all reputable firms in the area in which the buildings are to be erected are invited to tender; or whether the invitation is only sent to certain firms both inside and outside the area?
    30.Captain Sir William Brassasked the Secretary of State for War what procedure is adopted in asking for tenders by contractors for the building of camps for militiamen, in order that competitive prices are submitted to his Department?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The normal method of placing contracts for War Department building services is by competitive tendering amongst firms selected from those noted on the Department's list of contractors. The selection of firms for any particular tendering depends upon the locality, nature and size of the work, and

    1229
    aims at including firms both inside and outside the area concerned which are considered from the Department's records most likely to quote economical prices and to carry out the work satisfactorily and punctually. In the case of Militia camps, it has been necessary to dispense with competition in a few cases owing to the extreme urgency of the work, but otherwise the usual procedure has been followed.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that there is much suspicion among many firms in various districts with regard to the method which is now adopted and will he take steps to include more firms on the selection list?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the hon. Member will be kind enough to tell me where that suspicion prevails I will certainly look into any suggestions that are made.
    Mr. Macdonald: One place is Wigan and district.
    Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction among local contractors, who consider that they ought to be allowed to tender, instead of its being confined to the very big contractors, who then subcontract to the local people?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware of the great urgency there is in this matter. I am sorry if that feeling should prevail, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me any particular instance I will with pleasure look into it.
    35. Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men employed on War Office work by Messrs. Chivers, on Salisbury Plain, are working overtime that, in some cases, brings their working week up to 70 hours; and whether he will take steps to see that all work done in connection with building hutments for militiamen, with ammunition dumps, etc., will be carried through without overtime so that the unemployed may receive additional chances of employment?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am aware that men working for Messrs. Chivers on contracts for hutted camps for the Militia have been working a considerable amount of overtime owing to the speed with which this work must go forward. I cannot undertake that urgent building services shall be carried out without overtime, but it is
    1230
    the practice, except in contracts of great urgency, to impress on contractors the desirability of working ordinary time only, and of providing increasing labour by employing additional hands. Messrs. Chivers actually need 1,000 extra carpenters, and are advertising extensively for them.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister not make inquiries to find out whether there is any opportunity of employing men as labourers from among the unemployed?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that there is a shortage of labour there, and naturally we are glad to be able to employ anybody who is suitable.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that there are many labourers among the unemployed there?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know whether the trade unions would welcome unskilled men to do skilled work.
    39. Mr. Ritsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will appoint a representative to meet the hon. Member for Durham at the contractor's works near Durham to inquire into the number of hours per day the men are compelled to work?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, provided that the contractor raises no objection to the hon. Member's proposal.
    Mr. Ritson: Why leave it in the hands of the contractor? May I repeat the question I put before? This was a deputation of ex-service men who had been out of work for years. Why accept the word of the contractor, who is interested in the matter.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think I have tried to help the hon. Gentleman. I have done a considerable amount of research to get him the figures, which did not tally with the information which he had. I have now told him that, with the contractor's consent, I have no objection to his visiting the works and examining the books. The contract provides for examination of the wages sheet by a military officer; that is the only right I have under the contract. I propose to ask the contractor that the hon. Gentleman may also examine them and I am not expecting any difficulty. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that I am trying to help him.

    MILITIA (BERETS).
    25. Sir A. Gridleyasked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been finally decided that the new Militia are to be supplied with berets to be worn when off duty; whether he will arrange for the supply of a headgear more suitable and more English in type, such as a soft-felt hat; and whether he has sought the advice and co-operation of the hat industry on this subject?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: A beret was thought to be the most suitable and convenient form of headgear.
    Mr. Robert Gibson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the Balmoral or Kilmarnock bonnets would be better?
    Mr. Hore-BelishaI imagine that the beret is a degenerate form of that particular type of headgear.
    Mr. Gibson: Why encourage degeneracy?
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Will not my right hon. Friend consider substituting for the beret an English tweed cloth cap?
    Mr. F. Anderson: Are these berets made wholly in this country?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, and that is one reason why we have selected them.

    AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.
    26. Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an unfair strain is being put upon the self-sacrifice and energy of the women who have joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service, due to lack of helpful advice, administrative, and other facilities, reasonable travelling, and other expenses; and will he bring this important adjunct to the armed forces in every respect more nearly into line with the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The self-sacrifice and energy of the Auxiliary Territorial Service is highly appreciated, but I am not aware of any lack of helpful advice and assistance. Dame Helen Gwynne-Vaughan has now been appointed Director of the Auxiliary Territorial Service with the rank of Chief Controller. The service is now administered largely by a staff of women, and, in certain respects, the conditions are under review.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the travelling and drill allowances are far below those of the Territorial Army, and that at the moment the scales of pay on mobilisation have not even been published?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am aware that there are at present many shortcomings but that has been inevitable in a new service, and I hope that this service will justify itself and be recognised in all respects.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the scales of pay will be published very shortly?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, if they have not been published; I thought they had been.

    CAMP, KINMEL (JOURNALISTS' VISIT).
    Sir H. Morris-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give facilities to local journalists to visit the military camp now being constructed at Kinmel, North Wales?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am informed that every facility has been given.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a journalist was refused admission to this camp, and in view of the general interest taken in our new Army and the fact that weekly newspapers are giving the new Army every support will he give every encouragement to publicity?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. I readily recognise that the newspapers, and particularly the local newspapers, have given every support, and I am advised that the Press were granted facilities for visiting this camp, but I am glad that my hon. Friend has called attention to this matter and I will see that any defect is remedied.
    Mr. Thorne: Will any Members of Parliament be at liberty to visit these camps at any time they think proper?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.

    DISPENSING ARRANGEMENTS.
    Mr. Thorne:asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider setting up a committee, under the Director-General of Army Medical Ser vices, with the object of organising an efficient pharmaceutical service for the Army and the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and I are both satisfied that the dispensing requirements of the Army and the Royal Air Force are adequately met by existing arrangements.

    UNIFORM (TERRITORIALS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that numbers of uniforms have now been manufactured but that their distribution is being held up owing to the delay in getting them passed by Army officials; whether he is aware of the numbers of Territorial units without uniform; and whether, in view of the urgency of the whole matter, he will allow manufacturers to deliver direct to units as speedily as possible, cutting out the intermediate stage of uniforms being despatched to ordnance?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any case of delay due to inspection, I will have inquiries made.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Is it not a fact that there is great delay in the delivery of uniform and equipment of every form, including Been gun carriers and that this equipment is being manufactured and delivered to the War Office but is not being delivered by the War Office to the units; and can my right hon. Friend say what the delay is and whether the uniforms have been diverted elsewhere?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: My hon. and gallant Friend referred in his question to uniforms, but if he has any other articles in mind I shall be glad to look into the matter. I have given my answer on the question of uniforms, and I have no information about delay owing to inspection.
    Mr. De la Bè: Have not the Militiamen been given the Territorials uniforms?
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend assured me in a previous answer that all the Territorials would have their uniforms by July? Now it is 25th July, but they have not got their uniforms.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am informed that one uniform for every Territorial will be completed by the end of the month.
    Mr. Ralph Beaumont: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is delay in delivery of canvas overalls which are specially useful for a number of purposes, and that the lack of them is a considerable handicap to a large number of men; and will he see that every effort is made to overtake this shortage?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the shortcomings in regard to overalls and to other very necessary requirements but the House will be aware that we have had to cope with very great increases, and I think some credit is due to those who have been endeavouring to meet the increased demands.
    Mr. Perkins:Will my right hon. Friend consider the introduction of West of England cloth?

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT CAMPS, NORFOLK.
    Sir Thomas Cookasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to deal with possible outbreaks of infectious disease at the antiaircraft camps at Weybourne and Stiffkey and other War Office establishments in Norfolk?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Arrangements have been made for cases of major infectious disease to be admitted to civil isolation hospitals, and for cases of minor infectious disease to be admitted to the Military Hospital, Colchester.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: Are the regulations concerning cubic space and floor space being rigidly adhered to?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. Up to the present there has been no complaint about that.

    PHYSICAL TRAINING DEPOTS.
    Mr. George Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for War how many substandard recruits to the Regular Army at the physical training depots have been, or are, receiving nourishment in addition to the ordinary Army food; the weekly cost of this food per man; of what the extra nourishment consists; the average weekly cost per recruit of the extra nourishment; the number of recruits posted as fit as a result of this extra food; and the average period required to bring these recruits up to standard.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Up to 16th July last, a total of 2,918 recruits had joined the depots. Of this number, 2,168 had been posted to units as fit, 380 were still undergoing training, while 204 had been discharged as having failed to attain the required standard and 166 for other causes. The average period spent at the depots is nine weeks. An extra amount of 2½d. a day is allowed for each recruit, and this is expended on milk and fruit; otherwise, the diet is the same as for the regular soldier.
    Mr. Bellenger: Am I correct in saying that there are now only two depots?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Are these men to be classed as A.1 on 2½d. a day? You are doing fine.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: This is an extra allowance over and above the ration of food itself, which is very good.

    OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. De Chair:asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in view of the reduction of the age for marriage allowances on the lower deck, the Admiralty are considering the reduction of the age limit for officers' marriage allowances in the Navy; and whether he will therefore reconsider his own refusal to consider a similar reduction in the case of the Army?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There has been no refusal to consider this. Such a matter would naturally be for consultation between the Departments concerned and I can assure my hon. Friend that the position of the Army officer will in no respect be invidious.
    Mr. De Chair: Was not the argument which my right hon. Friend gave me a short time ago that the reconsideration did not apply to officers but applied to other ranks?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know to what my hon. Friend is precisely referring, but I have given him my answer.

    DISCHARGE (PURCHASE).
    Mr. De Chairasked the Secretary of State for War how many other ranks have bought themselves out of the Army
    1236
    since the regulation was introduced which prevents officers from resigning their commissions; and whether he will introduce a similar regulation to prevent other ranks from leaving the Army at a time of national emergency?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part of the question, according to the latest information I have, is 307. As regards the second part of the question, I will invite the Army Council to consider the matter.
    Mr. De Chair: Is it not rather inappropriate that at the present time of national emergency people in the Army should be able to buy themselves out by the simple expedient of putting down £35?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that I will invite the Army Council to consider my hon. Friend's proposal.

    ARMY COUNCIL (SIR HAROLD BROWN).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for War what are the reasons which have led to the exclusion of Engineer-Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Brown from the Army Council?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Sir Harold Brown and his Department are being transferred to the Ministry of Supply.

    MINISTERS (COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War the names of the Members of the Government who hold com missions in the Army?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will, if I may, circulate the list in the Official Report.Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with enlistments up to date, and is he thinking of having a special recruiting campaign among Members of the Government?
    Viscountess Astor: And the Opposition.
    Following is the list:
    MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO HOLD COMMISSIONS IN THE ARMY.
    Cabinet.
    Right Hon. Sir J. G. Samuel Hoare, G.C.S.I., G.B.E., C.M.G., M.P. Hon. Colonel,The London Division, R.A.S.C, T.A.
    Right Hon. Viscount Halifax, K.G., P.C., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., T.D. (Lieut.-Colonel, late T.A.). Hon. Colonel, The Yorkshire Dragoons, T.A.
    Right Hon. L. Hore-Belisha, M.P. (Major retired). Hon. Colonel, 43rd Wessex Division, R.A.S.C., T.A.
    Lieut.-Colonel The Right Hon. D. J. Colville, T.D., M.P. 6th Battalion, The Cameronians, Territorial Reserve of Officers.
    Right Hon. Sir Reginald H. Dorman-Smith, M.P. (Major, Territorial Army Reserve of Officers). Hon. Colonel, 5th Battalion, The Queen's Royal Regiment, T.A.
    Captain The Right Hon. D. E. Wallace, M.C., M.P. The Life Guards, Reserve of Officers.
    Under-Secretaries.
    Undersecretaries. Dominions Office—
    The Duke of Devonshire, M.B.E., T.D. Bt. Lieut.-Colonel, 24th (Derbyshire Yeomanry) Armoured Car Company, Territorial Army Reserve of Officers. Hon. Colonel, 40th A.A. Battalion, R.E., T.A. Hon. Colonel, 24th (Derbyshire Yeomanry) Armoured Car Company, T.A.
    Home Office—
    Osbert Peake, Esq., M.P. Lieutenant, Coldstream Guards, Reserve of Officers.
    War Office—
    Captain The Earl of Munster. 5th A.A. Division, R.A.S.C., T.A.
    Sir V. A. G. A. Warrender, Bart., M.C., M.P. Lieutenant, Grenadier Guards, Reserve of Officers.
    India Office—
    Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Muirhead, M.C., T.D., M.P. 53rd (Worcestershire and Oxfordshire Yeomanry) Anti-Tank Regiment, T.A.
    Admiralty. Civil Lord—
    Captain A. V. M. Hudson, M.P. Royal Berkshire Regiment, Reserve of Officers.
    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries— Lieutenant The Earl of Feversham. The Yorkshire Hussars, T.A.
    Treasury. Lords Commissioners—
    Major T. L. Dugdale, M.P. Captain, Scots Greys, Reserve of Officers. The Yorkshire Hussars, T.A.
    Assistant Whip—
    Lieut.-Colonel G. S. H. Watt, M.P. 31st (City of London Rifles), T.A.
    Scotland. Under-Secretary of State—
    Lieutenant H. J. S. Wedderburn, M.P. 6/7th (Perth and Fife Battalion) The Black Watch, T.A.
    His Majesty's Household. Lord Steward—
    Colonel Right Hon. The Duke of Buccleuch, P.C., G.C.V.O. Captain, Grenadier Guards, Reserve of Officers. Brigadier, King's Body Guard for Scotland. Hon. Colonel, 4th (The Border) Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers, T.A.
    Master of the Horse—
    The Duke of Beaufort, K.G., P.C., G.C.V.O. Lieutenant, Royal Horse Guards, Reserve of Officers. Hon. Colonel, 21st (Royal Gloucestershire Hussars) Armoured Car Company, T.A.
    Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentle-men-at-Arms—
    Right Hon. The Earl of Lucan, G.C.V.O., K.B.E., C.B., T.D. Hon. Colonel, The London Rifle Brigade, T.A.
    Lords in Waiting—
    The Earl of Fortescue, M.C. Lieut.-Colonel, Scots Greys, Reserve of Officers. Colonel-Commandant, Honourable Artillery Company. Colonel, Territorial Army. Hon. Colonel, 96th (Royal Devon Yeomanry) Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, T.A.
    2nd Lieutenant The Earl of Birkenhead. 53rd (Worcestershire and Oxfordshire Yeomanry) Royal Artillery, T.A.
    The Earl of Erne. Lieutenant, Royal Horse Guards, Reserve of Officers.

    CHINA GARRISON,
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War particulars of the effective cost of maintaining the British troops in the China command for the 12 months ended the last convenient date; does an Indian battalion form part of this garrison; and whether the whole of the cost of same is borne by Army funds?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The effective expenditure on our military garrison in China for the year ended 31st March, 1938, was £1,817,082, excluding recruiting and training expenses at home. Towards this sum, the Hong Kong Government contributed £337,000. An infantry battalion of the Indian Army is permanently lent for Imperial service at Hong Kong and forms part of the military garrison; its whole cost, estimated at £90,000 a year, is borne by Army Funds. Since September, 1937, a second infantry battalion of the Indian Army has been on loan from India for service at Hong Kong, the whole cost of which is, similarly, borne by Army Funds.
    Mr. Day: Is any contribution made by the people of Shanghai to this expenditure?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. I have given an answer explaining the allocation of the expenditure.

    EQUITATION SCHOOL, WEEDON.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been

    1239
    definitely decided to close down the Equitation School at Weedon; and, if so, whether he will consider establishing a training and remounts depot there to supply the remaining horsed cavalry regiments, so that these regiments will not have to devote so much time to training recruits and schooling remounts and will be able to have a fully-trained establishment at all times?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The establishment at Weedon comprises an equitation school, where officers and other ranks are trained as instructors in equitation; and a remount wing. The transfer of the school and remount wing elsewhere has not yet been finally approved. A depot squadron for training cavalry recruits has been opened at Edinburgh.
    Mr. De Chair: May I take it that, if it is decided to transfer the establishment from Weedon, it is not proposed to abolish the Equitation School as such?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I hope that my hon. Friend will not read into the answer more than it contains.

    TANKS (ROAD ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. Crowder:asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two accidents, entailed by the collision of light tanks with motor cars, were reported in the Crookham-Crondall district last month; whether, when it is essential for tanks to use public roads the need is impressed upon drivers of ascertaining the width of such roads or the possibility of using alternative thoroughfares; whether drivers of tanks are familiar with the topography of the district in which they operate; and whether he will consider issuing general instructions on this matter?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The accidents in question have not been reported to the War Office, and I am having inquiries made.

    RELIGIOUS SERVICES.
    Mr. Sorensen:asked the Secretary of State for War how many new chaplains have been appointed for service in the Regular Army during the past two years, and how many for the Territorial Army; whether there is a shortage of chaplains; what will be the increased ex-
    1240
    penditure due to extra chaplains; how many are part-time, and how many represent the Free Churches; whether he has approached, or will approach, denominational organisations with a view to securing their co-operation, and the voluntary service of clergymen, priests, ministers of religion, and others to meet the religious needs of militiamen if, and when, voluntarily requested; and whether militiamen who state their conscientious objection to attending a particular form of religious worship, or who state they are agnostics, will be allowed the alternative of attending, or forming, gatherings of an ethical and educational character?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: During the past two years, 14 extra Regular and 81 extra Territorial chaplains have been appointed, of whom one and five respectively represent the Free Churches. The extra cost involved in these appointments is some £8,000 a year. No difficulty is experienced in filling vacancies. In garrisons where there is an insufficient number of troops to justify the maintenance of regular chaplains, local clergy and ministers are employed as part-time officiating chaplains; in these, the Free Churches are included. Close co-operation is maintained with the authorities of the various churches, both depart mentally and through the Interdenominational Advisory Committee on Army Chaplaincy Services, and all nominations for chaplains of every kind are made by them. The spiritual care of militiamen will be maintained in the same manner as for Regular troops. Militiamen who have no religious belief will be permitted to make a declaration to that effect, and will not be compelled to attend the Divine Service of any church. There is: no objection to gatherings of an ethical and educational character, so long as the general regulations of the camp or station are observed.
    Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask whether, in view of the new circumstances that prevail and the various innovations that he has introduced in the Army, he will consider the complete revision of the whole relationship between religious matters and the Army service?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The hon. Member put down a question asking for detailed information, which I have given him. If, on studying it, he has any further

    1241
    questions to ask, perhaps he will put them down.
    Mr. Macquisten: Why should recruits be made to say that they have no religious beliefs? I can imagine that a number of them might say, "I have deep religious beliefs, but I do not want to attend these particular services."

  CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH (PREPARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state whether the Government can find time for the remaining stages of the Conscription of Wealth (Preparatory Provisions) Bill?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am afraid that I cannot find time for the consideration of the hon. Member's Bill.
  Mr. Mander: Does the Prime Minister really think it decent, at a time when flesh and blood are being conscripted, that similar measures should not be taken in respect of wealth?
  The Prime Minister: I understood that the hon. Member had taken his Bill off the Order Paper.
  Mr. Mander: No, Sir. May I put it in the form of a question, and ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is no foundation whatever for the statement he has just made?
  Mr. De la Bère: Is not this tit-for-tat particularly opportune?
  An Hon. Member: Most satisfactory.

  PARLIAMENT (SITTINGS).
  Mr. Mander:asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the advisability of keeping Parliament in session during the present international tension, he will consider arranging that a sitting shall be held once each week throughout August and September?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the very genuine anxiety throughout the country as to what may happen during the next two months, and the desirability of keeping Parliament in touch with the situation, will the Prime Minister say what alternative proposals he has? Will he consider meeting perhaps once a fortnight?
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: Is not the country much more anxious not to have inquisitive questions asked?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  47. Mr. Kirk wood: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for a discussion on the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs relative to grants to old age pensioners?
  [That this House recognises the hardship imposed upon old age pensioners at this holiday season when hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens are enabled to go upon their holidays on full pay and money to spend as a result of the Government's expenditure upon armaments; considers it unfair that old age pensioners, who have spent their lives in toil and, owing to economic circumstances beyond their control, have been unable to put money by, should be unable to enjoy a holiday; and calls upon the Government immediatey to introduce legislation to make a special grant to old age pensioners to enable them to participate in the pleasures of a holiday.]
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would remind the hon. Member that this subject is to be debated on Thursday next.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the Prime Minister think that, at this holiday season, when hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens are enjoying holidays with pay—
  Mr. Speaker: That hardly arises on the question.
  Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order. What I am now doing is giving an idea of the Motion I have on the Paper. Surely it is in order for me to give an outline of it, since it is possible that the Prime Minister has never read it?
  Mr. Speaker: This is not the time for the hon. Member to make a statement.

  PERMANENT UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES.
  48. Mr. Leonard:asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied, in appointing Sir George Gater as the Permanent Under-Secretary for the Colonies, that there was no civil servant

  1243
  in this country capable of discharging the duties; whether the qualifications and the terms for this post are the same in relation to Sir George Gater as would be applied to a serving civil servant; and whether, in view of the fact that an appointment of this kind made from outside the Civil Service is calculated to discourage serving civil servants, he will avoid any further adoption of this policy in the future?
  The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that, having regard to the exceptional pressure upon other Departments, no equally suitable civil servant could have been made available. As regards the second part of the question, the salary and conditions of service will be the same as if the post had been filled from within the Civil Service. As regards the last part, all considerations relevant to the public interest are borne in mind in making appointments.
  Mr. Leonard: Have any representations been made to the Prime Minister by the staff side of the National Whitley Council?
  The Prime Minister: Not that I am aware of.
  Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disquiet which exists throughout the Civil Service, especially in view of the fact that 20 other appointments are going to be made, as these might be made from university dons who have not passed the necessary qualifications for the Civil Service; and can he make a statement on the matter?
  The Prime Minister: I know that statements sometimes appear in the Press which give rise to a great deal of anxiety in the public mind, but I am not responsible for that.
  Sir Percy Harris: Is it not the case that this gentleman received no financial advantage from being transferred from the London County Council?
  The Prime Minister: That is so.
  Mr. Macquisten: Is it not desirable that we should get new blood and new brains into these posts?

  CHINESE CURRENCY.
  Mr. G. Strauss:asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the nature of the representations made by the
  1244
  Treasury to a bank whose headquarters are in London and whose branch at Shanghai was co-operating with the Japanese authorities in weakening the Chinese Exchange Fund of which His Majesty's Government has guaranteed £5,000,000?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): No such representations have been made by the Treasury.
  Mr. Strauss: Does that mean that no approach at all has been made by the Treasury to the Bank of Shanghai?
  Sir J. Simon: My answer means just what it says. I was asked whether representations had been made by the Treasury, and the answer is "No."
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noted the further depreciation in the exchange value of the Chinese dollar; and whether the resources of the Currency Stabilisation Fund have now been exhausted?
  Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member will, I think, appreciate that secrecy must be observed in regard to the current position of the Chinese Currency Stabilisation Fund, just as in the case of our own or other exchange equalisation funds.
  Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no secrecy about the fact that the Chinese dollar has depreciated by something like 50 per cent. since he asked this House to vote British taxpayers' money to keep that dollar stable? Are we to assume that His Majesty's Government intend to allow the Chinese dollar to find its own economic level?
  Sir J. Simon: On the last point, I can add nothing to the answer I gave to the hon. Member's question on nth July.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government still regard it as in the British interest that the exchange value of the Chinese dollar should be maintained?
  Sir J. Simon: I do not think I can add to my previous answer, which was that no further action is under discussion at the present time.
  Mr. G. Strauss: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government that the standard of the Chinese dollar should be maintained?
  Sir J. Simon: I do not think that that was the question on the Paper, and it hardly arises out of the supplementary questions that have been asked.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Arising out of what the right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago, that no further action is intended, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that there has been this depreciation, and that it appeared to be the policy of His Majesty's Government to maintain the standard of the Chinese dollar, action should not be taken now to see that no further depreciation takes place?
  Sir J. Simon: That, I think, would require further legislation.

  ELECTRIC LIGHT BULBS (TAXATION).
  Mr. Maxwell:asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider raising revenue by taxing electric light bulbs according to candle power?
  Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted.
  Mr. Crossley: Will the Chancellor bear in mind the fact that this would be a tax on eyesight?

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOANS).
  Mr. Liddall:asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to correct the recurring complaints about rates of interest payable by local authorities on authorised borrowings facilitated through the Public Works Loans Board, he will allow public authorities, at their option, to finance their authorised borrowings by such other methods as they may consider more advantageous than those rendered available by the Public Works Loans Board's facilities?
  Sir J. Simon: In the exercise of their authorised borrowing powers, local authorities are not restricted to facilities made available to them by the Public Works Loan Board, since under the law other methods of borrowing are open to them. I recognise that some of those alternative methods may not always in practice be open to the smaller local authorities, but the facilities offered by the Public Works Loan Board were ex-
  1246
  pressly designed to meet such cases, and have definite advantages for the authorities concerned.

  WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
  52. Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte:asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee which is being set up to consider the risk to fixed property in case of war will also consider the risk of damage to house property and furniture, etc., by refugees; and, if not, what steps will be taken to assess such damage and award compensation?
  Sir J. Simon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the latter part, the Government accept the principle that householders, on whom persons evacuated under the official scheme are billeted, should be able to make claims in due course for any substantial damage to their premises. It is anticipated that such cases will be of rare occurrence, and it is not considered necessary, at any rate at present, to establish any special machinery for assessment.
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: My right hon. Friend thinks that this will be of rare occurrence, but does not he realise that you cannot put a dozen or more children—even the best-behaved children in the world—into a house which is not prepared for them without their doing considerable damage?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does this mean that those whose property is damaged will get the full value of the property, when the right hon. Gentleman told me, in answer to a question, that if it happens to a human being there will be compensation just the same as in the case of a soldier who loses his life in war? That means that property is more valuable than a human being.

  BRITISH INVESTMENTS (FOREIGN HOLDINGS).
  Mr. Bellenger:asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Treasury have instituted an inquiry into foreign marketable assets held by British citizens, and whether all financial institutions in this country have been asked to co-operate in ascertaining aggregate holdings?
  Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) on Tuesday last.

  POLAND (CREDITS).
  Mr. Dalton:asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what outstanding points are still preventing the conclusion of the financial and commercial agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Poland?
  Sir J. Simon: Discussions with the Polish Delegation have covered two separate matters. The first is in connection with export credits. His Majesty's Government have offered to guarantee export credits up to the amount of £8,000,000 in order to facilitate the purchase in this country by the Polish Government of material necessary for their defence. The detailed arrangements which will have to be made are now being adjusted between the Polish Financial Delegation and the Government Departments concerned. Discussions have also been proceeding on the possibility of a cash loan to Poland by His Majesty's Government and the French Government acting jointly. I regret that it has not been found possible to reach agreement as to the conditions on which such a loan might be made available in time for the necessary legislation to be passed before the House rises.
  Mr. Dalton: Am I to understand that these credits are restricted to the purchase of supplies from this country; and, in that event, if the Polish Government need some military equipment which this country cannot now supply are they barred from obtaining it from America or elsewhere?
  Sir J. Simon: The first matter to which I referred would be export credits to assist purchases in this country. As regards the further question of the hon. Member, the French Government and ourselves are entirely at one in being willing to assist Poland, if terms can be arranged, in making the necessary purchases of munitions from other countries.
  Colonel Nathan: Have any difficulties arisen through His Majesty's Government refusing to allow any part of this loan
  1248
  to be transformed into either gold or foreign currencies?
  Sir J. Simon: I should prefer not to give a detailed description of the difficulties. They are technical, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to say that I do not think it would be in the public interest to do so. There are, as he knows, very complicated questions connected with a matter of this sort.
  Mr. Dalton: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a vigorous effort to settle these negotiations, and not let them drag on and on?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYéS.
    Mr. Jagger:asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that unestablished industrial grades employed in the Civil Service do not receive payment for sick absences; and whether he will issue instructions that payment following the lines of the unestablished messenger grades now employed may apply to unestablished industrial grades?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I am aware that unestablished industrial employés of the Government are not eligible for sick leave with pay. The practice of the Government in this respect is in accordance with general practice in outside industry, and I see no sufficient justification for making a change. I would point out, however, that these industrial employés are covered by the National Health Insurance Acts, the Government in their case paying both the State and the employer's contributions.

    PENSIONS.
    Mr. Batey:asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the annual amounts paid for pensions by each Department of the State and for which the Treasury is responsible, for the latest available year?
    Captain Crookshank: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Civil Service pensions awarded by the Treasury. The actual expenditure on such pensions (excluding the lump sum allowances paid on retirement) for the year ended 31st March, 1938, was as follows:

    Department.

    Amount.

    £

    Post Office

    4,080,824

    Inland Revenue

    218,334

    Customs and Excise

    605,900

    Admiralty

    756,046

    War Office

    166,728

    Air Ministry

    22,734

    Other Departments (paid from the Vote for Superannuation and Retired Allowances)

    1,333,997

    Total

    £7184,563

    * Appendix A to the Vote for Superannuation and Retired Allowances (Class VIII, Vote 4) shows the distribution by Departments of the pensions payable on 30th September, 1937, and 30th September, 1938, from this Vote.

  SCOTLAND.

    HERRING.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consult with the various Departments concerned with a view to increasing the consumption of herring by the armed forces of the Crown; and also the amount of canned herring which are to be stored?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I have been in communication with the Service Departments on this subject. Herring do not form part of the standard rations issued in kind, and it is left to the messing authorities concerned to decide what they will buy with the cash messing allowance, according to the wishes of the men. Herring are regularly quoted in the price lists of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, and, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated on 4th July, tinned herring are issued in considerable quantity at stations abroad. I am also informed that cooks attending the Army School of Cookery are taught different ways of preparing herring. It appears, therefore, that, so far as circumstances permit, the Service Departments have this matter fully in view. With regard to the last part of the question, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that his Department have already arranged to pur-
    1250
    chase all the supplies of canned herring which the manufacturers can offer up to 15th August, and have in view to make additional purchases as further supplies become available.
    Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is as much nutritional value in a herring as in a beefsteak; and will he make further representations to the Ministers of the Service Departments with a view to having herring made a compulsory article of diet for all the Services?
    Mr. Boothby:asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is considering extending the powers of the Herring Industry Board?
    Mr. Colville: I have no legislation in contemplation to amend the existing Herring Industry Acts, but I am informed that the Herring Industry Board are considering the question of submitting to the Ministers concerned an amending scheme in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act of 1935.
    Mr. Boothby: May we take it that when the amending scheme is presented to my right hon. Friend he will give it favourable consideration?
    Mr. Colville: I will give it very careful consideration.
    Mr. Macquisten: Would it not be much better to abolish the Herring Board and all the other boards, which are of no use to these industries?

    HOUSING.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the shortage of houses both in the urban and rural districts of Scotland re mains acute; and whether he will give consideration to the views which have been submitted to him by the councils of many burghs on the subject of housing, with a view to introducing further legislation next Session?
    Mr. Colville: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Kennedy) on this subject on 18th July.
    Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend intend to give the matter consideration before the Recess?
    Mr. Colville: I explained the difficulties to the local authorities at Edinburgh, but I said that I would bear their recommendations fully in mind.
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses built for letting by local authorities and by private enterprise, respectively, in each of the counties, cities, and large burghs

    Number of houses built by County Councils, Town Councils of large burghs and by private enterprise in Scotland for certain periods.

    District.

    Houses built by Local Authorities from 1st January, 1929 to 30th June, 1939.

    Houses built by private enterprise for sale and letting from 1st January, 1929 to 30th June, 1939.

    Houses built for letting by private enterprise from 1st January, 1934 to 30th Jun, 1939.*

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    Landward District of Counties:

    Aberdeen

    …

    …

    …

    1,146

    825

    62

    Angus

    …

    …

    …

    228

    191

    13

    Argyll

    …

    …

    …

    181

    198

    8

    Ayr …

    …

    …

    …

    5,074

    813

    82

    Banff

    …

    …

    …

    74

    31

    —

    Berwick

    …

    …

    …

    188

    158

    7

    Bute

    …

    …

    …

    12

    158

    1

    Caithness

    …

    …

    …

    159

    37

    19

    Clackmannan

    …

    …

    813

    68

    22

    Dumfries

    …

    …

    …

    211

    157

    12

    Dunbarton

    …

    …

    …

    1,455

    2,892

    33

    East Lothian

    …

    …

    866

    385

    83

    Fife

    …

    …

    …

    2,608

    431

    70

    Inverness

    …

    …

    …

    256

    545

    29

    Kincardine

    …

    …

    94

    107

    8

    Kinross

    …

    …

    …

    12

    42

    12

    Kirkcudbright

    …

    …

    145

    176

    3

    Lanark

    …

    …

    …

    7,941

    4,044

    222

    Midlothian

    …

    …

    1,815

    544

    202

    Moray

    …

    …

    …

    74

    65

    4

    Nairn

    …

    …

    …

    12

    22

    —

    Orkney

    …

    …

    …

    4

    21

    —

    Peebles

    …

    …

    …

    45

    34

    —

    Perth

    …

    …

    …

    320

    478

    77

    Renfrew

    …

    …

    …

    1,546

    6,958

    51

    Ross

    …

    …

    …

    252

    404

    6

    Roxburgh

    …

    …

    …

    193

    103

    9

    Selkirk

    …

    …

    …

    13

    13

    1

    Stirling

    …

    …

    …

    3,471

    823

    147

    Sutherland

    …

    …

    …

    198

    42

    —

    West Lothian

    …

    …

    1,598

    257

    152

    Wigtown

    …

    …

    …

    97

    47

    9

    Zetland

    …

    …

    …

    66

    61

    —

    Large Burghs:

    Aberdeen

    …

    …

    …

    4.873

    4,468

    —

    Airdrie

    …

    …

    …

    2,059

    78

    4

    Arbroath

    …

    …

    …

    484

    141

    6

    Ayr …

    …

    …

    …

    1,551

    871

    —

    Clydebank

    …

    …

    …

    1,074

    200

    —

    Coatbridge

    …

    …

    …

    1,982

    59

    2

    Dumbarton

    …

    …

    509

    351

    4

    Dumfries

    …

    …

    …

    814

    410

    5

    Dundee

    …

    …

    …

    4,583

    2,363

    152

    Dunfermline

    …

    …

    1,282

    268

    —

    Edinburgh

    …

    …

    …

    9,241

    17,551

    4,047

    Falkirk

    …

    …

    …

    1,596

    375

    5

    in Scotland, respectively, from 1929 to June, 1939?
    Mr. Colville: As the answer involves a table of figures I propose, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICVIAL REPORT. It will be observed that figures of houses built by private enterprise for letting are available only from 1934.
    Following is the answer:

    District.

    Houses built by Local Authorities from 1st January, 1929 to 30th June, 1939.

    Houses built by private enterprise for sale and letting from 1st January, 1929 to 30th June, 1939.

    Houses built for letting by private enterprise from 1st January, 1934 to 30th June, 1939.*

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    Large Burghs (cont.):

    Glasgow

    …

    …

    …

    33,767

    9,257

    2,234

    Greenock

    …

    …

    …

    2,571

    197

    7

    Hamilton

    …

    …

    …

    2,340

    72

    6

    Inverness

    …

    …

    …

    893

    168

    7

    Kilmarnock

    …

    …

    2,209

    252

    —

    Kirkcaldy

    …

    …

    …

    2,394

    339

    15

    Motherwell

    …

    …

    …

    2,822

    412

    —

    Paisley

    …

    …

    …

    4,497

    261

    8

    Perth

    …

    …

    …

    1,242

    697

    197

    Port Glasgow

    …

    …

    743

    4

    —

    Rutherglen…

    …

    …

    940

    155

    —

    Stirling

    …

    …

    …

    1,511

    94

    5

    Total

    …

    …

    117,044

    60,173

    8,158

    Notes.

    1. The figures in columns 3 and 4 relate to houses of five apartments and less built by private enterprise, which are regarded as houses of a working-class type.

    2. *The number of houses built for letting by private enterprise is not separately recorded for periods before 1st January, 1934.

    3. The statement does not include houses built in small burghs. In these districts town councils built 33,813 houses during the period from 1st January, 1929, to 30th June, 1939, and private enterprise built 7,227 houses for sale and letting during the same period and 278 houses for letting from 1st January, 1934, to 30th June, 1939.

    SULPHANILAMIDE PREPARATIONS.
    66. Mr. T. Johnston:asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the circular letter of 16th February, 1938, from the Department of Health for Scotland has stimulated a more extended use of sulphanilamide preparations for streptococcal and urinary infections; and whether he has any information as to the hospital-bed accommodation which may thereby be made available for war emergency purposes?
    Mr. Colville: The use of these preparations by the medical profession in Scotland is, I am informed, increasing, but some of the newer derivatives particularly are still in the experimental stage. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. Johnston: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make some estimate as to the hospital-bed accommodation that would be available in Scotland for a war emergency if there were more extended use of sulphanilamide preparations?
    Mr. Colville: I do not think it would be possible to make an estimate such as
    1254
    the right hon. Gentleman asks for. I am anxious that as many hospital beds as possible should be made available in the event of an emergency by the use of alternative methods of treatment.

    MENTAL INSTITUTIONS.
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what local authorities do not have a 44-hour week in operation for the nurses and staffs of the mental institutions in their jurisdiction; what are the institutions affected; what local authorities have such a 44-hour week in contemplation; and what institutions are affected?
    Mr. Colville: Steps have been taken to obtain from local authorities the particulars desired. As soon as the information is received a statement will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    BRACKEN.
    69. Mr. R. Gibson:asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he and his advisers have considered biological methods in connection with the problem of exterminating bracken, with a view to the introduction of a natural fungus or parasite to attack and, if possible, destroy the bracken?
    Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir. The possibility of controlling the spread of bracken by biological methods has been considered by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the West of Scotland Agricultural College. Investigations were carried out at various centres in Scotland over a period of seven years with a view to utilising a fungus as a means of control but no success was achieved.
    Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the university authorities in Scotland, and particularly the biological departments in the universities, to have an intensified study of the bracken in association with its mode of life in order that a solution of this problem may be obtained?
    Mr. Colville: I will bear the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member in mind, but I am bound to say that a very intensive study of this question was made some years ago, and no doubt he has read the report by Professor Braid.
    Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it is the case that the intensive study they are making costs the State £100 per annum?
    Mr. Colville: I cannot agree with that figure.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is it not the fact that increased grants should be available to the local authorities for the use of machines for cutting bracken?
    Mr. Colville: The grants already available have not been fully taken up.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the grants are taken up through the local authorities?
    Mr. Colville: You may lead a horse to water, but you cannot always make him drink.
    70. Mr. Neil Maclean:asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the admitted serious encroachment of bracken on pastoral lands in certain parts of Scotland, he is satisfied that the grant of £4,000 in three years towards the purchase of 200 bracken-cutting machines by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland is a sufficient attempt to mitigate this encroachment; and whether, as bracken is considered a weed, he will institute drastic measures against those proprietors
    1256
    of land who are doing nothing to stop the increase?
    Mr. Colville: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave him to two questions on this subject on 27th June.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not the fact that the reply to which the right hon. Gentleman refers me is the reply in which he refers these two questioners to the reply given to me earlier on? Will not he reply to the question on the Order Paper, which is an entirely different question from the one to which he referred the two questioners of last week?
    Mr. Colville: No, Sir. I think that if the hon. Member will read the answers to which I referred he will see that they covered the point which he now raises.
    Mr. Maclean: May I point out that it does not cover the same point, and the right hon. Gentleman had better look into the matter quickly, otherwise the whole of Scotland will be under bracken, and he will have no place for which to be Secretary of State.
    Mr. Colville: The hon. Member overstates the case, but he will see that I recognise the difficulty in these questions.

    PRISONS (FIRST-AID INSTRUCTION).
    Mr. T. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to how many prisoners, and at which of the Scottish prisons, has instruction been given in first-aid work; and the number of officers of Scottish prisons fully qualified to undertake first-aid work?
    Mr. Colville: Instruction in first aid is not given to prisoners in Scottish prisons. Prison officers are, however, trained in first aid in all prisons. The number so trained is 285.
    Mr. T. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of stretchers and first-aid outfits in stock at Barlinnie and Saughton Prisons on 31st August, 1938, and 19th July, 1939, respectively; and the number of gas masks in stock at these prisons on 19th July, 1939, ready to be issued to prisoners should an emergency arise?
    Mr. Colville: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    Following is the information:

    Date.

    Barlinnie Prison.

    Edinburgh Prison.

    31st August,

    1 stretcher

    No stretcher.

    1938.

    No first-aid outfit.*

    No first-aid outfit.*

    19th July,

    38 stretchers

    70 stretchers, †

    1939.

    4 first-aid outfits.

    2 first-aid outfits.*

    1,451 gas masks†

    2,015 gas masks. †

    * The normal hospital stores were of course available,

    †Includes reserve supply for replenishing stocks at other prisons if necessary.

    ROAD GRANT (ORINSAY, ISLE OF LEWIS).
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of assistance he has offered the county council of Ross and Cromarty for the reconstruction of the road at Orinsay. Isle of Lewis; and whether he will make a statement with regard to the proposed work?
    Mr. Colville:The county council of Ross and Cromarty have not given priority to the road at Orinsay in their allocation of the grant for roads which I have offered this year. The funds available for the current year have been fully earmarked, but if the council accord priority to an application for assistance towards the cost of the construction of the Orinsay road next year, I shall give it sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. MacMillan: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, has he at any time indicated that, if the road were classified, he would be prepared to give a grant for it?
    Mr. Colville: This road, as in many other cases, depends in the first instance on the county council showing their desire for it. My answer indicates that I would give the matter sympathetic consideration if they did so.

    INSHORE FISHING.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce legislation to effect the closing of the Minch to trawling in the interest of the revival of the fishing industry in the Western Isles and the West Coast; and whether he proposes that the closing of the Minch will be seasonal or throughout the year?
    Mr. Colville: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his question on this subject on the 21st March last.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is it not the case that this recommendation has been made by many responsible people and especially by those concerned in the fishing industry in the outer Islands, and could not the right hon. Gentleman undertake at no very great expense to consider this step as a means of implementing demands of this report, even though it does go beyond the report on the Western Islands and Highlands?
    Mr. Colville: The hon. Member will remember that the Highland Committee Report in dealing with this subject felt unable to make a recommendation because of the far-reaching controversial issues raised. I have to bear these issues in mind.

    PORTNAGURAN PIER, ISLE OF LEWIS.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now able to state when work on the proposed Portnaguran Pier in the Isle of Lewis, is likely to begin?
    Mr. Colville: I hope to make a statement about the proposed Portnaguran Pier before the Recess.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is it possible to give any hint whether the answer will be favourable or not?
    Mr. Colville: Wait and see.

    QUASHED CONVICTION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. Grovesasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Thomas G. Barclay, of Kilmarnock, was, on the 23rd May, convicted at the Glasgow southern police court of an alleged traffic-light offence and fined I0S.; and, in view of the fact that on appeal the conviction was quashed and Mr. Barclay given costs of seven guineas, whether he can state the nature of the inquiries he made before deciding, on 23rd June, that he could not advise interfering with the conviction?
    Mr. Colville: In considering this case I had before me, in accordance with the usual practice, the police information and a report by the presiding magistrate. I would add that the ground on which the conviction was quashed was that the

    1259
    magistrate used language which was inconsistent with his judicial office. This is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justiciary on a Bill of Suspension.
    Mr. Graves: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how his Department arrives at the reply that they could see no sufficient ground to intervene in view of the fact that the magistrate said that he did not care if the defendant had 40 witnesses, he must have done something wrong or he would not be in court?
    Mr. Colville: I explained in my answer the reason why the conviction was quashed. It was quashed on the ground that the magistrate used unjudicial language, and this is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
    Mr. Buchanan: In view of this case, and the remarks of the High Court judge upon it when it was heard on appeal, would the right hon. Gentleman consider circularising magistrates and others throughout Scotland who are responsible for administering justice calling attention to the need for confining themselves to the trial of cases?
    Mr. Colville: I think that that might confuse the innocent with the guilty, but the publicity given to this question may have a good effect.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF.
  Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the tragic death last week of a waiter on the staff of this House; and whether he will consider taking over the payment and control of all the kitchen and refreshment-room staff and the management of the staff pensions fund in order to provide further relief for the staff when the House sits very late, to ensure conditions of employment comparable to those of established servants of the State; and to secure provision for widows and dependants of the staff of this House?
  Captain Crookshank: I am aware of the tragic occurrence referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I see no reason for taking over the
  1260
  responsibilities which at present attach to the Kitchen Committee of this House.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Are not the conditions very serious, and will my right hon. and gallant Friend personally look into them? He will remember that within the last six weeks two servants of this House have committed suicide?
  Captain Crookshank: As I have said, these are matters for the Kitchen Committee, a committee of this House, appointed by all of us to look after these questions.
  Mr. Greenwood: Is it not the case that until the end of the War there was a Treasury subvention in order to maintain reasonable conditions?
  Mr. Crossley: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that the Kitchen Committee can pay adequate wages to maintain their staff in decent conditions without a Treasury grant?
  Captain Crookshank: I do not think that that arises out of this question. If the Kitchen Committee have any views about this, they had better make a report.
  Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Kitchen Committee to do so?
  Captain Crookshank: It is normal that questions of this sort should be addressed to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. Perhaps the Noble Lady will ask him.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is it not the fact that the committee have already asked for a subvention from the Treasury?
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Would it not be better to have an inquiry, so that all Members may know the facts about this?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go to-day, and also whether he is prepared to arrange for a discussion of the Estimates for the Ministry of Information, as that is desired by my hon. Friends on this side of the House?
The Prime Minister: We desire to obtain to-day the Committee stage of the British Overseas Airways Bill; the Report and

1261
Third Reading of the War Risks Insurance Bill, and of the House of Commons Members Fund Bill, as well as the Second Reading of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, and the Motion to approve the Rumanian Clearing Office Amendment Order. We also hope that there will be an opportunity of disposing of the Report of the three Supplementary Estimates which were considered in Committee on 17th May, as well as the Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for the Navy, Army and Air which were recently presented.
With regard to the Estimates for preparation of the plan for the Ministry of Information, I hope that it will be possible to find time for the Debate on the Supplementary Estimate, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be discussed through the usual channels to see what time should be allocated for this purpose.
I would like to say that in the Statement of Business last Thursday I announced the Government's intention of asking the House to take the remaining stages of the Senior Public Elementary Schools (Liverpool) Bill during the present week. This Bill has been considered by the Select Committee this morning, and I am informed that it has been reported to the House without amendment. It is a hybrid Bill, and, therefore, has to go through the additional procedure of a Select Committee in each House. I am advised that if the Bill is to secure its passage into law before the Summer Recess, it is necessary for it to be received in another place during to-morrow's Sitting. I am sure that it is the desire of Members in all parts of the House to facilitate the passage of the Bill, and I would therefore ask the House to agree to its remaining stages being taken as first Order to-morrow before we enter upon the consideration of the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Mr. John Morgan: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has taken any steps to prevent a repetition of the disgraceful behaviour of a group of hon. Members last week?
Mr. Lewis: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he feels it to be necessary to take the remaining stages of the House of Commons Members Fund Bill before we adjourn for August, and
1262
why its remaining stages could not be taken when we come back after August, when there would be the possibility of taking them at a more reasonable hour of the day?
The Prime Minister: I gave my reasons when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend realise that we were allowed only half a day for the Second Reading, that the Committee stage was taken in the small hours of the morning, and that to-night there is a prospect of the Bill being reached about midnight? Does he not think that it is unreasonable to ask us to take the Report and Third Reading then?
The Prime Minister: I would remind my hon. Friend that this is strictly not Government business. It is a matter which concerns the Members of the House and, therefore, we do not take it in time that would otherwise be occupied by Government business.
Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when the House will reassemble again before the Dissolution?
Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte: If the Members Fund Bill is not Government business, how will it be possible to take it after 11 o'clock on this Motion?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): It is starred.
Mr. Dingle Foot: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that it will be a matter of great difficulty to dispose of all the Amendments to the Prevention of Violence Bill in one day? Would it not be possible for him to reconsider the arrangements for the remaining stages of that Bill?
The Prime Minister: I do not think the House is under any misapprehension as to the importance of that Bill, the urgency of it and the desire to get it through as soon as possible.
Mr. Crossley: The Motion provides that proceedings on Government business shall be exempted from the 11 o'Clock Rule at to-night's sitting. The Prime Minister has just informed us that the Members Pensions Fund Bill is not Government business. What position, therefore, arises?
The Prime Minister: When I said that it was not Government business I meant that it was not starred as Government business. I used the phrase because the Government Whips are not put on.

MOTION MADE, AND QUESTION PUT,
Division No. 277.]

AYES.

[3.53 p.m.

Adams, 5. V. T. (Leeds, W)

Eckersley, P. T.

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

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Edmondson, Major Sir J,

Markham, S. F.

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

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Marsden, Commander A.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Ellis, Sir G.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Asshaton, R.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

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

Errington, E.

Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)

Balniel, Lord

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Everard, Sir William Lindsay

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Findlay, Sir E.

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

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Fleming, E. L.

Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

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

Furness, S. N.

Morris, O. T (Cardiff, E.)

Beechman, N. A.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Beit, Sir A. L.

Goldie, N. B.

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

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Bernays, R. H.

Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H.

Bird, Sir Ft. B.

Granville, E. L

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Blair, Sir R.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Boothby, R. J. 6.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Bossom, A. C.

Grimston, R, V.

Peake, O.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Peat, C. U.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Bra brier, R. A.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Petherick, M.

Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Brass, Sir W.

Hambro, A. V.

Pilkington, R.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Hannah, I. C

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Harbord, Sir A.

Procter, Major H. A.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

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

Radford, E. A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)

Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

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

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A P.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Burton, Col. H. W.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Hepworth, J.

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Higgs, W. F.

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Car (land, J. R. H.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Ross, Major Sir R.D. (Londonderry)

Carver, Major W. H.

Holdsworth, H.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Cary, R. A.

Hopkinson, A,

Rowlands, G.

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

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Russell, Sir Alexander

Christie, J. A.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Clarke, Colonel R S. (E. Grinstead)

Hunloke, H. P.

Salmon, Sir I.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

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

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Clydesdale, Marquess of

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Kellett, Major E. O.

Schuster, Sir G. E.

Conant, Captain R. J. E

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Scott, Lord William

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

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

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

Simmonds, O. E.

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

Knox, Major General Sir A. W. F.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Critohley, A.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwish)

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Leech, Sir J. W.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Snadden, W. M.N.

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Somerset, T.

Cross, R. H.

Levy, T.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Slr Donald

Crossley, A. C.

Liddall, W. S.

Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

Cruddas, Col. B.

Lipson, D. L.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Culverwell, C. T.

Little, J.

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

De Chair, S. S.

Lloyd, G. W.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

De la Bè, R.

Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Denville, Alfred

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Stuart, Lord C, Criohton- (N'thw'h)

Donner, P. W.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn)

Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

McCorquodale, M. S.

Sutcliffe, H.

Drewe, C.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Tate, Mavis C.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Thomas, J. P. L.

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

McKie, J. H.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Duggan, H. J.

Maonamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Dunoan, J. A. L.

Maitland, Sir Adam

Touche, G. C.

Dunglass, Lord

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Train, Sir J.

" That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 124.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Warrender, Sir V.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Turlon, R. H.

Wells, Sir Sydney

Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C. York, C.

Wakefield, W. W.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

York,C.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

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

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

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

Captain Waterhouse and Mr Munro.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel Q.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Mr. Lewis: On a point of Order. Now that the Motion for the suspension of the 11 o'Clock Rule has been carried, I want to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the House of Commons Members Fund Bill is or is not Government business?
Mr. Speaker: It is Government business. If the hon. Member looks at the Order Paper he will see that it is starred.

AVOIDANCE OF CORRUPTION.
Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move,
" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the avoidance of corruption."
During recent months there have been introduced into this House Bills dealing with the instalment system and with
1266
share-pushing, and everyone will admit the importance of those Bills and the serious character of the evil with which they deal; yet at the same time we must recognise that those affected by those Bills were only the sprats of the financial world, and now, it seems to me, the time has come to give some consideration to the sharks, because the sharks have been busy in the troubled waters of politics, and as a consequence of the power they have in this House and in another place they may in conceivable circumstances become very dangerous and a source of very undesirable corruption. I know that a small group in the other place have, through a series of relationships, control most of the Government Departments in this House, and that 200 relatives sitting on the other side of the House can determine the policy of this House. The book

1267
" Tory M.P." is an extraordinary revelation of what can happen, and the possibilities that exist of corruption and of a cynical attitude towards democracy and democratic institutions that can easily destroy us in a time of crisis.
To understand the nature of this financial power is to understand the character of the policy that has been in operation in this country and which brought about the betrayal of Abyssinia. When we realise the part those associated with oil played in that disastrous affair we can see how it was possible for Mussolini to get his way. If we understand the part played by the big financial houses and their representatives here we can understand the reason for the betrayal of democracy in Spain and in Czechoslovakia; it gives us an insight into why we have had such a deplorable capitulation to Japan and why there is such procrastination in the Anglo-Soviet talks in the hope that in the meantime a way will be found of handing Danzig over to Herr Hitler.
I have heard Members of this House talk very often about the character of the membership of this House immediately after the War. I have heard them talk of the "new rich" who came in here bloated with profits. They have told me, and I have heard it said in the House, that it was a terrible spectacle. But I suggest that the "new rich" never were the danger and never have the potentialities for corruption that the "old nobility" have. The "old nobility" have kept themselves firmly entrenched in power and privilege, they keep their hold on the land and in the financial houses, and they have placed in this House a stone wall against any advance in the pensions of the aged people, even while their own relatives are getting all kinds of sinecures and pensions as a result of the power possessed by the 200 relatives who sit in this House and who continually vote subsidies for themselves. This continued activity under a cloak of obscurity can have very evil consequences. Therefore, I want to introduce a short Bill that will bring out into the light before the electorate, not only the general characters, but the financial and landed interests and connections of those
1268
who stand for Parliament or those who sit in this House.
Clause 1 deals with Parliamentary candidates and imposes upon them the responsibility of disclosing the sources of their income, the number of directorships in their own hands or in the hands of their relatives, the acreage of land in their possession or in possession of their families, or whether through another member of the family they are represented in another place. There will be a Sub-section imposing the penalty of imprisonment, to which a fine will be added if they do not give full particulars. The second Clause deals with Members of this House. Members of Parliament will be called upon to make a full statement of their holdings in land, industry and finance to the Clerks at the Table. All such Members will be ruled out of discussion and prohibited from voting on any question on which they have a definite personal or family financial interest. There will be a provision that will allow an appeal to Mr. Speaker where the financial interest is negligible and is not likely to prejudice their vote. There will be a penalty also here for wrong information given under the Clause, and the penalty will be imprisonment to which a fine may be added. Clauses 3 and 4 will deal with range and name of Bill. I ask leave to bring in this Bill—a Bill that will be a real safeguard to democracy and to the cleaning up of this House.
Mr. Denman: Does the Bill contain a Clause to prevent Members voting themselves 50 per cent. increase in their salaries, and pensions?
Mr. Gallacher: If I have the privilege of introducing the Bill I shall be very willing to consider any suggestions on the Committee stage of the Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gallacher, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Gordon Macdonald, Mr. Banfield, Mr. Ellis Smith, Mr. Tinker and Mr. Batey.

AVOIDANCE OF CORRUPTION BILL,
" to facilitate the avoidance of corruption," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,— Coventry Corporation Bill, London Passenger Transport Board Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) BILL.
Minutes of Evidence taken this day reported from the Select Committee.
Minutes of Evidence to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 164.]
Bill reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee.
Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

Mines under the Coal Mines Acts, 1911, in England and Wales.

—

1924.

1938.

Number of Mines at work.

Number of Persons employed (excluding Clerks and Salaried Persons).*

Number of Mines at work.

Average number of Persons employed (including Clerks and Salaried Persons).

England:

Cheshire

…

…

…

19

1,419

7

181

Cumberland

…

…

…

34

12,044

25

6,658

Derbyshire

…

…

…

132

68,326

116

45,856

Dorset.

…

…

…

…

1

4

—

—

Durham

…

…

…

293

175,434

247

116,193

Gloucester

…

…

…

61

9,083

32

5.317

Kent

…

…

…

…

4

1,743

4

6,781

Lancashire

…

…

…

223

104,439

148

58,401

Leicestershire †

…

…

…

26

12,640

19

9,128

Lincolnshire †

…

…

…

1

72

4

188

Monmouthshire

…

…

143

67,433

110

38,225

Northampton †

…

…

…

5

171

3

443

Northumberland

…

…

…

125

65,458

102

45,937

Nottingham

…

…

…

41

57,425

46

46,562

Shropshire

…

…

…

53

4,039

47

2,706

Somerset

…

…

…

19

6,273

13

3,347

Staffordshire

…

…

…

223

69,891

147

48,390

Warwickshire

…

…

…

25

22,263

21

17,067

Westmorland

…

…

…

2

16

—

—

Worcestershire

…

…

…

25

2,004

16

920

Yorkshire

…

…

…

334

200,338

250

148,767

Wales:

Breconshire

…

…

…

20

3,172

17

2,125

Carmarthen

…

…

…

61

15,428

43

9,644

Denbighshire

…

…

…

24

16,484

20

9,429

Flintshire

…

…

…

19

2.705

8

529

Glamorgan

…

…

…

428

163,801

251

85,736

Pembroke

…

…

…

4

537

3

386

Total for England and Wales

2,345

1,082,642

1,699

708,916

*In this year, the particulars of Persons Employed relate to those "ordinarily employed".

†Only Ironstone produced in these counties.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 164.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]
  CLAUSE 1.—[Establishment and constitution of Corporation.)
  4.14 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "British Overseas Airways," and to insert "Air Imperial Routes."
  The object of this Amendment is somewhat pretentious. It is in fact to change the title of the corporation which the Bill sets up. The name that I propose is Air Imperial Routes Corporation instead of British Overseas Airways Corporation. The idea of the change of the title at this late stage may seem unusual, but there is a precedent for it. I remember that in 1919, when the Government of the day introduced a Bill setting up a Ministry of Ways and Communications, it was not until quite a late stage in the consideration of the Bill that an Amendment was moved to change the title to "Minisry of Transport," and it was under those conditions that the Ministry of Transport was set up.
  The Bill has had a Second Reading and consequently we have given our general assent to it, but there is a feeling that the title is rather cumbersome. These great organisations more and more are known throughout the world by their initials. There is the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is scarcely ever referred to other than by its initials, and we have the K.L.M., the I.C.I, and others. If we are going to stick to the present name we shall have this great English organisation known as B.O.A., and I maintain that that will be a very unfavourable form of initial. It gives one the unpleasant idea of a snakelike organisation, creeping round you and finally crushing you. My proposal is that it should be known as Air Imperial Routes, and the beauty of that suggestion is that you will get the initials A.I.R. I am certain that this great organisation would soon be known throughout the world by the name "Air Corporation." It seems to me that the name is comprehensive, it is short, and it means what it says.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mr. Eckersley: In supporting the Amendment I only want to point out that to foreign competitors and users of air lines a short title is very much more important than a long title. Anyone who has travelled abroad, particularly in France, will know the familiar words "Air France," and I echo what the right hon. and gallant Member has said that the initials B.O.A. cannot do anything but harm to this new corporation which we all wish to succeed. I am not particularly insistent on the actual words "Air Imperial Routes," but I hope that something will be done to improve what is at present a really frightful title. A.I.R. is almost essential unless some other equally well-sounding initials can be found. If the present name is not changed, I feel that we shall suffer much against competitors with high-sounding names, and I hope that the Secretary of State will do something to change the name before the Report stage.
  Sir Hugh Seely: I should like to support the Amendment. The initials B.O.A. are not very nice, and although I do not like A.I.R. I think it is a better name for the corporation which we are hoping will succeed. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this matter again before the Report stage.
  4.19 p.m.
  Sir Alfred Beit: The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) made a suggestion for the Title on the Second Reading. I also made a suggestion for a Title which, I think, is far better, and as he has repeated his suggestion may I be allowed to repeat mine? It is that the corporation should be called "Universal Airways Corporation," or "Royal Airways Corporation." The latter name would have useful initials. I am surprised that none of these suggestions have been adopted so far, but I hope one of them will be.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: I do not think the name "British Overseas Airways," has the approval of anyone on any side of the Committee, and I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the title before the Report stage. I am not altogether in favour of the Amendment. The title "Air Imperial Routes" is a little better

  1291
  than "British Overseas Airways," but not very much, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee why he ever gave up the name "Imperial Airways," which is much the best name for this corporation.
  4.21 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) has said, but I do not think his title is very much better than the Title in the Bill. "British Overseas Airways" and "Air Imperial Routes" are both cacophonous, and, no doubt, the Air Minister knows the Greek word "caco"—bad, and "phonous"— sound—a bad sound, and that is why I do not like either of these titles. "British Overseas Airways" as a title appeals only to the people of this country, and means nothing to those living in the far distant parts of the Empire. As other hon. Members have made suggestions, may I venture to make one or two? The first is that the corporation should be known as "British Empire Airways" giving you the initials B.E.A., or "British Airways." As a third suggestion why not call it "Royal British Airways," or, fourthly, "British Imperial Airways." I ask the Secretary of State to choose from these names, because I am certain that the present name is the very worst possible. It means everything to have a good crisp name so that when our machines arrive in the Argentine, with the French and German and Italian machines, our nationals out there will say, "Here come the B.A. machines." It is a fine thing to have a good title, and I think you should bring the Empire into it because you have representatives of the Empire on the board, and these machines will fly largely between the different parts of the Empire and carry Empire air mails.
  4.24 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Wright: I should like to support the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken that the name should be "British Airways." I feel that if British Airways had not been the name of one of the corporations being amalgamated it was the obvious title, and would have been chosen. It is rather petty and small-minded if such a reason exists for not choosing what is the outstanding and
  1292
  obvious and correct title. I put it to the Secretary of State that if British Airways had been correctly named and had been called "Continental Airways," as it was running Continental routes, he would have had no difficulty when amalgamating these two corporations in arriving at what is, obviously, the correct title— British Airways. It is short and it describes the corporation exactly. It also compares well with "Air France," and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will override what is obviously a very petty and temporary objection, which in a few years will have been forgotten altogether.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. Lees-Smith: I do not think the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member is a correct representation of the new corporation. A large part of the work of the new corporation will be in Europe and across the Atlantic air route, which is not Imperial. Listening to the discussion I am led to the conclusion that "British Airways" would be a better title than "British Overseas Airways." It would avoid those awkward initials, and beyond the fact that this title is already in use, there is no objection to it, and I think that that objection will be forgotten very soon.
  Mr. Mander: As we have been told that the whole of the internal airways in this country are to be excluded from the activities of the corporation, therefore the name "British Airways" would certainly not accurately describe the work of the new corporation.
  4.27 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Committee will agree that I am in some considerable difficulty about this matter. Various suggestions have been made and various names have been put forward. It has been suggested that we should retain the title "British Airways." As a matter of fact, there is some practical difficulty in that respect, and also in using the title "Imperial Airways," because both these names still remain upon the register covering these two companies, and will, in fact, remain there until they go into voluntary liquidation when the transactions under the Bill are completed. Therefore, so far as an immediate decision is concerned, we could not go to Somerset House and register a company

  1293
  in the name of a company already on the list. It might also be a matter of some difficulty if there was a company going into liquidation bearing the name of the new company. I should be only too glad if hon. Members could agree upon a name, and if there is a general consensus of opinion between now and when the Bill goes to another place, I shall be always glad to consider any suggestion. I do not pretend that my own selection of a name is by any means the best, and perhaps we may at some future stage have an informal talk about it.
  But let me say a word or two in defence of the title we have chosen. I do not accept the suggestion that, of necessity, the new corporation will be known by its initials. Air France is not, and it is a well known company; and it may be that this new corporation may be known to the world as "British Overseas," which, in fact, is not a bad title, and one which much more accurately describes the purpose of this corporation than any name that has been suggested yet. It describes with absolute accuracy and precision what the corporation stands for. It is world wide. If you want to describe the corporation accurately I think you must rule out the word "Imperial." One can easily criticise the title but the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) has not criticised the title but its initials. I suggest to the Committee that the name should stand, because I think it may be that the Corporation will not be known by its initials, but will be known as "British Overseas." I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment this afternoon, but will leave the matter in the way I have described. If some hon. Member has a new and brilliant idea in connection with the name of the corporation, on which all hon. Members can agree, no one will be happier than I shall be.
  Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement that it is up to us to agree on a new name for the corporation, and that if we can do so, he will have no objection to our raising the matter on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "of," to insert "the Secretary of State for Air."
  The object of this Amendment is to clarify the relationship between the new corporation and the House of Commons. I think I am correct in saying that whenever an hon. Member wishes to have a Debate on the British Broadcasting Corporation or to ask a question about it, he is ruled out of order because there is no Minister responsible for it in the House. On the other hand, if an hon. Member wishes to ask a question about the Forestry Commission, the question is allowed, because there is an hon. Member who represents the Forestry Commission in the House. The only opportunity which the House will have of debating civil aviation, as it is affected by the proposed corporation, will be once a year on the Estimates, and as is known by every hon. Member who is interested in the Air Estimates, on that occasion civil aviation is rarely discussed until midnight, or very often one or two o'clock in the morning. In order to make it possible to raise matters that come under the jurisdiction of the corporation, I move this Amendment to include the Secretary of State in the corporation as an ex officio member, so that he would be directly responsible to the House for the actions of the corporation, with the result that it would be possible for hon. Members to put questions on the subject to the Secretary of State.
  4-33 P.m.
  Mr. Mander: I do not know whether the Amendment is the best way of producing the result which my hon. Friend desires, but I think it is very important that the Bill should be so framed as to permit hon. Members to put questions, in order that the corporation shall be under Parliamentary control. I hope the Minister will deal with that point.
  4.34 p.m.
  Sir Annesley Somerville: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. This Bill commends itself very largely to hon. Members opposite because it is under suspicion of being a Socialistic Bill. As a matter of fact, it has a very strong tinge of Socialism in it, but my hon. Friend wants to be more royalist than the king, and to bring the Secretary of State into the day-to-day administration of the corporation. The Bill gives

  1295
  the corporation a considerable measure of independence, but this Amendment, if adopted, would in fact almost extinguish that independence.
  4.35 pm.
  Sir K. Wood: The Amendment would, in fact, make the Secretary of State for Air a member of the corporation, and I do not think hon. Members in any part of the Committee would desire that that should be so. To adopt the Amendment would be to place the Secretary of State in an almost impossible position. The members of the corporation will have a collective responsibility for the control of the corporation's affairs and its management, subject to what is laid down in the Act; but the Secretary of State, quite properly and rightly, will be in a very different position. He will have to give directions in accordance with certain powers that are being conferred upon him, and certain things will be subject to his approval; for instance, those matters which concern finance. Therefore, he would be in an impossible position if he was a member of the corporation and at the same time was the person who had to give his approval.
  My hon. Friend has another object in mind in moving the Amendment. Quite properly, from his point of view, he wants to secure adequate discussion in Parliament of the affairs of the corporation and a fair and reasonable opportunity, on matters of primary importance, of addressing questions to the Secretary of State. It is not my function to rule what questions could be put to the Secretary of State, but it is, I think, clear that the corporation, in relation to the House of Commons, will be in a very different position from that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The British Broadcasting Corporation is constituted under a charter, whereas the new corporation is to be constituted under an Act of Parliament, and under that Act very many responsibilities and duties will be placed upon the Secretary of State, concerning finance and other matters. I assume—I do not think there is any doubt about it—that it will be possible to put questions on all those matters to the Secretary of State for Air.
  As regards the question of Parliamentary time, of course the mere fact of the Secretary of State being a member of the corporation would not make any further
  1296
  provision of Parliamentary time for discussion of the affairs of the corporation. It may very well be, now that the State is taking a much more active part and making larger financial contributions with regard to Civil Aviation, that some other arrangements will have to be contemplated with regard to discussions of Civil Aviation in the House. That is not a matter on which I can give any undertaking, but I have that in mind, and we shall see how things develop. As to matters concerning the major affairs of the corporation which hon. Members might desire to bring before the House, they would not be in any way debarred from doing so by the way in which this Bill is drafted; in fact, they would be assisted in raising matters, as other important matters can be raised, through our ordinary procedure.
  Therefore, while I do not think we want to encourage questions concerning the day-to-day management of the corporation, which would indeed make the administration impossible, I think that, by the provisions of the Bill, we shall in fact secure a very large measure of Parliamentary control, which I believe is all to the good. I suggest to my hon. Friend that, having heard my explanation, he should withdraw the Amendment, and although I know that he put down the Amendment for the purpose of raising the question, I am sure he will recognise that the exact terms in which it is drafted are very undesirable.
  4.39 P.m.
  Mr. Lees-Smith: I think that the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville) regards hon. Members as being rather more doctrinaire than in fact they are. We might have argued that this new industry should be controlled in the same way as the Post Office or in the same way as London Transport, but I do not think that we would wish to argue that it should be controlled by a rather impracticable mixture of the two. That would be the result of the Amendment. There are certain duties affecting the Secretary of State for Air for which he ought to answer in the House and for which, I think, he will have to answer. As far as the corporation is concerned, it will have other duties to perform, and if the Secretary of State becomes a member of the corporation, he will be only one of 17 members. I do not see how he could

  1297
  possibly be expected to have responsibility before the House with regard to duties in the determination of which he would be so insignificant a minority. Therefore, I do not consider this to be a practicable Amendment.
  Mr. Perkins: In view of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.41 p.m.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert:
  " but such appointment and the terms thereof shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and shall not be for a period longer than five years in any one term of appointment.''
  I shall endeavour to emulate the brevity shown by hon. Members who have spoken on the two previous Amendments, and I hope this will not result in the Secretary of State showing any less inclination to meet any valid points which may be raised. The proposal in the Amendment is to make the appointment of the chief executive member of the new corporation and the terms of that appointment a matter for the Secretary of State, in the same way as the appointment of the chairman and deputy-chairman is already made a matter for him under the Bill. It is not intended to interfere in any way with any existing contract of the chief executive. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will feel disposed to tell us what is the present position with regard to Sir John Reith, a matter which gives rise, as everything effecting that gentleman docs, to a great deal of public interest and curiosity. However, I shall not press that matter. Nor is it my intention to secure that in no case shall the chief executive remain in the appointment for a longer period than five years. What is proposed is that he shall first be appointed by the Secretary of State for a period not longer than five years, but that the appointment shall be renewable, within the discretion of the Secretary of State, and that the terms of the appointment shall be laid down by the Minister.
  I am well aware that in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule, the Secretary of State has certain powers in regard to altering the period of appointment of a member of the corporation if he should become either chairman, deputy-chairman or chief executive member. There-
  1298
  fore, in that Schedule, it is recognised that there is a certain unity of character between these three officers which requires them to be brought under the particular control of the Secretary of State. What valid reason is there for the Minister surrendering the control of the appointment of chief executive member to the corporation itself? It may be that at some distant time another party will be in office which is not favourable to the right hon. Gentleman's own ideas—I know that seems a strange thing to contemplate in fixing the provisions of this Bill—and there might be appointed to the office of chief executive someone with ideas entirely alien to those held by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, which would make it impossible to have that close co-operation between the two which is so essential if this scheme is to operate smoothly. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree with the proposal I have made, unless he can offer some substantial reason for not doing so.
  4.44 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I am sure the Committee feels indebted to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) for his very clear and concise statement on the Amendment. I want at once to say that, in drafting the Bill, I have not had in mind the consideration which the hon. Member has mentioned; and I may add that I do not contemplate any alteration in the Government of this country for some time to come. There is, however, a real reason why the corporation is permitted, under the structure of the Bill, to appoint its own chief executive member. Having regard to the experimental nature of these proposals we must try to balance the position, as between the State, represented by the Secretary of State for Air, and the members of the corporation who will have to discharge the various duties laid down in the Bill and who will, I hope, bring incentive and endeavour and initiative to the work of the corporation. I think there is a prospect that as a result of this experiment we may succeed in obtaining the advantages of State aid with a certain measure of Parliamentary supervision, while at the same time preserving that natural initiative which is in everybody but is in some people to a greater degree than in others. I am sure that is a principle to which no objection will be taken.

  1299
  What we contemplate is that, as regards the management of the corporation, in such matters, for instance, as the appointment of the chief executive officer, and, later on, in the appointment of officers and staff and workers, the members should be responsible to the corporation itself. We have made a distinction in that respect, in order that they may have a full measure of responsibility in those matters and feel themselves unhampered by any direction from the Secretary of
  State, or by requiring the approval of the Secretary of State. That is the actual reason for the distinction which we are making and I commend it to the Committee. I think this is a opportunity for the encouragement of the business or management side of the corporation which I would like to see left as it has been provided for in the terms of the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words by there inserted."
  The Committee divided" Ayes, 124; Noes,235

  Critchley, A,

  Keeling, E. H.

  Rosbotham, Sir T.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Kellett, Major E. 0.

  Ross, Major Sir R. 0. (Londonderry)

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Cross, R. H.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Rowlands, G.

  Crossley, A. C.

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

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

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

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  De la Bè, R.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Levy, T.

  Scott, Lord William

  Danville, Alfred

  Lewis, o.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Donner, P. W.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Simmonds, 0. E.

  Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

  Little, J.

  Smitn, Braoewell (Dulwich)

  Drewe, C.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Looker-Lampson, Comdr. 0. S.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Somerset, T.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

  Dunglass, Lord

  M'Connell, sir J.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Eakersley, P. T.

  Macdonald, Capt, P. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Ellisten, Capt. G. 8.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  McKie, J. H.

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Macmillan, H. (Stooklon-on-Tees)

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

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

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Errington, E.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M

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

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Markham, S. F.

  Sueter, Raar-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Furness, S. N.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Thorneyorott, G. E. P.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Train, Sir J.

  Granville, E. L.

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

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Turton, R. H.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

  Wakefield, W, W.

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

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

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Wallace, Capt, Rt. Hon. Euan

  Gunston, Capt. Sir 0. W.

  Munro, P.

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

  Hambro, A. V.

  Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Hannah, I. C.

  O'Connor, Sir Terenee J.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Harbord, Sir A.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Haslam, Sir J, (Bolton)

  Peake, 0.

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Peat, C. U.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Heneage, Lieut.Colonel A. P.

  Petheriok, M.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buahan-

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

  Hepworth, J.

  Pilkington, R.

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

  Higgs, W. F.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Winterton, Rt. Hen. Earl

  Holdsworth, H.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Radford, E. A.

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Horsbrugh, Florenoe

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  York, C.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partlek)

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

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Mr. Grimston and Major Sir James Edmondson.

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

  Reed, Sir H. 5. (Aylesbury)

  Jones, L. (Swaneea W.)

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 2.—(Functions of Corporation.)
  4.56 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out paragraph (a).
  This Amendment and two subsequent Amendments have been put down in order to clarify the position in relation to internal air lines in this country. I understand that negotiations have taken place with internal air operators in this country and there are three specific questions
  which I would put to the right hon. Gentleman. First, can this new corporation run internal air lines in this country as now operated? Secondly, has the licensing authority any power or control over the corporation or is the corporation automatically exempt from the control of the licensing authority? Thirdly, what is the position of Railway Air Services? This corporation owns a considerable proportion of the shares—I know they are not paid up—in Railway Air Services and although it might be illegal for the corporation to run internal services in this
  country, it might be possible for them to make use of the back-door method provided by their control over Railway Air Services, in order to run those services in this country.
  4.59 p.m
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The effect of these Amendments would be to exclude the corporation altogether from the internal field, and I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman's three questions by dealing, very briefly at this stage, with the general position of internal air lines and Railway Air Services under the Bill. I think this will be convenient to the Committee and may save time in the discussion of subsequent Amendments. In its original form, the corporation had power to run internal lines, but that was a reserved power under Clause 4 and was subject to the special consent of the Secretary of State. Certain negotiations took place with the organisation representing the internal air line operators, who felt that there was not sufficient security in the Bill as originally drafted. They also felt that before the Secretary of State exercised his power under Clause 4, as it then was, there should be an opportunity for those operators to state their objections to the exercise of that power. Therefore, the Select Committee allowed the insertion of a Clause—and I should like to express our gratitude to them for allowing these Clauses to be put in at that stage of the Bill—which makes the running of an internal air line or the conduct of an internal air survey flight subject to Provisional Order procedure, which means that the Secretary of State can only make a Provisional Order and that, if it is objected to, the matter goes to a Committee of Parliament, so that the objectors have an opportunity to be represented by counsel and to put forward their objections to the confirmation of the Order. That was agreed to and considered as adequate by those who felt that their interests were prejudiced in the Bill as it originally stood.
  We consider that it is desirable that the corporation should have these wide powers of running internal lines and doing air survey flights, but subject now to this additional safeguard. Indeed, it might be desirable in the future for the corporation, by agreement with the interests running
  1304
  internal lines, to co-operate in the running of such lines. For instance in Clause 4 (3) there is provision for the status quo with Railway Air Services to be maintained, and this was agreed to by all parties. The answer to my hon. Friend's first question, Can the corporation run internal air lines? is Yes, but only subject to Provisional Order procedure. To his second question, Is the corporation above the law or, if these powers were ever exercised, either by agreement without objection or alternatively after confirmation by the Select Committee, would they be subject to the licensing authority? The answer is Yes. That is provided for in Clause 4 (4) and in Clause 7. On the Second Reading I gave an undertaking that we would strengthen the provision. As to the third point with regard to Railway Air Services, Imperial Airways have at present an operational agreement by which they supply the crews and maintain the aircraft. They also have a share interest, which I understand is 20 or 25 per cent. That status quo is to be maintained in the future. There is power for renewal of the agreement in substantially the same form as at present, which means that it could not be extended to any considerable degree but it can be continued.
  Mr. Perkins: Might I ask for a little more specific elucidation of Clause 4 (3, b)? It is that power which permits the perpetuation of the existing arrangements with Railway Air Services. The words are that nothing shall prevent the corporation
  " from continuing to carry out any existing arrangements with respect to the operation of air transport services on behalf of that company."
  This may be internal air services, and the existing arrangements may allow the corporation to carry out the administration of any air line that Railway Air Services may have in operation or may in future inaugurate. Therefore, we may have, by some indirect method, a power under which the corporation could run internal air lines under the guise of an arrangement with Railway Air Services.
  Captain Balfour: The position, as I see it, is that the corporation could only be indirectly concerned in the extension of any Railway Air Service activities, assuming that the Secretary of State had assented to that particular action. Also I think it would not happen unless other

  1305
  internal lines had, as it were, left the field and there fore Railway Air Services were able to appear in front of the licensing authority and obtain permission to run those side extensions.
  5.5 P.m.
  Mr. Montague: These two Amendments seem to me to go further, probably, than the Mover intended. I should imagine that the Provisional Order procedure is a sufficient safeguard in respect of the interests about which he is concerned. It is not only a question of Railway Air Services or any other body operating internal services now. If passed, the Amendments would practically guarantee any possible combination of internal air services a monopoly of the whole country. I see no reason at all why that monopoly should be either granted or allowed for in subsequent developments, and I should imagine that the provisions hereinafter referred to will be sufficient safeguard against any unfair competition with existing interests which must, of course, be considered. I appreciate that point, but the Amendments go much further than that and we must oppose them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.6 p.m.
  Sir M. Sueter: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, after "manufacture," to insert:
  " for the purposes of repair or replacement only."
  It might be possible to have a sufficient number of spart parts to turn into completed machines. Clause 5 says that the corporation shall not manufacture aircraft. It is simply to ensure that they shall not turn spare parts into completed aircraft.
  Sir Reginald Clarry: I should like to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. In Clause 5 there are six words which remind one of the Commandments
  " The corporation shall not manufacture aircraft."
  I think that, as provided for in this Subsection, they are practically given power to do that by accumulating sufficient component parts. The manufacture of special accessories is a highly specialised business, and obviously the capital available to the corporation can be used to better service for the general purposes of the corporation as provided for in the Bill.
  The Amendment goes to clarify the Subsection.
  5.8 p.m.
  Captain Balfour: My hon. and gallant Friends will, perhaps, see another aspect of the question if I explain what the Amendment would entail. The power to manufacture parts of aircraft and aircraft equipment and accessories is deliberately drawn in wide terms, and it forms part of the Section of the Bill which sets out the powers, of the corporation which correspond with the memorandum and articles of association of a commercial company. The exercise of the power to manufacture parts is, however, one of the reserved powers which can only be exercised with the consent of the Secretary of State, and the intention is that those powers shall only be approved to the same extent by the general authority which is given at present to Imperial Airways. For instance, the type of new parts which are manufactured by the company are parts for which there is a small demand and which are hard to obtain. I will give one or two examples—chairs, bunks, lifebelts, thermos-carriers, in regard to which the company has special knowledge, special requirements and special experience; lifebuoys, and general spare parts, such as nuts, bolts and auxiliary mountings. These are just a few. If we accepted the Amendment
  " for the purposes of repair or replacement only,"
  the corporation would in future be excluded from manufacturing those special requirements and, indeed, would be placed in a rather restricted position as regards essential activities. They could not use fully their special knowledge, based on years of experience, of the manufacture of those special requirements and they could not develop their work experimentally in respect of those requirements, nor could they help other aircraft operators stranded in remote parts of the world. I give the assurance again that these powers will only be exercised as reserved powers, and only under general approval, to the extent that they now are.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Captain Balfour: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out the first "aircraft," and to insert "air-frames and of aero-engines."

  1307
  This is a drafting Amendment which obviates the necessity for a definition of aircraft in Clause 44, page 26, line 3, as including air-frames and aero-engines.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Captain Balfour: I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, after "expedient," to insert:
  "(n) to enter into agreements with the Government of any country."
  This also is a drafting Amendment. The new paragraph gives power to the corporation to enter into agreements with Governments, a power which, although it is a reserved power under Clause 4 (2), is not at present given by this Clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 3.—(Employment in connection with Corporation's services of British goods and personnel.)
  Amendment made: In page 4, line 27, after "aircraft," insert "air-frames or aero-engines."—[Captain Balfour.]
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, after the second "Force," to insert "Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve."
  Under the Bill no one can be employed by the corporation as a pilot unless he has been either in the Auxiliary Air Force or the Air Force Reserve. The object of the Amendment is to increase the scope to the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, the new Reserve which has just been formed.
  5.16 p.m.
  Captain Balfour: The Amendment is really not necessary, because the object of my hon. Friend is already achieved. The Air Force Reserve includes the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. The King's Order establishing the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve ordered that a branch of the Air Force Reserve should be formed, which branch was to be known as the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Captain Balfour: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, at the end, to add:
  " (3 The provisions of this Section shall have effect as if a British protectorate, any
  1308
  territory in respect of which a mandate of the League of Nations has been accepted by His Majesty and any other territory which is under His Majesty's protection or suzerainty were part of His Majesty's dominions."
  The definition of His Majesty's Dominions is required only for the purposes of this Clause, and it is, therefore, inserted here and is deleted from the general definition Clause, namely, Clause 44.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  5.18 p.m.
  Sir W. Lindsay Everard: I am not quite clear about the question of personnel here. There may well be, and indeed there have been, occasions when certain women have qualified as pilots, and it might be in future that women might possibly have to be used in flying Imperial air routes. I can name a number of exceptional navigators among women who have flown long distances with signal success, and it would be rather a pity if we took this far-reaching step, which we might regret in time of war.
  5.19 p.m.
  Captain Balfour: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. If he will read Sub-section (2) of this Clause, he will see the provision
  " that pilots and other persons employed in any capacity by the corporation … shall have, or have had, such connection with the Air Force Reserve … as may be so specified."
  It is only to such an extent and in such cases, and it is for the Secretary of State to direct administratively, what proportion of the personnel should have a Reserve liability, and obviously the Secretary of State would exercise those powers of restraint only after having consulted those who were responsible for the organisation and maintenance of the service and the obtaining of the necessary personnel.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  CLAUSE 4.—(Approval of Secretary of State required to certain activities.)
  Captain Balfour: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, at the end, to insert:

  1309
  "Provided that nothing in paragraph (a) of this Sub-section shall apply in relation to the operation or provision of any service as part of, or in connection with, a trans-Atlantic service, so long as—

  (a) on an outward journey, no passengers, mails or other freight embarked in the British Islands are disembarked in Eire except by way of transhipment for the purpose of conveyance by air across the Atlantic; and

  (b) on a homeward journey no pasengers, mails or other freight are embarked in Eire except by way of transhipment after conveyance by air across the Atlantic; and

  (c) in either case the point of transhipment is one to which there is, at the date of the passing of this Act, no existing air transport service from the British Islands."

  This is a Clause that has the effect of requiring the corporation to institute that Provisional Order procedure which I mentioned to the Committee earlier this afternoon, if it wishes to run any service to Eire. The main reason for a corporation service to Eire would be in respect of a Translantic service. The corporation might, for instance, wish to run a land-plane service from some point in England to Eire, where it would tranship its passengers into either a flying boat or an aircraft particularly suitable for the Atlantic crossing; and to require a Provisional Order procedure for such a development would be unduly restrictive and outside the scope of the agreement which has been come to with the internal operating companies, which have agreed that this exclusion should be put before the Committee for approval.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Duddest on (Mr. Simmonds) desire to move the Amendment standing in his name, to leave out Sub-section (3)?
  Mr. Simmonds: Yes, Sir Dennis.
  The Chairman: I will allow him to do so subject to the usual reservation as to my declining to put it if I so decide; it deals with the question of Railway Air Services which we have already discussed.
  Mr. Simmonds: On a point of Order. It was only cursorily mentioned, and as I had this Amendment on the Paper, I omitted previously to speak on the subject in the belief that you would allow me to. make some few remarks now.
  The Chairman: I have called the hon. Member for that purpose, but subject to the reservation I mentioned.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Simmonds: I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, to leave out Sub-section (3).
  We do not like this Sub-section at all and think it should come out, lock, stock, and barrel. It refers to Railway Air Services and would enable the corporation to hold stock, to run these services, and to carry out any arrangement with Railway Air Services by way of the renewal of any existing agreement. I think I may tell the Committee what Railway Air Services is. The railway companies took power to themselves in 1929 to operate air services, but I believe none of them exercised those powers until 1933, when the Great Western Railway commenced running air lines. Apparently they did not find their operation as easy as they anticipated, and in 1934, together with the Southern Railway, the London Midland and Scottish Railway, and the London and North Eastern Railway, they asked Imperial Airways whether they would get them out of their responsibility of operating aircraft services, while at the same time retaining a clear interest in those services and not finding themselves in the position that they did in regard to road services, where they allowed vested interests in road transport to spring up and had to purchase those interests out at a high figure. Therefore, in 1934 there was this arrangement between the four railway companies and Imperial Airways, whereby each of them had one-fifth of the shares in Railway Air Services, and Imperial Airways operated the services for Railway Air Services.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Undersecretary of State, when speaking a few moments ago, seemed to think that because the internal air line operators were content to let this arrangement continue, it was proper that it should continue, but I beg leave to think that there are possibly national considerations which might affect the internal operators. As I understand it, this corporation is being formed to clean up British civil air transport, and it has been put in control of all our overseas air transport. Surely this operation of services for Railway Air Services is part of the bad old days when Imperial Airways thought they had to

  1311
  snatch at every opportunity of flying anywhere and everywhere in order to try and prevent anybody else who was a British citizen or a British company from operating air services or flights; and it seems to me that we are weakening the corporation when we allow or encourage it to continue what is virtually a footling part of its duties, operating a few odd services in this country for the railway companies. Why cannot this personnel that to-day operates these services be passed over to the railway companies to be responsible to the railway companies and to the directors of Railway Air Services, who are, with the exception of the Imperial Airways representatives, directors of the railway companies themselves? It seems to me that possibly this has just gone over, with the whole of the assets of Imperial Airways, and possibly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has not had sufficiently brought home to him the fact that we want to stop this corporation trying to do too many things. If it would only make a success of one or two things, particularly the operation of overseas air services and the Transatlantic services, it would have achieved something, but here we are going on the bad old lines of encouraging it to do everything badly instead of a few things well.
  Mr. Bracken: Does the hon. Member suggest that the railway companies should get out of the aviation business, or that they should take it back from Imperial Airways and conduct it themselves?
  Mr. Simmonds: I have tried to make it plain that Railway Air Services is not an aircraft operating company.
  Mr. Bracken: It is a holding company.
  Mr. Simmonds: Yes, although it does advertise services, and I believe it has some staff of non-flying personnel, but I gather that the machines are owned by Imperial Airways and operated by Imperial Airways staff. My suggestion is that, seeing that there is a company and a board, the railway personnel of that board should carry on the activities of the company, and that it is wholly unnecessary to ask the members of the corporation to waste their time trying to run a few odd air services for the railway companies. I think it is in the national
  1312
  interest that we should try to straighten out this issue, and although I quite understand that it may be too much for my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State to answer now, I shall be much obliged if he would feel it possible to consider the matter before the further stages of the Bill, in which hope I move this Amendment.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: There may perhaps be something to be said on the question of how far the new corporation should be entrusted with the running of internal air services in this country, including the Railway Air Services, but we ought to be very careful before we lay it down that we want our internal air services handed over to the railway companies, because that is what the suggestion of the hon. Member would mean. I do not think that in their handling of the work so far the railway companies have been at all happy. Their handling of the analogous case of the canals was not at all happy. There are conflicting interests and it would seem to be highly desirable to try to isolate the new internal air services from railway control. How that is to be done, whether by encouraging existing or other internal air companies, or having one unified company for internal purposes, I do not say; but I thought it right to sound a note of warning against the idea that the railway companies are the right people to run the internal air services.
  Mr. Simmonds: I would point out that I did not suggest that we should alter the responsibility for air services. Railway Air Services have been given authority by the licensing authority to run internal air lines, and I am not proposing that that position should be ended. All I am saying is that Railway Air Services should not ask the corporation to fly its air services, but should utilise the authority it has from the licensing authority to operate those services itself. My proposal does not bring up the question which was raised by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Mander: I venture to think it does.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Bracken: I have been stirred up to intervene only because of some remarks made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). He seems to have a permanent bias against railway

  1313
  companies, and so does the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). The hon. Member for Stroud dislikes Imperial Airways, and, as far as I can see, dislikes every form of transport except yachting. It is a very serious proposition to suggest that the railway companies, which have an enormous amount of capital invested in them, should not be allowed to go into the air transport business if they so desire. I should have thought it would have been a very good thing indeed for them to do so. In years to come people in this country will cease to travel long distances by train and go, instead, by air, and I should have thought the railways, with their experience of transport, had every right to take up air transport. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton keeps piping up about the canals. Well, canals are like the Liberal party, completely antiquated, and further they are not the subject before the Committee at the present time. I would suggest to the hon. Members on the Socialist Benches that they ought to watch this situation very closely. The railways of this country are, on the whole, excellently managed, and it would be very wrong of this House to put any sort of barrier against their going into the air transport business. We should encourage as much as possible every sort of competition inside this country—I wish we could do the same with the overseas services—and to suggest that we should exclude the railways seems to be the negation of what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton is always telling us about the rights of democracy.
  There are in this country some 200,000 or 300,000 railway shareholders and about 600,000 employes, and the railways, having, so to speak, a charter to engage in air transport, ought not to be kept out of it by reason of the bias of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. Was there ever such a suggestion put before Parliament? Sometimes I feel this anti-railway bias to be like anti-Semitism or anti-Jesuitism. It is a very great danger to this country. It is already doing harm to the transport interests of the country. I say here and now that I consider that our railways are just as well managed as any railway system in the world, and I should feel that it was a great disaster if our railway companies were kept out of this new and enterprising form of transport.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) realises the position of Railway Air Services and the railway companies. The position at the moment is that the railway companies own Railway Air Services, which, in its turn, owns the greater number of the so-called independent air operators of this country. There are now only three companies which are not under some form of control by the railway companies. Our quarrel with the railway companies is not that they are not trying to run aviation but that they are not trying to run it wholeheartedly. They are stepping in to get control and are slowly strangling it, just as they did with the canals.
  Mr. Bracken: Does the hon. Member suggest that the railways strangled the canals because of the speed of the canal boat in contrast with the locomotive?
  Mr. Perkins: My hon. Friend will remember the canal in my constituency which joins the Severn to the Thames. That was bought by the railway companies and definitely strangled.
  Mr. Lathan: Is it not a fact that the railway air services have during the last three years been doubled or trebled?
  Mr. Perkins: That may be so. They have to do a certain minimum of operating, otherwise they would get their licence withdrawn by the licensing authorities and would have to stop the services. Hon. Members of all political parties in this House have taken every opportunity of killing civil aviation, and only when hon. Members have objected to Railway Bills have we been able to make some progress.
  5.38 p.m.
  Captain Balfour: I will not enter into the differences between the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) as to the merits or demerits of railways operating air services, but I should like to put forward this point of view. The hon. Member for Duddeston based his argument on the present position under which Imperial Airways operate Railway Air Services, and suggested that if the corporation were to take over that work it would weaken the ability of the corporation to fulfil its major task. I suggest that none of the arguments put

  1315
  forward to the Committee have shown why Railway Air Services should not be allowed, with the consent of all interested parties, to avail themselves of the corporation's resources for operating air services. Therefore I would submit that if the status quo were not allowed to continue, and Railway Air Services had to be thrown over by the corporation, there would be no guarantee that the railway companies, who are not themselves experienced in air operations, but are willing to hire that operational experience from the corporation, would continue such services. Then there is also the point that at the present time internal aviation is not paying. Those who are in it to-day are hoping that at some time in the future their present expenditure upon its development will be rewarded, but it might well be that they would not be in a position financially, or willing from the point of view of administration and technical direction, to undertake the lines thrown over by Railway Air Services if the present agreement were cancelled, and that might deal a very severe blow to internal aviation prospects in this country. For that reason I would ask the Committee to resist this Amendment.
  Mr. Simmonds: After that statement by my hon. and gallant Friend I do not propose to press this Amendment, but I strongly adhere to the point of view which I have put to the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 5.—(Corporation not to manufacture aircraft.)
  Amendment made: In page 6, line 35. leave out "aircraft," and insert "air-frames or aero-engines."—[Captain Balfour.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  5.41 p.m.
  Mr. Montague: I am rising to ask the Committee to delete this Clause, and I would explain that if the Clause were left out we should have in mind the necessity, at a future stage, of an Amendment to bring the question of the manufacture of aircraft under the Provisional Order Procedure. I suggest that that
  1316
  would be a sufficient safeguard for anyone who imagines that it would be in our minds, or in the minds o£ the corporation, immediately to begin the manufacture of aircraft and to set up factories for that purpose. I cannot understand the objections which have been put forward to the proposal to allow the corporation, under the safeguards mentioned to manufacture aircraft. I cannot understand, either, the objection to internal air transport being undertaken by the corporation. Though there are some manifest objections I think those objections could easily be met but I cannot see why it should be suggested that it would be granting them an unfair disadvantage to allow the corporation to manufacture aircraft under present circumstánces.
  We are, I imagine, still somewhere near the beginning of civil aviation and its development, and I cannot see why, from the standpoint of private enterprise, civil aviation should be regarded as requiring so much protection. After all the corporation is not the State; it is not a case of restricting State enterprise. I do not want to go into any doctrinaire questions. We have already had our say on the subject of whether it is desirable or not that there should be State enterprise in this business and I do not think we on this side came very badly out of the argument. But this corporation is not State enterprise, it is an enterprise of a public utility character, where the interests are those of private enterprise. If there be any danger of burcacracy in a State enterprise—I say, "if there be —I do not see how such a fear can be entertained in regard to this particular corporation, unless it is asserted that bureaucracy will come to its fruition in respect of the actual work which it is proposed that the new corporation should do. If we feel that the corporation can handle the air transport side of the business effectively I do not see why it should be taken for granted that if they enter upon the manufacture of aircraft all sorts of corruption and inefficiency will arise.
  545 P.m.
  Mr. David Adams: Earlier this afternoon the Secretary of State expressed the hope that this corporation would display initiative and other high, businesslike qualities. I am certain that we all eagerly

  1317
  reciprocate and re-echo his wish, but it may happen in the process of time that the corporation will be in a position felicitous enough to manufacture aircraft. We are to lay it down specifically that this form of enterprise shall be excluded by Statute, but it is singular, as we have heard to-day, that the corporation are to be allowed to manufacture necessary parts for repairs and replacements; so that manufacture is not excluded, but only the specific manufacture of aircraft.
  Under Clause 26, authority is given to the Secretary of State to make grants towards enabling the corporation to become a partner with other overseas companies in operating overseas air services. Might we not find that the corporation becomes united with other bodies who are able to manufacture aircraft? What will then be the position? The corporation will be barred by Statute from doing so, but it will be a partner with other concerns which are able to manufacture aircraft. Nothing in the Clause states that it is not to have association with overseas air services that are manufacturing aircraft. It seems clear that we may be placing this concern in rather a ridiculous position.
  I have the view, and I shall not be so modest as the previous speaker and apologise for my outlook with regard to State operations, that whenever a national concern can do better for the State or for itself than private concerns can do, it should be permitted to enter into that activity with the full support of this House. Under Clause 7, we are advised, surplus profits from this concern will be transferred to a revenue account, and when this account reaches certain proportions one half is to be paid to the Exchequer. The Exchequer is therefore becoming a participant in the operations of this concern, and it therefore seems to us that it is nothing but a strange form of reaction resulting from a reactionary outlook which says that this national concern—as it is—is for ever to be debarred from certain forms of activity, and particularly the activity of manufacturing aircraft.
  As the previous speaker said, we are just on the very fringe on the operations of overseas transport. A relatively small proportion of our population use this form of transport, but the concern may grow to mighty proportions. It is a singular and interesting coincidence that it is 30
  1318
  years almost to the day since Bleriot flew the Channel. In that short period of 30 years we have witnessed colossal changes in air transport. May we not expect at a very early date, considering the rapidity with which we are travelling in this matter, that the concern will be of such proportions that we might have to agree, whatever our political predilections may be, that it should have the power to manufacture aircraft? It will be an error on our part to debar the concern from this form of activity.
  5.51 p.m.
  Sir H. Seely: I confess that on seeing this Clause one liked its extreme brevity and directness. Although one does not want this to be an entirely Socialistic matter, I would point out that the corporation is not a Socialist body. I cannot see why we should lay down in an earlier Clause that the corporation may make parts of an aircraft and yet say that it is never to be allowed to manufacture a complete aircraft. When we come to the Schedule we find that no member of the corporation is to be capable of being elected to the House of Commons. I hope that the corporation is not to consist of clergymen, lunatics and prisoners in gaol. I cannot believe that such people have any interest or understanding of, or know anything about, aircraft at all. I cannot imagine that the corporation, as it is constituted by the Bill, would ever set about manufacturing aircraft, and I do not quite see why we should lay down the principle so definitely, especially as we have agreed that the corporation may manufacture parts of an aircraft.
  5.53 P.m.
  Sir A. Somerville: The chief objection to allowing the corporation to manufacture aircraft is that it is a body subsidised with State money and would be placed in a position of very great advantage in competing with private firms. It may be said that State Dockyards build ships in competition with private yards, but they build ships of war which are special ships. The State sees to it that the private yards get their complement of ships to build.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: And more.
  Sir A. Somerville: If the corporation were allowed to build aircraft, in competition with private firms, the competition would be unfair.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Lathan: Many Members of the House would regard the reason which has just been given as an argument for permitting rather than for not permitting the corporation to build aircraft. The Bill contemplates that during a certain period the subsidy will be required for the maintenance of the service which is provided for, and hon. Members must not be surprised if suspicion develops in certain quarters about the influence which has been at work in order to get this restriction imposed. There is an air of familiarity about the condition. I would recall the imposition of a similar condition upon the London Passenger Transport Board. Anybody who is aware of the inside history of that board, which is now operating with an efficiency and a measure of satisfaction which are a standing tribute to its application to the public interests, will know that it is hampered and hindered because in the Bill which brought them into being a similar condition was imposed upon the board in regard to the manufacture of its necessary spares and equipment.
  Mr. Bracken: This commendation of the London Passenger Transport Board is very interesting. I hope the hon. Member will recommend it to his right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) because the Co-operative Wholesale Society have some kind of complaint that the London Passenger Transport Board is inefficient and is overcharging.
  Mr. Lathan: I think I may leave my right hon. Friend to continue the discussion on that matter under more appropriate conditions. If for some time ahead public funds will be required in order to subsidise and thus make possible the continuance of these services, the corporation ought not to be prevented from entering into one aspect of the undertaking which will, at any rate, provide a measure of profit and possibly of revenue. This is a Bill for the development of external air services, which are not being run with any substantial measure of profit, but one section of the aircraft industry which is making a substantial profit is the production side. The corporation ought to have a full right to enter into production services.
  5.57 P.m.
  Captain Balfour: I would first say in reply to the hon. Member for West Isling-
  1320
  ton (Mr. Montague) that my position in this matter is not doctrinaire, but it will, I hope, find support on all sides of the Committee. It is: Do we or do we not wish the corporation to fulfil its main function with maximum efficiency? I think we are all of one mind in giving an affirmative answer to that question. Then I come to this proposition: Can a body successfully fulfil two functions, the first one of operation and the second of manufacturing for its particular type of operation? I submit that our commercial history shows that what I might call the tied-house form of industry, consisting of a vertical pyramid in which the producer of the raw material is linked to the controller of each process and then to the retailer, has shown many industrial failures. If at some time it is desired to manufacture aircraft by means of State enterprise—I am not arguing whether that may be required in the future or not —the very worst people to be allowed to manufacture aircraft would be the corporation.
  Civil aircraft in the next few years will have to find a wide market throughout the world, and the corporation would have only a narrow view of its own particular requirements. Design and production for the corporation will be carried out by firms who are engaged in the manufacture of civil aircraft, but only after the designs have been recommended to the Secretary of State as desirable, first for the corporation and secondly for the overseas world markets which we wish to capture for British civil aviation in the future. The recommending body will be the new Civil Aviation Development Committee. It would be restrictive to the prospects of British civil aviation if the corporation were allowed to use the limited resources which are available in this country for the development of civil aviation, in the manufacture of types for its narrow specification. Rather should we learn the lesson of past years. We can see how Imperial Airways was developed. The building of their own particular types of aircraft may have rendered great service to that company but not a single member of those types has ever been sold in the world's markets.
  I think it is far better that we should allow the operational requirements to be met in competition by the aircraft industry of this country. There is one further point. We are going at some time

  1321
  in the future—and I think it is the common wish of the Committee that it should be sooner rather than later—to have a cut in the production of armaments and a surplus productive capacity in this country. Here I see some opportunity for the men who are at present engaged in our aircraft industry, as well as the technical section of the industry, to find a new outlet when the production of arms ceases. If this Amendment were agreed to, and the corporation were allowed to manufacture aircraft, that prospect would be further restricted. For these reasons I would ask the Committee to resist the proposal.
  Mr. Montague: Bearing in mind the fact that it is not proposed to do anything of the kind, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman why this is definitely denied as a possibility for the future, whatever the circumstances may be, and yet other things of a similar character are made reserved subjects? Why cannot this be reserved, too?

  Division No. 279.]

  AYES.

  [6.3 p.m.

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

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

  Hannah, I. C.

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

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Harbord, Sir A.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. p. G.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

  Critchley, A.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Hely-Huthchnson, M. R.

  Assheton, R.

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sulton)

  Cross, R. H.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

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

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Hepworth, J.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Beaumont, Hon. R, E. B. (Perttm'M

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Hore-Balisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Beechman, N. A.

  De la Bè, R.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Denville, Alfred

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Donner, P. W.

  Hunter, T.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Dorman-Smith, Col. Rl. Hon. Sir R. H.

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

  Bottom, A. C.

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

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Drewe, C.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Boyoe, H. Leslie

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Braoken, B.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Bran, Sir W.

  Duggan, H. J.

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

  Brooklobank, Sir Edmund

  Danean, J. A. L.

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

  Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Brawn, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Eokerley, P. T.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

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

  Emery, J. F.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Bullook, Capt. M.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Burton, Got. H. W.

  Entwistlt, Sir C. F.

  Levy, T.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Erskine-HiII, A. G.

  Lewis, O.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Liddall, W. S.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Cary, R. A.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Little, J.

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

  Furness, S. N.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Looker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S.

  Channen, H.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

  Christie, J. A.

  Granville, E. L.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Clarke, Colonel R. S (E. Grlnstead)

  Grldley, Sir A. B.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  MnCorquodale, M. S.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Grimston, R. V.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Maodonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

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

  H.Kie, J. H.

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

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Macemillan, H. (Stookton-on-Tees)

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

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

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

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

  Hambro, A. V.

  Magnay, T.

  Captain Balfour: Because this would be something for the corporation to do, whereas the other reserved subjects are, as it were, side issues which the corporation may be required to do. I would repeat that if at some time in the future it is thought by some Government that civil aircraft should be manufactured by the corporation, I hope, for the sake of the aircraft then produced, that such manufacture will be done, if it has to be done by the Government, not by the corporation, but by some separate establishment.
  Mr. Montague: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by that that the community is to have all the side issues? You would allow local authorities to deal with drains, but never with anything that is profitable?
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 129.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Talker, Sir R. I.

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

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Markham, S. F.

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

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

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

  Rosbotham, Sir T.

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Miloham)

  Rote, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

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

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Rowlands, G.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. H. R.

  Touche, G. C.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswiek)

  Ruggles-Briss, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Train, Sir J.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Margins, A. C.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

  Salman, Sir I.

  Torton, R. H.

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

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

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

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

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

  Munro, P.

  Scott, Lord William

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Neven-Spenca, Major B. H. H.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Simmonds, O. E.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Patrick, C. M.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Peaks, O.

  Snadden, W. MoN.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Put, C. U.

  Somerset, T

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

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

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

  Petherick, M.

  Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonal Q.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  South by, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hen. Earl

  Pilkington, R.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Wemersley, Sir W. J.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Spens, W. P.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Porritt, R. W.

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

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Stawart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  York, C.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Strauss, H. G, (Norwich)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partlok)

  Radford, E. A.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ramsay, Captain A.: H. M.

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

  Major Sir James Edmondson and Captain McEwen.

  Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M- F.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Suteliffe, H.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Paling, W.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Parker, W.

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

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

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Griffiths, G. A. (Homsworth)

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

  Banfield, J. W.

  Groves, T. E.

  Poole, C. C.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdara)

  Price, M. P.

  Barr, J.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Batey, J.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Riley, B.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

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

  Ritson, J.

  Benson, G.

  Hayday, A.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Bevan, A.

  Henderson, A. (KingswinfordI)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Broad, F. A.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwiek)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Bromfield, W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Shinwell, E.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hills, A. (Pontafract)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Burke, W. A.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Cape, T.

  Jagger, J.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Chafer, D.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, T. (Normanten)

  Collindridge, F.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, C.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

  Daggar, G.

  Lathan, G.

  Strauss, G. R- (Lamboth, N.)

  Dalton, H.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, W.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Leonard, W.

  Tinker, J. J-

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Dabble, W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Walker, j.

  Ede, j. C.

  Macdonald, G. (Inee)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Watson, W. MoL.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  McGhee, H. O

  Welsh, J. C.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Maclean, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isle*)

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

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

  Mander, G. le M.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Gallacher, W.

  Mathers, G.

  Williams, T. (Den Valley)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Maxton, J.

  Windsor, W. (Hall, C.)

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Milner, Major J.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Montague, F.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglassy)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gibson, R. (Greeneck)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Mr. John and Mr. Adamson.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Control exercisable by Secretary of State during currency of grants or guarantees.)
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 36 to 39.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I notice that the hon. Member has also an Amendment to Clause 21 which appears to be identical with this Amendment, and I think it would perhaps be convenient to discuss the two together.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I am grateful to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, for that suggestion, as the same principle is embodied in both Amendments. I venture to think that this proposal is one which is worthy of the careful attention of the Committee. As the Clause stands, when the right hon. Gentleman and the State have succeeded in building up this corporation into a position of great prosperity, so that it no longer needs any further State assistance, it is then to be entitled to turn to the State and say, "Thank you for your kind help; we now wish to have nothing more to do with you." In the first four lines of the Clause the corporation is given the power to derogate from the powers of the right hon. Gentleman as soon as it no longer needs his financial help. The question we want to ask is, what is the reason for the right hon. Gentleman taking powers to influence the policy of the corporation? Surely, it is not exclusively in order to build up the corporation into a strong financial position. The State is giving this corporation vast financial aid, the State is interfering and supervising the operations of this corporation, not because it wants to put it in a strong financial position, but because it wants to build up a powerful instrument of civil aviation for the sake of the trade and prestige and of the transport facilities of the British Empire throughout the world. What possible justification can there be if, before any of these aims are accomplished, but only because the corporation no longer needs the financial assistance of the State, it is entitled to divest itself of any restrictions which the Secretary of State may seek to impose upon it? Looking at the precise words of the Clause, we find that it says:
  " So long as the power of the Secretary of State to make any grant to the corporation
  1326
  under this Act is, or may become, exercisable, or any guarantee given by the Treasury under this Act is in force."
  the corporation shall not carry out certain activities without the consent of the right hon. Gentleman. But once those conditions no longer apply, they may do so. The Bill says that the power "is, or may become, exercisable." I do not know what "may become exercisable" means. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to explain whether it is of any importance. After 14 years all powers granted under the Act to the corporation must cease, provided that no guarantee by the State is then in force. We shall find ourselves then in the position that the State may have paid up to £56,000,000 in order to build up the financial strength of this concern, and the Secretary of State will have no power over it. If there is any guarantee still in force, that will be a reason for maintaining the authority of the Secretary of State.
  How can the guarantee come to an end? As I understand, only in one of three ways—the money borrowed from the public may have been repaid, or there may have been some reconstruction, under which the money may have been obtained without the guarantee, or the State may have been called upon to fulfil the guarantee owing to default on the part of the corporation. In such a case, that guarantee would not be enforced, under the Bill as it is now worded. Nobody could then say what was the intention of Parliament at the time when the Act was passed. Any judge would merely have to look at the Statute, and he would say that if the guarantee had been implemented and the State had had to refund capital and interest to a defaulting corporation, the guarantee would not be in force.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a somewhat fantastic conception, or, at any rate, that this state of things is unlikely to arise, but those of us who have been watching the financial operations of Imperial Airways and the extraordinary attitude that the Government have adopted towards them will not be surprised at any proposals that the Secretary of State brings forward in relation to this concern. It is surely wrong that the State, after it has built up this corporation by means of vast sums of money, should give up all influence in these operations when the corporation has

  1327
  reached that desirable financial position. We are not giving this money in order to put the corporation on a secure financial basis, but we are giving it, and passing this Bill, in order that the State shall have a proper voice)n the operations of the corporation.
  6.20 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I would remind the hon. Gentleman, in the first place, that we are dealing with the year 1953, and that a good deal may have happened by then. I cannot visualise how a judge would interpret the Clause dealing with the corporation's guarantee or the action of the Secretary of State in relation to it, but it will be perfectly obvious that if the state of affairs to which the hon. Gentleman referred did arise, Parliament would have to intervene. The simple explanation of the Clause is that the State is making considerable financial contributions every year to this corporation, and when those contributions cease there is no need for the exercise of supervision by the State over the corporation. Quite frankly I would much prefer to see this corporation proceed under ordinary commercial management, if that were possible, to-day. It is simply because the competition of other nations is such that we have been obliged to take steps, which I believe will yet turn out to be successful, that we have this new corporation and this new scheme.
  I am holding out no hopes that in 1953 this new corporation will be able to continue unassisted—I hope that it will — but if it is able to go forward unassisted, I see no reason for direct supervision of the kind mentioned in the Bill. Whether the hon. Gentleman and I will be here to see it I do not know, but I assume that before 1953 any Government in office will have to review the position of this corporation. This is an indication, so far as the Government are concerned, that if the position does arrive when Government assistance is no longer needed, there will be no need for the very considerable supervision which in the meantime is to be exercised by the Secretary of State. I suggest that, from a practical point of view, the whole matter will have to be considered by Parliament either in 1953 or before.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Simmonds: It seems to me that this Clause ties the corporation very tightly to
  1328
  the apron-strings of the Secretary for Air, because the corporation may not do anything that he does not wish them to do and must do all that he wishes them to do. Although I realise that the apron-strings of my right hon. Friend are made of elastic, some of his successors may have apron-strings that are made of iron. When we put the members of the corporation—who may be distinguished gentlemen and not merely ex-governors—under such supervision, I wonder whether the effect will not be that we shall find ourselves unable to get the type of members that we wish to get. I hope my right hon. Friend will do his best to give them as much freedom as possible. Surely the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will agree that it is sufficient that these members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, so that if they go contrary to his wishes he can dismiss them. He may exercise a great deal of authority over them quietly, which we may know nothing about. I should like to see them have a little liberty, and then, if they kick over the traces, we should hear about it and be able to discuss the matter in this House.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Bracken: When I first came into the House there was a great deal of discussion about the sugar-beet subsidy. I remember hearing the late Lord Snowden denouncing the subsidy with all his might and hearing several of my hon. Friends on the Socialist Front Bench saying that such subsidies should be brought to an end as soon as possible because they were a wicked ramp, and if a business could not carry on "on its own," it should be shut down. I think that my right hon. Friend has been, in his usual mellow way, a little too genial in answering the arguments which were put forward by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He has told us that 14 years hence the taxpayer will still be shovelling out large sums, and that any Minister then may be in the same sort of predicament as he is in now. I take the view that in 14 years' time the public will have got very tired of that sort of thing. It is to me a matter of the greatest regret that the one party which has been completely against subsidies—
  Mr. Garro Jones: This party has never expressed any hostility to the granting of subsidies, provided that those subsidies go

  1329
  to building up State services. What we object to are those subsidies which go to building up dividends for private individuals.
  Mr. Bracken: That interruption is, if I may say so, rather irrelevant. If the programme of the Socialist party is described accurately by the hon. Gentleman, why is it that when the Socialist party had been bitterly opposing subsidies, particularly the sugar-beet subsidy, they kept those subsidies on when they came into office. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not the courage of his interruption. I think that the Secretary of State for Air has really not considered this matter. Does he suggest that in 14 years' time it will be necessary to pay large subventions to this new air corporation? If so, that is a most appalling outlook from the point of view of the taxpayers of the country. I take the view that the best possible thing that could happen to the corporation would be that it should make a decent enough profit

  Division No. 280.]

  AYES.

  [6.32 p.m.

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

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. HI. (E'nburgh, W.:

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

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

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

  Hambro, A. V.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Hannah, I. C.

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

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Harbord, Sir A.

  Amery, Fit. Hon. L. C. M. S.

  Critchley, A.

  Haslam, Henry (Harneaslle)

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

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedlay

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Assheton, R.

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

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

  Cross, R. H.

  Heneage, lieut.-Colonel A. P.

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

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Hepworth, J.

  Baxter, A. Severity

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

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

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Beechman, N. A.

  De la Bè, R.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Denman, Hon. R. O.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Denville, Alfred

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

  Blair, Sir R.

  Dodd, J. S.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Boothby, ft. J, G.

  Donner, P. W.

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

  Hunter, T.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Drewe, C.

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

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

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

  Edge, Sir W.

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

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Kimball, L.

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Ellis, Sir G.

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

  Butcher, H. W.

  Emery, J. F.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Emrys'Evans, P. V.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Gary, R. A.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Levy, T.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chlppenham)

  Fleming, E. L.

  Lewis, O.

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

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Liddall, W. s.

  Channon, H.

  Furness, S. N.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Little, J.

  Christie, J. A.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Lloyd, G. W.

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

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Granville, E. L.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Grimston, R. V.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

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

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

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

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

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (isle of Wight)

  to get rid of the Secretary of State, but now to my great dissatisfaction I find that the right hon. Gentleman is envisaging being in charge of this corporation or his successor or his second successor, in 14 years' time. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who is a great authority on finance and a man of an optimistic nature, would think it a most charitable thing if, 14 years hence, we were paying this money out to the corporation. I hope that hon. Members are going to take notice of it. We ought to be obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) for raising this issue, which has produced from the Secretary of State the most bleak and pessimistic view of his functions I have ever heard in this House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 134.

  McKie, J. H.

  Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Macnamara, Lieut-Colonel J. R. J.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Magnay, T.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

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

  Maitland, Sir Adam

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

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

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. H.

  Markham, S. F.

  Rosbotham, Sir T.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge

  Touohe, G. C.

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

  Rowlands, G.

  Train, Sir J.

  Medlicott, F.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

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

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Turton, R. H.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Mills, Major J. D. (Hew Forest)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Moreing, A. C.

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

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

  Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

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

  Scott, Lord William

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ't.)

  Simmonds, O. E.

  Waterhouse. Captain C.

  Munro, P.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  O'Connor, Sir Terenee J.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Snadden, W. McN.

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

  Peaks, O.

  Somerset. T.

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

  Peal, C. U.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Petherick, M.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Womersley, Sir W. J,

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Pilkington, R.

  Spens, W. P.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Ponsonby, Col. C E.

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

  York, C.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Strickland, Captain W. F

  Captain McEwen and Mr. Buchan-Henburn.

  Radford, E. A.

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

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Parkinson, J. A.

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

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Poole, C. C.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Grenfell. D. R.

  Price, M. P.

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

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

  Pritt, D. N.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Groves, T. E.

  Riley, B

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Ritson, J.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)

  Barr, J.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Bartlett, C. V. O.

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

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Batey, J.

  Hayday, A.

  Sexton. T. M.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Shinwell, E.

  Benson, G.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Bevan, A.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Broad, F. A.

  Hills, A. (Pontefraet)

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

  Bromfield, W.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jagger, J.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Burke, W. A.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

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

  Cape, T.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Charleton, K. C.

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Chater, D.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Stephen, C.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirkwood, D.

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

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

  Coltindridge, F.

  Lathan, G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Cove, W. G.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Thorne, W.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Lee, F.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Daggar, G.

  Leonard, W.

  Temlinson, G.

  Dalten, H.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Logan, D. G.

  Walker, J.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Macdonald, G. (ince)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Watson, W. ML.

  Dobbie, W.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Ede, J. C.

  Maclean, N.

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  White, H. Graham

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Maxton, J.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

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

  Milner, Major J.

  Wilmot, John

  Frankel, D.

  Montague, F.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Gallacher, W.

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

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Mr. John and Mr. Mathers,

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Paling, W.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Parker, J.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 10.—(Existing contracts with Secretary of State and Postmaster-General.)
  Amendment made: In page 9, line 11, leave out "agreement," and insert "contract."—[Sir A". Wood.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 13.—(Borrowing powers of corporation.)
  6.42 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, after "the," to insert "whole or any part of the."
  This and the following Amendment are really of a drafting nature and are designed to make the Clause in agreement with the terms of the contract entered into with existing companies.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 41, leave out from "companies," to the end of line 2, page 10.—[Sir K. Wood.]
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, at the end, to insert: "including the repayment of any money temporarily borrowed under Sub-section (z) of this Section for any of the foregoing purposes."
  This Amendment is designed specifically to give the corporation power to borrow by the issue of stock for the purpose of repaying temporary loans.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 14.—(Power of corporation to issue stock.)
  6.44 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 10, line 22, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert:
  " (a) to fulfil their obligations with respect to the allotment of stock to, or by the direction of, the existing companies in accordance with the purchase agreements; and."
  This Amendment is inter-related to the first two Amendments which were moved to Clause 13.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 10, line 29, at the end, to insert "by the issue of stock."
  This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the corporation can issue stock to raise money which they are empowered to borrow by subvention.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 16.—(Power of Treasury to guarantee stock and temporary loans of the corporation.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 11, line 19, after "thereof," insert "(hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidated Fund')."
  In line 40, leave out from "Fund," to "the," in line 41.— (Sir K. Wood.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 17 to 21, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 22.—(Accounts and audit.)
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Wilmot: I beg to move, in page 13, line 33, at the end, to insert:
  " Provided that such statement of accounts shall include a balance sheet and profit and loss account and particulars as to the salaries and fees (if any) paid to each member of the corporation.''
  This Clause deals with accounts and. reports by the auditors. It requires the keeping of proper accounts, and the Secretary of State has power to direct what form the statement of accounts of the corporation and of any subsidiary company shall take. The importance to this House of this provision is that those directions and the wording of this Clause will determine the nature of the information which is given to the House and the public. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give me an undertaking that the accounts will include a balance sheet, a profit and loss account, and will show what the Companies Act requires, the salaries and fees. of members of the board. If he can give me that undertaking, it will not be necessary to proceed with the Amendment.
  6.48 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I should like to give that undertaking. I have power to give directions as to the form of accounts and I will exercise that power in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time. So far as the remuneration of the members of the corporation is concerned, the hon. Member will recollect that it is for me to fix the remuneration of the members of the corporation. Therefore, any hon. Member can always ascertain the remuneration by putting down a question. I hope that assurance will satisfy the hon. Member.
  Mr. Wilmot: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 23 (Annual Report and periodical returns.)
  Mr. J. Wilmot: I beg to move, in page 14, line 22, after "returns," to insert:
  "(b) such information with respect to the activities of the corporation not included in the report made to the Secretary of State under Sub-section (1) of this Section."
  If the right hon. Gentleman can give me the same undertaking on this Amendment, we can dispose of it as speedily as we disposed of the other.
  Sir K. Wood: I think I can give a similar undertaking in regard to this Amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 25—(Further grants by Secretary of State.)
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 15, line 16, to leave out from "period" to the end of line 17.
  The object of this and the two subsequent Amendments is to make provision so that the word "expenditure" shall be used throughout the Clause in the same sense. We therefore propose to insert at the end of the Clause a general definition of the word "expenditure."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 16, line 37, leave out the second "and."
  In line 40, at the end, add:
  " and (c) the expression ' expenditure,' in relation to any estimate, includes any sum thereby proposed to be set aside or allocated for any purpose."—[Sir K. Wood.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 27.—(Power of Secretary of State to make grants to certain companies.)
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Simmonds: I have an Amendment on the Order Paper to leave out paragraph (a), which has not been called.
  I should like to ask a question of my right hon. Friend. From paragraph (a) it would appear that before the Secretary of State can make grants to any company other than the corporation that company must satisfy two points, (1) the company must be in receipt of a subsidy payable by the Government of some other country than the United Kingdom and (2) the corporation must own shares or stock in that company. I cannot see that the holding of a few shares or some stock in a company is going to be any great asset to the corporation or any great safeguard to the Secretary of State. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is achieved by paragraph (a)?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I must draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that in the Money Resolution a definite subsidy is laid down, and therefore his argument is out of order.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 29.—(Grants and expenses of providing facilities to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.)
  6.52 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 20, line 2, after "1938," to insert:
  " or made after the commencement of this Act in pursuance of the said Section one as further amended by this Act."
  The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the limitation of the amount of grant covers subsidies whether

  1337
  to the corporation or joint operating companies or the internal operators under the Air Navigation Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 30.—(Amendment of s.1of 26 Geo. 5. & 1 Edw. 8 c. 44.)
  Amendment made: In page 20, line 16, leave out from the second "the," to the end of line 19, and insert "British Islands, exclusive of Eire."—[Sir K. Wood.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 32.—(His Majesty's aircraft to have free use and benefit of aerodromes and other facilities.)
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I beg to move, in page 21, line 9, to leave out from "aircraft" to "the" in line 10.
  The object of this Amendment is to find out what is going to be the position of foreign aircraft landing at an airport which is owned and controlled by the corporation. At the moment there is an international agreement subscribed to by the various aero clubs which allows a member of one aero club to land at the aerodrome of another aero club in a foreign country free of landing fee, provided it leaves the aerodrome within 48 hours. That is of the greatest help to British aeroplanes, but, unfortunately, it works rather unfairly against foreign aeroplanes. When they come to this country they are able to have free landing and free housing for 48 hours, just as we are, but when they land in Palestine or any other aerodrome on the main air routes where the aerodromes are owned and controlled by Imperial Airways they have to pay heavy landing fees. This causes a sense of injustice. If the Clause goes through un-amended it will be impossible to put it right, and this excellent scheme, which is doing much good for flying in Europe and the world, is bound to break down.
  6.56 p.m.
  Sir W. Lindsay Everard: I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. We have a great many difficulties to contend with in the Royal Aero Club
  1338
  on this matter. The President of the Federation Aeronautique Internationale when he flies from France can land at Tunis and Algeria without having to pay landing fees, owing to the arrangement that is in force, but when he goes to any British Colony or Dominion he, is charged a very substantial fee at every aerodrome where he lands. That does not create a very good impression among foreigners as to the facilities which the British Empire gives them in the way of civil aviation. I had occasion some years ago to fly from Africa and was forced to land at Gaza in flying from Egypt to Palestine, not because I wanted to do so but because I had to clear Customs. I had a small machine and I was charged £1 landing fee by Imperial Airways. When I objected, they said that it was a fee charged to keep wild beasts off the aerodrome. On this occasion I was able to obtain a refund of my money, which is rather an unusual thing to be able to accomplish in regard to a great corporation. I found that Imperial Airways, without my permission, had been using my own landing ground for a very large machine, and as I had a fox covert near the end of the ground I pointed out that I also had to keep wild animals off the aerodrome. This is a matter of great importance, and I hope the Secretary of State will bear it in mind and see whether anything can be done to deal with it.
  6.58 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I think my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment will appreciate that I cannot accept it because it would make it obligatory to the corporation to afford accommodation free of charge to any aircraft at any aerodrome controlled by them. I do not think anyone would suggest that they ought to do that. However, I appreciate what my hon. Friends have said and I will see whether I have power, as the Bill is now drafted, to direct the corporation to make their facilities available to others at reasonable charges. If I have not that power, then either here or in another place I shall propose that an Amendment be inserted with that object in view. I shall first ascertain whether I have that power, and if not I shall adopt the proposal that I have just made. I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend is a reasonable one and most hon. Members will appreciate it.
  Mr. Perkins: In view of that very satisfactory reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 35.—(Members etc. to account for fees.)
  Amendment made: In page 22, line 16, leave out "an associated company," and insert:
  " any company with which the corporation has a subsisting agreement for the establishment, maintenance or operation by the company of an air transport service for or in collaboration with the corporation."—[Sir K. Wood.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 38.—(Continuance of compassionate allowances.)
  7. P.m.
  Mr, Mander: I beg to move, in page 23, line 8, to leave out from "allowance," to the end of line 9.
  The object of this Amendment is to ascertain precisely what will be the position after the passing of this Bill of those persons to whom compassionate allowances have been made by one or other of the two companies. I understand from the evidence before the Select Committee that there are only six such cases, and I want to make sure that it will not be possible—I admit it is extremely unlikely—to stop any of these allowances before they terminate in the ordinary way. It would seem from the wording of the Clause, "on the same conditions as previously obtaining," that it was a purely voluntary act and that the corporation might have power to stop them. If the Secretary of State is able to give an assurance that the legal position is watertight, and that there is no option on the part of the directors to interfere with these grants, I shall be satisfied, and will withdraw the Amendment.
  7.2 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: The Committee will appreciate the point which the hon. Member has made. There are only a limited
  1340
  number of these cases, and naturally every hon. Member will desire to see that everything is right so far as they are concerned. We have examined the matter since it was discussed in the Select Committee, and I am advised that the Clause is intended to provide that it shall be a matter of legal right under the same conditions as before. There was some discussion whether the words "as before" threw us back on the voluntary allowance, and I understand that is so. But between now and when the Bill is in another place I will have the matter investigated again, and if there is any doubt I will suggest an Amendment.
  Mr. Mander: In view of that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 39.—(Power of corporation to establish superannuation schemes.)
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 23, line 10, to leave out "at any time," and to insert "and, if the Secretary of State so directs, shall."
  This Amendment and the next two Amendments have been put down to meet the point made by the Select Committee in regard to superannuation. The Select Committee went carefully into this question and expressed the desire that, if possible, the matter should be made more definite, and it should not be left to the corporation of its own volition to set up a fund. I do not think there is any doubt that in fact they would do it, but the point was raised that they might not. Therefore, I have put down these Amendments to meet the point, and as amended the Clause will enable the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to set up a fund or scheme. I can also give this assurance, that if a scheme or fund were not set up I should direct proper superannuation arrangements to be made under the powers I am now taking, and I should certainly use my discretion in the way I have indicated. I think with these Amendments, coupled with the assurance I have given, the rights in regard to superannuation are fully safeguarded.
  7.5 P.m.
  Mr. Lathan: It is an exhilarating experience to be able to support suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that the

  1341
  recommendations which came from the Select Committee were unanimous, and that the Committee felt that the position in regard to superannuation provisions was not entirely satisfactory. There was no evidence that members of the fund, or even the trustees of the fund, had been consulted. If, as I now gather, the Secretary of State intends to exercise his powers and to ensure that a satisfactory and comprehensive superannuation fund is established, and that the staffs are to be consulted and their wishes ascertained, the Committee will regard that with satisfaction.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 23, line 11, leave out "such."
  In line 12, leave out "as they may think fit."—[Sir K. Wood.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 40.—(Winding-up and dissolution of existing companies.)
  Amendment made: In page 23, line 36, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Sir K. Wood.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 43.—(Exemption from stamp duties.)
  7.7 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 25, line 22, to leave out from "for," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
  " the allotment of any stock the purchase price of which is under the purchase agreements to be set off against the consideration payable there under, or for the purpose of raising money to provide that consideration so far as there is no such set-off as aforesaid, or to provide the working capital necessary for the initial requirements of the corporation, or to repay money temporarily borrowed for either of those purposes; or
  (d) on any security given by the corporation in respect of money temporarily borrowed under Sub-section (2) of Section thirteen of this Act and certified by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to be required for any purpose specified in the last preceding paragraph."
  This Amendment is inserted because of the alteration necessitated by the terms of the contract at the end of the Bill, and we have to make the Clause agree with the contract, which was omitted from the original draft.
  Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 44.—(Interpretation.)
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 26, to leave out line 3.
  This Amendment is necessary because the Committee a short time earlier inserted in Clause 2 the words "air-frames and of aero-engines," and there is, therefore, no need to have this in the definition Clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page '26, line 11, at the end, to insert "'British Islands' means those Islands, exclusive of Eire."
  This is a new definition, and it is necessary to make it clear that for the purposes of this Bill "British Islands" means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of man, but not Eire.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 26, to leave out lines 12 to 17.
  It has been proposed to insert these words in Clause 35, because that is the only place in the Bill where the expression is used.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 26, line 21, after "Dominion," to insert "British India, British Burma."
  The definition of a country is intended to cover every country in the world, and it has been pointed out that this does not include British India and British Burma, which the Amendment is designed to correct.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 26, line 25, at the end, to insert:
  "and, in relation to a part of a country which is under both a provincial and a central Government, any reference in this Act to the Government of a country shall be construed as including a reference to either of those Governments."
  This Amendment is on the same lines. It is intended to make it clear that the definition includes both central and provincial governments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 26, to leave out lines 36 to 41.
  The reason is that these words are required only for the purpose of Clause 3, and we have already transferred the definition to that Clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Collective representation of staff.)
  In determining the wages and conditions of employment of persons employed by the corporation, the corporation shall take into account representations made to them by any body or organisation the membership of which comprises a substantial proportion of the class or classes of employés concerned.— [Sir K. Wood.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This is in order to meet a point made by the Select Committee when they examined the Bill. They expressed the opinion that the question of representation should be further considered with a view of embodying a more specific provision in the Bill. This is a provision which I fully approve, and I would remind the Committee that, so far as the staff are concerned, it is my wish and desire, which I have no doubt the corporation will fully respect, that there should be proper and adequate machinery for consultation on all matters connected with their employment. This new Clause and the undertaking I have already given will ensure that the rights of the staff of the corporation will be fully protected so far as discussions are concerned, and that there will be suitable machinery by which conditions of employment can be discussed between the staff and the corporation. We remember what took place a short time ago, and we are looking forward, as a result of these provisions, to very satisfactory arrangements being made and a good atmosphere being obtained so far as the corporation and their employés are concerned.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Lathan: Members of the Select Committee and this Committee generally will regard the statement of the Secretary of State as satisfactory. The feeling of
  1344
  the Select Committee was that in this matter, as in the matter of superannuation, the situation was not at all happy, and it was desired that arrangements should be made under which representatives of organisations who spoke on behalf of the staff should be fully and freely recognised. We understand that the new Clause intends that there shall be full and complete recognition of the trade unions and other organisations acting for the various sections of the staff, but I should like the Secretary of State to say whether not only those who are in receipt of wages, but also those who are members of the salaried staff are included in these proposals? Does it apply to all sections of the staff, clerical and administrative, as well as operatives and constructive grades who are paid by a weekly wage? If that is the case I think we may say that the arrangements are generally satisfactory.
  7.19 p.m.
  Marquess of Clydesdale: May I add my voice to the general satisfaction that has been expressed at the fact that the Secretary of State has seen his way to include this new Clause in the Bill and also to give the undertaking he did on a former Amendment? I think it is extremely satisfactory. This new Clause ranges over a wide field. I am, personally, interested in the pilots' point of view, because I am a member of the Air Line Pilots' Association. After all, a professional pilot is even now a comparatively new profession, and the conditions under which he is employed necessitate. I think, that pilots as a body should be recognised and that their representatives should be recognised. That, I think, is of the greatest importance. The Secretary of State has referred to somewhat unhappy recollections, but the position is now better, and in Sir John Reith and Mr. Runciman we have two gentlemen in whom the pilots have complete confidence. Although the present position is satisfactory, I think it is right that the pilots should have sufficient safeguards. That is what we want, and on behalf of the pilots I want to thank the Secretary of State for Air for having proposed this new Clause and given the undertaking to which he has referred.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: It seems to me that this new Clause meets to the full in the letter

  1345
  and in the spirit the recommendations made unanimously by the Select Committee, and if it is carried out on those lines it will be satisfactory. We are setting a very valuable precedent for future Measures of this kind. I do think something of this kind is required, because I was not impressed by the way in which Imperial Airways and British Airways dealt with their employés. No consultations took place with the staff, nor was any information given them as to what their position might be in the future. No doubt it was felt that their position would be strengthened, and that there was no need to do so, but at the same time people like to be consulted. This new Clause will make it certain that such consultations will take place, and I should like to thank the Secretary of State for having proposed it.
  Mr. Perkins: I should also like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for proposing this new Clause. This subject has been a bone of contention for some time, but I am happy to think that it has now been satisfactorily settled.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Poole: I am sure that we on this side of the Committee are pleased to see in any legislation provision for the recognition of trade unions or other associations. Many of us wish it had been introduced into our legislation in the past. I am concernedonly with one phrase in the new Clause, and that is "a substantial proportion." I am wondering what interpretation will be given to that phrase. I visualise a provision where, perhaps, 80 per cent, of the employés of the new corporation are members of a trade union, but in which only a small minority of one section of the employés, the clerical workers, are inside that organisation. Will it be possible to deny to these men the right of representation through their own organisation because a substantial proportion of the clerical staff are members of a trade union? I think it would have been better if this phrase had been left out and that there had been a free right to any organisation which represents a body of people employed by the corporation to be received and their representations heard. Unless the new Clause is interpreted in the spirit in which we desire it should be interpreted, there is a danger that one small section of the employés may find themselves denied a right
  1346
  which should be given to them, that is, the right of representation and the hearing of their case
  Sir A. Somerville: As a member of the Select Committee I wish to add my word of satisfaction that the Secretary of State has so fully met the unanimous wishes of the Select Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Pensions and sickness benefit.)
  The corporation shall establish pensions and sickness benefits for all persons employed by the corporation who may be killed or injured during employment by the corporation and for their dependants.—[Mr. Perkins.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  There have been a small number of cases of old pilots in which questions have arisen as regards their insurance and benefits. There have been a few really hard cases, and I know that the Undersecretary is aware of one or two. I am glad to say that the situation is now very much better, but as there are still one or two hard cases I am moving the new Clause in order to prevent any recurrence.
  Sir K. Wood: I am advised that the Amendment we have passed in regard to the establishment of a pensions and superannuation fund will meet the point made by the hon. Member and, as he knows, I have given an undertaking that if the corporation do not establish such a fund I shall direct them to do so. In the circumstances I would suggest that he does not press the new Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  FIRST SHEDULE.—(Supplementary provisions as to the corporation.)
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: I beg to move, in page 28, line 25, to leave out paragraph 4.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee to discuss on this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins)—in line 26, after "Commons," insert "or House of Peers"—as it seems to cover the same point.
  Mr. Boothby: This Amendment raises a principle of some importance. We are now establishing another public corporation under an Act of Parliament, and we may be quite sure of one thing, and that is that this is not the last public corporation which will be established in this country. We are obviously at the beginning of a period when more and more of these semi-public corporations will be established, and I think that the position of hon. Members of this House will have to be clarified one way or another, sooner or later. The paragraph which I am proposing to delete has been put in, I believe, simply in order to conform to a principle laid down some time ago in respect to a Member of Parliament appointed to a Parliamentary office of profit under the Crown. I submit that that is a very doubtful interpretation, and I think the Committee will have to face the issue. We have to recognise that railway companies, shipping companies, big banks, the co-operative society, the coal industry, the trade unions and the iron and steel industry have their representatives in this House, not in the absolutely strict sense, but in the sense that there are Members who can claim to speak on behalf of these great industries, and if we are to exclude Members of Parliament from serving on the boards of these public corporations it seems to me that we are taking a grave step indeed which may not be conducive to the public interest. I say that if there had been a Member of Parliament, or even two Members of Parliament, on the board of the old Imperial Airways Company the trouble which arose a year or more ago would never have arisen, because hon. Members on all sides could have established direct contact immediately and found out the true facts of the situation. What struck me as being most significant about the whole row was the total lack of touch between the Board of Imperial Airways and hon. Members on both sides. This provision deliberately makes certain that there shall be no direct contact of any kind between the corporation and hon. Members. I think that is a very bad precedent to create.
  With regard to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), if we are to exclude Members of Parliament, let us also exclude Members of another place. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with me that if we are to establish the
  1348
  principle that in these public and semi-public corporations no members of the board shall be Members of Parliament, that ought to apply to Members of both Houses of Parliament. I ask my. right hon. Friend why he has thought fit to introduce this paragraph, which I do not believe is a desirable precedent, and which I do not believe, in the long run, will conduce to the general public interests.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: As this Amendment and the Amendment on the Paper in my name are benig discussed together, I would point out that I put down my Amendment for the purpose of finding out, if possible, why Members of Parliament should be excluded while Members of another place are included. It seems to me that either all should be in or all should be out, and deliberately to distinguish between the sheep and the goats seems to me to be rather a slight on the House of Commons, and to suggest that hon. Members are in some way inferior to Members of another place.
  7.32 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I appreciate the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), although I must confess that I do not think the illustration he gave with regard to the position of the staff of Imperial Airways and the controversy that arose was a very good one. I do not wish to pass judgment on that case, but I should say that the real trouble was that the people responsible for the management were not in touch with the staff as they might have been. However, simply because things do not go right with the staff in a company of that kind, I do not see that it is the duty of Members of Parliament to get in touch with the staff, or with those who sit on the board, in order to be able to put matters right between the House and the company. I always regretted that matter, and when I became Secretary of State I regarded it as one that should be settled by the company itself and not as a matter for discussion in the House. I do not accept the argument that because of that unfortunate case, Members of Parliament ought to be directors of this corporation.
  I submit that, on balance, it is a wise decision that Members of the House should

  1349
  not be on the boards of corporations of this nature. There are, of course, numerous precedents for this particular provision. There are the precedents of the London Passenger Transport Act, the Sugar Industry (Re-organisation) Act, the Electricity Supply Act, the Coal Mines Act, the Livestock Industry Act, the Sea Fish Industry Act; and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has just told me that in the Cotton Industry (Re-organisation) Bill a similar Clause has been passed by the House without opposition. I think there is good reason for such a provision. Although I have often thought that Members of Parliament would be very valuable members of corporations and boards of this character, I think that, on the whole, it is desirable that Parliament should lay down that the same individual should not be at the same time a member of the body which controls the granting of public funds, either itself or through the Secretary of State, for the purposes of the corporation, and also a nominee of the Secretary of State on that particular corporation. That, in fact, is what would happen if this provision were deleted. I should then be free to appoint a Member of the House or two Members, that is to say from the very people who, in fact, are in a large measure controlling, either themselves or through me, the finances of the corporation. I doubt very much whether it would be wise for hon. Members to find themselves in such a position. It might very well be argued that membership of a corporation of this character, which is a very extensive one as far as the State is concerned, might be an office of profit within the meaning of the Section.
  Mr. Boothby: Would not that argument also apply to all industries which are in receipt of a direct subsidy from the State?
  Sir K. Wood: I would not like to argue on a case that is not before me, but with regard to this corporation, which is to have very considerable State assistance, there are very large financial commitments by the State through money voted by Members of the House. I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen will see that there is great force in the argument that, in such a case, Members of Parliament should not be entitled to be members of
  1350
  the corporation. With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), I would remind the Committee that this distinction has been made in every case. Members of another place are not, of course, concerned with finance. That is a very considerable difference between their position and the position of hon. Members of this House. A peer who is actively engaged in politics may be made a governor of a Colony whereas a Member of Parliament who is made a governor of a Colony has to resign his seat. The position is the same with regard to Ambassadors to foreign Powers. That distinction has constantly been drawn, and I would draw the distinction particularly in the case of this corporation, because of the direct relationship between the House and the corporation, which does not exist with regard to another place. I should be content to rely upon that reason alone for having this distinction. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members that it is a wise rule that Members of Parliament should not be members of the corporation, and I suggest that the same reasons do not apply to Members of another place.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Poole: I hope the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) will press his Amendment to a Division, in which case I shall be happy to support him. I was interested to hear the Minister speak of the great political activity of Members of another place. On the few occasions on which I have visited another place, it has always seemed to me that it was a scene of great inactivity. Certainly, it was not surging with life—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may not make reflections on another place.
  Mr. Poole: I apologise both to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, and to another place. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), I think it is extremely undesirable that Members of the House should be members of the corporation. The hon. Member's example with regard to the last trouble with Imperial Airways was a very bad one. It is absurd to suggest that if Members of the House had been on the Board of Imperial Airways, that trouble would not have arisen. Hon.

  1351
  Members who have had experience of what has happened in the House during the past few days must know that if certain Members had been on the board of Imperial Airways, the position would have been a hundred times worse, because they would hardly have been the people most likely to look after the rights of the staff with regard to superannuation, pensions, and other benefits to which the staff felt they were entitled. I cannot conceive that certain Members of the House would have improved the relationship between Imperial Airways and its staff.
  It is desirable that Members of the House should have no direct interest in a corporation of this character. We should be as detached as possible in order that, in considering the affairs of the corporation, we may be able to take a detached view. It would be undesirable that any Member of the House should be a member of the London Passenger Transport Board, and I do not think that if Members of the House were members of the board, it would help either the board or the House in deciding various points which might arise. The best method of ensuring that there shall be the most amicable. relations between the staff and the corporation is to give the staff the fullest rights of association in trade union organisations. Had those rights been accorded to the staff of Imperial Airways 18 months ago, we should not have had that trouble. Therefore, I oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, but I should be pleased to support the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: Having listened to the arguments that have been made, I find myself in agreement with the Secretary of State. I should like to give an additional reason to those which the right hon. Gentleman gave. I think it would create a bad impression outside if we were continually creating new corporations and putting ourselves on the boards of them. For that reason, and for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, I think it is desirable that we should remain in a detached position. With regard to the point that has been made about the difference in the treatment of Peers and Members of the House, I think the reasons for treating Members
  1352
  of another place differently are overwhelming. For centuries, by custom, and since the passage of the Parliament Act, 1911, by statute, the Peers have had nothing to do with the finances of the country, which are wholly in the control of the representatives of the people. For purposes of finance, the Peers might as well not exist. For those reasons, I think they are eligible to serve upon a board that deals with Government finance. We cannot have it both ways. I support the Secretary of State.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. MacLaren: The Secretary of State cited certain precedents where Members of Parliament have allowed members of another place to be members of boards of this sort. I am sure the Secretary of State will remember that on each occasion protests were made in the House on the same grounds as they are being made now. The right hon. Gentleman cited these precedents as though the House had assented to the same principle without discussion, whereas on most occasions there was opposition on the same grounds. I am surprised that so keen an observer as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) should have been so carried away as to think that, owing to the Parliament Act, the Lords have nothing to do with finance. May I remind the Secretary of State that he and his worthy Under-Secretary have for years carried on a strong agitation in favour of removing the disabilities under which the other House labours as a result of the Parliament Act? Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman's group is successful in that agitation. What will happen then? Will this Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) be reconsidered in those circumstances? I wish the Secretary of State would give his reply openly and not sotto voce.
  While it is true that a Member of the House of Lords would have no control over the financial provisions embodied in the Bill he could, none the less, use undue influence as a member of that House which is in close contiguity with this House. He has an entrance to this House which the ordinary member of the public has not. I see no difference in ability between Members of this House and members of another place which would mark out the latter as specially fitted for membership of boards of this type. In previous Debates on this subject, it has been

  1353
  argued that members of another place, being gentlemen of leisure, had more time to devote to these matters and that a great deal of ability was going to waste while their services were not utilised. It was suggested that they might as well use their time in this way as in any other way. I do not think that is an argument which carries any weight. If we are going to bar Members of the House of Commons, let us bar Members of both Houses. I do not know whether it is worth going into the Division Lobby on this question but if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud is taken to a Division I shall certainly support it.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: It is very easy to maintain a detached position in a matter of this kind if we are kept in complete ignorance of the facts of the situation. If it be the wish of the Committee to deprive Members of this House of all direct access to information about these companies, while at the same time plastering these boards with peers, then, for my part, they are welcome to do so. But I think that in doing so they will be making a profound mistake, and one which will be regretted later. This is a policy which will, in the long run, be reversed and in my view the sooner the better. Obviously, however, it is the wish of the Committee to see as many Noble Lords as possible on these boards, and no Members of the House of Commons. In those conditions, having made my protest, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Perkins: I wish to withdraw my Amendment also.
  Hon. Members: No!
  The Deputy-Chairman: I did not call the hon. Member's Amendment. I said that the point which it raised could be discussed, if the Committee so desired, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby).
  Mr. Lees-Smith: On a point of Order. Is it not intended to put the Question on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins)?
  Sir A. Somerville: Is it not the case that that Amendment has not been moved by the hon. Member?
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is so.
  Question, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. Poole: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Colonel Clifton Brown, how it was possible for us to discuss these two Amendments if the Second Amendment was not moved? It was your suggestion that we should discuss both.
  The Deputy-Chairman: We have now passed away from the First Schedule.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Third Schedule.—(Provisional contracts for the acquisition by the corporation of the undertakings of Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, Limited.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: As you have not called the Amendment in my name, which proposes to insert in the Schedule:
  " In the event of any such person being within a period of two years discharged from the corporation's employment for reasons other than disciplinary he shall be paid a sum in compensation of not less than three month's remuneration."
  perhaps, Colonel Clifton Brown, I may raise the point now. This is a matter on which the Secretary of State has found himself unable to meet the recommendations of the Select Committee, which expressed the opinion that the question of fair compensation for any employés who might be displaced on account of the amalgamation of the two concerns, should be considered with a view to the embodiment of more specific provisions in the Bill. I understand that all employés of both companies are to be taken on by the new corporation but there is nothing to prevent the new corporation immediately giving them a week's or a month's notice so that the security given by this undertaking is not as valuable as it appears to be. It may be said that the new corporation will be stronger and more powerful and that the position of the employés will be more secure. At the same time it is well known that in the case of all amalgamations, the employés who are in ignorance of what is going on, are always very much afraid of how their prospects will be affected.

  1355
  It is important in this case to give the employés all the assurance we can give. It may be that no one will be discharged but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government to make some statement with regard to the matter. In spite of the best intentions on the part of the corporation, it is possible that, within a year or two, a certain number of the staff would have to be discharged as a result of the amalgamation. I suggest that it would be in accordance with the best industrial and commercial practice to give, not the ordinary week's or a month's notice in such a case, but something of an ampler nature. I suggest three months, and I hope the Secretary of State will be able to indicate that the cases of any men who find themselves in the position I have indicated will be carefully considered. We do not know who the new directors will be. They may be drawn entirely from the Whips' Office. They may be members of the Government who will be put there in order to facilitate some reconstruction of the Government. We have had no information and it is impossible to expect the employés to feel that confidence which they have in the present directors whom they know. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give to the employés of these companies, the assurance which, I think, should properly be given to them.
  7.54 P.m.
  Mr. Lathan: I wish to support the view indicated by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in regard to the lack of provision for compensation for those who may be displaced as a result of this amalgamation. To say that there are insuperable difficulties in the way of such provision is to exaggerate. The right hon. Gentleman and his advisers must know that, over and over again, arrangements have been made in Acts of Parliament similar to those which the Select Committee have recommended in this case. Such arrangements are to be found in Acts dealing with railways, electricity undertakings and local government amalgamations. While the positions are not strictly comparable the principle is the same, that where, in the public interest, there is a merging of concerns injury must not follow to those employed in such concerns, and if they can show that their displacement is due to circum-
  1356
  stances associated with the amalgamation, they should be entitled to compensation.
  7.56 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: Hon. Members will, I think, agree that I have endeavoured as far as possible to meet the views of the Select Committee and I would have been glad to have gone all the way in accepting their recommendations if it had been possible. But I do not think it is possible, or indeed reasonable to take the view which the hon. Members opposite have expressed in regard to employés in this case. I think a distinction must be drawn between private employés who have their own contract of service and the employés of utility companies, who are in a special category, with reasonable expectations of security of employment.
  Mr. Lathan: What about the case of employés of electricity undertakings?
  Sir K. Wood: In this case I would point out there are the most definite conditions. I refer hon. Members to this condition in the contract as set out in the Schedule:
  " The corporation shall as regards all persons employed by the vendor company offer to take them into the corporation's employment as from the appointed day upon terms not less favourable than those upon which they were employed immediately before the appointed day."
  I suggest that that condition amply safeguards the employés and that from a practical point of view their position will be immeasurably improved.
  Mr. Watkins: Suppose an employé is dismissed?
  Sir K. Wood: I suppose that an individual employé would be in the same position as he is in now as regards notice. As regards the great majority of the employés, there is no doubt in my mind that their position will be immeasurably improved under the corporation with its greater prospects, and I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they need not be apprehensive. In view of the additional financial provision which this House is making, the operations of the company will be extended, and I suggest that the position of the employés is amply safeguarded.
  Mr. Mander: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is unconvincing. It is no good saying that the

  1357
  corporation will be a wonderful new body and will be greatly strengthened and that all sorts of prospects will be offered to the employés. If employés are dismissed because of the amalgamation and for no other reason, the wonderful prospects of the new corporation will not be of any benefit or satisfaction to them. The right hon. Gentleman is not, I suggest, acting as the best employers in private industry would act. Where amalgamations take place in circumstances such as we are discussing, and men are discharged, it is usual to give those men more than the consideration to which they are legally entitled. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter again before the Report stage, since, I am sure, he would like to act in this matter, on behalf of the Government, as a model employer.
  Question, "That this Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Section 1 (1) of the Air Navigation Act, 1906, as amended by this Act.)
  Captain Balfour: I beg to move, in page 41, line 28, to leave out from "the," to the end of line 30, and to insert "British Islands, exclusive of Eire."
  This is a drafting Amendment to bring Section 1 (1) of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, as amended, into line with Clause 30.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to wages, etc.)
  Amendment made: In page 42, line 10, leave out "any."—[Captain Balfour.]
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Fifth Schedule to the Bill."
  8 p.m.
  Mr. Lathan: In the second paragraph of this Schedule reference is made to employer and trade societies. In the course of consideration of the Schedule by the Select Committee a question arose as to whether the term "trade societies" was intended to cover or include trade unions. I shall be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary can answer the question.
  8.1 p.m.
  Captain Balfour: The hon. Member has given me no particular notice of that ques-
  1358
  tion. I will undertake at a later stage to give him an answer.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIXTH SCHEDULE:—(Provisions as to pension and superannuation schemes of existing companies.)
  Captain Balfour: I beg to move, in page 45, line 28, after "person," to insert:
  '"who is not immediately before the appointed day participating in the scheme."
  An employé, as defined by the regulations, is a person who has made application to join the scheme and whose application has been put forward to the assurance company by the board. It therefore includes actual participants in the scheme at the appointed day, but the specific mention of those persons is considered desirable, firstly because they represent the great majority of the persons with whom the paragraph deals, and, secondly, for the sake of uniformity with the corresponding paragraph 3 of Part 1 of the chedule.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Captain Balfour: I beg to move, in page 45, line 34, after "and," to insert: "(c) in either case."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that entry into British Airways superannuation scheme is conditional upon entry into the service of the corporation in the case of employés as defined. These are dealt with in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, as well as in the case of persons who recently came into the service of the company, who are dealt with under paragraph (b).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 46, line 4, leave out "said."—[Captain Balfour.]
  Captain Balfour: I beg to move, in page 46, line 30, to leave out from "is," to the first "the," in line 32, and to insert: "participating in the scheme and has entered."
  This is a drafting Amendment designed to describe the person more accurately.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as. amended (in the Select Committee and on re-committal) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

  WAR RISKS INSURANCE BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS FUND BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  CLAUSE 1.—(The House of Commons Members Fund.)
  8.8 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from the first "to," to "persons," in line 8.
  I have put down, for the convenience of the House, the changes which will have to be made in order to carry out in proper Parliamentary form the view which, I think, was generally favoured in Committee extending the possible beneficiaries under this scheme to orphan children. Although the actual words inserted in Committee were rather wider, I think it was generally appreciated that it would be best, if we were going to extend the scheme to children at all, to limit it to orphan children. This and the two following Amendments produce that result. There is one further point. There should be some limit on the age of children. It seems to me that probably the House would think the right limit to adopt is that adopted for a great many purposes—the age of 16. That proposal will be found a little lower on the Order Paper.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 1, line 9, after "Commons," insert:
  "or to their widows or in respect of their orphan children."
  In line 15, after "to," insert "or in respect of."
  In line 17, leave out "and the," and insert "or orphan."
  In line 19, at the end, insert "or in respect of."—[Sir J. Simon.]
  8.11 p.m.
  Commander Bower: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert:
  " Provided that no such deduction shall be made from the salary of any Member of the House of Commons who is in receipt of a pension paid from public funds of an amount large enough to disqualify him from the receipt of benefit from the House of Commons Members Fund."
  1360
  This Amendment is for the purpose of providing that no Member of this House who is already in possession of a pension large enough to prevent him from receiving any benefit under this Fund shall pay any contribution. There are a large number of Members in receipt of pensions from public funds, for instance Army, Navy and Air Force, and they now find themselves in the position that, whatever might happen, if they lose every penny they possess in the world, the fact that they possess a pension would disqualify them from receiving any benefit. Consequently they are now expected, unless this Amendment is carried, to pay an annual contribution of £12 towards a fund from which they could never in any circumstances receive any benefit at all. The pensions which such Members receive are in the nature of deferred pay. Many of us spend long years in the service of our country for what is certainly not very generous remuneration, and that remuneration is rather less generous than it would be were it not for the fact that at the end of the service we receive a pension. We have seen Members of the Opposition for the first time accept the principle of a means test in this Bill, and this Amendment is also designed to help them to avoid the accusation of receiving charity, and from their speeches in the past we have always understood that they consider it a very undesirable thing that anyone should receive charity. It seems to me that for any Member to receive a pension from this Fund from contributions made by Members who could not possibly derive benefit themselves is nothing more or less than charity.
  8.14 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Agnew: 1beg to second the Amendment.
  If the House does not insert this Amendment, there will be created a special class of person who must always be a payer-in and can never be a beneficiary in any circumstances. The time may arrive when either our private income may be less through some fall in our investments or we may be debarred from the power to go on earning our living.
  Mr. McCorquodale: Is it not the case that these pensions cover the wives, widows, or children after the death of the recipients of the pensions?
  Lieut.-Commander Agnew: There is an appropriate scale of retired pay or pension laid down for the retired or pensionable officer, and there is also an appropriate scale laid down for his widow or orphans on his decease.
  Mr. Fleming: But not in all cases.
  Lieut.-Commander Agnew: It is not, of course, on so large a scale as the pension. The point that I want to make is that so long as the organisation of the State goes on, presumably there will be a Parliamentary salary paid, and there will also be pensions paid to those who have the right to enjoy them because of the service they have previously rendered to the State. Therefore, the submission is a true one that the Fund, unless this Amendment is accepted, would be receiving income from, I agree, a limited number of persons who could not under any reasonable circumstances themselves be beneficiaries of the Fund.
  8.17 p.m.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I think there is some force in the arguments broughť forward by my two hon. and gallant Friends who have preceded me. If this pension scheme is to mean anything, it is designed to try and found a scheme which will operate fairly as between Member and Member. I dislike this scheme, because I believe that the more you go into it, the more you find that it creates anomalies and works unfairly as between one Member and another. We have extended the benefit to children. Had we not done so, there are Members of this House, of whom I am one, who under no circumstances would be able to benefit from the Fund. I do not think that is any reason why one should not contribute to a mutual fund among Members of the House, but let us make it clear that the Fund that we are setting up is proved by the contentions brought forward to-night to be really a charitable fund, and it is because it is a charitable fund that I object to it. I do not think that charity should come in. I do not think that Members of his House want to benefit by forced contributions given by other Members to a Fund from which they themselves can never benefit. It is true that in the case of any Service Member of this House who is in receipt of a certain pension, which is deferred pay—and let it be clearly understood that a service pension is the savings of the
  1362
  service man—it is extraordinarily hard that he should have to contribute, however willing he may be, to a pension fund from which, if he has no wife and no children, he can never himself benefit.
  I merely rise to point out that this is exactly where you get when you try to institute a Fund which is not really fair as between Member and Member. There is no Member on this side of the House who does not desire to help any fellow Member who, through no fault of his own, falls on evil times, and there is no desire to prevent any Member on either side of the House receiving a pension from the Fund if it is possible for him to qualify, but it should be made clear that while we are passing this Bill, we are creating anomaly after anomaly, of which this anomaly that has been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friends is one.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Markham: This Amendment would by no means remove all the anomalies under this head. In fact, it might go so far as to create a new series of anomalies, because if a Member is allowed to option out under this Amendment because he is in receipt of a pension from public funds, surely you should extend the same principle to other Members to option out, because they have bought themselves annuities or have made some other provision for their old age.
  Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I do not think the hon. Member correctly describes it as optioning out. Under the Amendment he would be debarred.
  Mr. Markham: Before he could be debarred, he would first of all have to go to somebody and beg to be debarred. He would have to show that he was in receipt of a pension from public funds.
  Lieut.-Commander Agnew: It would merely be a question of one Government Department—in this case the Department of the Paymaster-General—informing the appropriate Government Department which administers this fund that the Member was debarred from being a beneficiary.
  Mr. Markham: I accept the hon. and gallant Member's explanation, but it does not alter the fact that the Amendment creates an anomaly, because if there was a small section of Members in receipt of an income that they could count upon to

  1363
  debar them, in common justice you ought to allow other Members who have made provision for their old age also to be debarred. You do, therefore, create an ever-extending series of anomalies. Hon. Members opposite who could count upon trade union pensions could also beg to be debarred, and the result would be that by these means you would kill this Bill. If that is the avowed intention of the movers of the Amendment, let me say to them that I would rather they fought this Bill openly and honestly, and killed it, than that they should attempt to strangle it by this roundabout way. The Amendment states that if a Member is in receipt of a pension paid from public funds, he may be debarred from contributing, but it does not debar a Mem-

  Division No. 281.]

  AYES.

  [8.24 p.m.

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

  Fleming, E. L.

  Moreing, A. C.

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

  Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant B.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Granville E. L.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

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

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

  Petherick, M.

  Beechman, N, A.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Radford. E. A.

  Bracken, B.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hepworth, J.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Christie, J. A.

  Holdsworlh, H.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

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

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Turton, R. H.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

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

  Crossley, A. C.

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Waterhouse. Captain C.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Kimball, L.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Dodd, J. S.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buekingham)

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

  Lambert, Rt. Hen. G.

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

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Lavy, T.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Lewis, O.

  Wise, A. R.

  Emery, J. F.

  Medlicott, F.

  York, C.

  Errington, E.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Commander Bower and Commander Agnew.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Mitchell, H. (Branford and Chiswick)

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Cape, T.

  Ellis, Sir G.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Adamson,, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Chater, D.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Cooks, F. S.

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

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Collindridge, F.

  Frankel, D.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Colvitle, Rt. Hon. John

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Barnes, A. J.

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

  Gardner, B. W,

  Barr, J.

  Cove, W. G.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Batty, J.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Benn, RI. Hon. W. W.

  Daggar, G.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Benson G.

  Gallon, H.

  Graham, D. M (Hamilton)

  Bernays, R. H.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Bevan, A.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Bossom, A. G.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Day, H.

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

  Brobner, R. A.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Broad, F. A.

  De la Bè, R.

  Grovel, T. E.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Bromfield, W.

  Denville, Alfred

  Hall, G. H. (Abardare.)

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Dobbie, W.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Ede, J. C.

  Harbord, Sir A.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Edge, Sir W.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Burke, W. A.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

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

  ber's wife or children from receiving the benefit if they themselves do not come under a pension scheme from public funds, and there are such schemes, in the Colonial Service, for instance, which do not extend to the widows or children or members of the Service. Therefore, you would create a new series of anomalies, and I think that those who have moved the Amendment would have been well advised, instead of moving an Amendment to render the Bill stillborn, if they had given practical thought to the matter and produced an Amendment that was worth while.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 195.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Mathers, G.

  Silkin, L.

  Hayday, A.

  Maxton, J.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Messer, F.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Milner, Major J.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Montague, F.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Hill), A. (Pontefraet)

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

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

  Horabin, T. L

  Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, (Stourbridge)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

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

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Hunter, T.

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

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Jagger, J.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Stephen, C.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Nathan, Colonel H. L.

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

  John, W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Thorno, W.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Paling, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Parker, J.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Lathan, G.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Lawson, J. J.

  Pearson, A.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Lie, F.

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Lees-Jones, J,

  Poole, C. C.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Leonard, W.

  Pownall, Lt-Col. Sir Assheton

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Leslie, J. Ft.

  Pritt, O. N.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Watson, W. McL.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Little, J.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Westwood, J.

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. 0. S.

  Riley, B.

  White, H. Graham

  Logan, O. G.

  Ritson, J.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Robinson, W. A, (St. Helens)

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

  McGhee, H. G.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Maclean, N.

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Wilmet, John

  MacMillan, M. (Western lsles)

  Rowlands, G.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Magnay, T.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Maitland, Sir Adam

  Salt, E. W.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Mander, G. le M,

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Markham, S. F.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Sir Francis Fremantle and Mr. McCorquodale.

  Marshall, F.

  Shinwell. E.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary provisions.)
  8.32 p.m.
  Sir A. Southby: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after "Fund," to insert: "provided such person is or has been a Member of the House of Commons."
  I cannot help thinking that if this Fund is to come into existence it should be a Fund which belongs to us as a corporate body in the House of Commons. We hear, with what truth one does not know, accusations that contributions are made to party funds for various purposes. If this Fund is to be what it ought to be, it should be kept completely clear of any accusation that anyone has contributed to it for any purpose of personal gain or advancement. The only contributions should be those made by Members of this House so that they or their widows or orphan children may benefit from the Fund. Therefore, I think it is essential that we should alter the Clause, which gives power to the trustees to accept any property "devised or bequeathed from any person." The proper people to contribute to the Fund should be Members of this House who have shared its corporate life and know the circumstances of. their fellow Members.
  1366
  I cannot believe that it is right or proper that some wealthy individual from outside should make a big contribution to this Fund possibly—I do not say necessarily so—with the feeling that ultimately some recognition of the gift might be made to him. That would be putting Members of this House in a very wrong and an invidious position. It would be belittling the dignity of this House for us to go cap in hand to some rich person, to whatever party he belongs, in order to obtain money with which to help our brethren who have fallen on evil times. I do not wish to do anything more than to try to make this Bill, which I admit that I dislike, a better and more workable Bill, and to free it from any possibility that there can ever be a scandal about the contributions made to the Fund, which would be disastrous not only for the Fund but for this House of Commons as a corporate body.
  Sir J. Simon: On a point of Order. Might I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether my hon. and gallant Friend would be prepared to withdraw this Amendment in order to move it a little later in the Clause? If we now have the Question put from the Chair to insert the proposed words in

  1367
  proposed place it will be too late to put the words in in the form which the House would perhaps prefer. It seems to me that if the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend commends itself to the House the proper form would be this:
  " The trustees may accept any property given, devised or bequeathed to the Fund by any person who is or has been a Member of the House of Commons."
  If my hon. and gallant Friend would be prepared to move it in that form, then we could have a discussion and the Amendment could be put into the Clause rather more neatly.
  Sir A. Southby: With the permission of the House and with your permission, Sir Dennis, I would like to accede to the suggestion made by right hon. Friend and to move the Amendment in that form. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir A. Southby: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "by any person."
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so because I think it would be beneath the dignity of this House to accept gifts from outside from anybody, whoever it was. I do not think we should be dependent upon the generosity of anybody. This Fund will not be a State Fund, which I have advocated, and it would cease to be a real House of Commons Fund unless it were limited to the compulsory contributions of present Members and the voluntary contributions of Members or past Members.
  8.38 p.m.
  Sir J. Simon: It is already evident that a number of Members would like to see this change made in the Bill. Perhaps I might be allowed to say that I would welcome it myself because it would emphasise that this is a domestic matter in which all Members belong to the fraternity whether they are recipients or contributors. It would be essentially a House of Commons affair involving nobody except Members of the House of Commons and not calling for any contribution from public funds outside. It
  1368
  would be very much better kept as one of our internal possessions.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Lees-Smith: In all of our discussions about the Bill it has been taken for granted that contributions would come from Members of the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member is proposing to fill a real gap in the Bill in regard to not admitting contributions from outside. The view is that this House is a corporate body and that the method of creating the Fund was an expression of our corporate spirit. For that reason I should very much prefer the Bill in the form which the hon. and gallant Member proposes.
  Sir Francis Fremantle: I agree that this is an improvement in the Bill and I support it.
  Mr. Markham: I invite an explanation from the promoter of the Amendment or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how the Amendment would operate in the event of somebody not a Member leaving a legacy to the Fund. I understand that the trustees would have no power to accept the legacy. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] If that is the case, and if the House understands the intention of this Amendment, I am quite happy.
  Mr. Lewis: As one of those who have strenuously opposed the Bill in all its stages I beg to say that in my view the Amendment much improves the Bill, but I shall be surprised to find it accepted.
  Mr. Magnay: Are we sure that we are doing the right thing? Did a gift like Chequers take any dignity away from the Prime Minister? If the opinion of the House is that it is derogatory to our dignity that the Fund should receive donations from kindly-disposed persons who may contribute to it by legacy or by other means, I will agree with the Amendment.
  Sir A. Southby: Surely the hon. Member remembers that the gift of Chequers was from an ex-Member.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Petherick: In view of the feeling of the House on this Amendment it may be unnecessary for me to intervene at all, but I would like to say that I welcome the Amendment for the reason that hon. Gentlemen opposite have, quite rightly,

  1369
  resented certain suggestions put from this side of the House that the Bill savours of charity. I do not agree with this point of view. I do not believe it is charity and I never have done so. My objections are upon entirely different grounds. The Bill sets up a mutual benefit Fund. Many of us have opposed it on other grounds, but I cordially support the Amendment because it will remove any taint of charity which might otherwise have remained in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 38, after "Fund," insert:
  "by any person who is or has been a Member of the House of Commons."—[Sir A. Southby.]
  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Limitations on payments out of the Fund.)
  8.44 p.m.
  Sir A. Southby: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, at the end, to insert:
  " Provided that the trustees may in special circumstances make payments notwithstanding that the requirements of this paragraph are not complied with."
  A similar provision in paragraph 4 of the Schedule is put in to give some measure of discretion to the trustees. It was argued during the Committee stage that it would be better, in the case of paragraph 2, that the trustees should be tightly bound by the provisions of the Measure, but nevertheless circumstances might arise in which we should wish some measure of latitude to the trustees to meet particular cases which cannot be foreseen while the Bill is before the House. During the Committee stage my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) mentioned the case of an individual who had made a deed of settlement upon his wife, from whom he was afterwards separated. Although he was not touching one penny of the income given to his wife, if that individual fell upon evil times he would, under the strict interpretation of paragraph 2 of the Schedule, be debarred from any benefit from this pensions scheme. I do not believe that that is the desire of the House. I believe that the desire of the House is that under this pension scheme any Member who is really in need of financial assistance shall get it, and that there shall be no quibble about the particular circumstances of his financial embarrassment provided that he can
  1370
  show the trustees, who presumably will be old comrades of his in the House, that he has no means and that his circumstances are such that he should receive assistance.
  If that be so, I think that some latitude must be given to the trustees. In such a case as that which was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend, the ex-Member should undoubtedly receive benefit from the Fund to which he contributed while he was a Member of the House. It would be not only hard, but definitely unjust, if he could not get it, and I feel that, however much we may differ from one another about the merits of the Bill, we desire to produce justice in its working. Therefore I think it is essential that we should insert the same provision with regard to paragraph 2 as has already been inserted by the promoters of the Bill with regard to paragraph 4. There is nothing controversial about this proposal; it arises from a desire that Members shall benefit from the Bill.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so with great pleasure, because I think it is a constructive Amendment which will help the Bill. I raised this point in Committee, and I hope the House will agree that this is a better Amendment than the one which I then moved. I cannot see how any Member of the House who wants the Bill to work in the most sensible way for the benefit of those who need it most could object to the insertion of this proviso. The House will see that the general rule remains the same. There must be a limit, as a matter of rule, in the way that the Schedule says, but any Member who can show special circumstances of hardship will be able to get the benefit of the Fund. I can see the Fund growing and reaching a position in which it will be able to afford to be a little more generous. In these circumstances I think we ought to trust the trustees, whom we appoint to administer the Fund, to decide where special circumstances have arisen,
  8.48 p.m.
  Sir J. Simon: I must say to my two hon. Friends that, whatever may be the arguments in favour of their proposal, I am very much afraid that to add these words at the end of paragraph 2 would not produce the desired result. We have

  1371
  already passed the first paragraph, which deals with periodical payments made to a Member of this House, but the paragraph to which my hon. Friends have put down this Amendment is not that paragraph, but paragraph 2, and paragraph 2 deals with periodical payments made to a widow. It cannot be the intention of my hon. Friends that we should insist upon the strict test in the case of the ex-Member referred to in paragraph 1, which we have already passed, and that we should introduce this modification in paragraph 2. I think there must be some mistake about the matter.
  If I might express my view to my colleagues in the House, I must say I think it is very doubtful whether we ought to do this. A certain amount of latitude is left to the trustees, and, if hon. Members will turn back to the first page of the Bill, they will see that under Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 the trustees may cause to be made out of the Fund such periodical or other payments as are mentioned afterwards. The only payments that are limited in point of size or by reason of income are periodical payments, and the "other payments," which would include, I suppose, a special grant or something of that kind, are not limited. There is already, therefore, that amount of latitude in the hands of the trustees. I rather doubt whether it would be right to lay down a limit such as is proposed in the First Schedule and then proceed to say that the trustees need not be narrowly governed by that limit. For one thing, it would not be really fair to the trustees. They are going to have a very invidious task, anyhow. No doubt they will do it very well, but I think it is essential that we should recognise that the trustees themselves are entitled to have limits laid down, and those limits are laid down in the First Schedule. As I have already pointed out, if we do not make any qualification in the case of an ex-Member, the effect would be to allow a greater latitude in the case of the widow, and I really do not see any reason why we should allow more latitude in the one case than in the other.
  My own advice to the House would be that we should not make this very partial change, but should rely upon the fact that the trustees are able to make what are called "other payments" as distinguished from the periodical pay-
  1372
  ments which they would make according to the terms of the Schedule. There is one exception which my hon. and gallant Friend, quite correctly mentioned, namely, in paragraph 4. One can imagine a case where, when a General Election had been declared on a particular date, some Member of the House who was retiring and in poor circumstances might only have been a Member for, let us say, nine years and 10 months, and one can imagine that in such a case the trustees, would say that, for the benefit at any rate of his widow, that period ought to be treated as 10 years. That is a case which is provided for. I respectfully suggest to hon. Members that it would not be a good thing to add to the number of latitudes, for we have only a limited fund to deal with, and we can trust the trustees.
  8.54 p.m.
  Sir A. Southby: It will be within the memory of the House that we had only a very short time in which to put these Amendments down. We were told only on Monday that the Bill might be taken to-day, and, therefore, the Amendments had to be put down very hurriedly. It was my intention that the Amendment should apply both to paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the Schedule. I do not know whether it would be in order for me now to move a manuscript Amendment applying both to paragraph 1 and to paragraph 2. My right hon. Friend is quite right in what he says. It is not intended that this should apply only to the widow, but that it should apply also to the ex-Member who had fallen on evil times and had tied up his money, quite honestly, being thereby debarred from benefit. I do not know whether there is any way in which it could be made applicable to both paragraphs, but that was our intention.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I rather gather that the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion was that we should go back to paragraph 1. I do not think we can do that, but I have no objection, if the House permits, to his withdrawing the Amendment now before the House and then moving another Amendment in a different form—that is to say, in this form but with some words at the end to apply it both to paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Would it not be better if this Amendment were com-

  1373
  pletely withdrawn and another Amendment moved, to insert a new paragraph 6?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member and his friends must settle that for themselves. The Chair cannot be expected to settle their Amendments for them.
  Sir A. Southby: Would it be in order to alter the Amendment to provide that the trustees shall make payments "notwithstanding the requirements of this or the preceding paragraph" or would it be better to alter it to make it apply to "paragraphs 1 and 2"?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should not regard either as being out of order.
  Sir A. Southby: If the House will permit, I would alter the Amendment to require that the requirements of the preceding two paragraphs need not necessarily be complied with.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member cannot alter the Amendment. He must get leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Sir J. Simon: Perhaps the most convenient form would be to provide "that the trustees may in special circumstances make payments notwithstanding that the requirements of this or the preceding paragraph are not complied with."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.59 p.m.
  Sir A. Southby: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that the trustees may in special circumstances make payments notwithstanding that the requirements of this or the preceding paragraph are not complied with."
  Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to second the Amendment.
  9 p.m.
  Mr. McCorquodale: As one who has been a supporter of the Bill since its introduction, I must say that when I first read the Amendment I was inclined to support it but I had not noticed the point which the Chancellor has made about periodical or other payments. That seems to me to give a considerable amount of latitude to the trustees. Paragraph 5 of this Schedule says:
  " For the purposes of this Schedule the income of any person shall be ascertained in such manner and on such principles as the trustees may determine."
  1374
  I should have thought that that would have completely covered the case that my hon. and gallant Friend raises. If the supposed income of a possible beneficiary is actually not his income but has been tied up in some way, surely the trustees will have complete freedom, to take that into account. After we have put in this Schedule and laid down various scales under which the trustees shall operate, it will be rather absurd to say to the trustees, "Here are the rules, but you may disregard them if you wish." We have said that on paragraph 4, for a special reason. It would be going too far to say that in regard to the whole of the Schedule. In view of the fact that the points raised are covered by these other provisions, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment.
  9.2 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I cannot help thinking, in spite of the excellence of the Amendment drafted by the Chancellor, that the House would be wise to think very carefully before accepting it. This Fund, at any rate for the first few years, is not likely to be in a very affluent condition. The annual income will be about £7,000 a year, and most of us know already of certain Members who cannot serve in this House much longer. It would be a pity if we drew on this Fund in advance, so that when definite, heart-breaking cases came along there would not be enough funds. By increasing the latitude which the trustees already have in dealing with the funds at their disposal, we should be in danger of creating the position that when such cases come along there will be no funds.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis: I cannot say that the Amendment appeals to me in any of the many forms in which it has appeared. It seems to make nonsense of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the First Schedule. I could understand the Bill having been drafted without those paragraphs, but if they are put in it can only be in order to limit the discretion of the trustees. I would strongly urge my right hon. Friend to resist the Amendment, on the ground that otherwise these paragraphs will serve no. purpose.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. G. Nicholson: I support this Amendment because of my own ex-

  1375
  perience as a trustee of a certain charity. Surely we can rely on the trustees not to fritter away all the revenue of the Fund in a futile manner, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
  9.6 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: As one who supports this Bill, and who has so far sat through the night without talking, I hope that the House will forgive me if I say a word or two on this Amendment. It is extremely hard for the House to appreciate exactly what a manuscript Amendment implies, and naturally one's instinct is to oppose it for that reason. If the Amendment is to give the trustees unlimited powers, I deagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson). I have also been a trustee and I liked to have a good many guiding rules to help me as to what I should and what I should not do. If you put these things in black and white, it is much easier than saying, "Here are the rules, but if necessary you can discard then." I do not think that is right, especially when you are dealing with a matter of such great importance as pensions for Members of the House of Commons. We should lay down as many rules as possible based on the principles of equity and justice. It is for these reasons that I am against this Amend-

  Division No. 282.]

  AYES.

  [9.10 p.m.

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

  Fleming, E. L.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

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

  Goldie, N. B.

  Moreins, A. C.

  Agnew, Lteut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

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

  Granville, E. L.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

  Hannah, I. C.

  Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

  Blair, Sir Ft.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A,

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Hepworth, J.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Brass, Sir W.

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Higgs, W. F.

  Tasker, Sir R. t.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Heldsworth, H.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Turton, R. H.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

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

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

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

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

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Croft, Brig.-Gan. Sir H. Page

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Cross, R. H.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

  Crossley, A. C.

  Levy, T.

  Wise, A. R.

  Crowder, J F. E.

  Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Culverwell, C. T.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Commander Sir Archibald South by and Mr. Ersklne-Hlll.

  Dodd, J. S.

  Medlicott, F.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

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

  NOES.

  Adams, D.(Consett)

  Anderson,F. (Whitehaven)

  Barrie, Sir.C.C

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar,S)

  Aske, Sir. R. W.

  Batty, J.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Ban fieId,.J.W,

  Bellenger, F. J

  Adamssn, W. M.

  Barnes, A,J

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Allen. Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Barr, J.

  Benson, G.

  ment. Under the Amendment, trustees could disregard a claim based on mental infirmity, or on the ground that a person was incapable of earning his living. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That shows the sort of difficulty in which we are placed. We really do not know what is the position.
  9.8 p.m
  Sir A, Sourthby: The Amendment applies only to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the First Schedule. Paragraphs 3 will not be affected by the extra powers which the Amendment seeks to give to the trustees.
  Lieut.-Colonely Heneage: Then that brings us down to the question of the amount that may be faced with the fact that some of a few people, and others might want to give small sums spread over a great many. Do not let us make it too hard for them, but let us give them the greatest possible chance of agreeing. It is much easier for trustees to agree if they are tied down in black and white as to what they can and what they cannot do.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 201.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Pearson, A.

  Bevan, A.

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

  Petheriek, M.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bollon)

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

  Brabner, R. A.

  Hayday, A.

  Pooie, C. C.

  Broad, F. A.

  Henderson, A. (Kingwinford)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Bromfield, W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Radford, E. A.

  Brawn, C. (Mansfield)

  Heneage, Lieut-Colonel A. P.

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ'i.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Hill., A. (Pontefract)

  Reed, A. C. (Exuter)

  Buchanan, G.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Rithards, R. (Wrexham)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Jagger, J.

  Riokards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Burke, W. A.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Riley, B.

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Heath)

  Ritaon, J.

  Capt, T.

  John, W.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Cary, R. A.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Chater, D.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Rowlands, G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lansbury, Rt; Hon. G.

  Salt, E. W.

  Collindridge, F.

  Lathan, G.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

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

  Lawson, J. J.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lee, F.

  Shinwell, E.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Silkin, L.

  Daggar, G.

  Leonard, W.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Dillon, H.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  levy, T.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Lewis, O.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Liddall, W. S.

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

  Day, H.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  De Chair, S. S.

  Little, J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

  Stephen, C

  Denville, Alfred

  Logan, D. G.

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

  Dobbie, W.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Ede, J. C.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Edge, Sir W.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Thurtle, E.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Maclean, N.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Emery, J. F.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Viant, S. P.

  Entwistle, Sir G. F.

  Magnay, T.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Maltland, Sir Adam

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

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

  Mander, G. le M.

  Ward, Lieut.-Co!. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Foot, D. M.

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

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Frankel, D.

  Markham, S. F.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Marshall, F.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Mathers, G.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Ceorge, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Maxton, J.

  Westwood, J.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Messer, F.

  White, H. Graham

  Gibson, R. (G reenock)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Milner, Major J.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Montague, F.

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

  Green, W. H. (Deplford)

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

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

  Wilmot, John

  Grenfell, D. R.

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

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

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

  Nathan, Colanel H. L.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel G.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Groves, T. E.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

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

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Harbord, Sir A.

  Parker, J.

  Sir Assheton Pownall and Sir Francia Fremantle.

  Hardia, Agnes

  Parkinson, J. A.

  9.20 p.m.
  Sir J. Simon: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, at the end, to insert:
  "4. No payment shall be made in respect of any child of a past Member of the House of Commons whilst either of the child's parents is living, or after the child has attained the age of sixteen years, and the annual amount of any periodical payment made in respect of an orphan child of a past Member, or of his orphan children taken together if more than one, shall not exceed seventy-five pounds."
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for bring-
  1378
  ing forward this Amendment. I mentioned the matter in the Committee stage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In line 21, leave out from "unless," to "was," in line 22, and insert:
  " the person by virtue of whose membership of the House of Commons the payment is to be made."—[Sir J. Simon.]
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  9.21 p.m.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Before this Bill receives its Third Reading I should like to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, although I may possibly be using arguments that have been repeated ad lib in connection with the Bill. As one of those who originally went as a deputation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of a scheme of pensions for Members of Parliament, I feel that I cannot vote against the Third Reading without giving a few words of explanation. I have no qualms of conscience whatever in regard to this matter. I have had a fairly long political life and I shall never have recorded a vote in this House about which I have been so happy in my mind as I shall be when I record a vote against the Third Reading of this Bill. Why do I vote against a Bill with the principle of which I was at one time in agreement. It has been stated on more than one occasion that this is the wrong time to introduce this Bill, and I think the Prime Minister said in reply that on that argument there is no reason why it should be introduced at any time. I do not agree with that view. There are many objects, good in themselves, which should be introduced at the proper time; many objects of importance to the State in more than one direction the introduction of which we could justify much better than we can justify the introduction of this Measure at the present time.
  I take it that the genesis of this Bill is the increase in the Parliamentary salary to £600 a year two years ago. Some of us have a lurking suspicion that some arrangement was made at that time in connection with our hon. Friends of the party opposite that there would be a certain sequel in the form of this pensions Bill. From that point of view one has a certain amount of sympathy with some of my right hon. Friends who are giving a great deal of time to this Bill and making big sacrifices in connection with it. I refer particularly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has shown unexampled tact and patience. I know that at the present time he ought to be in another place and that his company is being missed. There is a feeling, and I think there is substantial ground for it, that this Bill is a sequal to the increase of our salaries to £600 a year.
  1380
  The point I want to make is that there are many on this side of the House who regard £600 a year at the present time as not too large a salary for the work we do for the State. Parliamentary life is becoming more and more a whole-time occupation. There are in this House many hon. Members who are making very great sacrifices for it. Why not be absolutely honest to the House and to the electorate and say that £600 a year is hardly sufficient to cover the ordinary expenses of Members of Parliament, and if so by what right do you make a deduction from it of £12 a year for this Fund? I should be prepared, when the time came, to support a proper system of State pensions for Members of Parliament, a regularised system, and I do not think that we should need to apologise to the electorate for a system of that character. We do very important work. I think we ought to be plain and honest with the electorate, and if we have earned a pension we ought to have it subsidised on a contributory basis and a proper basis of accountancy and audit. This is neither one nor the other. It is a system whereby the overwhelming majority of Members of this House have to contribute to a certain small number. It has been introduced at the end of a Parliament of four years' duration and when there are possibilities of great changes after the next General Election.
  We do not know what the next Parliament is going to be, but I think we may assume that there will be a large number of new Members coming to this House. Those new Members will have based their ambitions for Parliamentary life on the basis of a salary which may reasonably be expected to pay their expenses, and they will be immediately mulcted in the sum of £12 a year in order to maintain Members whom they have never seen and some of whom they have never heard of in entirely new circumstances in an entirely new Parliament. I do suggest that we have no right at this stage of this Parliament to introduce a Bill of this kind. I know that the Government have given a free vote to the House on this matťer, but naturally I assume that they have a benevolent neutrality in regard to the whole Bill. One cannot blame the Government for that once they have taken it up, but I ask them to take note of the fact that in the Division Lobby the majority

  1381
  of the Government supporters in this House are against the Bill.
  That being so, we are in a sense making a present to the Opposition. I have no antipathy to the Opposition as such. Many of them are very great friends of mine, but I do not know why in the political life of this country on the basis of the ordinary Parliamentary system we should go out of our way to make a present to the Opposition. I want to know whether the Government supporters at the next election are going to get one word of thanks from the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Not only are we not going to get one word of thanks for passing this Bill, but we shall be opposed at the next General Election. I was trained for some years in an office which regards support for the Government as almost sacrosanct. No one who has been imbued with that tradition for some years takes it upon himself to vote against a Bill which has the support of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, unless he has some feeling of misgiving and perturbation and some kind of restlessness with regard to its introduction. The Press of the country has seized upon the fact that Parliament at a time when it should be engaged in problems of immense magnitude and of immense moment to the population of this country is spending hours of time in a problem which is entirely of a domestic character concerning our own lives. I do not think this is a time to introduce a Measure of that sort and I should not like the Third Reading to go without my protest. I think this is a bad Bill in itself. There are great drawbacks to it and some injustices in it. Not only is the Bill intrinsically bad, but we are introducing it at a time when we have neither the right nor the mandate to do so.
  9.3.1 p.m.
  Mr. Petherick: This Bill has already been fairly exhaustively discussed; therefore I do not wish to discuss any of the merits or demerits of it in detail. In fact, I will say nothing about that side at all. I will try to offer to the House one or two main considerations at the risk perhaps of repeating what has been said before. I will try to put them in a slightly different form and endeavour to refine one or two of the issues. Personally I object to this Bill on three
  1382
  main grounds: first, because of its timing; secondly, because of its sponsorship; thirdly, on purely constitutional grounds. The last point is by far the most important and therefore I propose to leave it to the last. I will take the question of timing first. My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) adverted to the fact that time had been given to this Bill at a period of international crisis. It is undoubtedly true that we are passing through very grave times at present. The Government is striving with every nerve to maintain peace. We as Parliament are devoting hours every week both inside and outside the House to prosecuting an immense rearmament programme, which undoubtedly casts a very heavy burden on the country.
  We are now asked in the middle of all these preoccupations to give up valuable time to a consideration of our own internal affairs in this House—whether we are or are not to set up a fund to see that those who fall by the way in the future are not allowed to starve. We are giving up this time simply and solely to secure the position of ourselves. I believe that at this time we should not give up those very valuable hours. Some of those hours, hon. Members may claim, were spent last Thursday. Owing to an arrangement between the Patronage Secretary and the pseudo-Patronage Secretary opposite, the discussion of the Finance Bill was allowed to stop at 7.30, and I do not think there are many hon. Members who will deny that the consideration of the Third Reading of the Finance Bill is incomparably more important than this Measure for our own internal security. Later we spent many hours during the course of last Wednesday night and Thursday morning in consideration of the Committee stage.
  There are hon. Members who would say that surely we who are opposing the Bill were making things worse by keeping the House sitting all that night. But surely the answer is a perfectly simple one. We who oppose the Bill are just as entitled to remain here criticising it, as those who are in favour of the Bill are entitled to waste the valuable time of the House in its consideration. We retort that we were only wasting Government light, a good deal of fairly adequate oratory, a number of pearls of wit, and our own energies in taking the action which we then took. After all, it was

  1383
  perfectly open to hon. Members who disapproved of our action to go home; there was nothing to keep them here except that they wanted the Bill to go through. Surely we are just as entitled to oppose the Bill as are hon. Members who take up the time of the House in trying to get it through. Nevertheless, the main issue on the timing of the Bill to my mind is that we should not take up so much time in the present international situation, in discussing purely our own affairs.
  My next objection to the Bill is its sponsorship. The putative father of this infant is a Conservative Member of Parliament. I am not at all sure that it did not have two putative fathers, and, therefore, it is hardly surprising that they have produced a monster. The hon. Member who was responsible for this Measure last February was unable to get through a Motion on his own volition and, therefore, like a prudent father preparing for the christening, he looked round for a number of powerful fairies on the Front Bench and on the Front Opposition Bench who would be present at the christening and do what they could to see that the child reached an age of puberty; and he got a number of fairy friends and witches to support his child. The result was that the Bill was taken up by the Government with the full support of the serried phalanx of hon. Members opposite and the support of Liberal Members.
  The course of a Government, whatever the Government might be, is rarely easy even when they have a big majority behind them. They are put in by the electors on broad issues, and probably narrow issues as well, and are kept there by the votes of their own supporters. I suppose that probably no two hon. Members who support the Government would agree in all the details on any given issue, but there is, nevertheless, a general consensus of opinion on the part of the supporters of a Government to support their Government whenever they possibly can. Owing to the wisdom of our forbears, the party system was set up and it Works very well, but while it continues it seems to me absolutely essential that any Government, whatever it may be, must rely largely on the support of its own friends in the House of Commons for the Measures which it proposes to
  1384
  pass. In any vital issue it seems to me that if the Government supporters are not satisfied with the Measure and the Government cannot succeed in persuading them to support it, the course for the Government is to resign.
  I said "vital issue," because I do not look upon this as a vital issue. It is a small issue but it is certainly one in which it is very hard to prove any reason in tactics, or strategy or indeed in sense, for the Government to go against their own supporters, and I think it is a great mistake on the part of the Government to risk undermining, even on such a small issue as this, the loyalty of their own friends, as most of them who have been opposing this Bill have most strongly supported the Government in all the big issues of the day. Only a few weeks ago when this Bill was first projected 200 hon. Members who support the Government signed a resolution hoping that the Bill would not be proceeded with. In regard to the all-night sitting last week, that was not in the least intended to be against the Opposition. The discussion did not follow ordinary party grounds at all. Many of the richest hon. Members on this side were voting in favour of the Bill, and many of the poorest were voting against the Bill; it transcended party issues altogether.
  Apart from the merits or demerits of the Bill, the action we took in prolonging the Committee stage unduly the other night was almost entirely due not only to an opposition to the Bill in to to and to parts of it in detail, but was intended as a demonstration of the Tory proletariat on the back benches, who felt that their loyalty was being somewhat stretched and that the Government would have been wiser to have relied on the support of its friends rather than to curry favour, shall I say, with others who do not usually support them. I think it was Lord Dalling and Bulwer in the last century who said:
  " You will never be trusted if yon do more to gain an enemy than to serve a friend."
  There are other reasons why some of us are opposing the Bill. Some of us are opposing it because we think that each party should look after and attend to its own casualties, and some because they know full well that when hon. Members in the past have fallen on evil times a very generous House of Commons has

  1385
  subscribed to see that they do not suffer unduly. There are many other cogent objections to the Bill.
  My final point is the constitutional issue, and it is the most important of all. Hon. Members of all parties in this House are returned to pursue certain general lines of policy in support of the party to which they belong. But they are not returned only to do that; they are not intended to be simply robots. I think they should have a certain independence of action and thought, very frequently of speech, and occasionally of vote. It may be a restrained independence, but it seems to me that anything which detracts from cogency of criticism or the determination of any individual Member not to regard his own future, not always to be considering how he can secure his own position, but that he must be all the time considering how he can do his best for his country—it seems to me that disregard of independence of thought, word or action would completely undermine the vitality, independence, and a great part of the value of Parliament. Some years ago, the Conservative Central Office produced a deplorable leaflet—I say it now because it was many years ago—which was entitled "From the cradle to the grave." It would be wholly bad and a great disservice to the nation if hon. Members returned to this House were to look upon it as a form of professional career, giving safety for the future and complete security from the ballot box to the tomb.
  We have the two great institutions of the Civil Service and Parliament. The former, quite rightly, carries out its administrative functions under any Government, whatever may be the political complexion of that Government. It is entirely secure in tenure, as it should be, and its future is secured by pensions. The House of Commons is a legislative and critical body. It depends for its force on a changing, varied and very virile personnel coming together from all sections of the community. I believe it would be a very sad day for our Constitution if we did anything which tended to turn the House of Commons into a second-line Civil Service. I believe that anything that we might do which tended to induce any hon. Member to consider his own position all the time, to consider his own future, whether in the Govern-
  1386
  ment or outside it—anything which might encourage him to hedge or toady or to try to be over-conciliatory to the electorate in order to keep his seat and thus secure a future for himself when perhaps he had fallen on evil times—is most strongly to be condemned. For those reasons, I propose to go into the Lobby against the Bill.
  9.48 p.m.
  Captain Hatnbro: I do not think any hon. Member would accuse me of having taken up the time of the House unnecessarily. I sat through the Debates on this Bill all through the night, until eight o'clock in the morning. I should like briefly to register my protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing in this Bill at this time. I believe it is an ill-timed and ill-advised Bill.
  Sir J. Simon: I did not bring in the Bill.
  Captain Hambro: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend did not bring in the Bill, but it was the way in which he handled it, so energetically, that enabled the Bill to have the popularity which it has at the present time. I was down in my constituency last week-end. I heard no criticism that we are voting ourselves pensions and not increasing old age pensions; nor did I hear the criticism that we are using public money in order to give ourselves pensions. What I heard was criticism of the fact that, in the times in which we are now living, we have spent time which is most precious to the country in voting ourselves pensions. Hon. Members must remember that we have now taken up in hours what would practically be four days of Parliamentary time. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members will add up the hours, they will see that it is something like that.
  I submit to hon. Members opposite that they would have been able, quite legitimately, to gain a very fine political point if they had said, on the introduction of this Bill in the first place, that time was so important that they thought it ought to be given to the country rather than to ourselves. They did not say that, but on the first opportunity, when the Prime Minister asked for four days to be taken from Supply, they raised their voices in horror and said that was something which had never been done in the history of this country. I submit that

  1387
  they would have gained very legitimate political kudos if in the first place they had done as I have said. Every hon. Member must realise that if it had not been for the three speeches which the Prime Minister has made on this matter, the Bill would never have seen daylight. Although the Prime Minister said that this Bill was entirely his own idea and that any hon. Member who supported him could vote as he thought fit, some of my hon. Friends, in the course of the Debates, have hinted that those of us who are against the Bill are doing something disloyal to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) was one of them. In the Second Reading Debate, he inferred that some of us on this side of the House would be disloyal to the Prime Minister if we objected to or voted againt the Bill.
  Sir John Haslam: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend to say that the Official Report will tell what I said? I said nothing of the sort.
  Captain Hambro: If I do not find that in the Official Report, I will apologise humbly to my hon. Friend, but he did infer that we were doing something which the Prime Minister would not like. I was a Member of the House when payment of Members was first instituted, and at that time I voted against the payment of Members, although I may say that, owing to changes that have occurred, I should not vote against the payment of Members now. I believe that when the £400 was raised to £600, it was the right time to deal with pensions as far as the House is concerned. There is one thing I would point out to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not often in the history of Parliament that 112 supporters of the Government go into the Lobby against the Government when a Bill of this sort is going through the House. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), who after all is the prime mover of this Bill—I hope he will not mind my saying this—will be sorry that he ever started this in the House of Commons.
  9.53 p.m.
  Sir Assheton Pownall: As my name has been mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Dorset (Captain Hambro) and also by my hon.
  1388
  Friend the Member for Penryn and Fal-mouth (Mr. Petherick) as being one of the parents of the Bill, perhaps I may say a few words with regard to its ancestry. After all, parents ought to know something about ancestry. The Bill arose, as will be seen from the Select Committee's Report, from a Question which I happened to put down soon after the increase in salaries from £400 to £600 took place some two years ago. It seemed then that there might be a margin in the budgets of hon. Members, which there had not been before in a good many cases, from which some small provision might be made to meet cases of hardship. I quite agree with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Dorset about the payment of Members. I regard this Bill as being a corollary to the payment of Members, and one that follows almost automatically once we attract to the House those who have not the financial background of the Members who came here 30 or 40 years ago.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) suggested that there had been something in the nature of negotiations with regard to this matter two years ago. I never heard any such suggestion until now, and as the person on whose question the Warren Fisher Committee was set up, I am quite sure that there were no such negotiations. As regards the period of parentage, the Warren Fisher Committee reported in December, 1937, a year and a half ago; and therefore, the period of incubation or gestation with regard to this particular Measure—I am speaking as the putative parent—has been quite a long one, and hon. Members cannot complain that it has been rushed. The obvious reason for its being put through now is that we want to get it into force before this Parliament comes to an end in case there should be instances of hardship in connection with those who are now Members of the House.
  I am not going to speak on the merits or demerits of the Bill itself. I spoke on the Resolution in February, and on the Second Reading, and I think, from my point of view, I have covered the ground. But I want to say a few words of appreciation of my two right hon. Friends whose names are on the Bill. I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who, with more preoccupations, one might almost say, than any other Prime

  1389
  Minister within living memory, has found time to take the interest which he has taken in this Measure. He devoted several hours to attending the discussions on the Bill, he spoke twice upon it and he made himself master of its provisions. I think the House as a whole, apart from party politics, owes a debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister for having, in a time of great anxiety, taken such an interest in this Bill. I also wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), who has not seen eye to eye with me on this matter, paid him a generous and graceful tribute on Thursday morning last at the end of the Committee stage, as also did my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) who, incidentally, went with me a year ago to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a deputation in favour of this, but has since modified his opinion.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: I think I should be allowed to correct my hon. Friend. I went on a deputation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of a system of pensions for Members of Parliament, but not this Bill.
  Sir A. Pownall: I accept the correction. The Bill did not exist at that time and obviously my hon. Friend could not have been in favour of it. This only shows how the Bill has divided parties in this House and even families because we had the case of an hon. Lady who voted against her own brother. I do wish to join my two hon. Friends whom I have mentioned in thanking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the active part he is taking with regard to the Bill. I think opponents and friends of the Bill alike were much struck by the grasp of its provisions which my right hon. Friend showed and also his patience all through the hours of our discussion on Thursday morning. May I say, in conclusion, that I sincerely hope that, in the years to come, this very small Measure will prove of service to those, to whatever party they may belong, who fall on hard times after rendering many years of service to the State by membership of this House.
  9.59 P.m.
  Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: I regretted having had to give a silent vote
  1390
  on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I would like to take this opportunity of expressing certain views upon it. No criticism can be laid against either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having taken part in the Debates on the Bill. I think they would have been lacking in courage if they had not done so. Having listened to all the arguments I agree that the present is not a time when such a Measure should be brought before Parliament. I think most of the points which have been debated are rather small compared with the big principle involved. I am one of those unfortunate people who, in two years time, will become eligible for a pension, although at present I think it hardly likely that I shall claim it. But I have seen so many cases among friends and indeed relations in recent years, of people who have lost everything they possessed in the world, that I realise that it is not unlikely that any of us, however favoured we may be at this moment, may find ourselves in the same position. We have to face that fact.
  The reason why I oppose the Bill can be put very shortly, and it will, I think, be understanded of the Opposition. Suppose I became eligible for this pension in a few years time. Hon. Members of the Opposition probably regard me as standing for much that they dislike and indeed almost detest. They would say '' If that particular fellow-Member of ours gets his way all our hopes, and all our great party principles will be shattered." I frankly confess that I consider it undesirable that any hon. Member should be forced, year by year, to contribute to a Fund which might go to someone who was diametrically opposed to him and with whose policy he disagreed. Conversely, I frankly admit that I am in the House of Commons and have given up my life for a principle—in opposing Measures for which hon. Members of the Opposition stand. I hope I have many good friends among them, but I feel that if their principles were carried into effect it would mean the complete ruin and destruction of my country. I, therefore, also feel it undesirable that I should be compelled, year after year, willy-nilly, to contribute to a fund which will sustain men who are standing for certain principles which I think are absolutely destructive of the good of my native land.

  1391
  I hope hon. Members above the Gangway will realise that there is nothing personal in what I say. I should be lacking in courage if I did not frankly state that opinion. Hon. Members above the Gangway claim that they have something like 10,000,000 votes in the country, and I think about 12,500,000 votes were given for Conservative supporters of the National Government. Will anybody tell me that our services are so valued by our respective parties that the people who have sent us here are not prepared to contribute ½d. a year in order to see that the representatives of their political parties are not let destitute—or is it to be said that there is a lack of imagination on the part of political organisers? The principle to which I object is that of compelling hon. Members to contribute to a Fund which will be used hereafter in sustaining political causes to which they are opposed. That is really what it comes to indirectly. It is a principle to which I object. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the men in the various parties in the State to provide a Fund to sustain those who have represented them in Parliament, in their old age, or to support their widows if they die destitute.
  The House will forgive me if I have said anything which hurts the opinions of any hon. Member here. This is a domestic affair and it is one's duty to say frankly what one feels but I venture to think that if in the future we here are to become a merry family, that principles do not divide us and that Members of all parties contribute to a common Fund to help each other—people will begin to say that this is a sham fight. Politics, as far as I am concerned, is not a sham fight. I am here to sustain certain great ideals. Hon. Gentlemen have their ideals, which they sustain with equal sincerity. I think it intolerable that a Bill should be brought in compelling any Member to contribute to maintain those who are fundamentally opposed to the principles which he upholds.
  10.5 p.m.
  Sir J. Simon: Before the Bill reaches its Third Reading I think I should interpose in order to put on record, at the final stage, what is the relationship of the Government to the Bill. This is not a matter on which the Government take a view. Indeed, looking through the
  1392
  Division lists, I have noticed that on two principal occasions, the occasion when a Division was taken on the Resolution, and again when a Division was taken on the Second Reading of the Bill itself, I think I am right in saying that 15 Members of the administration voted one way, and 15 the other. There is no Government view about the matter at all. I must insist upon this because it has been my fate to interpose a good many times, not in the least in order to force my views on anyone but because for practical purposes, if a Bill is going to be carried and discussed in an orderly fashion, it is necessary for someone to be ready to give the necessary explanations and offer necessary suggestions. That is all that I have tried to do.
  The only other thing that I wanted to say on the general position is this. The Prime Minister, as he told us at the time, brought the Bill forward, not because he was the head of the Government but because he was the Leader of the House of Commons. There had been proposed to the House last February a Motion by a private Member which invited the House of Commons to say whether it generally approved the Report of the Departmental Committee, and whether it would be in favour of the initiation of legislation to carry out proposals of that sort provided they did not involve any charge on the taxpayer. On that occasion also it was made perfectly clear that everyone, including Government supporters, would be entitled to exercise their own judgment and there was no question of anyone seeking to give an official lead. There could not be a freer vote than that—a vote on a private Motion moved by a private Member in the course of which various views were stated. The Motion was carried by two to one, and thereupon the Prime Minister thought it his duty, as Leader of the House, to give the House itself an opportunity of implementing that decision. Consequently, a Bill was presented. I put my name on it, together with that of the Prime Minister, because I knew that I might have to take some responsibility on minor matters.
  We all have in memory the Prime Minister's speech. It was not one calling upon all who trusted him to agree with him on this point. He was most careful to say—he has been most scrupulous

  1393
  throughout to insist that there should be no question here of disloyalty, that there could be no reproach to anyone, and that this was essentially a matter on which every Member of the House of Commons should form his own judgment. I know that it has been a matter of distress to some of my friends that, exercising that liberty, which they were bound to exercise, they found themselves on this point opposed to the Prime Minister. No one could regret it more sincerely than they do, but that is, after all, what we have to do on a controversial occasion when two views are very possible and when we resolve that we will try to decide the matter without the assistance of Government leadership, or party Whips, or anything of the kind. It makes no sort of difference to the permanent relations which exist between Members on this side of the House and their Leader.
  That being so, I want to make one other observation to clear up the position, because otherwise I do not feel that in this respect a great Government Department or I myself have been treated very fairly. Generous things have been said about me, for which I am grateful, but it is not fair that it should be represented anywhere outside the House that this is a Treasury matter. It has nothing in the world to do with the Treasury. I have been doing this for the Prime Minister because I have been doing a certain amount of miscellaneous work for him in the House and for no other reason whatever. I hope it will be made plain, both by supporters and opponents of the Bill, that it is not a Treasury matter. In order that I may prove what I say by visual exhibition and demonstration, I have brought here and have sitting beside me the Financial Secretary. He and I differ on this subject completely. He has lost no occasion of voting in the opposite Lobby to me and I have lost no occasion of voting in the opposite Lobby to him. We have all expressed our views. I can see myself that there are quite serious arguments which have been advanced by some who oppose the Bill. It is not by any means a self-evident proposition but a matter which has to be thought over very carefully, but, weighing those arguments on one side and the other, a matter about which, I hope, hereafter the House of Commons will have no reason to reproach itself. It is
  1394
  inspired by a feeling that we are really engaged in a common task.
  I know how strongly the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) feels on many matters on which I may agree with him, but I still think that, while we are here in this controversial assembly engaged in fighting one another, there is an underlying sympathy existing between us because we are all members of this historic assembly. I shall rest all the more content feeling that, by our co-operative effort, the House of Commons has decided to try to make a domestic arrangement which may bring a little aid to those of our number who find themselves fallen upon evil days. I feel sure that, now that the battle is over, we shall always wish to look at it in that spirit, that we shall make the truth about the Bill known outside, and that it will not be made the subject of groundless misrepresentation. I am sure that, whether supporters or opponents, if we act together it will do a great deal to prevent a great injustice both to those who have taken a prominent part in putting it forward and to the House of Commons as a whole.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Wises:I must apologise for appearing rather late to speak in the proceedings on this Bill, but the only reason I desire to do so is that I was unfortunately away during the Committee stage of the Bill, and as I hold rather strong views about it, I should be reluctant to let it pass without at least raising my voice to justify, as briefly as I can, the views which I hold. There was one sentence, and one only, in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) with which I agreed, and that is that hon. Members opposite ought to be deeply grateful to the Prime Minister for the part that he has played in bringing this Bill before the House. I hope they will allow their gratitude in the coming months to obscure the violence of the attacks which they are continually making upon him. Gratitude, after all, is a great and generous emotion, and I hope they will exercise it to the full.
  The Prime Minister's intervention was of very considerable importance in this matter, and though my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done

  1395
  his best to make it clear that there was no coercion and no endeavour to dragoon Members into voting for the Bill, and, in his own words, nothing could be more free for discussion than a private Member's Motion proposed by a private Member, yet the fact remains that the number of private Members' Motions in whose favour we have a speech from the Prime Minister is very few indeed, and that fact, by itself, marks it out as a very extraordinary Measure. Although there was a large majority, to which the hon. Member for East Lewisham referred, which carried his Motion, it was almost entirely due to the personal influence of the Prime Minister that such a large number of people who disliked the idea of the Bill were so reluctant to put themselves into opposition to the leader of their side of the House that they did in fact vote for it.
  Mr. McCorquodale: Can the hon. Member cite the case of any one Member who dislikes the Bill and yet votes for it because the Prime Minister votes for it? I do not believe there is one.
  Mr. Wises: I would remind my hon. Friend who has intervened with such heat and indignation that if he would care to study the number of Government supporters who, when they had had time to think and to allow the words of the Prime Minister to sink into their minds, voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, he would find that the votes were two to one on the Government side, and I think that another clear indication is that the number of abstentions was very much greater than the number of those who actually voted in the Lobby. There is one other point with which I wish to deal, and that is the fitness of producing this Bill at this time. The other day hon. Members opposite, to whom an irreverent colleague of mine referred as "Our Dumb Friends' League" on this matter, allowed to pass through this House, practically without protest, a constitutional malpractice of a surprising kind, namely, the removal from them of four Supply days, obtained for them by the defeat of the King by Parliament about 300 years ago, and those four days were not merely their constitutional right, but their constitutional duty to defend in order to attack the Government. They allowed that to go through almost with-
  1396
  out protest, because of congested business; congested with what? Congested with a Members' pension Bill. Hon. Members opposite should think of their constitutional position as the defenders of the rights of the Opposition.
  Finally, I want to point out to all hon. Members that the pensioning of those on either side who are so unfortunate as to lose their all is not purely a matter for this House of Commons. There are duties which lie on bodies outside. Hon. Members opposite do not belong to a party which is so poor that it cannot look after its own. I gather that the total sum required to pension those who are expected to receive these pensions is between £3,000 and £4,000 a year, one-tenth of the contribution of the Trade Union Congress to the Labour party funds. Why introduce a Measure which, apart from being a compulsory one, does inflict one particularly grave injustice which the House insisted upon maintaining, and that is that people are compelled to contribute to it who can never in the nature of things possibly benefit by it. To my mind that is a major injustice. I hope we shall divide on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I shall find myself with a very clear conscience in the opposition lobby.
  10.22 p.m.
  Sir A. Southby: I owe an apology both to you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members of this House in that I thought you called me just now and that hon. Members were uttering the traditional cry "'Vide,' vide" when, in fact, they were referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Wise). It is only fair in those circumstances that my remarks, which I had intended should be brief when I first rose, should be even briefer now. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Private Member's Motion which was brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) was adopted by the Prime Minister and a Bill then introduced, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that less than half the Members of the House voted on the day on which the Private Member's Motion was discussed. It should be put on record that this Measure has been brought in when less than half the total Members of the House had expressed their desire that there should be some form of pension. We are now

  1397
  parting with a Bill which, whatever we like to call it, is a pension Bill. My complaint about it is not that it is making pensions for Members possible but that it is doing in the wrong way something which I believe ought to be done. I do not object to pensions for Members, although I do not believe the present time is opportune for getting those pensions in the proper way, and that is from the State.
  The Bill now makes pensions possible for widows and for orphans. That was in nobody's mind when the Motion was introduced, and it was in nobody's mind when the Second Reading of this Measure took place. I pointed out then that I do not believe that the funds available for this pensions scheme will suffice for ex-Members of this House who are in difficulties. I am quite sure that they will not suffice for ex-Members of this House and for widows and for orphans. My complaint about the Bill is that it is coercing Members of this House to make contributions to a scheme which, when it has been set up, will not carry out what 1 think it is the wish of everybody on both sides of the House to do, and that is to meet the case of a Member of this honourable House who has fallen on evil times.
  Because I believe that that is what will happen, the House should realise now, on Third Reading, that inevitably this scheme will one day have to be taken over by the State. One day it will have

  Division No. 283.]

  AYES.

  [10.27 p.m.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Foot, D. M.

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

  Chater, D.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gardner, B. W

  Adamson, W. M.

  Cooks, F. S.

  Garro Jones, C. M.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Colllndridge, F.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Ammon, C. G.

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

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Anderson F. (Whltehaven)

  Cove, W, G.

  Gibson R. (Greenock)

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Daggar, G.

  Graham, O. M. (Hamilton)

  Barnes, A. J.

  Dalton, H.

  Granville, E. L.

  Barr, J.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhlll)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Bartlett, C. V. O.

  Davles, C. (Montgomery)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Batty, J.

  Davits, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Grenfelt, O. R.

  Bellenger,, F. J,

  navies, S. O. (Marthyr)

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

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Dt Chair, S. S.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Benson, G.

  Denvllle, Alfred

  Greves, T. E.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Dobbie, W.

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

  Bevan, A.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdars)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Eckersley P. T.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Brabner, Ft. A.

  Ede, J. C.

  Harbord, Sir A.

  Broad, F. A.

  Edge, Sir W.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Bromfield, W

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

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

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Ellisten, Cast. G. S.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Buchanan, G.

  Emery, J. F.

  Hayday, A.

  Burke, W. A.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Cape, T.

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Cary, R. A.

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

  Heritage, Llanl.-Colonel A. P.

  to become a State obligation to pay pensions to Members who have fallen on evil times, and I believe that to be right, but do not let us deceive ourselves, when we set up this scheme, that it can ever really meet the case of the Members of this House who have fallen into difficulties. I do not believe that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, who have exercised their undoubted right to remain silent during the Debate, like the scheme any better than I do, but I think that they—I do not say this in any offensive way—consider that half a loaf is better than no bread and that it is better to do it like this than not to do it at all.
  I do not think it is fair to suggest that those of us who do not like this Measure and who have discussed it point by point have been wasting the time of the House. Because of the points that have been brought forward, the Bill, bad as it is, is better than it was when it was introduced and upon its Second Reading. The Bill, nevertheless, smacks too much of a charitable fund. I dislike it. I do not think it is compatible with the dignity of this honourable House. Something has to be done to meet the case of the Member who falls on evil times, but I wish it were not being done in this way.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 103.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Messer, F.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Milner, Major J.

  Smith, Ben (Rotharhithe)

  Jagger, J.

  Montague, F.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

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

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

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Morriion, G. A. (Soottlih Univ's.)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  John, W.

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

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Nathan, Colonel H. L.

  Stephen, C.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Nayior, T. E.

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

  Kirby, B. V.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Thurtle, E.

  Lathan, G.

  Paling, W.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Lawson, J.J.

  Parker, J.

  Titchfield, Marquese of

  lee,f

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Pearson, A.

  Vlant, S. P.

  Leonard, W.

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

  Walkden, A. G.

  Laslie, J. R.

  Poole, C. C.

  Wallaee, Capt. Rt. Han. Euan

  Ltddall, W. S.

  Price, M. P.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Little, Sir E. Graham.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Watson, W. MaL.

  Little, J.

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Westwood, J.

  Logan, D. G.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  White, H. Graham

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Riley, B.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Ritson, J.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

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

  McGhee, H. G.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Maclean, N.

  Rowlands, G.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, G.)

  MacMillan, M. (Western lsles)

  Russell, R. J. (Edditbury)

  Womersley, Sir W. i.

  Magnay, T.

  Salt, E. W.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Samuel, M, R. A.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Maitland, Sir Adam

  Sexton, T. HI.

  Young, Sir R, (Newton)

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

  Shinwell, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Marshall, F.

  Silkin, L.

  Sir Assheton Pownall and Sir Francis Fremantle.

  Mathers, G.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Maxton, J.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  NOES.

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

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mileham)

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

  Fleming, E, L.

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

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)

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

  Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. dale of Thanet)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  O'Connor, Sir Terenoe J.

  Balniel, Lord

  Hambro, A. V.

  Petherick, M.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Procter, Major H. A,

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Radiord. E. A.

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

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Rathbone, J. Ft. (Bodmin)

  Bracken, B.

  Hepworth, J.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Brockjebank, Sir Edmund

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Higgs, W. F.

  Scott, Lord William

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Holdsworth, H,

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Cartland, J R. H.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Hutehinson, G. C.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

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

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

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ward, Irene M. S. (Walltend)

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Warrender, Sir V.

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

  Kellett, Major E. O.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Crowd.r, J. F. E.

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

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Denman, Hon. R, D

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Levy, T,

  Wise, A. R.

  Duekworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Lipson, D. L.

  York, C.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partiek)

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Edmondson, Major Sir 4.

  Maedonald. Capt. P. (Isle ! Wight)

  Mr. Raikes and Mr. Hely-Hutchinson.

  Entmott, C. E. G. C.

  MoEwen, Capl. J. H. F.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  McKie, J. H.

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Medlicott, F.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.36 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a formal Measure, which is usually introduced as soon as possible after the Finance Bill has been disposed of. It is passed annually in order to confirm the Customs Resolutions of the Manx Legislature and to make amendments in the law relating to the Isle of Man Customs administration, similar to those made in respect of Customs administration in the last Isle of Man Customs Act. The Isle of Man has a separate existence. It is completely free in respect of its Customs duties and levies, but these are subject to confirmation by this Parliament. I do not think there is any necessity to go further into the matter, but if any hon. Member wishes to ask any questions I will do my best to answer them.
  Question put,-and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Margesson.]

  CLEARING OFFICE (RUMANIA) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1939.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I beg to move,
  " That the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment Order, 1939, dated the thirteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, a. copy of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be approved."
  This is a Provisional Order to take the place of one dated last September, the contents of which I explained to the House in November. The object of that was to enable the Rumanian exporter of goods to this country to obtain for a proportion of his goods a greater sum in lei than he was able, under the old arrangement, to obtain at the official rate of exchange plus premium. Our hope when we introduced the arrangement was that the Rumanian exporter would be encouraged to send additional goods to this market, with the result that more sterling would accrue to the Clearing Office, and, therefore, be available for clearing off existing trade
  1402
  debts and increasing exports of British goods to Rumania. We have, I think, achieved that object, because in the period September to May, 1937-38, our exports from Rumania amounted to £2,500,000 sterling, whereas for the corresponding period, 1938-39, during which the new agreement has been in force, our imports have been increased to £4,750,000 sterling. The effect has been to accelerate the repayment of outstanding debts and to enable more British goods to be sold. Owing to the continually changing circumstances, certain improvements, we think, can now be made. Those improvements were discussed in outline by Sir Frederick Leith-Ross when he was in Rumania recently negotiating the credit of £5,500,000. A delegation of Rumanian experts has since been for some weeks in London working out the details, and this Order now contains the results. The essence has not been changed, but one or two comparatively minor alterations have been made of a technical character, which, we hope, will further facilitate mutual trade.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  " That the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment Order, 1939, dated the thirteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of July nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be approved."

  SUPPLY [17th May].
  Postponed Resolutions further considered.
  Resolutions reported:
  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for expenditure not provided for in the Army Estimates for the year."

  SCHEDULE.

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Vote.

  £

  £

  2.Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

  100

  —

  AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for expenditure not provided for in the Air Estimates for the year."

  SCHEDULE.

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Vote.

  £

  £

  7. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces.

  100

  —

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.
  ."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for expenditure not provided for in the Navy Estimates for the year."

  SCHEDULE.

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Vote.

  £

  £

  7. Royal Naval Reserves-

  100

  —

  First and Second Resolutions agreed to. Third Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  10.41 p.m.
  Mr. Ammon: I imagine that this is Vote A, which is concerned with the calling to the Colours of a number of seamen, boys and Royal Marines. The Parliamentary Secretary was given notice that this point was to be raised.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that this Resolution is not concerned with Vote A.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]
  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.
  Mr. Ammon: I take it that this is Vote A providing for an additional number for the Navy. If an opportunity is given to raise this matter on Report I shall take advantage of it, but notice has been given to the Admiralty.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): The hon. Member may make his remarks on the Report stage.
  Mr. Ammon: I have not the slightest objection to making my remarks on the Report stage if an opportunity is to be afforded, but the Parliamentary Secretary discussed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and myself the point which we wished to raise as to the calling up of certain people and he undertook to meet it.
  10.44 p.m
  Mr. Garro Jones: May I, with great respect, Colonel Clifton Brown, draw attention to the fact that we have just passed the Report stage of certain Supplementary Estimates, and no doubt hon. Members thought they had been adequately discussed on the Committee stage. We are now on the Committee stage of certain further Supplementary Estimates.
  The Deputy-Chairman: There is no Motion before the Committee at the moment, and the conversations that are going on are quite informal.
  Captain Margesson: I do not move.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Therefore, we cannot discuss that matter.
  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1939.
  ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 89,300, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, beyond the number already provided in the Army Estimates for the year."
  Mr. Garro Jones: Will the Financial Secretary to the War Office give us a brief summary of the objects of this Supplementary Estimate?
  10.45 P.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Vector Warrender): The Supplementary Estimate asks for an addition, under Vote A, of 89,000 men of all ranks to the 185,000 of all ranks provided for in the original Estimate, which will give us a total on Vote A of 275,000 men. The Estimate covers a variety of increases, with which I think the Committee will be familiar, which are connected with certain steps taken in recent months to add to the strength of the Army. For instance, we have called up, as hon. Members will recollect, members of the Reserve, including officers of the Regular Army Reserve and the Supplementary Reserve under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act. We require these Reservists to take the place of certain Regulars who have been withdrawn from their Regular units mainly for the purpose of training the Militia. Further, under Vote A the numbers have been added to by reason of the embodiment of the anti-aircraft personnel of the Territorial Army. These men, as the Committee will realise, are to-day manning our anti-aircraft defences during the interval when we shall train the Militia, who will take over the permanent manning of these defences. I think that explains why we have to ask for these increases under Vote A. I do not think the Committee will wish me to go into any great detail, but if there are any questions which hon. Members desire to ask, I shall try to answer them.
  10.47 p.m
  Mr. Bellenger: Are we to understand that this Vote is for the Regular Army only, or does it include the Territorial Force? If it does include the latter Force, will the hon. Member tell us something about the numbers that have been recruited towards the doubling of the Territorial Force, which we were told some little time ago was the policy of the Government. The hon. Member has mentioned something about the Reservists. I should like to know from the Secretary of State or from the hon. Gentleman what is the policy followed in calling up Reservists. Is there any policy of calling up first those Reservists who have been some considerable time away from the Colours, or are the Reservists called up indiscriminately regardless of the time that they have been placed upon the Reserve, because it has been brought
  1406
  to my attention that in one particular camp—I have written to the Secretary of State about the matter, privately— Reservists have been called up who have not been long away from the Colours. There should be some policy followed in calling up these Reservists. It is desirable to call up, first, those Reservists who have been away from the Colours some time, because they probably need polishing up in their knowledge and training in weapons with which they are not familiar, in preference to those Reservists who have only recently left the Colours and been placed on the Reserve. The hon. Member might have been a little more informative as to the numbers that have been recruited in the Territorial Force. I hope that he will give us that information now.
  10.49 p.m
  Sir V. Warrender: I have not the exact figures, but I may say that we have recruited 200,000 men for the Territorial Army in the last three months. I am sorry that, without notice, I cannot give the exact figures.
  Mr. Bellenger: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how far short he is of the double strength of the Territorial Force which was asked for some time ago?
  Sir V. Warrender: It is something in the nature of 30,000 or 40,000 men we still require. With regard to the question as to the reservists, we have deliberately called up those reservists who had most recently left the Colours because we required their services to help in the training. They would be the most useful. There are some who have not seen the most recent weapons and in that respect they are as out of date as the men who had left the Colours previous to them. It was because they were regarded as the most useful men to be used as instructors and trainers that we called them up in the first place.
  Mr. Bellenger: Can we have an assurance that those reservists who have been called up for training are actually being trained in the use of these new weapons and not being put on fatigue duties and routine duties of that nature, because many of the men who have left good substantial jobs for their service feel that their service time should not be wasted, and they want to have adequate training

  1407
  in the time while they are called up and not be put on routine matters which in their view are a waste of time.
  Sir V. Warrender: It is our deliberate policy that these men should be brought up to date as quickly as possible and trained in the use of all modern equipment. Some of them are being used to take the place of regular instructors who have left their units to train Territorials and militiamen, while others are being trained directly as instructors. I can assure the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that we are not wasting a day of the reservists' service. It is essential from the Army point of view that when they leave their service they should be thoroughly familiar with the new weapons and equipment.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I should like to ask a question about the 30,000 men whom the hon. Gentleman has told us we are short of for this doubling of the Territorial Army. For how long have we been short of them and what are the prospects of being able to recruit them? Has recruitment been impaired by the calling up of the militiamen?
  Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir. I think one of the most remarkable things about the passage of the Military Training Act was the way in which recruiting was stimulated almost concurrently. Recruiting both for the Regular Army and the Territorial Army is constantly breaking records, and I have no doubt that if we continue in the way we have been going the shortage will very speedily be made up. Not only are we getting a magnificent response, but we are getting a magnificent type of man. That is a thing which I am sure the House will gladly note, as indeed does the whole country. Far from having a prejudicial effect recent innovations have had exactly the opposite effect.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  ARMY SERVICES.
  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  " That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for expenditure not provided for in the Array Estimates for the year."

  SCHEDULE.

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Vote.

  £

  £

  1.Pay, etc., of the Army

  3,108,000

  442,000

  2.Territorial Army (to an additional number not exceeding 238,621) and Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 100,000 for the Militia)

  8,217,000

  —

  3.Medical services

  348,000

  —

  4.Educational Establishments

  43,000

  —

  5.Quartering and movements

  673,000

  —

  6.Supplies, road transport and remounts

  4,680,000

  18,000

  7.Clothing

  Cr.2,777,000

  18,730,000

  8.General stores

  Cr.5,882.000

  15,365,000

  9.Warlike stores

  Cr. 5,906,000

  14,394,000

  10.Works, buildings and lands

  Cr.2,593,900

  31,777.9oo

  11.Miscellaneous effective services

  226,000

  1,000

  12.War Office

  8,000

  —

  13.Half-pay, retired pay and other non-effective charges for officers

  Cr. 144,000

  4,000

  14.Pensions and other non-effective charges for warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, men and others

  12,000

  —

  15.Civil Superannuation, compensation and gratuities

  Cr. 12,000

  —

  Total, Army (Supplementary), 1939 £

  100

  80,731,900

  Mr. GarroJones: May we have the customary explanation?
  10.55 P.m.
  Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Member will realise that this Estimate deals with the bill which has to be faced as the result of the doubling of the Territorial Army and the introduction of compulsory military training. There are other items in the Estimates. For instance, measures connected with the expansion and

  1409
  acceleration of the defence programme for the Army, and there is a substantial sum included to pay for the reduction to 20 of the age at which soldiers in the Regular Army are officially recognised as married and can receive grants in respect of dependants. The largest item is, of course, connected with the formation of the Militia, the militiaman's pay and the money required for the erection of camps. There is also hutment accommodation and the finding of accommodation for these men. The next largest item is that required to pay for the doubling of the Territorial Army. There is a saving of over £6,000,000 to go against this, due to the formation of the Ministry of Supply. With the formation of the Ministry of Supply certain establishments which hitherto have been charged against Army Votes will in the future be charged against the Ministry of Supply. There is also certain personnel, most of them connected with technical research. I will not trouble the Committee with the details of the various Votes, but if any hon. Member has any point to raise I shall be only too glad to give the Committee what information I can.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Bellenger: In view of the criticisms which have been made by way of questions in the House as to the manner in which some of these hutments have been put up and the rather exaggerated cost in some cases, I should have hoped that the hon. Member would have told us a little more about that subject. There have been complaints that some of the Forces have been turned out from hutments and placed in tents to make way for the Militia. None of us would desire to see the militiamen tŕeated in any other way than that their physical comforts should be looked after, but there is a feeling in certain quarters that adequate preparations have not been made for the reception of the Militia. We know, of course, the circumstances which precipitated the calling up of a considerable number of these young men, but we should have thought that could have been foreseen and that accommodation would have been provided for these militiamen. We are not asking that they should be mollycoddled, but we do expect that appropriate accommodation should have been provided, and we hope the hon. Member
  1410
  will set our minds at rest in this respect, as we have a feeling that the accommodation is still not there for these young men who have been called away from civilian life. Can he tell us whether sufficient accommodation in the way of huts is now available for the whole of the Militia forces which have been called up?
  11.0 p.m.
  Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I am a little disappointed at some of his remarks about our success in providing accommodation. I think he must have forgotten that it was not until 26th April of this year that the announcement that compulsory military training was to become a feature of our National Defence was made, and that it was not until the end of May that the Bill implementing that decision became law. The fact that the War Office was faced with the task of making all the administrative arrangements, as well as providing accommodation for these militiamen, some 150,000 of whom are to be called up in the first 12 months, caused the Department to be faced with one of the most gigantic tasks which any Government Department has ever had to undertake. The fact that we shall have been able to provide hutted camps, as they will be provided in time to accommodate the men before the summer ends and the cold weather comes on, is not, I think, a matter of criticism, but is one on which those who are responsible in the Department deserve the greatest praise. I do not suggest that when a Department is working at that sort of pressure everything goes absolutely smoothly. That is more than one could expect. The hon. Member must realise the strain to which not only the Commands but also the branches in the War Office, are being put. I think they have achieved something which certainly was unparalleled in the last War, and they have done it on a scale which deserves the greatest praise.
  The hon. Member asked me whether it was true that Regular soldiers are being turned out of barracks and put into tented camps in order to make room for militiamen. That is true. I will tell the hon. Member why it is being done. Some of the young militiamen who are coming up are in a very soft condition. The Regular soldier is kept fit and tough, and he can turn out of the barrack room and go into

  1411
  more arduous conditions without suffering any ill effects. I think it was only fair— and I do not think the Regular soldiers have resented it in the very least—that the personal condition of the militiamen in their initial stages should take precedence in settling where the two classes of men were to be accommodated. I assure the hon. Member that within a very few weeks the militiaman will be in just as healthy and tough a condition as the Regular soldier, and that he in his turn will be fitted to suffer the rigours of an English summer. I do not think there is any grievance on that score, but naturally we are anxious to do the militiamen well. We believe that much depends upon the initial batch going home and saying what a fine time they have had, and if it means a little discomfort for the Regulars, I think the Regulars will understand and appreciate the reason why.
  The hon. Member also asked whether there would be sufficient accommodation for all the militiamen. I think that will be so, in spite of the fact that more men have been allotted to us than we had anticipated would be. I do not pretend that all the camps will be ready on the exact date on which we had hoped they would be, but there is no doubt, I think, that the hutted camps will be ready in sufficient time to accommodate the militiamen before the cold summer ends and the warm winter begins. I realise, as does the hon. Member, that the unfortunate conditions of the last fortnight have caused considerable discomfort in these camps, but every step is being taken to mitigate that discomfort. I am not sure that they would have been very much more comfortable had they been in hutted camps, but the hutted camps, when they are completed, will be model establishments, as I think everybody will admit. They will be amply large enough to accommodate the men who will go into them, and there will be ample accommodation in the barracks and depots where the militiamen not in the anti-aircraft camps will be accommodated. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to have an opportunity of visiting them.
  Mr. Bellenger: I shall be happy to avail myself of that invitation.
  11.5 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I fully realise the magnitude of the task which
  1412
  has fallen upon the War Office, but I must point out that it is a task which the War Office invited and not one which was thrust upon them. Can the hon. Gentleman give us some facts and figures to show what the situation is at present? How many militiamen are living under canvas, and about what date is it expected that they will be accommodated in huts? I can imagine that when the Bill was passed, about Whitsuntide, when we had a few days of fine weather, the idea of living under canvas may have made a strong appeal to the prospective militiaman. But in the sort of weather which we are experiencing at present, the glamour of living under canvas has probably worn off, and it would be interesting to know at what date it is hoped to relieve the militiamen of the hardships which they are now enduring, and to accommodate them in huts.
  I am sure that the militiamen do not wish to live softly. I do not think that is their spirit at all. I read with great interest the remarks made by the Secretary of State for War on that Saturday when he made a tour of inspection of the Militia camps. He said, in effect, to the militiamen, "You are the guests of the nation and the nation wishes to do you proud." But I think the wisest words said upon that Saturday were said, not by the Secretary of State but by an unknown sergeant who was reported in the Press as having said that he thought the militiamen would be very disappointed if they did not get "a little bit of the real sergeant-major stuff." He was probably nearer the truth than the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure, as I say, that the militiamen do not wish to live softly and that they would be disappointed if things were made too easy for them, but in view of the present weather conditions I think we ought to know how many are living under canvas and when it is expected to transfer them to hutments.
  Sir V. Warrender: The majority of the men are in huts at the present time. I would hesitate to give the exact date on which all the hut camps will be completed, but I hope it will be towards the middle of September and a large number will be completed before then. No effort is being spared to get on with the work as quickly as possible, but there are certain difficulties which militate against speed in this connection. I appreciate what the hon. and gallant Member said about the

  1413
  spirit of these men. Wherever any of us has gone among these camps we have found the same thing. I think it would be an excellent idea for hon. Members to see for themselves and my right hon. Friend will be only too pleased, if hon. Members give him notice or give me notice, to arrange that they shall see for themselves the conditions under which the men are living.
  11.10 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: As one who has felt rather sore about the subject, I should like to bear out what has been said by my hon. Friend as to the date on which these camps will be completed. I think it will be about the middle of September—about the same time as the Territorials return from camp. The huts are being put up where we have been soldiering under canvas. When we arrived there they were about half way up. I should say that about the day we return they will be up and ready for the Militia, which is about the middle of September. I should like to bear out my hon. Friend in what he said.
  Mr. Assheton: I should like to pay a tribute to the enormous speed with which the huts have been put up.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.
  ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF AIR FORCES.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  " That an additional number of Air Forces, not exceeding 32,000 all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, excluding those on the Indian establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, beyond the number already provided in the Air Estimates for the year.''
  11.11 p.m.
  Captain Balfour: I think it would be the wish of the Committee that I should endeavour to give a brief outline of what we are asking for in this Estimate. We are asking for an increase of personnel of 32,000 regular officers and airmen, bringing the maximum number who can be borne on our establishment up to 150,000, and it is expected that this number will be substantially reached by the end of the present financial year. These additional personnel are required for three reasons, firstly because of the acceleration of delivery of aircraft, secondly, because of the decision to man permanently a portion of the balloon barrage, and
  1414
  thirdly, because of the formation of more squadrons for overseas and trade protection. The fact that these extra squadrons were to be formed was announced by the Secretary of State in the Estimates presented on 9th March last but, as a decision regarding the actual number of squadrons to be formed had not been reached at the time when the Estimates were prepared, it was not practicable to include that number in the Estimates.
  The personnel of the Auxiliary Air Force called up for service in the balloon barrage count against Vote A, but those young men who are allowed to volunteer, and whom we are able to take for six months continual training, do not appear on Vote A. As regards finance, the money to be voted is only £100, but we are asking for authority to appropriate receipts amounting to £40,000,000. Of this sum £500,000 appropriated in aid of Vote I represents the Royal Air Force's share of gifts generously given towards Imperial Defence by certain Rulers and the Governments of certain oversea Dependencies which are named on page II of the Supplementary Estimate. The remaining £39,500,000 is being provided from the Defence Loan and, as to £23,500,000 is in aid of Vote III, Technical and Warlike Stores, £16,000,000 in respect of Vote IV, Works, Buildings and Lands; and these are the Votes which bear the capital cost of rearmament. I could give details of the items Vote by Vote, but I have endeavoured to give a general picture as regards the personnel and finance for which we are asking authority.
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Poole: In connection with the increase of personnel of 32,000, there is one matter which I should like to raise. I regret that I have not informed the hon. Gentleman of my intention but I overlooked the fact that an opportunity would be afforded to-night. I want to speak specifically about the camp which the Department is in process of building at Cannock Chase, in the division which I have the honour to represent. I asked a question a fortnight ago of the Secretary of State for Air as to the rates of wages being paid in the construction of this camp, and I was informed that for a 48-hour week labourers in the employ of the Department were being paid 47s. a week, and I was told that that was in

  1415
  conformity with the general wage rates prevailing in the district. I do not know where the Secretary of State obtained his information. I have suggested that he might approach the Ministry of Labour in the area, because if he does, he will find that the rate of pay which his Department is paying these men is completely out of conformity with the general rates prevailing in the district. I have in my hand a letter from one of the trade unions concerned, the Union of General Municipal Workers, which caters mainly for unskilled labour in this area, and the rates which they give me as applicable in this area are as follows: building trade labourers, is. 1¼d. per hour; civil engineering labourers, is. id.; electricity labourers, is. 1½d. The lowest of these figures would give a higher wage rate than 47s. for a 48-hour week, and I would like the Under-Secretary to tell me on what he bases his figure of 47s., unless he is taking into consideration the wages of agricultural labourers, which would be grossly unfair.
  There is very serious unrest in this camp on account of the rates of pay, and I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the sake of harmony and of getting the job completed, to look further into the matter, and, having satisfied himself that these rates of pay are not the recognised rates prevailing in the district, to do what is only right and proper, implement the fair wage principle, and pay the rates applicable. I have a letter from one of the people concerned, a civilian waiter in the sergeants' mess, who says:
  " I assure you that there has been grave discontent with regard to the people mentioned, and many of the employés feel that they are definitely being outrageously robbed. My wages are not even £2 5s. 5d., but £2 3s. 5d. a week, for a 48-hour week, with two hurried meals."
  He goes on to say that three weeks ago a warrant officer came into the mess demanding food two hours after the time, and the staff attempted to serve him, but because he was short of soup, he sacked the whole of the staff. The rest of the staff on the building threatened to walk out, but the chief, sensing trouble, reinstated the whole staff the following morning. For the guidance of hon. Members, I may say that this camp is located at Cannock Chase and is many miles from
  1416
  anywhere where warrant officers could get meals provided for them so that it was probably a question of discretion being the better part of valour that the whole staff was reinstated. That gives some indication that there is discontent, and I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he considers that 47s. is a reasonable remuneration for men engaged in laborious work at Cannock Chase. These men have to travel long distances to their work, which necessitates their being away from their homes, not eight hours a day, but 11 and 12 hours a day, in order to get in eight hours' employment. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give the matter his further consideration.
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I think that neither the hon. and gallant Gentleman nor his right hon. Friend can complain of the amount of interrogation which they have suffered in regard to air matters during the last six months. In particular, there has been a screen of secrecy thrown over the operations of the balloon barrage, and I think it is time now that we should have some information upon this form of defence, upon which such large sums are being expended. At present all we know about the balloon barrage is that the right hon. Gentleman has been made an honorary Air Commodore of one of the squadrons, and that the balloons themselves will have a moral effect upon the enemy pilots. I see also that the Prime Minister has been accorded an honour of that kind. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that the balloon barrage is really worth the amount that is being expended upon it? I do not wish to extract from him any military information. All the information I propose to refer to is certainly available to anyone who cares to get it.
  To what height can these balloons go? I have observed the thickness of some of the cables—that is a little point which anyone could get who cares to see them— and we know that this is information which is already in the hands of any possible enemies. The cable is almost a quarter of an inch thick. It is a perfectly simple matter for anyone to work out from the size of the balloon what length can be carried to what height by that size of balloon. Why, therefore, should that question be surrounded with such an element of secrecy? Then, why is it that one of the largest depots of the

  1417
  balloon barrage, where are stored enormous quantities of equipment, is situated in what is believed to be one of the most vulnerable parts of London? Why should these depots be centred in the industrial and vulnerable areas? These balloons are supposed to be extremely mobile and is there any reason why these accumulations of supplies should be in one place?
  What measures are being taken to forestall what I would describe as counter-balloon-barrage methods? For example, are any experiments being conducted into the possibility of the utter destruction of balloon barrages by some form of cutting instrument on the leading edge of an aeroplane wing? I believe it is right to say that certain experiments are being carried out, I think in Germany. It is said that in Germany they are emulating our example in establishing a large number of balloon squadrons, and yet in another quarter I have been informed that the emulation of our balloon squadrons is merely undertaken to lull us into the belief that these balloon barrages are really effective. This is the time for us to have some information. I do not believe that it is possible to bluff anybody with balloon barrages, and if it were ever found that these were an illusory form of defence the day of retribution would be very serious for the Ministers who are responsible for it. It may be that information with regard to the effectiveness of this idea—I will not put it higher than that—has not reached me, and if it is possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give us some assurance as to the number of the balloons, the height to which they will go and the measures which have been taken to test their effectiveness I am sure he will be doing a useful service.
  11.25 p.m
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: I wish to put one or two questions to the Air Minister. There may be certain questions which, for reasons of high policy, he may not desire to answer openly in the Committee, and I do not desire to ask any question that, would hinder the advance of the Air Service to-day. For a number of years I have received most unsatisfactory replies when I have raised matters re-relating to the progress of the Air Service in Scotland. I would remind the Committee that the Government Chief
  1418
  Whip, when asked about the anti-aircraft units, told us that the position in Scotland was very satisfactory, and that when hon. Members asked for information he told us that we had two anti-aircraft units in the whole of 'Scotland. With a great flourish in the country an announcement has been made that there would be nine balloon barrage systems established. We were to have one in the North of England and one in the Glasgow area. I trust I am making myself clear; I am speaking under very great disability. When I raised the question of the balloon barrage system in the Glasgow area, I was assured that progress was being made and that the contract had been established. I hope the Minister can refute the information which I have received from a very reliable source, the representative of a national newspaper in Scotland. [Laughter,] The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but I would tell him that the Scottish newspapers have a reputation that is the envy of the newspapers in every other country of the world, with regard to the issuing of correct information. I have been informed that, after many months, Glasgow has now one balloon, and that it has been lent to Glasgow by London. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure me that that is not. so and that definite progress is being made with respect to the balloon barrage system in our area. I have continually believed, against the scepticism of many of my friends, that the balloon barrage is one of the most effective weapons of defence for the ports and shipyards of Glasgow, which would be an essential food centre for the rest of the country. I trust that this story can be refuted to-night by the right hon. Gentleman and that we may be assured that definite progress is being made.
  When first I received this disquieting information I said to my friend: "One cannot wonder, because I understand that only English contractors are operating in Scotland and until the Air Ministry decide to give Scottish contractors the benefit of using the opportunities which they have of being on the spot and having labour and organisation available, this state of chaos is bound to occur in national defence." I would take the opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the invitation he extended to us with regard to the Air Forces of Scotland, and to say that we shall be very glad to have information

  1419
  to-night with regard to the progress and expenditure that are taking place in Scotland. I understand that the Defence Departments have realised for some time that Scotland is still a part of the British Empire, and that it would be dangerous to neglect the Defence Services there. I trust that I can be assured that some considerable part of this money is being expended in maintaining progress in regard to the defences of the northern part of the country. I would also like some assurance that the Auxiliary Force will be open to men who in many ways can give special service to the nation in this respect. I have seen one or two applications from men who were well fitted but who have been rejected on grounds which I cannot but regard as rather flimsy. I trust that this expenditure will result in an opening up of the Auxiliary Force to men whose capabilities will ensure their becoming useful members of that Force.
  11.32 p.m.
  Sir H. Seely: As has been said before, the right hon. Gentleman has had a very easy time during the last four or five months, in that he has not been questioned very much in this House as to what has been happening. I am not going to question him very much, but there are one or two points on which I should like some information. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for a good deal more money, and I should like to know a little more about what is happening at Cranwell. Cranwell is a sort of Sandhurst for the Air Force, but, as far as I can make out, it is not the policy at the present time to extend the number of entries into Cranwell for training as officers. The Air Force is, as the Minister said, being greatly expanded, and we want to know that the fabric is being built on a sound basis. The number of officers now demanded is out of all proportion to the number still at Cranwell. Is the Minister satisfied that the right method is being followed, and with the present extension of the granting of short-service commissions to people who merely have flying experience, with no experience as officers or of any responsible position?
  I am not going to join issue with the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) on the question of the
  1420
  balloon barrage. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman says that we have a great many things in store for the bomber, but no doubt when he visits a bombing squadron he says that the bomber is going to get through into other countries. There is no doubt that in the future all defence against air attack is going to be of a nature which will be unknown to any of us until the actual facts appear, as everyone hopes they will not.
  11.35 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I cannot help contrasting the interest which was aroused among Conservative Members by the House of Commons Members Fund Bill and the interest displayed now. I feel mystified over these proceedings. If I understand aright, we are being asked to vote £100, and if we do the Air Ministry will be able to spend £40,000,000. I am trying to buy a car on the instalment system, and this makes my mouth water. I think we are entitled to protest against the magnitude of the sums which we are being asked to vote so hurriedly and at so late an hour. For "aircraft and balloons" the original Estimate was £93,000,000 odd and the revised Estimate is £107,000,000 — an increase of £14,000,000. I think it a great mistake to bracket aircraft and balloons in that manner. Undoubtedly the greater amount of the expenditure is due to aircraft. It would give us a clearer picture if there were some dissection. We have had a great deal of publicity about the balloon barrage; in fact, I remember two remarkable photographs last year of the Secretary for Air. One showed him shaking hands with a gendarme at Monte Carlo. I was never able quite to understand why it was calculated to promote confidence in our defences, but it was a good photograph. I remember another which showed him crawling inside one of the balloons of the balloon barrage. That was very interesting indeed. I have always wondered what he saw when he got inside, but I do not know that these things have increased my confidence in the efficacy of the balloon barrage, which I am rather inclined to regard as eyewash. But, assuming that it is a good thing for London, I should be glad to know when it is to be extended to some of our provincial centres, which are equally in need of protection.

  1421
  I would invite the Committee to look at page 8 of the Supplementary Estimate, to sec the enormous sums with which we are dealing in this hurried fashion at this time of night. There is a heading "Works, buildings and lands." A great many pertinent questions have been asked in this House recently about the purchase of land. Some very disquieting figures have been brought to light by the purchases of land, and here we have these Estimates. The original Estimate totalled £44,820,000 and the revised Estimate, £60,820,000. I notice that the £820,000 seems to correspond in a remarkable way but there is an increase of £16,000,000. In these days of astronomical estimates, when these enormous sums of money that we are borrowing may never be repaid, naturally one says, "What does it matter if we shove on a few more noughts?" But even in these days a sum of £60,820,000, involving an increase in the original Estimate of £16,000,000, is worth a little attention from this Committee, yet we are asked to deal with it in a few minutes at this late hour of the night, when a little intervention on the subject is possibly slightly resented by Members who would like to get home to bed.
  There is only one other point to which I would like to call attention, and here I really would ask the Under-Secretary for a little information, because I think that some of it might be of an interesting nature. On page 9 we find the item for Women's Auxiliary Air Force. The original Estimate on this account was £3,800, but the revised Estimate is £18,800, an increase of £15,000. I imagine that hon. Members of this House probably find in their experience that women do become a little more expensive. The Minister must expect it when he embarks upon this sort of thing. Here is the Air Minister reaping the experience with which most hon. Members are familiar, that whereas he thought that he was going to get these ladies for £3,000, they have, in fact, cost him £18,000, which is £15,000 more than he expected. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to afford the Committee some explanation.
  11.43 p.m.
  Captain Balfour: I will endeavour in as short a space of time as possible to satisfy hon. Members who have asked questions on the Supplementary Estimate.
  1422
  The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Poole) asked about the local rates of wages paid to civilian employés at the Cannock Chase Camp, and wanted to know whether the rate which he quoted was considered to be adequate. He also said that he had not given specific notice that he was going to raise the question, so he will not expect me to deal with specific figures when I tell him and the Committee that the principle that we adopt for the payment of civilian employés is to pay the local rates applicable for the particular sort of work in the district, and, further, that there is machinery for revision periodically, and when representations are received as to whether the rates that are being paid are comparable with those that are paid in the district. The hon. Member asked my right hon. Friend a question on this subject a short time ago, and if my memory serves me rightly, my right hon. Friend said that, if the hon. Gentleman would send him particulars, he would be glad to look into the matter himself.
  Mr. Poole: Actually the figures for which the Minister has asked are in the process of travelling between me and him at the present time.
  Captain Balfour: I can assure the hon. Member that my Department and my right hon. Friend will see that the matter is dealt with expeditiously. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) raised the question of balloon barrage efficiency and asked me whether I was satisfied as to the value of the balloon barrage. I can give him an affirmative answer, and I may say that the same opinion is held by those who have a far greater knowledge of these matters— the Air Staff. I can assure the hon. Member and the Committee that the Air Staff think highly of the efficacy of the balloon barrage, and that our experience up to date has not in any way disappointed our hopes. The hon. Member asked questions about cable thicknesses, which I would not go into. He also asked why it was necessary to have centralised stores in an industrial area. He did not specifically say what particular stores he was referring to nor what area, but I would inform him that the balloon barrage is essential to form a protection for industrial districts, and! therefore, in each particular area we need a depot to serve the barrage for that

  1423
  particular area. The hon. Member also asked me about counter balloon barrage measures. My reply is that these matters are entirely confidential. He said he wondered whether all information did reach him. Let me give him an assurance that all information on this subject has not reached him.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) asked me about Cranwell and whether that establishment was being increased in relation to the large growth of our Air Force. The Cranwell establishment has been increased. The intake of cadets this year is materially greater than last year, but we have to guard against increasing the number of permanent careers in the Air Force beyond the point at which we can safeguard careers for these officers right up to their age of retirement. Our Air Force is largely an expanding one and we have candidates from among short service officers, candidates from aircraft apprentices and from the ranks, candidates from the universities and from the Dominions as well as from Cranwell, and if we increase the numbers from one class we must proportionately increase others; and we are doing this.
  Sir H. Seely: Can the Under-Secretary say the number which has been increased at Cranwell?
  Captain Balfour: I will try to let the hon. Member have it, but I can tell him the broad principle on which we are increasing, and that is that we are having regard to the permanent careers of the officers in the Service. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) asked about the progress of the balloon barrage in Glasgow. I can give him an assurance that definite progress is being made, according to our plans, with the equipment, personnel and buildings for the barrage in Glasgow. The Committee will be glad to know that recruiting in Glasgow has been as satisfactory as we expected and is in keeping with the high standard of volunteers we meet with all over the country for the Service.
  Mr. Davidson: I do not think that answers the point that I put specifically to the hon. and gallant Member. Although the hour is late I hope he will not try to dodge the issue. My information, plainly, is that this balloon barrage system, which was instituted with a flourish by the Air Ministry a consider-
  1424
  able number of months ago has, up to date, only one balloon, and that balloon has been lent to them from London. I ask specifically and definitely whether that is true.
  Captain Balfour: The hon. Member has given me no notice of that particular question, so I do not think he can expect me to say whether the balloon barrage in Glasgow has merely got the practice balloon, which is sent to all barrages, or something more. It may have its complete number of personnel and may have its total equipment issued within, perhaps, a period of one week. You may have a barrage squadron with only one balloon and next week it may have its complete equipment.
  Mr, Davidson: I am sorry to intervene again, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that the balloon barrage system in Scotland was in a satisfactory state of progress. Is it the opinion of the Air Ministry that a balloon barrage system instituted many months ago and not having one balloon is in a satisfactory state?
  Captain Balfour: The hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful in trying to repeat what I said. I said the balloon barrage in Scotland was progressing satisfactorily according to our plans. I may tell him that the date is not yet due for the Glasgow balloon barrage to be completed, but I have no reason to think that it will not be completed by the planned date, and there is no question of its lagging behind. I can assure the hon. Member that it will be completed by the time that we have planned for it so to be.
  Mr. Dalton: May I ask if we can be told, without the disclosure of secrets that might aid the enemy, what is the planned date?
  Captain Balfour: My right hon. Friend says he mentioned it in his Estimates speech. The date for the final completion of the provincial barrage is the end of this year, but actually it will be largely complete about September of this year.
  Commander Fletcher: When do we get our balloons back for London?
  Captain Balfour: Let me at once answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman that not one effective balloon has been taken from London, but what we have tried to do while we are building up the organisation

  1425
  of these provincial barrages is to give each unit a practice balloon in order that the men may be taught to handle the balloons so that when their equipment comes in full they are ready to handle it. The hon. Member for Maryhill also asked me about the progress of air defence expenditure in Scotland. We do not segregate the expenditure on Scotland for air defence in relation to that for England, but I can assure Scotland that it is getting full value as regards the plans for the air defence of the essential ports and cities of Scotland, and if there were in our national budgets a division as between Scotland and England it might be found that Scotland was winning.
  Mr. Davidson: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has misunderstood my point. A certain expenditure was allowed us in the Estimates with regard, for instance, to Wick and the training schools, and how much of that expenditure has been spent up to date? Can we have an indication as to whether the progress of the work is satisfactory?
  Captain Balfour: If the hon. Gentleman is asking for specific items of Vote 4, works buildings, I cannot tell him without going through the complete Schedule, except to say that so far as I know works and buildings in Scotland are progressing well. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the growth of Vote 4 he will realise the tremendous task which has been undertaken by the Air Ministry in the construction of these preparations. finally, I was asked about the Women's Air Force. I cannot answer that without notice, and I would like to make this final comment on the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Commander Fletcher). He commented upon the magnitude of the totals. I agree that they are tremendous. But I do think that this is an indication of the money needed for expenditure on a rapidly growing force both in personnel, equipment and works and buildings. I have done my best to answer the specific questions which have been put to me, and I hope the Committee will not grudge voting this vast sum of money, because it is needed and is being well spent.
  11.56 p.m.
  Mr. Dalton: I only want to point out that whereas at an earlier stage hon. Members on these benches satsilent im-
  1426
  patiently waiting for the debate on a small domestic matter to pass in order that we might discuss these important matters of Defence, now that we have reached these important topics the Debate has been wholly conducted by hon. Members on these benches while Government supporters have sat in silence like a dumb friends' league of the Government. They have shown no interest in the Defence of the country. Hon. Members opposite have sat in sullen and ignorant silence. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will give His Majesty's Opposition credit once more for pressing forward the Government to make provision for a more effective defence of the country and a removal of the many neglects of the past.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  AIR SERVICES, 1939.
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1940, for expenditure not provided for in the Air Estimates for the year.

  SCHEDULE.

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Vote.

  £

  £

  1.

  Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force

  750,000

  500,000

  2.

  Quartering, non technical stores, supplies and transportation -

  2,350,000

  —

  3.

  Technical and warlike stores -

  Cr.4,500,000

  23,500,000

  4.

  Works, buildings and lands -

  —

  16,000,000

  7.

  Reserve and Auxiliary Forces

  900,100

  £

  9.

  Meteorological and miscel1ane0us effective services

  500,000

  —

  Total, Air (Supplementary), 1939 £

  100

  40,000 000

  Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." —[Captain Margesson.]
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "'That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and the Wessex Electricity Act, 1937, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, to increase the Capital and Borrowing Powers of the Wessex Electricity Company, which was presented on the 6th day of July, 1939, be approved."
  Resolved,
  " That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Act, 1929, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, to increase the capital and borrowing powers of the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Company, which was presented on the 6th day of July, 1939, be approved."—[Mr. Bernays.]

  CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS (REGULATION) BILL (changed to "HOUSE TO HOUSE COLLECTIONS BILL").'
  Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Craven-Ellis.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  12 midnight.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: I wish to point out that there are 28 Lords Amendments to this Bill, and that 14 of them are drafting Amendments and five consequential Amendments. As the Bill is an agreed Measure, I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Amendments be taken en bloc.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the House agree to that?
  Hon. Members: Agreed.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments" put, and agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at One Minute after Twelve o'Clock.

COAL INDUSTRY.
  MINES AND EMPLOYED MINERS (STATISTICS).
  MINES AND EMPLOYED MINERS (STATISTICS).
  PITHEAD BATHS (MAINTENANCE).
  PITHEAD BATHS (MAINTENANCE).
  MlNEWORKERS, YORKSHIRE.
  MlNEWORKERS, YORKSHIRE.
  SAFETY IN MINES.
  SAFETY IN MINES.
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
  GERMANY (NEWS-LETTER PROPAGANDA).
  GERMANY (NEWS-LETTER PROPAGANDA).
  TURKEY (SANJAK OF ALEXANDRETTA).
  TURKEY (SANJAK OF ALEXANDRETTA).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  BRITISH INVESTMENTS OVERSEAS.
  BRITISH INVESTMENTS OVERSEAS.
  GREAT BOULDEK PROPRIETARY GOLD MINES, LIMITED.
  GREAT BOULDEK PROPRIETARY GOLD MINES, LIMITED.
  CANADIAN AND AUSTRALIAN WHEAT.
  CANADIAN AND AUSTRALIAN WHEAT.
  FRANCO-JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT.
  FRANCO-JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT.
  BACON AND HAM IMPORTS.
  BACON AND HAM IMPORTS.
  SILK AND ARTIFICIAL SILK HOSE (IMPORT DUTY).
  SILK AND ARTIFICIAL SILK HOSE (IMPORT DUTY).
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  BRITISH SHIPPING (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  BRITISH SHIPPING (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  MERCHANT NAVY RESERVE.
  MERCHANT NAVY RESERVE.
  SUBSIDENCE, WOOLWICH AND BEXLEY.
  SUBSIDENCE, WOOLWICH AND BEXLEY.
  BOROUGHS (MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS).
  BOROUGHS (MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (MEN RECIPIENTS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (MEN RECIPIENTS).
  MOTORING OFFENCES (LICENCE ENDORSEMENT).
  MOTORING OFFENCES (LICENCE ENDORSEMENT).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  NEW NAVAL BASES, SPAIN.
  NEW NAVAL BASES, SPAIN.
  SUBMARINES (MANNING).
  SUBMARINES (MANNING).
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (RECRUITS).
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (RECRUITS).
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR VEHICLE C LICENCES.
  MOTOR VEHICLE C LICENCES.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFITS (DEPENDENT CHILDREN).
  BENEFITS (DEPENDENT CHILDREN).
  INSURANCE (INCOME LIMIT).
  INSURANCE (INCOME LIMIT).
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, TORRINGTON.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, TORRINGTON.
  MILITARY TRAINING (MINEWORKERS).
  MILITARY TRAINING (MINEWORKERS).
CIVIL AVIATION.
  LICENSING AUTHORITY.
  LICENSING AUTHORITY.
  LONDON CIVIL AIRPORTS JOINT COMMITTEE.
  LONDON CIVIL AIRPORTS JOINT COMMITTEE.
  NEW ZEALAND (FINANCE AND TRADE).
  NEW ZEALAND (FINANCE AND TRADE).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  THEFT OF GELIGNITE, FALKIRK.
  THEFT OF GELIGNITE, FALKIRK.
  POTATO MARKETING SCHEME.
  POTATO MARKETING SCHEME.
  POST OFFICES, HORNCHURCH AND UPMINSTER.
  POST OFFICES, HORNCHURCH AND UPMINSTER.
BRITISH ARMY.
  RETIRED OFFICERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  CADET CORPS (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
  CADET CORPS (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE (BISLEY RIFLE MEETING).
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE (BISLEY RIFLE MEETING).
  MILITIAMEN.
  MILITIAMEN.
  HORSES (ANTI-TOXIN SERA).
  HORSES (ANTI-TOXIN SERA).

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

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
BRISTOL WATERWORKS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
WALSALL CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAM SHIRE ELECTRIC POWER ORDER, 1939.
WESSEX ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1939.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Erne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.2 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, it is exactly three months ago to-day that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Budget in another place laid stress on the enormous influence on every aspect of our public finance of the need for Defence expenditure on an overwhelmingly large scale. In particular he drew attention to the fact that whereas two years ago we had to bear the burden of £26,500,000 on Defence Services, by last year that figure had swollen to £400,000,000, while for the current year he had to assume a provision of no less than £630,000,000. As your Lordships will be aware, that last figure included a sum of £50,000,000 for Supplementaries to meet the cost of expansion and acceleration of the Defence programme; and it is a disturbing fact, no less well known to the House, that in the event it has proved necessary to increase that allowance of £50,000,000 to £150,000,000—largely owing to the passage of the Military Training Act—with the result that the total expenditure on Defence alone for the year will be £730,000,000. This figure, which dwarfs the £100,000,000 Budgets which most of us can remember, accounts for the fact that the estimated expenditure for the current year is of the order of £1,400,000,000. Already last year's total expenditure of £1,068,000,000—itself the highest expenditure since 1921—is by comparison coming to appear quite a modest sum.
That expenditure of last year was provided for as to £128,000,000 from Defence Loans, and as to £940,000,000 from revenue. On the revenue account my right honourable friend was left last March 31 with a deficit of £12,714,000, but it should be noted that that deficit arose after providing a rather large sum—£13,219,000—out of revenue for the various Sinking Funds of the National

457
Debt. For the current year, my right honourable friend had at the time of his Budget to contemplate borrowing £380,000,000—the figure to-day is greater by £100,000,000—which left him to find in all £942,000,000 from taxation. On the existing basis of taxation the estimated revenue was about £918,000,000, so that the Chancellor's task was to provide an additional £24,000,000 from revenue in order to balance the Budget this year.
In arranging to meet this additional sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to resort to existing taxes which had proved the best standby in the past. But with a view to harming industry as little as possible he left the greatest standby of the lot—the Income Tax—unaltered at 5s. 6d. in the £; from this source it is hoped to obtain £327,000,000. He increased the Surtax and Estate Duties by way of a percentage addition to the present rates estimated to bring in, in the current year, an additional £4,000,000 and £3,000,000 respectively, and in a full year £5,000,000 for each of them. When we take account of the National Defence Contribution, Stamp Duties and the like it will be seen that the total from Inland Revenue will be £524,000,000. In addition, the Chancellor has this year made a further call upon the direct taxpayer by increasing the horse-power duty on private motor vehicles from 15s. to 25s. per horse power. This increase will only begin to operate on January 1 next and is expected to bring in £6,250,000 more revenue this year, and in a full year £11,500,000. These fresh direct taxes add up to over £13,000,000 in the current year and my right honourable friend decided to raise the remaining £11,000,000 from the "indirect taxpayer."
Clause 1 of the Bill raises the basic rate of duty on tobacco by 2S. per lb. with an estimated gain to his revenue of £7,000,000 making the total yield from tobacco £93,000,000 this year. Clause 2 increases the basic duty on fully-refined sugar by 2S. 4d. per cwt. or ¼d. per lb. with an estimated gain to the revenue of almost £4,000,000 this year raising the total yield from sugar to £15,500,000. I am quite aware That these levies on articles of general consumption like tobacco and sugar are admittedly open to the criticism that they involve an additional
458
burden on the poorer sections of the community; but I think the plain truth is that all sections of the people are concerned in strengthening the defences of the country, expenditure on which it is the outstanding object of this Finance Bill to provide, and it is in my right honourable friend's view right that all should be asked to help find the money.
Now I pass to two special features of this Finance Bill on which I think your Lordships would wish me to say a few words. It has again been necessary to include in this Bill provisions dealing with tax avoidance. The taxpayer who seeks to avoid his proper share of the heavy burden which the community is called upon to bear at the present time has found means, particularly by the use of one-man investment companies, to circumvent certain of the provisions relating to the avoidance of Surtax which have been enacted in recent years. Accordingly, if your Lordships will turn to Part II of the Bill, you will see that Clauses 13 to 19 are mainly concerned with the suppression of this evil.
I might perhaps lay stress on two points in these provisions which have aroused considerable discussion. The first concerns retrospective taxation. Clause 13 of the Bill is expressed to have retrospective operation, and some objection has been taken to the application of such a principle. The Government dislike the principle of retrospective legislation as much as anybody else, but in this case I think the House will agree with me that it is a necessary sanction. Clear warnings have been given last year and for several years past, not only by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer but also by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he occupied that post, that retrospective legislation would be introduced if it were found that the clear intention of the Statute was being defeated by artificial devices. Clause 13 applies only to cases where such artificial devices have been flagrantly adopted, and it is the intention of the Government that no innocent case shall be affected. The second and more important point in this connection arises on Clause 14. That clause requires the Special Commissioners, in the case of what are called one-man investment companies, to

459
apportion the whole of the income of the company among the members irrespective of whether or not there has been a reasonable distribution of income. The provision has been found necessary because the test of reasonable distribution which the present law incorporates has been found insufficient to cope with new types of avoidance.
There has been some discussion about the position of trading and estate companies under the clause. It was never the intention of the Government that trading companies should be caught by the clause, and the Bill as at first introduced was amended to make it clear that a legitimate trading company is not affected Nor was it intended that the clause should apply to income of an estate company derived from its estate. The clause provides for the division of the income of such companies into estate or trading income and investment income. The estate or trading income will continue to be dealt with under the existing law, and the apportionment required to be made by the main provision of the clause will apply only to the company's income from investments. Moreover, the clause provides that where such a company sustains a revenue loss upon the estate in any year, it will be entitled to have its investment income reduced by the amount of that loss for the purposes of apportionment. Before I leave Part II I should mention that provision is made in Clause 18 to enable the Revenue authorities to exercise a check on the accuracy of returns of various sources of income.
Now I turn to the next important feature of this Finance Bill, which is what is familiarly known as the "A.P.D.," the Armaments Profits Duty, which is provided for in Part III of the Bill, Clauses 20 to 28. This Armaments Profits Duty has, as your Lordships will remember, been added since the first appearance of the Bill in another place, and it was added for this reason. On April 26 last, when the intention to introduce the Military Training Bill was announced, a statement was made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and to your Lordships by my noble friend the Leader of the House, that it was the intention of the Government to impose a tax upon
460
firms engaged on a large scale on armament work in respect of any excess profits arising from that work. I should say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister repeated that statement on April 27 and again on June 15. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when moving the necessary Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means in another place, explained that the proposed duty was intended as a second or reserve measure in cases where the existing provisions for preventing excessive profits did not adequately secure the desired results.
The first and main method for controlling profits on armaments must be the arrangement for fixing the terms of the contract entered into between the State and the manufacturer, and very drastic powers have been given to the Minister of Supply addressed to the same purpose. But however reasonable a rate of profit may be when considered as a percentage of turnover, very large increases in the size of orders may very well produce large total profits upon the much enlarged turnover. The proposed duty was therefore in the nature of a supplementary provision which would operate supposing that the main check were not adequate. The Government's proposals are contained in Part III of the Finance Bill. The duty is to be charged at the rate of 60 per cent. upon such portion of the excess profits arising in an armament business as is attributable to armament contracts. A business is deemed to be an armament business if the Minister of Supply declares that its total receipts under armament contracts in a chargeable accounting period were not less than £200,000 per annum. The term "armament contracts" is defined in the Bill. The duty is chargeable for the three years beginning with April 1, 1939. Provision is made for the computation of the standard profits of the business by reference to the profits of the business in one or two years within the period from January 1, 1935, to December 31, 1937, certain options being available to the taxpayer in the choice of years. Where a business was commenced too late to permit of the standard profits being so computed, the standard profits will be a percentage of the capital employed in the business in the chargeable accounting period.

461
The amount by which the profits of the chargeable accounting period exceed the standard profits constitutes the excess profits of the business as a whole. The portion of that excess which is to be attributed to armament contracts is to be ascertained primarily in the proportion of the turnover under armament contracts to the total turnover, but adjustments may be made where either the taxpayer or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue show that in fact a smaller or a greater proportion of the excess arises from armament contracts. Profits are to be computed upon Income Tax principles, subject to certain adaptations, of which the most important is the allowance of interest paid by the taxpayer as a deduction in computing profits. A deduction is also to be allowed of the proper proportion of any diminution in the value of buildings, plant or machinery, provided after the beginning of 1937 for the purpose of fulfilling armament contracts, where those assets become obsolete or redundant or have been sold before a date which remains to be fixed.
That, I think, is the Bill, which I have tried to explain to the best of my ability. I do not expect, of course—nobody expects—that a Finance Bill of this kind will be received with very much pleasure or with acclamation from any quarter. But I think its merit is that it provides in a straightforward and realistic way for the carrying on of the business of the country. We live in difficult times and we shoulder great obligations, but I think that the people of this country have shown during the last year or more that they will do this and will do it with determination. I think the Bill has met with really very little opposition in the country as a whole, and although my noble friends opposite, if I may so call them, may not agree with me, the Government think that the allocations which my right honourable friend has made between direct and indirect taxation, and between taxation and borrowing, have met with general approval. The distribution of the burden of new taxation has been generally accepted as both sound and fair. When we have had our pleasure or amusement it is never very satisfactory to be faced with the bill next morning, and there is this great difference in what we are now discussing, that there is very little pleasure or amusement that
462
we get out of these matters on which the money is spent.
However, I think the mind of the country is made up. I think that it is a source of great pride that, with all this vast expenditure on armaments, our Social Services have not in any way been allowed to decay or been neglected. In fact they are, as your Lordships know, the envy of the whole world. The overriding necessity, however, at Whatever cost, is to strengthen and accelerate our growing defensive power, and I do not think any one of your Lordships, except perhaps Lord Arnold—and I am not sure that he would at this stage—will deny that. I hope for these reasons that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
3.22 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is one of the pleasurable occasions of the Parliamentary year to hear the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, doing his annual task of introducing ever-growing Budgets, and he does it in such a disarming way that it must be only the accident of birth which has prevented him from becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer. Had he been Chancellor, of course, the Bill would have reached your Lordships much earlier. It is impossible, of course, for us to allow a budget of £1,400,000,000 to pass without a word of comment. Although we have not the power to amend or reject the Bill, it does deserve attention in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord said that this Bill had been received with a good deal of resignation or pleasure in the country.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I never said pleasure.
LORD STRABOLGI: Acquiescence, then. He never mentioned, however, the various blunders which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, as for example that perfectly ridiculous film tax, which would have ruined the producing half of the film industry. I am very glad that that was dropped, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will never put such taxes on again in the future. We object very much to the form of increased horse-power motor tax. We think it will have a bad effect on the motor car

463
industry, and that the money could have been raised in another way. British high-powered cars are necessary for the Dominions and Colonies, and are therefore useful for the export trade. We consider that it would have been better to put an ad valorem tax on all, new cars, as a kind of sumptuary tax, whatever the horse power, so as to decrease the number of men employed in the motor car industry and release them for employment in aeroplane construction. At the present moment, aeroplane manufacturers have to get men by bidding against the motor-car industry, and in consequence the prices of their products rise.
The very few comments which I have to make to-day, with your Lordships' permission, are as follows: I think one lesson from the present economic state of the country is that everything possible must be done to encourage and foster the export trade of the country, and that all help should be given to the merchants and manufacturers of this country to develop new markets, and to extend existing markets. I believe that the Government are alive to that necessity, and are doing all they can in that direction. The policy of the Party for which I have the honour to speak, with regard to the whole problem of finance, is that as much as possible should be raised out of revenue and as little as possible borrowed. We think that the only defence for borrowing is when it is for such capital goods as barracks, docks and so on. It is necesary, we think, to conserve our resources, because this state of international confusion may continue for some considerable time, and the more intact we can keep our financial reserves the better. Our second great principle is to adjust the burden of taxes and to put it on those who are best able to bear it.
In this connection I want, if I may, to say a word about the Death Duties. Yesterday Lord Hastings said that he considered that Death Duties on agricultural land should be suspended. Speaking quite personally, I have always regarded the whole Death Duty policy of successive Governments as spendthrift and uneconomical. Death Duties should be raised only for the reduction of debt and not for current revenue. In any case, Lord Addison, when Minister of Agriculture, did examine this question very carefully,
464
and he was in favour of an alteration being made with regard to Death Duties on agricultural land for the very reason which Lord Hastings pointed out yesterday—namely, that they tended to deprive agricultural land of its working capital, which is bad both for farmers and farm labourers. My noble friend's suggestion, which we would support, is that if you have to levy Death Duties on agricultural land, the landowner should be entitled to pay in kind, in other words, in land, and gradually in that way more land would come into public ownership.
In that connection, again, I would like to make a suggestion, which I made a few years ago, to the noble Lord, who represents a welcome stability in the Government, having regard to the time that he has been in charge of the representation of the Treasury. I think that if we could have a national balance sheet drawn up, as an annex to the Budget, just like a business house budget, showing assets on one side and liabilities on the other—the National Debt on one side, and the value of your assets, dockyards, arsenals and land which the Government holds now for afforestation and so on, all that capitalised on the other side of the balance sheet, making a very interesting comparison—and then a profit and loss account, that would form a most useful annex to the Budget, from which we should be able to see whether the country was shouldering its burden, speaking of the nation as a whole.
The only other comment which I would like to make is this. Here we are spending, one way or another, £1,400,000,000. The reason for the great increase is armaments. As we have always said in the Labour Party, the one thing for which money can always be found is armaments and indeed war, and whenever money has to be found for Social Services noble Lords opposite and their political friends say that ruin is facing the nation. I agree with the noble Lord that the present Government are keeping up the existing Social Services. We admit that, in spite of this great effort for rearmament, education and the health services are being kept up, but there are certain improvements needed in the Social Services and, if the cost of living goes up, the need for them will become acute. The only case I wish to cite now is that of the old age pensioners. It is a fact that

465
to-day an old couple without other resources, without relations to help them, particularly if they have to live in a town on the present old age pension, literally have not got enough to keep body and soul together. It is slow, gradual starvation for them. There are no comforts, no kind of luxuries for them in their old age. The case for an increase in old age pensions for the veterans of industry who have not been able to put by any resources is, we consider, overwhelming. If rumour is correct, a great many members of the noble Lord's Party have come to that conclusion also, especially those with constituencies to fight in the coming autumn, if all goes well in the international field.
We have been hammering at this subject for a long time now, and, with all this vast expenditure, we believe it would be a good investment, and not an extravagance at all, to add something to the allowances of the old age pensioners. The money spent in the country helps to keep trade alive, and is not wasted, and it would bring happiness to these old people. We consider it would be a great act of social justice. I believe that in a day or two the Government are going to make a statement in another place, in which they will say that they are examining the matter sympathetically, or something of that kind. I do not know whether I can draw the noble Lord to say something on the matter, but if, from his inside knowledge of the Treasury, he can make any statement so that we may expect something for the old age pensioners in the corning winter, he will bring great happiness and hope to thousands of poor homes. I am sure he would wish to do this. We naturally do not propose to offer any direct opposition to the Budget.
3.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on a similar occasion last year I brought before your Lordships' House the question of the British War Debt to America, and we had then a most interesting discussion. I do not propose to revive that subject to-day. I did not then ask for any immediate action, for the moment was unpropitious for reviving that question, and I do not ask for any immediate action now. But I should like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation of the statement that was made on that occasion
466
by the spokesman of the Government, the noble Earl who leads this House. He then said that he wished to reaffirm that
"His Majesty's Government will be willing to reopen discussions on the subject whenever circumstances are such as to warrant the hope that a satisfactory result might be reached."
He desired to contradict suggestions sometimes made that His Majesty's Government failed to recognise the great importance of this question or that the Debts had been repudiated. Such suggestions he said are entirely unfounded.
I do not think that the Government could have said more than that in the circumstances, and I would express the hope that this exceedingly important matter will not be lost sight of. Among those members of your Lordships' House who on that occasion supported the plea that I made was the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and I feel sure that all your Lordships will share in the pleasure that is felt that he should have received the very high appointment of His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States. We on these Benches in particular rejoice in that fact although we shall lose the advantage of his advice and co-operation. I only hope that during his incumbency of that office it may be possible to make some progress towards the solution of this grave matter, for its solution is indeed a matter of importance, first, because it affects our financial credit with the United States and with other countries which may be of great moment should there be war; secondly, because it has a strong political bearing upon public opinion in America, which also is a matter of moment, and even greater moment; and, thirdly and most important of all, because the honour of the British name is involved in our failure hitherto to fulfil obligations solemnly undertaken.
With respect to the Bill now before the House, the noble Lord in his able exposition did omit, as has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to refer to certain incidents that have occurred during the passage of the Bill through another place. Two changes in particular were found necessary. It was recognised that a serious mistake had been made with regard to the proposed taxation of news cinematograph films; it was obvious that insufficient inquiry had been made beforehand, and the Government

467
were obliged to withdraw their proposal. Secondly—I do not think my noble friend referred to this—the proposal to surrender the revenue derived from patent medicines had to be abandoned. That proposal, again, was an obvious mistake. The subject of the taxation of patent medicines certainly has long required review, but why in these times, above all, the Government should surrender the revenue which is derived from that particular source is difficult to understand. One of the classic English essayists in the eighteenth century—I forget now which it was—said that he wished that the nation could have a respite from physic for six months in order that it might recover its health.
LORD ADDISON: Hear hear.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My noble friend, speaking with his experience as a member of the medical profession, I am glad to say endorses that view. Certainly there are too many medicines consumed, rather than too few, and I repeat that I see no reason whatever why the contribution to the national Exchequer which is derived from that source should be surrendered. Thirdly, I agree with my noble friend that probably some disadvantage would be imposed by the particular form that has been taken by the change in the tax on motor cars, and I believe that it may be found necessary at no distant date to modify that tax.
It is, however, not the province of this House to go into particular taxes, but rather on this occasion to take a broad survey of the national situation in the light of the Budget of the year, and the main facts succinctly stated are that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to find the sum of £1,400,000,000, of which he has found £940,000,000 from taxes. More than one half of the whole expenditure is on Defence and armaments— £730,000,000; and of that £245,000,000 has been found from taxes. The expenditure upon Defence this year is roughly double what it was last year. It is now £730,000,000, and as 730 is exactly twice 365, the number of days in the year, it is mathematically exactly £2,000,000 every day. Last year it was £1,000,000 a day, and it is increasing still with great rapidity. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the Budget three
468
months ago it was estimated at £630,000,000; now it is £730,000,000, as last stated a week or so ago; and since then further additions have been made.
It is felt to be a matter of satisfaction that this great expenditure should be undertaken, in so far as it has proved that the Government now have overcome their lethargy and are showing a very marked activity in providing for the national defences. But for years, in spite of many protests and strong appeals, that spirit was lacking. I observed in a newspaper yesterday that a motorist, charged in the Highgate Police Court with an offence, said, "I approached the crossing at less speed than a standstill." That was indeed carrying self-justification somewhat to excess, but until recently relatively to other nations our provision for defence was at a speed less than a standstill, because we were continually deteriorating year by year.
Now we are going ahead and the leeway is being made good. So much so that there are some people who take a kind of grim satisfaction in these colossal figures. However injurious, and in the long run wasteful, as all expenditure on armaments necessarily is, there are some whose bosoms swell with pride at the thought that we are now spending 2,000,000 every day upon National Defence. They take a certain perverted pleasure in suffering, and there is such a thing in these days as sadistic finance. The greater the scale, the greater is the risk of waste. It is a mistake to think that because expenditure, and vast expenditure, is essential, therefore extravagance is impossible. On the contrary, the greater the scale the greater the risk of waste and the less is the efficacy of the normal Treasury control.
Particularly has that proved to be so with regard to armaments profits. I mentioned the other day, when we were discussing the Ministry of Supply Bill, that the Government's announced determination to ensure that no swollen profits should be reaped had not been fulfilled. When the enlarged Defence programme was voted in 1936, the statement was most categorically made in a White Paper presented to Parliament that the Government were determined to prevent undue profits being reaped. After three years it was found that that had not in fact been done, and the Armaments Profits

469
Duty had to be introduced in order to make good that defect: But if that tax is found to be necessary now, it could not have been unnecessary before. If it has been found practicable now to devise machinery for gathering into the Exchequer these undue profits, it ought to have been equally practicable three years ago. The Government's present action is in itself a censure on their previous inaction, and many millions of the taxpayers' money have, in fact, been wasted from the national point of view in these undue profits.
The Government are proposing to borrow £500,000,000 this year towards this Defence expenditure. I have long held views of perhaps somewhat purist character as to the necessity of paying our way in Defence matters out of revenue, but in present circumstances that is utterly beyond what is possible. In war no one suggests that all military expenditure should be defrayed from the revenue of the year, and in conditions such as now prevail it is for similar reasons out of the question that expenditure of this magnitude could be met from annual revenue. Any attempt to do so would impose such heavy charges upon industry and enterprise as to be, financially, utterly unsound. In that respect I do not join with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, who urged that a larger proportion than now should be provided from revenue and less from loans. It is a striking fact that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced that £500,000,000 is to be borrowed in the near future for these purposes, the effect upon the money market has been almost negligible. It is felt generally that there will be no insuperable difficulty in raising this sum, partly by short-term borrowing, partly by long-term loans.
There has been for so long a suspension of the normal rate of investment abroad, mainly owing to the fact that so few countries are now credit-worthy, and there has been for so long a diminution in normal capital development in this country owing to lack of confidence, except, of course, in industries directly or indirectly connected with armaments, that there has been an immense accumulation of moneys awaiting investment. At the present time it may be said the City is bulging with money waiting for investment, and therefore there should be no
470
difficulty in absorbing even the colossal sum of £500,000,000 of additional loans. Some of your Lordships may have read in The Times of yesterday and to-day interesting articles by Mr. Keynes, who urges that this great expenditure need not involve any considerable, or indeed any, rise in the rates of interests that have to be paid by the Treasury for their loans. I for one sincerely trust that may prove to be the case, and there is no reason to think that the economic factors are such as to make it difficult or impossible.
The Exchequer is being assisted at present by the satisfactory decline in the figures of unemployment. That, of course, is due mainly to this great expenditure, chiefly of borrowed money, and it is welcomed not only because of the relief it gives to human suffering, but also because it brings with it a saving of some tens of millions in this year's expenditure. The question is frequently asked, when this expenditure of borrowed money upon armaments stops which has so greatly improved the situation with regard to unemployment, will it mean that the figures of unemployment will immediately go up again? Are we faced with the probability of a great decline in activity if, and when, the international situation improves, with the result that the savings we now rejoice to see made in unemployment assistance will be countered by a similar and corresponding expenditure? For my own part I do not think so, and for this reason. If expenditure on armaments ceases it will be because the international situation has improved; the world will be returning, somehow or other, to conditions of normal tranquillity and confidence. These same conditions would immediately bring about an immense expansion of international trade. In spite even of the obstacles that now exist to international trade in the way of tariffs, quotas, exchange difficulties, and so forth, if there were a universal restoration of confidence we should find such a rapid and immense growth of international commerce that industry would probably enter upon a boom period. Therefore the unemployment situation would be eased.
Further, the fact that confidence had been restored internationally would render it all the easier to remove those obstacles which now so seriously interfere. Owing to complacent declarations constantly

471
made by members of His Majesty's Government as to the improvement of our exports since the year 1931—the year always chosen for comparison—the fact is lost sight of by many, possibly even in this House, that since the great depression began, taking the year 1929 as our basis and not 1931—the period before the depression—compared with the present, we have lost in value one-third of our British exports, 250,000,000 of exports a year. Our exports now are less than they were before the War a generation ago. That is the often ignored but essential fact of our economic situation, and that is the reason why we have had this persistent chronic unemployment. For the first six months of this year, 1939, our exports show hardly any improvement—only 1 per cent. of improvement on last year. Nevertheless, I do not feel pessimistic with regard to the possible future of our export trade, for if tranquillity should be restored, and if obstacles can be removed, there is no reason why our exports should not recover in a very large degree, and that £250,000,000 even be made good without any excessive delay.
Meantime we have, in spite of the armament expenditure, still a large number of unemployed, well over a million persons, involving an infinity of suffering and distress, and still we have a vast number of people afflicted by grinding poverty, not only the aged, but many classes of working people in the country. And that is the great weakness, as we all know, of the social system of the present age. It is satisfactory to think that, in spite of this great armament expenditure, the Social Services have been maintained and even in some directions have been increased. It is there in the long run that the prosperity of the nation must be sought—through greater prosperity of the working classes. It is they who must, in very large degree, provide the wealth and revenue of the nation. If the masses are poverty-stricken, the nation will not be rich, and the greater wealth that we possess to-day is largely due to the fact of the rise of the general level of prosperity of the workers. But do not let that general average rise conceal the fact that there are multitudes of individuals who do not share in these benefits and whose condition still demands the sympathetic consideration of the State.
472
This greater wealth, this economic resilience it is that enables the enormous burden that we have undertaken to be carried. I do not know what Gladstone would have thought if he could have foreseen that one of his colleagues in his own Ministry who now sits beside me should live to see the day when the tobacco duty alone would have been enough to provide the whole of the expenditure of a Gladstonian Budget. I do not know what his feelings would have been if he had foreseen in time of peace a standard rate of Income Tax of 5s. 6d., which indeed leaves little margin for additional revenue if war should come. Not only is the standard rate of tax 5s. 6d., but it was pointed out by a representative of the Government in another place that in the case of the highest levels of income, in the case of the wealthiest taxpayers 5s. 6d. is not the amount in the pound which they have to pay but is the amount in the pound which they are permitted to retain, and that Income Tax and Surtax amount to 14s. 6d. in the highest levels of income. But if this colossal expenditure upon Defence this year has the result, and it may very well have, that aggressors are deterred and that war is avoided—and that may in fact prove to be the case—then no-one would doubt for a moment that it has been well worth while, not only because it will have saved mankind from incalculable disaster, but also, looking at the matter from the lower standpoint of finance, it will have avoided a war expenditure which would amount to many times even the great sum that we are now providing.
Whose fault is the present international situation, how far it has been due to the action or inaction of the present British Government or previous British Governments, or the Governments of France, is a question which history will resolve and which it is not now profitable to discuss. The situation is there, the facts are inescapable, the measures that are being taken are unavoidable, and this conclusion may present itself as the essence of the whole matter so far as this country and the dictatorships are concerned. A conclusion which will bring some satisfaction to our bosoms is that while the dictatorships boast of great achievements in the military and international sphere, in the economic and financial sphere the

473
democracies easily surpass them. Dictators always, by their very nature, are ignorant of even the elements of public finance and economics. Germany and Italy now are reduced in one shape or another to levy money payments by means of forced loans, and by all sorts of shifts and expedients, while this country and this Empire, after centuries of democracy, steadily becoming more and more complete, are able to produce this vast and increasing economic and financial strength. We are able to carry this great burden, if not with a smile, at least without groaning and panting, and the nation shows every sign of being able to endure.
3.58 p.m.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble Viscount is surely right when he says that this is an occasion for a broad review of the financial situation and outlook rather than for a detailed examination of the taxes in a Bill which we cannot amend. I am afraid, however, I do not find myself in agreement with the noble Viscount in many of the optimistic, not to say rosy, statements which he made in regard to the financial position. On the contrary, I should have thought that it would be generally agreed in all quarters of your Lordships' House that we are faced with a financial situation of extreme gravity. It is unfortunately only too true to say that the Bill which we are now discussing is far and away the most unsound financial measure which has been submitted to Parliament in modern times. It has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, in a speech which, as usual. was lucid and terse, but which did not cover, it could not cover—nothing can cover—the extreme seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves. What is the position with which we are faced? In the current year we are borrowing and finding from taxation for armaments no less a sum I am afraid than £747,000,000. The noble Lord said £730,000,000, but I take my figures from Saturday's Economist. It is a sound, reliable paper, and it puts the figure now as £747,000,000, making in all, with the current expenditure and what we are borrowing, a total expenditure, according to the Economist, of £1,454,000,000. That is more than the £1,400,000,000 which the noble Lord mentioned. If the Economist
474
is wrong I think we should be told, but those are the figures given in the Economist on Saturday last. Of this vast sum — the noble Lord said £940,000,000, but I will call it £950,000,000, I will be generous and throw in £10,000,000—
LORD TEMPLEMORE: £942,000,000.
LORD ARNOLD: I will say £950,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather optimistic about the yield of some of his taxes, and that is a nice round figure. If £950,000,000 is to be found from revenue that means, again according to the Economist, that there would have to be borrowed at the present time no less than £502,000,000. But there will be more than that, because there is a Supplementary Estimate to come for the Navy and there will be other Supplementary Estimates probably before we reach the end of the financial year. That is a very serious situation. The noble Viscount in his speech referred to the time when he said that our expenditure on armaments was deteriorating. He almost gave the impression, as many speakers do, that we had come down to a period of something approaching disarmament and were spending next to nothing on armaments. As a matter of fact in no year since the War have we spent on armaments less than £108,000,000. That, taking into account the changed value of money, is a sum equal to the high expenditure—and it was a high expenditure—which the country was incurring for armaments in 1913–14. I think it is only right I should make that clear because there is very much misunderstanding on the point and it is an important point.
Returning to the present situation, this year's borrowing will bring the total National Debt up to nearly £8,700,000,000. That is an appalling state of things and if unhappily we should find ourselves involved in war—this is the point which I wish to stress in what I hope will be considered my not too long remarks—the problem of financing it would call for very drastic financial measures. Consider the position at the time of the last War. On the eve of the last War, instead of having a National Debt of £8,700,000,000, that Debt was £651,000,000. It was actually less than the amount we are borrowing for armaments in this single

475
year. Income Tax and Surtax at the highest levels came then to 1s. 8d. in the pound. To-day we have as I have said this National Debt of £8,700,000,000 and, as the noble Viscount has pointed out and as some of your Lordships know only too well, the total Income Tax and Surtax on the highest incomes comes to no less than 14s. 6d. in the pound. Not only so but other taxes have been raised almost to the highest possible level.
The result of all this is that in our efforts to finance the huge expenditure to which we are committed the taxable capacity of the country has been almost strained to its full limit. In February this year—I would venture to ask your Lordships' serious attention to these words because they bear so closely upon the situation—the Prime Minister himself said this:
"One cannot help wondering whether the annual cost of maintenance of this increased armament together with the cost of interest and sinking fund may not be more than it is possible to extract from the taxpayers of this country out of current revenue."
If those words are at all related to the true facts of the position, and we all know that they are, they mean that it will not be possible out of revenue to pay the interest of further large borrowing. So the stark fact with which we are faced is that if we are going on as we are we shall soon be living on capital, when interest on borrowings can only be paid out of further borrowings. That is a very different position from the last War. Then when the War was over, although the accumulated Debt was huge, it was just possible to pay the interest on our huge Debts and all the current national expenditure out of current revenue. It could just be done. But very soon now that will no longer be the case, and in my submission the financial situation of the country ought to receive very much more consideration from the Government and others capable of discussing these problems than has been the case hitherto.
We have, and have had, all kinds of preparations for another war. We have A.R.P., Civil Defence, National Defence, conscription, food supplies and so forth. All these matters have been the subject of prolonged consideration, but it is a most extraordinary circumstance
476
that at the present time I do not think anybody in Parliament has yet raised the question of how the next war is going to be financed, if unhappily that war comes. Surely this problem of finance is at least of as much importance as these other matters which have been the subject of anxious consideration. It seems to me inevitable, if another war should unhappily come, that there is bound to be some form of conscription of wealth. I do not see how we can avoid it. Now conscription of wealth does not merely mean, as the Prime Minister seemed to indicate in something he said two or three months ago, a curtailment of war profits. It means something much More than that. It means the taking of wealth for the service of the war.
The question is, by what method should wealth be taken? That is the subject which should be receiving consideration if you are going to make plans for another war—and in fact the Government seem to be doing little else. If it is not possible to borrow money in the ordinary way by paying interest on borrowed money out of revenue, it is difficult to see how we are going to avoid either a levy on capital or some form of taxation of capital. In 1918, near the close of the last War, I laid before Parliament a scheme for a levy on capital. Whatever may be said for or against that scheme, it did at any rate lay down the machinery by which the operation should be carried out. Moreover I would say that, speaking in May this year, Sir John Simon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
"I agree that at the end of the War there was a great deal to be said for the proposition"—
that is, for a capital levy. However the levy was not made. It was just possible, as I have indicated, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get through his troubles without taxing capital and without a levy. Though it was difficult, he was able actually to pay the interest on the War Debt and the other expenditure out of current revenue.
LORD STRABOLGI: Mr. Bonar Law was in favour of it.
LORD ARNOLD: In the event of another war it would be quite impossible, with the large borrowing which would have to be made, to go on paying interest

477
out of current revenue. It would have to be paid out of capital in some way or another, and nothing could be more unsound than that. In fact it would be difficult to raise large loans at all if the current revenue is not sufficient to pay interest on the loans when they are raised. In these circumstances it seems obvious that other measures would have to be resorted to in order to finance a war, and the country would inevitably be brought face to face, as I have indicated, with some form of conscription of wealth. This might take the form of forced loans at a low rate of interest or even at no interest at all. On the other hand, there is much to be said for a definite capital levy, or again for an annual tax on capital, as was suggested by Mr. Pethick-Lawrence in another place.
As regards a capital levy, I cannot of course deal with that problem to-day in any detail, and I am not of course going to do so; it is a very large subject. But I should like to refer to two or three points in connection with it. First let me say this: if a capital levy had been made at the close of the last War it would have done a great deal to stop the dangerous boom in 1920 and the subsequent slump, with its devastating effects on the trade of the country, especially of Lancashire. In fact, Lancashire has never really recovered from that slump. I do not think it is going too far to say that a capital levy would be some safeguard against inflation. Then again, if there had been a capital levy after the close of the last War, the Budget would have been brought into more manageable proportions, and in all the subsequent years we should have been saved this very high rate of income Tax, which according to Conservative speakers is such a deterrent to enterprise.
On the other hand, I know quite well that it is often contended that a capital levy would be such a blow to confidence and to credit and would lead to such depreciation of securities that it ought not to be contemplated. But credit is being adversely affected now and will be increasingly so—in fact, very seriously so—if the finance of the Government goes on present lines, if we get the situation outlined by the Prime Minister in the words to which I have referred. Also, gilt-edged stocks are constantly depreciating.
478
I do not say that this is particularly due to the financial policy of the Government, but it is partly due to it; it is a good deal due to the financial policy of the Government. As a matter of fact, in the last three years the gilt-edged stocks of the country, looking at them as a whole, have depreciated by somewhere about 15 per cent., and that process seems likely to go on. Therefore, you do not avoid depreciation of securities by avoiding a capital levy.
I will not go into detail about a capital levy: as I have said, it is a matter for very close statistical argument, but there is one point about it which I think should be made. I would call attention—I think this is very important—to what I will call the psychological effect of the capital levy. We are told again and again that one of the chief essentials in war—it may be the most important essential—is to maintain the morale of the people. I do not want to-day to make an unduly controversial speech, but we have now had, as everybody knows, conscription in peace time, and that is very likely to be greatly extended in war time. In my submission, it really is not fair that on the one hand men should be conscripted and in some cases ruined—this is happening now, and cases have come to my knowledge of men with small businesses who have been ruined because they have had to go and serve, and later on they may be called to face wounds and death on the battlefield—while on the other hand older and wealthier men stop at home and lend money (some of it made out of war profits: a good deal of it in the last War was made out of war profits) to the Government at a high rate of interest. I do not think that the national conscience would permit that to be done again, even if it could be done, if it were financially possible. Anyhow, a capital levy would help in that direction: it would at any rate approach more nearly to that principle of equality and sacrifice of which in the past we have heard so much and seen so little.
In conclusion, I would make it clear that I am not advocating that a capital levy should be made at this moment. If, however, war comes, a capital levy, or some other form of taxation of capital, would have to be instituted without much delay. I do not think that can be denied. But I emphasize again that a

479
capital levy need not necessarily be the way, and would not be the only way, of dealing with the situation. I have already referred to forced loans at a low rate of interest or perhaps at no interest at all; and another financial expedient which is well worth consideration is the small annual tax on capital which was suggested and outlined in great detail by Mr. Pethick-Lawrence in another place. This is in some ways a more drastic measure than a capital levy. Whereas a capital levy is one operation and when it is over it is done with, an annual tax on capital would go on at any rate for a considerable term of years.
I am not to-day going to discuss the objections to a capital levy or to an annual tax on capital. Obviously there are objections. In fact, there are objections to any kind of taxation, whatever kind it is. But in these matters I submit that we have to take the balance of things, and it simply does not do, if I may say so to the Government, to bring up certain objections and difficulties against new proposals and to assume—or indeed to assert—that these dispose of the matter. It really is not so. What is necessary is to face the whole situation boldly, and that certainly has not been done up to the present time. As it is, we are getting more and more into an unsound position from which it may be very difficult to rescue ourselves. We ought to pay far more attention, if we are going to prepare for war, to what should be done to finance another war if unhappily it should come. A great deal more thinking requires to be done on that subject than has yet been done.
What I should like to suggest to the Government is that—they have done it in a great many other matters—they should set up a Committee of some kind to consider the whole question of the Financing of war if unhappily a war should come. Lord Haldane used to say again and again that thinking costs nothing, so at any rate my proposal has the supreme advantage, the almost unique advantage in these days, that if it were carried out it would not add anything to the annual expenditure. We all know that these financial problems are extremely difficult and complicated, and it would be much better for machinery to be devised to deal with them now rather than to wait until
480
the time when war may have come upon us and when the various arguments for and against particular proposals cannot receive the calm and impartial consideration which they ought to have.
There is just one last point, and it is this. It is a very strong argument for getting the Budget into more manageable proportions. I would particularly commend it to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who spoke last. It is that before long we shall be faced with a rapidly declining population, and when that time comes the revenue forthcoming to meet the national expenditure, including the interest on the loans, will also decline very seriously unless something is done well in advance to deal with such a situation. The national credit will be likely to be most seriously injured. Let me emphasize this: we are faced with a choice of evils. There is no pleasant path, whichever way we look. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, seems to think that we could somehow find some sunlit path. It is not true. There is no pleasant path, whichever way we look it is a choice of evils, and in my submission any evils which might come from a levy on capital or from other taxation of capital, are less than the evils which will inevitably come upon us if we go on as we are. As a matter of fact we cannot go on long as we are doing. It is impossible. But up to the present time there seems to be no recognition of that vital consideration on the part of the Government. They do not seem to have paid any attention to the grave words of the Prime Minister, to which I have referred, and which I will again emphasize, because this is what they come to. If we go on much longer we shall come to living on our capital, and there is a great political maxim which says that without sound finance no sound government is possible. I do not think any supporter of the Government, even in his wildest moments, can honestly maintain that the financial policy of the Government is a sound one.
4.21 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, if I may follow a line of thought, suggested by the noble Lord who has just spoken, I would like to say that there are two approaches to this comparison that one naturally makes with the task in 1914, as to our ability to carry on a war. One of these leads to very pessimistic conclusions and

481
the other fortunately leads to a much more optimistic outlook. If we may look at the problem from the ordinary financial framework of the society in which we live (and that is our easiest method of thought) then, as has been said, we find ourselves starting on this occasion with a very heavy National Debt already, with very high taxation and so with little scope left for any increase, and with no such central fund of wealth as was due to our enormous financing of foreign trade with all the acceptances turning in our favour at the opening of war, with a weaker and more difficult position in foreign exchanges and finance—whichever line you take you are bound to draw conclusions pessimistic in their nature.
But, after all, we are not really to be fighting by finance, for there are the underlying realities of production from day to day—you cannot fight with guns made in years to come; in the last resort it depends upon your capacity day by day—and if you look at the realities of the situation we have a much larger working population, and much greater technical efficiency in our population, and much finer industrial resources. In all the underlying realities we have much greater capacity for day-to-day production. We have a higher daily standard of life and the margin between that and the reduced standard after the war (if we assume it would be no higher than the last one) provides a margin of real resources to divert which makes us feel that we are not so poverty stricken as the superficial structure of finance would indicate. The real problem is to get through from the financial framework to these underlying realities and make these prevail. To be deadlocked by the technicalities of finance along all lines and unable to mobilise those real resources and to move the incentives of production—that would indeed be the bankruptcy of our thinking and political life.
Whatever thoughts we may have had upon the original introduction of the Budget as to the true proportions between taxation and other forms of finance for bearing the great burden of the year, I am sure all our doubts must have been removed by the very great increase in the armament programme. We now desire to spend as much as ever we can, provided it is effectively spent, and the problem whether taxation is too heavy
482
and we are not leaving enough of such expenditure to loan finance seems to me to have undergone very considerable change. There is a magic phrase now being used, the phrase "full employment." We know it is safe to go on financing with Treasury Bills and so on, and not to curtail personal expenditure so long as there are unemployed resources of capital and labour which can be called into being to provide extra production. The moment the unused elements approach exhaustion then we have competition between the private purse and the public purse for commodities and services, and that is the moment of danger when we have to consider the problem of diverting purchasing power from consumption by taxation most urgently. Now "full employment" does not mean the point when unemployment vanishes. It is the point when governing factors come under pressure, when particular key employments or essential materials are under pressure. These may automatically hold up other kinds of employment.
So as soon as skilled labour problems and the like begin to make their presence felt and competition sets in for resources, prices may rise. That is what happens if there is "full employment" in this technical sense, and when that point is reached we can no longer rely upon laisser faire to produce all those extra armaments on top of our ordinary standard of life. At this point we must increase taxation to divert purchasing power, or consider pressure on lending power. I am quite sure that before this great programme is achieved much more external control will be necessary to divert by compulsion resources from private expenditure into the public purse. But we must be clear that the programme has reached such a stage that justifies this increase of taxation in the present Bill.
I am interested in this Bill from a long distance point of view in that it has two very important innovations that to some extent have attracted public notice, but in the years to come we may look upon them as a turning point and perhaps live to regret them. The first innovation is on a very small scale, and very apologetically done, with a great show of reason, and that is the introduction of retrospective or retroactive taxation. I am not saying that there is not good reason put forward for it, but this precedent

483
may be repeated, with reasons less cogent and more specious, and once we have departed from that cardinal aspect of our fiscal life in which the sole offence is an offence against the letter of the law, and not against the spirit of the law, I do not know where we may ultimately land. We may ultimately find ourselves in the position of the German fiscal system, where punishment follows no infringement of the letter of the law, but an infringement of something which somebody said was intended by the Legislature. Our own Law Courts have laid down repeatedly that it is the letter of the law which counts, and if the Legislature does not succeed in putting its spirit into true grammar and syntax it must try again. The American law also depends to some extent on infringement of the spirit, but this is so cardinal a departure from our whole tradition that I think it will want watching with the narrowest jealousy.
After all, it cuts both ways. How many times have I in another place—not the other place which is usually referred to here—said to a taxpayer: "Your case is perfectly moral and equitable, and I am quite sure it was intended by the law to be the way you say, but unfortunately the letter of the law is against you, and we cannot do it." If it is going to be on the side of the Government that they can plead the spirit of the law, why not also on the side of the taxpayer? And we land ourselves then into a veritable quagmire of uncertainty and difficulty and questions of degree. So I would beg that all those responsible for the slow development of our fiscal policy and philosophy should watch this with very great care. It is true we get a little extra revenue perhaps by taking advantage of the warning given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if certain things were evaded in the letter they would be hit later on by retroactive legislation. Perfectly true that we get revenue from them, but the cost to us some day, with less scrupulous legislation, may be very great indeed. And it is the beginning of rather an important change if no taxpayer can rely upon making his financial arrangements in the light of the existing law.
But there is a second aspect in which there is a great novelty introduced in this
484
Bill—namely, in the Armaments Profits Duty. I do not know of any case in which a tax has been produced for which there is supposed to be a revenue where the revenue does not figure in the Budget. It is a small matter, and due to exigencies of the times, but it is a novelty at any rate. But there is much more uncertainty about this tax in its weight and incidence than I have ever known before, and a great delegation to authorities outside the taxing authorities. I well remember when the future of E.P.D. was under discussion in another place many attempts were made to settle what should be paid by particular concerns outside the rate of the tax—outside the actual specific provisions—by putting them into the hands of boards of referees and other authorities with discretionary powers. The reply of the Government in those days was that that was repugnant to our fiscal philosophy, that the tax should be certain, and that Parliament should not delegate to other non-controlled bodies the powers of taxation over the subject which we are quite perilously near in the provisions of this Bill.
But there is a third and more important way in which this Duty is unique. It is much more selective than any tax we have ever had. I know we select by amounts of income, and we select by consumption of particular commodities, but in those cases selection applies to all alike. Here profits are made, and they are being selected—particular profits in a particular way. That would be very disturbing but for the fact that the whole matter is capable of being looked at in quite a different way. I regard this part of the Finance Bill as merely an annexe or an additional clause in a Government contract. Supposing you had never done it this way at all, supposing that after the complicated clauses in the ordinary Government contract dealing with prices under all conditions, you followed them by saying: "In addition to all the foregoing conditions, the total amount payable under this contract shall be abated by a certain sum, if the conditions are as follows." Then would follow the provisions set out about the nature and the amount of profit, and the clause would go on to say: "These results of the contract shall be judged in the light of the scheme in the Schedule to this contract." And then would follow the provisions. It is really, in effect,

485
another limitation of the price payable under a contract, and with the added provision that the machinery for calculating it should be in the hands of a Government Department, the Inland Revenue Department. It would have been perfectly feasible to have carried this limitation through as an element in a contract. And it is because the one who enters into the contract can take it or leave it, can sign it with the knowledge of this new liability, that I am not quite sure that it is so selective an item of taxation as it appears at first sight.
I do not think it is out of place in a Second Reading debate to refer to one or two provisions, not in detail, but by way of raising a question as to whether the fullest consideration has been given to them by the Government. You will find that the whole incidence of this Duty depends upon two measures: one is a turnover measure, and the other is a contract measure. Only those concerns which have a turnover of a certain magnitude are notified for consideration. Now it is the profits that it is desired to tax, and it is quite possible that you may have the most diverse results, through choosing as your initial selecting criterion the question of turnover. After all, the profit from a given turnover depends very often on the cost of materials and labour in that particular industry, and so you might have£150,000 of turnover that produced an excess profit of £20,000; on the other hand you might have a turnover of £200,000 that produced only£10,000 excess profit. The£10,000 comes under the tax, the 20,000 does not. So whether this is going to work out with the roughest justice in the area to which it applies I am not at all sure.
One observes, too, that there is no provision in the Bill for merging or consolidating the various concerns that are integrated together as parent and subsidiary companies. I may have misread the Bill, but it appears to me that with this initial measure of£200,000 turnover, it would be possible for subsidiary companies which do not reach this particular figure under sub-contracts and have a very considerable part of the total profit directed into their areas, not to come into the field of taxation. But even supposing that is not so, the whole machinery of this tax has been made by the draftsman and by the Government to depend upon
486
contracts. A great deal of business can be done with subsidiaries that are amenable or under majority control, not under contract. A very large part of a Government contract might be worked by subsidiaries under day to day prices, with profits that were suitable—not in the least cooked profits applicable to those—but if those subsidiaries were not under contract it seems to me they have escaped the provisions of the Bill. I may be wrong from a technical point of view, but it does seem to me that before justice is done to these particular concerns, and before the intention of the Legislature is carried out, there may be much remedial legislation to be carried through.
The noble Lord who has just spoken in his closing remarks asked that we might look into these fundamental fiscal considerations independently of the particular legislation of the moment. He urged that thinking costs us nothing, but thinking is just the most difficult thing we are ever called upon to do, and perhaps in sheer effort it is the most costly of all. But without it, it seems to me we are facing a very perilous situation—I agree with those who have spoken upon that; though, if you consider the extent of our natural resources, it must be possible to think our way through. I heard the noble Lord who has just spoken, I think twenty-five years ago, make a most masterly speech on the capital levy. I never heard him make so good a one either before or since. But he put the case at its very highest then. Whether that is the right way of breaking through from the current financial way of thinking into the underlying realities, I very much doubt. But that we must break through, one way or the other, is abundantly clear.
4.39 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I intervene for a moment in this debate, but only for a moment, by reason of a remark which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he referred to the question of Death Duties from agricultural land, and expressed his personal opinion—not the opinion, I regret to say, of his Party—that he was strongly in favour of the remission of these Duties on such land. This is very relevant to the subject we are debating to-day. Of necessity the astronomical figures which have to be raised by the Chancellor in order to meet this terrifying expenditure on armaments

487
have occupied the thoughts of all previous speakers. In face of those great figures, it is of course a mere bagatelle how much of that total has to be found for the encouragement of the agricultural industry, but at any normal time the aggregate of that amount would be thought to be very large. This is the only occasion in the year on which it is possible to remind the House that there is now being paid back to agriculture every year a vastly larger sum than is being taken out in the form of Death Duties upon agricultural land. If these Duties had never been levied it is perfectly certain that a mere fraction of the sum that now has to be found for agriculture would have had to be found, because by the action of the State those persons whose duty it is to maintain land fertility have been deprived of that power, so that the State has had itself to pay for what in other days the landowners themselves paid.
It is not for your Lordships' House, we know, to have any effective voice in these matters, but I was much struck by what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said in the course of his remarkably interesting speech, if I may call it so. He said that the City was bulging with money. May I remind him that the land is starved of it? It is not uncertain that one day the people of this country will also be starved by reason of the fact that the land is now starved of that money which it so urgently requires. What prospect is there of the money which is bulging in the City being lent or placed at the disposal of the land which is starved of it while these most unreasonable, foolish Duties continue to be levied and to take out of the land what small remaining capital it still has? The subject is not one of great urgency at the moment, I am very well aware, but, as I said, it is only once a year your Lordships have the opportunity of discussing finance, and it occurred to me as these speeches were proceeding that it might perhaps be not altogether unsuitable if I mentioned this subject briefly in your Lordships' House on this occasion.
4.43 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, we have had, as we always do on the Finance Bill of the year, a very interesting debate, and I have been asked various questions to which I shall reply as well as I can. To start with, the noble Lord,
488
Lord Strabolgi, found fault with His Majesty's Government—of course he has got to do that because it is his duty, very largely, to oppose. He found fault with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he had changed his mind over the films tax. I quite admit that this tax was announced in the Budget and that after consideration my right honourable friend agreed it was not a good tax, for various reasons, and took it off. I would call that a very sensible thing to do. What is the House of Commons for but to debate these matters, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Minister sees he is wrong, he changes his mind like a sensible man. The noble Lord also objected to the horse-power tax on motor cars, and proposed instead a flat rate on all new cars. I assure him that such a proposal would not fill the gap which my right honourable friend has to fill. He has got to raise £11,500,000 by this tax in a full year. There are only about 300,000 new cars registered each year, and to raise that amount would require a tax of nearly £40 per car, and would hurt what the noble Lord said he was out to help—namely, the export trade in cars.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not say a flat rate. You could have an ad valorem tax on new cars with, of course, a rebate in respect of cars exported to foreign markets.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I do not think that would fill the gap. It would not get the money that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants, which is £11,500,000 in a full year. The noble Lord reminded me that a year ago he raised the question of a national balance sheet. I passed on the noble Lords suggestion to the Treasury, as I always do, but the noble Lord knows my position here. I am not really in the Treasury. I am neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary, and whether any representations that I may make would be of much use I do not know, but I shall certainly pass on that very interesting suggestion again. The noble Lord also asked me about old age pensions. He asked whether I could say anything about a possible increase in these pensions. I can assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that there is nobody in this House more sympathetic to old age pensioners than I am. I am a landowner in a small

489
way in this country and in Ireland, and I know full well the hard job some of these old people have to live. Other members of your Lordships' House know that as well as I do. But I am afraid I cannot say anything on this matter to-day, as it is quite impossible to anticipate in this House what may be said about the policy of the Government in the statement which is going to be made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Vote of Censure on Thursday. I hope the noble Lord will take that as my answer to-day.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, made a very interesting speech, and I am very glad he did not press me about the Debt to America because I could not add anything to what my noble friend the Leader of the House said on that subject a year ago. The noble Viscount raised the point of the size of Defence expenditure, and I have to say that His Majesty's Government fully appreciate that rising expenditure means greater risk of waste and undue profits. As regards waste, the Government are constantly reviewing their methods of control, and your Lordships will share my hope that their efforts are becoming increasingly successful. As regards profits, these are dealt with not only by costing systems and price fixings but, as in this Bill, by the Government's new taxation proposals. The former systems were in the main adequate in the early stages of rearmament, and are still employed, but the very largely increased scale of orders tends to throw up profits which may be excessive, and these profits the Armaments Profits Duty is designed to limit. The noble Viscount made some interesting remarks about the course of unemployment when this armaments phase dies down. He was not, I was glad to notice, pessimistic about the future. As regards that, I can only say the possibilities of the future are not lost sight of for one moment by His Majesty's Government.
I should like to make one other remark about the speech of the noble Viscount. He made one very interesting reference of which I should like to remind your Lordships. We all know very well that in this House, sitting on those Benches, are several members of the Governments of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Asquith. The noble Viscount reminded
490
your Lordships that there is also one member who sat in the Government of the great Mr. Gladstone. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, if I mistake not, was a Lord-in-Waiting in the Government of 1886 and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the Government of 1892. The noble Marquess never grows any older, and we hope he will long be spared to lead his Party on those Benches.
I shall now pass to the rather gloomy speech of my noble friend Lord Arnold. He made one remark with which I cannot possibly agree. He said this is the most unsound financial measure ever produced.
LORD ARNOLD: In modern times.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Since I have been producing them in this House! My noble friend gave us a dissertation, and his main complaint was that the Government were not thinking sufficiently about planning methods of finance in preparation for war and what we should do in the way of taxation in time of war. I need hardly tell your Lordships that I cannot possibly go into the details of that matter, even if I knew them, because if such details were made public they might be of great assistance to a possible enemy. For the same reason I do not think His Majesty's Government could entertain the idea of setting up, as he suggested, a Committee to consider this matter because the Committee would presumably have to sit in public.
LORD ARNOLD: No.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: We know how these things sometimes get out.
LORD SNELL: That is what we should like to know!
LORD TEMPLEMORE: It might be really a great advantage to an enemy and to our disadvantage if he knew what we were going to do. I can only say that this subject has the earnest consideration of the Cabinet. His Majesty's Government know full well that the financial situation is serious, and I can assure the noble Lord that the point which he raised in a very interesting way is not lost sight of, and more than that I cannot say to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, in the very bright and cheery speech that he

491
made, and the very interesting one, in great contrast to the almost inspissated gloom of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, asked me why the sum of £200,000 per annum had been adopted as the limit at which a business is deemed to qualify for the Armaments Profits Duty. I have to tell him that the adoption of the £200,000 figure of total receipts as the test for deciding the initial liability of an "armament business" is a ready and convenient test which can be easily applied by the Minister of Supply. The ultimate test will be the actual excess profit which may emerge on the trading accounts in a chargeable accounting period. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord as regards that question. I think I have now answered all the questions which I was asked. I am grateful to your Lordships for what has been on the whole the favourable reception that you have given to this Bill, and I hope the House is now ready to come to the decision to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

MILK INDUSTRY (No. 2) BILL.
4.53 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

OVERSEAS TRADE GUARANTEES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CLEARING OFFICE (RUMANIA) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1939.
4.54 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved. This Order, which has been reported from the Special Orders Committee, brings into operation the Anglo-Rumanian Trade and Payments Agreement of the 12th July. This is a re-enactment, with some alterations, of the Agreement of the 2nd September, 1938. This last Agreement has worked very well, and since it came
492
into force there has been a considerable development of Anglo-Rumanian trade. The present Agreement, therefore, makes no change of principle in the working of the clearing; but the experience of the last nine months has shown the need for certain amendments of a technical character which will make for the smooth working of the clearing. Account also has to be taken of certain changes of circumstance which have made it desirable to alter the provisions of the clearing in some respects.
These questions were considered during negotiations which started in Bucharest, where a Protocol was signed on May 11, laying down the general lines on which the two Governments considered that Anglo-Rumanian trade could best be developed. The negotiations were continued in London, and the present Agreement is their outcome so far as the clearing is concerned. It may be hoped that its provisions will give still further help to the growth of trade between Rumania and this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINING SUBSIDENCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.57 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, the little Bill to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a second reading seems to be a very small matter in face of the very much larger issues we have had before us since the House assembled, but for all that it is one which has been associated with a good deal of controversy and it may perhaps make the matter clear if, as briefly as I can—and I shall be brief—I explain to your Lordships the history of the Bill as it now is. The Bill was founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission on this subject which presented a unanimous Report in the year 1927, and as the Bill was introduced into the other place it contained provisions relating to subsidence of property belonging to public authorities and going back for a considerable period. When it got into

493
Committee very considerable objection was taken to the form of the Bill as it then stood. As a result of prolonged adjournment and many discussions the Bill was cut down to what I may term a shadow of its former self, and became the little Bill which is now before you. It then passed through the remaining stages in the other place almost without debate.
But it is right to say that in the discussions which took place in Committee—or perhaps outside Committee would be more accurate—in the other place, although there were certain representatives of the Mining Association on the Standing Committee, the Mining Association as such was not, I believe, a party formally to the compromise which the Bill now represents, although there is no reason to suppose, I hope, notwithstanding the Motion on the Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that they will offer any considerable opposition to it. The Bill, as it now is, allows compensation for subsidence in respect of properties where the working has taken place since 1934, and it relates, therefore, to a very limited type of property. All those other properties which were included in the original draft of the Bill have been deleted. It propose; that where the subsidence of these properties has been claimed to have occurred, the owner-occupier may receive compensation in some appropriate form, provided that the conditions set out on page 2 of the Bill are met.
I may remind your Lordships briefly what those conditions are so as to show how very limited the proposal now is. It must be shown that the working of the coal which has been responsible for the alleged subsidence has taken place since December 31, 1934; that the house existed at the passing of this measure or plans were approved for it before February 17, 1939; that the gross annual value of the house does not exceed £40 a year—so that it is confined to small property—that the owner-occupier has given appropriate notice, and so on. It then provides that a claim can be made for compensation against those whose working of the coal has given rise to the subsidence. There is a proposal which is set out in Clause 1 (2) that where the working company has claims against
494
the royalty owner, the liability of the royalty owner should be limited to cases where there exists an express right of indemnity as between the royalty owner and the coal worker. It goes on to provide that none of these claims can be passed on to those who succeed, nor can any claim be retrospective—it must be against persons living at the time. I think therefore it is fair to say that the Bill has been very narrowly limited so far as these claims go.
Then in Clause 6 there is another limiting set of circumstances relating to the new state of affairs arising since December 31, 1938, where the Coal Commission take over certain rights belonging previously to royalty owners. That clause limits the liability to which they may be subjected. What the Bill does in fact, and no more, is to recognise that in the case of new small properties or in cases since 1934 where subsidence occurred due to the working of coal the owner-occupier has a right to claim appropriate compensation for the subsidence which has been caused, with very strict limitation of the character of the claims which may be made on his behalf. I may say that, although the Bill is now in very narrow form, it is based upon much more drastic recommendations of the Royal Commission. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it represents a recognition of the principle, that it applies it very narrowly indeed, and that the Bill should have a Second Reading. I do not propose to detain your Lordships by quoting the recommendations of the Royal Commission which I have here. I will only say that they go very much further than this Bill proposes to go. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Addison.)
5.3 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAMhad given Notice that, in the event of the Bill being read 2a, he would move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would like to make it quite clear that I fully appreciate all that was said by my noble friend Lord Addison. I am afraid, however, I cannot entirely agree with his view that this Bill will in any case work. I propose to refer briefly to the history of this matter. Bills of this nature have been introduced in another place in various

495
forms since 1929. The last one before the present Bill sought to provide compensation for local authorities for damage done to their property outside any statutory protection they might have. That Bill made no progress, and I think it is true to say that it was the local authorities in the mining districts who were really behind the present Bill. This Bill has been considerably amended before reaching your Lordships' House, but in its original form it provided, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Addison, that a local authority could recover compensation for subsidence notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any contract, conveyance, lease or any other instrument. This provision was removed from the Bill in Standing Committee in another place, and I think it is true to say that the original promoters of this Bill, now that that provision has been removed from it, are no longer interested in the Bill.
In fact it is an entirely new Bill and it has never really been debated in another place. I suggest that in spite of the Amendments which have been put into it, it is not only unsatisfactory from many points of view, but it is also—and this is most important—unworkable. It has several features which your Lordships may consider are objectionable. One is that it is retrospective, and I suggest that that is contrary to the usual practice of Parliament and may create a very dangerous precedent. The object of the Bill is apparently to create a right to compensation for damage by subsidence where no right exists in favour of the owner-occupier of a house, the annual assessment of which does not exceed £40, against the person who worked the coal and caused the damage. This proposal would make colliery lessees liable to compensation although they might have contracted to be free for a consideration—in other words that they had contracted to be able to let down the surface free of liability. Again, apart from any difficulty there may be in determining which party working the coal caused the damage, it would be almost impossible to say whether the coal was worked before or after the specified date laid down in the Bill in the proviso on page 2.
I should like to draw attention to yet another point. How is it to be determined
496
when the damage first became manifest? Is it to be said that it was when the first crack appeared in the wall of a house that the damage occurred under the word "manifest" in the Bill? Again, how can Clause 3 be met? That clause says that in assessing compensation regard should be had to the lower price the injured party—that is the claimant—paid for his house because it has no right of support. I do not see how that can be decided. I think it is true to say that every mining lessee contracts with his lessor to free himself from any liability for damage that he may cause, and for good consideration, but Clause 1 (2) of the Bill lays down that royalty owners will be called upon to contribute to the payment of compensation only if the lessee has a right of indemnity. This point is very important. It is only if the lessee has a right of indemnity against his lessor. But this indemnity does not exist and therefore no contribution can be levied on the royalty owner, and the clause to my mind becomes abortive.
In order to follow the intention of this clause, suppose we assume a certain lease with an indemnity sufficiently wide to cover any additional liability that may be put on the colliery company by such a Bill as the Bill now before your Lordships' House. Clause 1 (2) restricts the liability of the royalty owners by saying that it should be limited to the amount received in royalties and it goes on to say that a successor in title is relieved of any liability. In other words, the clause restricts the right of the lessee to enforce his indemnity if such an indemnity exists, which I doubt. It goes on to say in subsection (3) of the same clause that nothing in the section shall prejudice the enforcement of any such right. The Bill cannot have it both ways, and I would suggest that that provision is unworkable. Even if this Bill could be made workable I do not think it would be too strong to say that it would become a Lawyers' Compensation Bill. Hundreds of legal difficulties would arise, and more money would go in lawyer's fees than in compensation: all contracts would become void and an entirely new code would be set up. This Bill seeks to make a great alteration to the established law and practice, and for this reason and for other reasons that I have mentioned I hope the House will accept my Motion and allow this Bill to go before a Select Committee.
5.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGUAM): My Lords, may I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a moment while I mention that I do not think I can put the noble Lord's Motion until the Motion for the Second Reading has been disposed of. Until the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill has been passed, the noble Lord's Motion cannot properly be put before your Lordships. Accordingly we must continue to discuss the Second Reading of the Bill, and it may be that at a later stage I shall be able to put the noble Lord's Motion.
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I do not wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, into the history of this Bill, but I do want to support his Motion, if that is possible at this stage, that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. I agree with him that Clause 1, with its retrospective application, creates a most unfair and dangerous precedent. As the noble Lord has just told your Lordships, it does seem patently unjust that colliery companies should have this liability imposed upon them of which they could not possibly have been aware for the past four and a half years. As your Lordships know, in many cases and under various leases coal is sold with houses or property with what is in the view of the mineral expert a sufficient pillar of support. The colliery company, however, reserves the right in many cases to work up to the boundary of that pillar of support without any liability for damage whatsoever. The purchasers who acquire such property acquire it with the full knowledge of all those arrangements, and if damage does occur, if in fact the pillar of support does not prove sufficient, they cannot of course under the contract make any claim for compensation.
If this Bill is passed into law that contract is entirely broken, and claims can be put forward by these householders for damage which has been done to their property by colliery companies, in spite of the clear agreement which exists between them and the companies that they have no claim for compensation. In other cases houses and property are sold but mines are reserved by the colliery company: they reserve the right to work the coal under the property without liability, except possibly for a limited
498
amount. The prices obtained for that property are naturally considerably less than full value, because the purchasers buy it knowing that they are liable to more or less considerable damage by the working of the coal. But at any rate the colliery companies know the full extent of their liability, which is limited by contract. It is true that this Bill makes provision for such cases in Clause 3, I think it is, by setting off from the claim the difference between the actual price paid and the full value of the property with full support. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has just pointed out, it is an impossible thing to assess, and I think that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will tell us, from his great knowledge of the law, that this provision is bound to lead to endless cases in the County Courts.
There is also the difficulty, which will again lead to many such cases, of deciding which particular colliery company has been responsible for the damage. I do however want to emphasize the unfairness of the proposal. If the colliery company had known of this liability which is now being imposed upon it, it could have made provision for it. Its liability is, however, clearly defined in its various leases, and those contracts are going to be upset by this Bill. It seems to me that this will be a most dangerous precedent altogether, in politics, in business and in every other way. I hope that this Motion will at any rate be left to the free vote of your Lordships' House, as it was in another place.
I should like to put another point to the noble Lord who moved this Bill; I have no doubt he is well aware of it. Your Lordships probably know that miners' wages are at present fixed under district arrangements by which the proceeds of the sale of all coal in a district are assessed. From that sum are deducted all working costs, other than wages, and the resultant figure is divided among the owners and employees to the extent of 85 per cent. to the miners, representing wages, and 15 per cent. to the owners, representing profits, with a guaranteed minimum to the miners. The majority of districts, happily, at the present time have reached and exceeded their minimum guarantee, so that these claims for compensation, being as they will be an added cost of production to the colliery company, will in fact be paid for to the extent

499
of 85 per cent. by the miners and only 15 per cent. by the colliery companies. That is an irrefutable argument, and I do not know if the noble Lord is aware of that very serious application from the miners' point of view.
As far as the royalty owners are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has raised that subject under Clause 6. They are guaranteed certain alleviations, and I believe they are very much better off than they were under the original Bill. But, as I am advised, they are still liable in so far as where a colliery company has under its lease the right to work without paying compensation for damage, it can recover the compensation so paid. This seems, as Lord Teynham has pointed out, a contradiction in terms, for I do not quite see how you can recover compensation where you are not liable to pay compensation. At any rate, if liability falls on colliery companies under this Bill and they are not liable under the original contract for compensation, the amount of compensation so paid can be recovered from the royalty owner up to the total amount of the royalties paid in respect of the coal the working of which has caused the damage. It appears to me, therefore, that they are not at all free from liability under this Bill.
I do not know what the royalty owners propose to do. I understand that they propose to support the Bill because they are frightened that a worse Bill might be presented. Of course, after the outrageous raid perpetrated upon them by the Government last summer, the poor royalty owners appear to have lost all power of resistance, and seem to be at the mercy of the persons who committed this outrage upon them. The sad sight of Lord Hastings sitting in the loneliness of the Cross Benches is an earnest of that dreadful outrage. I do hope that the royalty owners will not think that they are going to escape scot-free from this Bill. I think your Lordships should realise that two wrongs do not make a right, and although the retrospective application of the Bill has been altered by agreement in another place, if it is wrong in principle, as I believe it is, and as Lord Stamp pointed out it was wrong in the case of taxation, then I hope you will see that this Bill is sent to a Select Committee.
5.22 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, there is no Motion on the Paper for the rejection of this Bill, and therefore it seems necessary to discuss the Motion which Lord Teynham has put before the House—namely, that it is advisable that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. Probably that will be a convenient way of addressing myself to the subject. The royalty owner, for whom I venture to speak for a few moments, has in this Bill, it is true, certain protections. Last year, when the Coal Bill was before Parliament—that Coal Bill of bitter memory, as Lord Dudley has already reminded us—it was implied in the course of the passage of that Bill that there should be no more assaults made upon the royalty owners. That was the end—as indeed it will be. It is with some surprise that I find in this Bill any mention of the royalty owner at all, in face of that particular implication. That that implication is not imagined is to be seen in Clause 6 of the Bill, in which the Coal Commission expressly take over any liability which attaches to the royalty owner as from December, 1938.
Now that is a genuine recognition of the implication that the royalty owner was to be no further assaulted, and in the course of the passage of the Bill through another place, it is also true that the royalty owner's risk under this Bill has been limited to those cases where his colliery tenant is not under obligation to pay compensation for surface damage. The colliery owner's liability is limited to cases in which he has given an indemnity to his colliery company in respect of surface damage. Of course in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the surface owner who has given such an indemnity would be quite certain to sell surface for occupation by building without any right of the purchaser to claim compensation for damage caused by subsidence by a company which had been in turn indemnified by the surface owner.
But as Lord Teynham has pointed out there are certain ambiguities in this Bill, and Lord Dudley emphasized them. He has made it clear to the House that in certain circumstances a royalty owner might become involved in uncertain expenses. The royalty owners feel in the main that this Bill, being redrawn in shape, might very properly be dealt with

501
on the floor of this House, and inasmuch as there is no Motion on the Paper to reject the Bill, it would be the most convenient course to give it a Second Reading, and debate such ambiguities as there may be in it, and such objectionable features as it may contain, upon the floor of the House. It goes without saying that the royalty owners would gladly support any Motion for further consideration of the retrospective clauses. Retrospection in legislation is undesirable, and the noble Lord, Lord Addison, could not tell us that there was any particular virtue in the year 1934. It is merely a throw back for four years. Although the royalty owners rind nothing in the Bill to offend their susceptibilities, save this particular retrospective clause, which is in itself undesirable legislation, they would be, I think, in accord with the proposal which I would prefer—namely, that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, and then that we should debate on the floor of the House Amendments to cut out the retrospective clause. I would close my remarks with an appeal to Lord Addison to accept such an Amendment, and might I say that if he is able to do that I might conclude in the words of Sallust: "Those about to die salute thee." The royalty owners think it is the right course, and I hope it may be adopted.
5.28 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I do not know what course the introducer of this Bill is going to follow, but I was not at all impressed, apart from the eloquence of his speech, by the manner in which he introduced the Bill, because he did not seem to me to attach very much importance to it. Perhaps in that view he is correct. The noble Lords, Lord Dudley and Lord Teynham, have pointed out the difficulties which will attend the operation of this Bill, if ever it should become law. I understand that we are discussing the Second Reading, and my noble friend, by the rules of the House, is not permitted to move a Motion for its rejection. We fully understand that, but I should be inclined to differ from Lord Hastings, in thinking that this Bill could be far better discussed by a Select Committee than on the floor of this House, because there are matters of a technical nature which I think could be better addressed to a Select Committee, who could deal
502
with this matter. I should have thought that Lord Teynham was prepared, if a Select Committee were not set up, or if we were not convinced by the noble Lord that the Bill could be put on a satisfactory footing if it were not sent to a Select Committee, to vote against the Bill. If he took that course, I should accompany him into the Lobby.
This Bill has passed through a number of vicissitudes in another place, and it comes to us in exactly the form of most modern legislation. This Bill in its present form has actually not been discussed in another place at all, and yet to my great surprise the Government have allowed it to pass without any comment or without any mention as to what their views are upon it. Sir John Simon, as the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, has told us, is initiating a very dangerous form of legislation owing to its retrospective character. That is something to which I hope your Lordships will always take the fullest exception. This Bill also is retrospective legislation, and in view of what we have heard about all the difficulties which are likely to follow we can realise that this Bill will be the subject of litigation for years to come. Our desire in legislating in your Lordships' House is to relieve the Courts as much as we can of those problems and difficulties which faulty legislation invariably presents; but I am sure that if this Bill goes through it will be a lawyers' Bill and will give no satisfaction either to its promoters or to those who will be the victims of its provisions. If the noble Lord asks for a Select Committee and that proposal is not accepted by the promoters, I shall be very happy to follow him into the Lobby for the rejection of the Second Reading of the Bill.
5.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I were to state the attitude of the Government to this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has pointed out, it is founded upon the Report of a Commission presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Blanesburgh, I am afraid some years ago now, and the main substance of it is the provision of compensation for subsidence to the owner-occupiers of houses of less annual value than £40 per annum. When it first came before another place it was a very

503
different Bill and contained provisions of a totally different character. At that time the Government opposed—or at any rate some members of the Government opposed—the Second Reading. It is a Private Members' Bill of course. In the stage that followed the Second Reading the Bill, as your Lordships have been told, was very greatly amended and in its present form it is the result of an agreement between the royalty owners, the colliery owners and representatives of the workers. Having regard to that fact, the Government look upon the Bill with a benevolent eye and, subject to certain matters I must mention, are not disposed to oppose the Second Reading in this House, although the Government propose to say that it is a matter for a free vote by members of the House who usually support the Government. At the same time we shall not be at all sorry if we find that the Bill receives a Second Reading.
But having said that, I have on behalf of the Government—perhaps I may say particularly having regard to the position which I occupy—to state my firm and clear opinion that the Bill in its present form is quite an improper Bill to reach the Statute Book. It is full of what I cannot help thinking are errors in drafting or in thought, and it really does not now possess the character that any Act of Parliament should possess. Although at the moment I am only speaking on Second Reading, your Lordships would probably wish me to say what I have to say with regard to the form of the Bill so that you may be spared another speech from me on the subject of the real legal meaning of the clauses. Let me just point out some of the things which are to be found in this Bill. The first clause provides that where a house, the gross annual value of which does not exceed £40, suffers damage from subsidence due to the working of coal, the person who is the owner-occupier will be entitled to compensation or to have the subsidence made good free of expense. To be accurate I should say that the first subsection contains the words "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any contract." But your Lordships will observe that if they had any right of compensation subsection (1) would not apply. Therefore what we are dealing with there
504
is compensation to those owners of small houses, whether owners in fee simple or people with a lease, who suffer damage and who have no remedy at the present time against anybody in respect of that damage.
But now observe the conditions which are to be found in subsection (1) in the brackets (a) to (f) which are all conditions of that compensation being paid. I am not going into all of them, but I think I may properly mention two because really they make the thing almost unworkable. The first one is paragraph (a):
"the working of such coal" took place subsequently to the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and thirty-four."
"The working of such coal" means the working of the coal which did the damage. That is coal which was worked after 1934. What is the position supposing the seams beneath the house have been partly worked before and partly after 1934? How can you expect people with small houses of this kind to get a tribunal, perhaps at enormous cost, to determine, if they can determine it, whether that damage is really due to the working only of seams which had been worked after that date? There is no particular logical reason behind that date.
And you do not stop there. Look at paragraph (d), dealing with the limitation on the right to compensation, which runs:
"such damage first became manifest after such owner-occupier acquired the fee simple or his leasehold interest, as the case may be, in such house."
One of your Lordships has already pointed out the complete vagueness of the phrase "first became manifest." Does the condition apply when you have evidence that some damage was probable from subsidence because a crack had appeared, although a crack is not really serious damage? It is usually after that that there is serious damage. What is the real meaning of this paragraph? What do you mean by the damage first becoming manifest after the claimant acquired an interest? There is a crack before and damage afterwards. What is the position there? That is the great difficulty under Clause 1, subsection (1).
Now look at subsection (2). That relates to the question of a person who has the right of indemnity in respect of sums

505
he has to pay. Observe that subsection (1) applies only when the person required to pay is not himself liable. In how many cases that anybody has ever heard of has a person who is not himself liable to pay damage obtained compensation from somebody in respect of something for which he himself is not liable? It has got really no sense. If a person has got no liability, he does not ask for compensation. If we get over that stile, we then have this trouble that the person who is to be entitled to indemnity by the royalty owner is assumed to have a contract with the royalty owners that they will pay the amount of the compensation. Why should that obligation be affected?
Though I am quite unable to accept the criticisms of the Coal Act, 1938, particularly those of the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, I cannot myself see how any royalty owner who has entered into a clear contract to pay compensation should get under this Bill some relief against his liability. That is not the object of the Bill. Whatever the grievance is which the royalty owners may have suffered from the Bill we passed last year—and I do not admit there are any—at the same time I think even royalty owners will admit that this Bill is not intended to relieve them from any liability they may be under to colliery owners, Yet, that is the effect of this clause. I do not in the least understand why a person who is liable should not be asked to implement his liability, or why a colliery company should not be entitled to enforce its rights against the royalty owner.
Then we come to Clause 3. This has been criticised by two of your Lordships with great force. I, who have spent a life in the law, wish to say that I do not understand how it is possible to work Clause 3. Take a concrete case. A colliery company called A either sells the fee simple or grants a lease of a house to B, being a house which is under £40 a year gross value. Having done that, damage occurs. The assumption is that the house has been sold or leased without any right to indemnity or with a covenant that the grantee or lessee is not going to claim anything in respect of subsidence. Then the Court that is going to assess compensation is going to be asked to ascertain the amount of the reduction in the purchase price or rent as the case may be, due to the fact that there is an absence or an exclusion of his
506
right to support. How on earth is that to be done in practice? The owner of the land to whom the colliery owner has offered the house—we shall say for £200, whatever it may be—and offered it on the footing, as he knows, that he is not going to grant the right of support because he is going to work under it. There may be an actual covenant that the purchaser or lessee is not going to claim. On the other hand the purchaser says: "I did not bother my head about this. I did not come to any agreement as to the sum which would have been paid by me if I had a right of support or the sum which I would have paid having no right of support." On what basis is the Court to ascertain the amount by which the consideration has been reduced having regard to the fact that there was an exclusion of or at any rate no express right to support?
These are only some of the difficulties which are presented by this Bill. As I have said very clearly, I hope, the Government regard the object of the Bill with benevolence. They are not opposed to the general principle of the measure so far as it confers a right on the owners of small houses, but subject to this qualification that the defects inherent in the proposal can be got over in a properly drawn measure. Accordingly the whole matter is left free to be dealt with by the House on Second Reading of which, as I have said, the Government are in favour; but the question will remain how you are going to deal with the very difficult and complex questions which arise in the endeavour to make this Bill a workable measure.
5.46 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, after the criticism of the noble and learned Lord, it does seem to me very difficult for us on the floor of the House to deal with this Bill as it ought to be dealt with. The Mining Association, to which some reference has been made, do not like this Bill because it is so badly drafted that they do not know how it can be worked. They are prepared to go before a Select Committee and give evidence if such a Select Committee sits to hear evidence. There are many points on which evidence can be given on a Bill which, I may remind your Lordships, has never been considered for one moment in the other place. On the Second Reading

507
there was a discussion in public. The Bill was then sent to a Grand Committee of fifty-six individuals. They wrangled at three sittings offering compromises on one side and criticisms on the other. That Bill was riddled very much in the same way as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has just riddled this Bill.
Eventually after three sittings, twenty-four members of the Grand Committee met together and after an hour and a half, on June 22, dropped nearly all the clauses and put in these clauses, which were readily accepted by the Committee. No Division was taken, no discussion occurred, it was all over in an hour and a half. On a finance day, at five minutes to twelve o'clock at night, when the Orders of the Day were being run through, this Bill was suddenly called as being reported from a Grand Committee. The Report stage and the Third Reading went through without a single word. Not a single word of discussion has taken place in the other House on this particular Bill. To-day, a month later, we are asked by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, to pass it on Second Reading. I am not prepared to oppose the Second Reading, but I do think the Bill requires a good deal of further investigation before it is allowed to pass your Lordships' House.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill because I have taken some interest in the matter for some years. I do not know why my noble friend Lord Teynham has chosen this method of killing the Bill and has not moved that it be read a second time this day six months. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and another noble Lord criticised the Standing Committee. May I point out that no less a person than the Attorney-General was a member of that Committee and also the Lord Advocate, so I do not see quite how the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack can say it is an improper Bill. With regard to the question of sending it to a Select Committee, what further evidence do the people interested expect to produce before the Select Committee than that which was produced before the Royal Commission? Another point in favour of having a general discussion on the floor of this House instead of sending
508
the Bill to a Select Committee is this: If the Bill is discussed on the floor of this House we shall have the benefit and advantage of the Lord Chancellor's presence which we should not have if the Bill were sent to a Select Committee. I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and not send it to a Select Committee.
5.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, after the qualified terms in which the Lord Chancellor expressed his enthusiasm for this Bill, I hope Lord Addison will either withdraw the Bill or consent to send it to a Select Committee. It is no good, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, suggested, discussing it on the floor of the House, because we cannot deal with it to-morrow, have the Report stage the day after and the Third Reading as well. That is impossible. It has to go in any case to a Committee, and would it not be better that it should be sent to a Committee which can settle the Bill from beginning to end? It is clear from the narrative given by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, that this Bill has never had adequate consideration and it is a very great hardship that the coal trade should have ill-considered and indeed undigested measures forced upon them.
People engaged in the coal trade already have to devote a really undue proportion of their time to studying and administering new and recent Acts of Parliament which are in themselves very often unworkable. At the present moment, sections of the coal trade are struggling with the Act which was passed last year by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and by my noble friend below me, Lord Munster, the Acting-leader of the House. As a result the whole attention of the management of the coal trade is being given to the study of the Report by my noble friend Lord Rockley. Attention had been given to it for months past and will continue to be given for months to come. A few weeks ago, Sir Ernest Gowers, on behalf of the Coal Commission, issued a letter in which we were told that we are going to be compulsorily amalgamated, unless we amalgamate ourselves without compulsion. We suffer from extemporised Acts of Parliament—and there is no grosser instance than this of extemporisation—and from all kinds of

509
action by Departments such as Sir Ernest Gowers' amalgamation schemes and Acts requiring constant amendment. These matters deflect the colliery manager from his proper duty of winning and disposing of his coal. All these Acts are likely to produce litigation, and now into the bargain we have this retroactive proposal about which the Lord Chancellor was silent.
In these circumstances would not my noble friend opposite consent either to postpone the Bill until the autumn or, still better, agree to submit it to a Select Committee? It is perfectly useless to pretend that between now and the end of the Session any further progress can be made. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord opposite will agree that it should go to a Select Committee and be considered at the early part of the next Autumn Session.
5.55 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not refuse to give this Bill a Second Reading to-day. Some very eloquent speakers have spoken on behalf of the coal industry, and we have heard a great deal about that side of the matter; but there is another side. The property owners' organisation with which I am associated has been worrying about this subsidence question for the last twenty years. We have made very strong representations to the Government on many occasions and have sent deputations. We have also tried to introduce Bills, but they have been unlucky, and we have been very worried indeed about the whole question. It has been suggested that this matter has not been sufficiently carefully considered. I would like to say that it took four years before the Commission, on whose Report this Bill is based, were able to report. I do not suppose they were working every day for four years, but it took them four years. This Bill was introduced into another place in a very much more favourable form to us as property owners than the Bill now before your Lordships. In Committee, which lasted, not as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, an hour and a half, but no less than four days—
LORD GAINFORD: If I might interrupt the noble Lord, three days were occupied in Grand Committee on the Bill as originally brought in. No progress was
510
made whatever. One meeting of the Committee only lasted fourteen minutes, and on the fourth day, when this Bill appeared before Grand Committee for consideration, there were only twenty-four members of the other House present.
LORD CHESHAM: I quite appreciate Lord Gainford's remarks; I am sure he is perfectly right. At the same time this Bill is admittedly a compromise on the part of the interested parties who have had innumerable conferences. The representatives of the property owners had numerous conferences with the interested parties trying to draft something that would be found to be workable. If the present Bill is not workable it can be amended in Committee of this House. I hope your Lordships will not send it to a Select Committee. Bills sent to a Select Committee have a habit of disappearing altogether, and you never hear of them again. The Bill could be made to work by a Committee of this House, and on behalf of the property owners I do ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading now and have the Committee stage on the floor of the House.
5.59 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, as I anticipated, this little Bill has given rise to considerable discussion. I was comforted by the observation of the noble Lord who spoke last that there is another interest in this matter which perhaps has not received all the prominence to which it is properly entitled, but It think it is material, in view of some of the observations that have been made by various speakers, to remind your Lordships of the very drastic recommendations of the Royal Commission. It has been urged by more than one speaker—I think the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, mentioned it last—that there is retrospective applicability of this Bill. I would like therefore to read what the Royal Commission recommended. They said:
"We recommend that private owners or occupiers of existing houses of an annual value not exceeding £40 who at present have no right of support or right to compensation for damage caused by the withdrawal of support through mineral workings, shall, subject to certain conditions, have a right to compensation for such damage accorded them."
The Royal Commission specifically had that point in mind, and deliberately recommended that these people should have this right.
Again, in paragraph 94 of their Report, they say:
"Dealing therefore broadly with the matter on this basis, and influenced most of us consideration of the cases of hardship which have been brought to our notice, we recommend that private owners or occupiers of houses of an annual value not exceeding £40 who at present have no right of support or right to compensation for damage caused by withdrawal of support through mineral working should have a right to compensation for such damage accorded them."
That was the specific and definite recommendation of the Royal Commission composed of men of experience of all Parties which reported some ten years ago.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You have not given the conditions. They say "subject to certain conditions."
LORD ADDISON: The conditions they recommended, so far as they are applicable to the narrow scope of the Bill, are inserted in this Bill. I confess I was a good deal puzzled by what was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in reference to paragraph (d) on page 2 of the Bill. The paragraph says:
"such damage first became manifest after such owner-occupier acquired the fee simple"
and so on. The words in the Bill may perhaps require to be amended to make more definite the intention, but the intention is to prevent claims for compensation being brought forward by people in respect of damage which may have happened a long time ago. The intention, whatever may be said about the precise form of words, clearly is to limit the right to bring a claim for damage to cases that have occurred since the owner acquired the house and to rule out all former damage. If it is not put in the best legalistic terms we shall be only too happy to secure that it does carry out the intention to limit claims in that way. Whilst I followed with great interest what the noble and learned Lord said about Clause 1 (2), at the top of page 3, I confess I was not clear at the end of his remarks what particular limitation he had in mind. I was, however, clear on this point, that it would be a distinct loss to your Lordships' House if we did not have the advantage of his guidance in Committee and it would be a bad thing for the Bill.
May I now, as the rules of procedure in your Lordships' House permit me, say a word on the Motion standing in the name
512
of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. If this Bill goes to a Select Committee at this time of the Session the Bill is dead.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does the noble Lord mean to take the Committee stage of the Bill at this time of the Session?
LORD ADDISON: I am coming to that. I am quite sure that if we recognise this principle—it is a very righteous principle, in a sensible and practical form—the proper thing is to give the Bill a Second Reading and then consider it in Committee of the Whole House under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Now I come to the question just addressed to me by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford. I think it is a perfectly reasonable point. There probably is not time between now and next Monday properly to consider possible Amendments. I am afraid one has to admit that. It arises from the fact that the Bill has come to us very late in the Session, and it is no fault of any of us here. But there is usually a continuation of the Session of a certain duration in the autumn, and the interval would give opportunity for the usual discussions which take place on Bills of this kind. I can say quite frankly on behalf of those who have asked me to take charge of the Bill that they are anxious that the intention and purpose of the Bill should be made definite and clear, and they would welcome any Amendment which may be suggested to ensure that the Bill achieves that purpose plainly and distinctly and does not go beyond it. I am quite sure that the best way of doing that is to take it in Committee of the Whole House with the best guidance and criticism that we can obtain. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, and that you will not agree to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
6.8 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name. I do not propose to make a speech on that Motion, but I think I must refer to one or two points raised by some noble Lords who have spoken. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, speaks on behalf of large

513
property owners. I would point out that the object of this Bill is to provide compensation for small property owners whose assessments are not greater than £40. As regards the royalty owners, they apparently do not support my Motion because this is a good Bill but because they feel the Bill might be made to work. Surely that is a poor argument. I feel so strongly that this Bill is unworkable, and requires thorough examination, that if necessary I must press my Motion to a Division.
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.

PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) BILL.
LORD ADDISONhad given Notice that he would move, That Standing Order No. XXXVIII be considered in order to its being dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to have to inflict upon your Lordships another Bill, but this is a very innocent Bill indeed, and I sincerely hope that it will not suffer the fate to which its predecessor has been sentenced. This Bill is similar to the one which was passed for Scotland, but I am very sorry to say that by some inadvertence for which neither I nor my friends had any responsibility, but the responsibility for which I think belongs to its supporters at the other end of the passage, it is necessary to move the suspension of this Standing Order if we are now to proceed with it. The Bill was brought to this House on April 25. In order to allow us to consider the Bill today, it is necessary to ask your Lordships to dispense with Standing Order No. XXXVIII, which provides:
Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD CHESHAM: May I be allowed to say that I do not represent either big or small owners but that as a national federation we are chiefly small owners?
LORD TEYNHAM: I apologise to the noble Lord.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 13.
"When a Bill brought from the House of Commons shall have remained on the Table of this House for twelve sitting days without any Lord giving notice of the Second Reading thereof, such Bill shall not any longer appear among the Bills in Progress, and shall not be further proceeded with in the same Session, except after eight sitting days' notice given by a Lord of the Second Reading thereof.…"

CONTENTS.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Newton, L.

Radnor, E.

Doverdale, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Eltisley, L.

Roche, L.

Gainford, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elibank, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Goschen, V.

Harris, L.

Teynham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Mancroft, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Clwyd, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Samuel, V.

Denman, L.

Sempill, L.

Dunleath, L.

Snell, L.

Addison, L. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Marley, L.

There is not time, of course, between now and the end of the Session to do that, and in order to allow us to give it a Second Reading—I will not say anything about the Bill until we get to it—I must ask your Lordships if you will be willing to dispense with Standing Order No. XXXVIII.
The Bill appears to have been buried inadvertently since it came from the House of Commons, but it is a very worthy little Bill. It is identical with one which your Lordships passed for Scotland earlier in the year and which has now become law. Those responsible for it are willing in advance, may I say, to accept Amendments of the type of those which made the Scottish Bill acceptable and which were negotiated by my noble friend below the Gangway. If, therefore, you will allow us to dispense with Standing Order No. XXXVIII I do not think the

515
Bill itself will present any difficulty, and I hope your Lordships will extend your clemency to it.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXVIII be considered in order to its being dispensed with—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should be very happy to dispense with Standing Order No. XXXVIII if my noble friend Lord Addison would consent to refer the Bill to the same Select Committee as that to which his last Bill has been referred.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, His Majesty's Government agree to the Motion to dispense with the Standing Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I have nothing more to say except to confirm what I said before: that those in charge of the Bill, under the direction of the noble Earl on the Government Bench, who will, I believe, assist us, as the Government did before, in putting the Amendments into acceptable form, have no objection to Amendment's making the Bill applicable to the law of England, which differs in certain forms, as we all know, from the law of Scotland as to its procedure. Subject to that being done in Committee in the same way as it was for the Scottish Bill, I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading to-day.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Lord Addison).
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I may say on behalf of my Association that as long as these Amendments are put in we are quite agreeable to the Bill being passed into law.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, His Majesty's Government welcome the Bill, on condition that in Committee Amendments shall be put in to bring the Bill into conformity with the Act that has already passed your Lordships' House. They have no objection to the Second Reading, and hope your Lordships will agree to it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RHODESIA-NYASALAND ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.
6.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I state that the reason why I am postponing till Monday my Motion relating to the Report of the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission is that a number of your Lordships wish to take part in this debate, and there was a strong feeling amongst them that if we started the debate at this hour we should not have a proper opportunity for considering it? I therefore beg leave to postpone my Motion until Monday.

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY RABBITS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 34.]
In the Title, line 3, leave out ("the prohibition of night shooting").
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, the Amendments to the Bill made by the Commons will have been studied, and they are mainly Amendments of a drafting nature, with one exception, in which it is suggested that the law under the Ground Game Act, 1880, with respect to night shooting, should remain as it is. That, as your Lordships will remember, was the original recommendation of the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, which was amended when the Bill left your Lordships' House. If, with your Lordships' permission, I might take the Amendments on the Paper, the first Amendment is in the Title, to leave out "the prohibition of night shooting." That is also referred to in subsequent Amendments, and I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("of") insert ("the presence of an excessive number of rabbits on")
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out ("being infested with rabbits")
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, after ("may") insert ("on a complaint made to them by that other person").
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out from ("requiring") to ("within") in line 17 and insert ("that")
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, these are drafting points and I think it is not necessary to say anything in relation to them as they are perfectly clear in themselves. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in these four Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Sempill.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put these four Amendments together.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 1, after ("notice,") insert ("he shall—

(a) in a case in which the land is a warren kept for the purpose of breeding rabbits, so fence the warren as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the escape of rabbits therefrom; or

(b) in any other case, take such steps as are reasonably practicable for the destruction of the rabbits")

LORD SEMPILL: This Amendment explains fully the procedure that should be followed in regard to the keeping of a warren, and paragraphs (a) and (b) relate to those points. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("twenty-four") and insert ("not less than forty-eight")
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, it has been thought that it was very desirable to extend the time from twenty-four hours to forty-eight hours, and I beg to move that we agree with the Commons in this respect.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, page 3, line 15, leave out Clause 3.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, it is suggested that this clause should be left out, as the provisions contained therein have been inserted elsewhere.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 3, line 31, after ("if") insert ("for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits").
LORD SEMPILL: This has reference also to the first Amendment in the Title, which has been agreed to by your Lordships—namely, as to the prohibition of night shooting. In this respect, and in subsequent Amendments, it is proposed to leave the Ground Game Act of 1880, in so far as night shooting is concerned, exactly as it is; but a suggestion is put forward by the other House with regard to traps, that they should only be set in specific places at the mouth of rabbit holes, and in no other places.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, this bears on the situation which I have already outlined to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("for that purpose")
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, this Amendment relates also to the same situation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 4, line 5, at the beginning insert ("so much of")
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Amendment also be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 4, line 5, after ("1880") insert ("as provides that no person having a right to kill ground game shall, for the purpose of ground game, employ spring traps except in rabbit holes, or employ poison")
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, this deals with the specific matter which I have already mentioned, in regard to the setting of traps in accordance with suggestions put forward originally in this House.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sempill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  RECRUITMENT FOR ITALIAN FORCES IN EAST AFRICA.
  RECRUITMENT FOR ITALIAN FORCES IN EAST AFRICA.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  AROON KUMAR SINHA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).
  AROON KUMAR SINHA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).