Sitting of 26 July 1939

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clack. Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTION.

  MOTOR PASSENGER VEHICLES.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether, especially in view of the recent omnibus accident near Whitby, in which three Hull persons were killed and 37 injured, he will inquire into the inspection of the brakes and mechanical efficiency generally when this class of vehicle is licensed to carry passengers.
  Mr. WHITELEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Two years ago a circular was sent by the Ministry of Transport to licensing authorities setting out the constructional requirements for motor omnibus and motor coaches recommended by a Departmental Committee which had considered the subject. These recommendations have it is believed been generally observed by manufacturers in the construction of new vehicles, and have been imposed by many licensing authorities as conditions precedent to the issue of licences to ply for hire. My hon. Friend has at present no power either to insist on the adoption of these requirements by licensing authorities or to control their methods of inspecting vehicles presented for licensing.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: While thanking my hon. Friend for the reply, may I ask whether, in view of this very regrettable accident, the question of a bending bar will be considered by the Minister?
  Mr. WHITELEY: The Royal Commission which is now sitting is considering this matter, and the Minister hopes to have their Report shortly.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is it in the Terms of Reference?
  Mr. WHITELEY: I cannot say whether it is in the Terms of Reference.

  MALTA.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a note has been presented to the Vatican, either on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain or on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Malta, with reference to the recent events in Malta; and, if so, what is the nature of the note?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): No communication has been made to the Vatican about recent events, in Malta. These are still under consideration.

  RUSSIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS).
  Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the reply received from the Soviet Government to his recent note; and when the note and reply will be published?
  Mr. DALTON: The telegraphic reply of the Soviet Government to the invitation recently extended to them was received m the Foreign Office in the afternoon of Wednesday, the 24th of July, and runs as follows:
  "The Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics note the communication from the British Government that they are willing to re-establish diplomatic relations with Union of Socialist Soviet Republics the interruption of which was not the consequence of fault or desire of Government of the Union. The Government of the Union welcome this proposal in the interest of both countries and of the cause of peace. The Government of the Union consider it necessary that there shall be established as soon as possible a lasting agreement regarding disputed questions, and believe that such a lasting agreement can only be attained through both parties being treated as having equal rights and by the maintenance of reciprocal dignity and esteem.
  "The Government will assume the rights and duties of States in diplomatic relations between themselves as soon as the British Government takes upon itself these rights and duties.

  1563
  In view of the fact that the note from the British Government aims at a preliminary exchange of views exclusively regarding the procedure to be followed in subsequent discussion of disputed questions and not at an actual discussion of these questions, and being of the opinion that these deliberations regarding procedure can be concluded in the course of a very short period, the Government are requesting M. Dovgalevski, plenipotentiary representative of the Union in France, to journey to London for this purpose."
  In answer to this communication the Secretary of State has invited M. Dovgalevski to come to London, and proposes to have a conversation with him on Monday next, the 29th July.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Does that mean that the Soviet Government have indicated that they insist on diplomatic relations being resumed before they make any agreement as to the redress of grievances of which this country has repeatedly complained?
  Mr. DALTON: We cannot discuss these matters until M. Dovgalevski meets my right hon. Friend.
  Sir BASIL PETO: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the earlier part of the reply makes the admission that the British Government is of opinion that nothing was done by the Soviet Government which was the cause or the reason for the breaking off of relations?
  Mr. DALTON: No, Sir.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already answered that point.
  At end of Questions—
  Sir B. PETO: On a point of Order. As a question of Privilege, are we not entitled to have printed in full documents which were referred to by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as having passed between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government of Russia?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not seem to be a point of Order, but a matter for the Government.
  Sir B. PETO: It is a question of the Privileges of this House, and are we not entitled to have these documents?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have no idea what documents they are.
  Mr. HARRIS: When a Minister refers to documents specifically, are we not entitled to have them laid on the Table of the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Naturally, if a Minister refers to certain documents in a statement that he makes in this House, he has to present them, if they are asked for, but I do not know that there was any specific document referred to in the statement made by the Minister.
  Sir B. PETO: May I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister quoted from these documents? I would like formally to ask that they should be printed and laid on the Table of the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the Minister quoted certain documents, of course he must lay them before the House.
  Mr. DALTON: For elucidation, may I say that I read fully the telegraphic reply of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which can be read in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that I added that a reply had been sent to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics inviting M. Dovgalevski to come here on Monday? That was the content of my answer.
  Sir B. PETO: The hon. Gentleman said he quoted in full the answer to His Majesty's Government's communication. The communication itself, however, was not read in full, and it is the communication itself which is very doubtful.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think, under the circumstances, the Minister, having quoted these documents, should lay them before the House.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Do I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Note is to be laid at this stage? May I not point out that I understand an agreement has been come to to publish the documents, and, furthermore, that the Minister did not quote from the Note sent on behalf of His Majesty's Government, but only the reply, which has been read out in full and will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Under these circumstances, may I put it to you that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) is suffering under a misapprehension?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only point that affects me, as regards the point of Order, is that documents which the Minister has quoted should be laid.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I take it that the document referred to by the hon. Member opposite will not have to be submitted to this House since it was not quoted?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have nothing to add to my ruling that a document that has been quoted must be laid.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. FRANK SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the inadequacy of the statutory allowance of 2s. per week allowed for a dependent child of a parent in receipt of unemployment benefit, she can see her way to sympathetically consider the question with a view to an increase in the allowance?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I will note this point.

    WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, BEDWORTH.
    Mr. FRANK SMITHasked the Lord Privy Seal whether an application has reached his Department from the clerk of the Bedworth (Warwickshire) Urban District Council concerning an urgently needed water supply for that area; and whether he can see his way to include such an application in his scheme for assisting public authorities anxious to promote works of public necessity and utility in the provision he is making for providing work for the unemployed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Bedworth Urban District Council are considering a scheme of water supply for their district, but my right hon. Friend has not yet received their application for a loan. It is open to the council to apply to the Unemployment Grants Committee for a grant in connection with the proposed scheme.

    BAIRD TELEVISION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has
    1566
    received a communication from the Baird Television Development Company, Limited, inviting a public inquiry, with full facilities for the Press to be present; and whether he intends to take any action?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): No, Sir, I have not received such a request.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME
    Colonel GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has received any intimation from the Government of the United States of America that that Government intends to make reductions in their Navy programme corresponding with the recently announced reduction in British naval construction?
    Mr. DALTON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the statement issued in Washington by the President of the United States on the 24th of July, and published in the Press here yesterday, to the effect that the United States Government would refrain from laying down the keels of three cruisers of this year's construction programme until there has been an opportunity for full consideration of their effect upon the final agreement for parity which it is hoped to reach. The issue has been confirmed in a telegram received this morning from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington.
    Colonel GRETTON: Has any special intimation been given regarding those vessels now under construction in the United States?
    Mr. DALTON: I have nothing to add to what I have said. The matter is under the consideration of the competent authorities.
    Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what stage the construction of the submarine depot ship "Maidstone," and the other vessels the orders for the construction of which he proposes to cancel, has respectively reached; and what sum of money has already been spent upon such vessels, respectively?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): So far as dockyard

    1567
    work is concerned the cruisers and the submarine depot ship have not actually been laid down though some material has been prepared. Some expenditure on contract work has been incurred on materials, on machinery for the submarine depot ship, gun mountings for the cruisers, and on the submarines, but precise figures cannot yet be given, pending inquiry as to details, including work done under sub-contracts.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What is to be done with the materials specified, which have already been ordered?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: That will need some inquiry, but I imagine that most of it will be kept in store.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will the contractors be given an indemnity?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The facts will be gone into fully, on the lines of the previous arrangements that have been made in connection with similar cancellations. It is too early to answer questions on this point.
    Sir R. GOWERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) if the cancellation of the order for the construction of the submarine depot ship "Maidstone" will necessitate the discharge of any and, if so, how many workpeople from the naval dockyard at Chatham, or the placing of any and, if so, how many of such workpeople on short time and to what extent;
    (2) what number of workpeople the construction of the submarine depot ship "Maidstone" and the other vessels, the orders for which he proposes to cancel, would have, respectively, employed had such construction been proceeded with; and whether, prior to actually cancelling such orders, he will arrange for alternative work being found for such men who may be thrown out of employment by the proposed cancellation of such orders?
    Mr. ROBERT SMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the vessels the orders for the construction of which he is delaying are being built in Government dockyards or private shipyards?
    Mr. GREENEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the number of workpeople now employed in each of His Majesty's dockyards on
    1568
    construction and repair work, respectively; and whether any and, if so, how many dismissals of workpeople will immediately and ultimately be rendered necessary by the proposed alteration in this country's naval shipbuilding programme?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: As stated by the Prime Minister on Wednesday, work is being suspended on two cruisers building in the Royal Dockyards; and the submarine depot ship building at Chatham and two submarines building by contract are being cancelled. The average number of workpeople in the Royal Dockyards that would have been engaged on these vessels for the remainder of the year is 1,200. As stated by the Prime Minister, it is hoped by special rearrangements to be able to secure the absorption of a large amount of labour which would otherwise be discharged from the Royal Dockyards. As regards alternative work I am unable at present to make any statement. On this and other points it will be necessary to consult with the representatives of dockyard labour. I cannot undertake that the Government's decision shall not take effect pending the result of such consultation. As regards the figures as to numbers employed asked for by the hon. Member for Worcester, I will with his permission circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that economies at the expense of the Royal Dockyards, to the amount of about £1,250,000, are being made? If this money is not to be spent and the ships are to be cancelled entirely, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "making special arrangements"?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member must await the statements that will be made after consultation with the dockyard representatives.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: Am I right in assuming, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that two of the submarines that have been cancelled were being built by private yards? If so, has the amount of compensation been settled with the private yards for the cancellation of the orders?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member is quite right in assuming that the two

    1569
    submarines that are being cancelled are contract submarines to be built in private yards, but with regard to the second part of his question, I can only give the same reply that I have already given to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir B. Falle).
    Sir B. FALLE: In the special arrangements of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks, will tradesmen be employed on tradesmen's work, and skilled labour on skilled labourers' work, or will any kind of work will be found for them?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will there also be taken into consideration, if compensation is to be granted, the loss of work to the employés who would have been working upon these cancelled boats?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: All relevant considerations are being kept in mind, but I would ask hon. Members not to expect me to anticipate the result of conversation with the trade union representatives.
    Mr. FOOT: Will it be competent for the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, in connection with alternative work, to take into consideration the making of the tunnel which has been suggested across the Tamar between Devonshire and Cornwall?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the hon. Member is referring to the announcement in the Press of suggestions made by the workmen's side of the Whitley Council, but I cannot anticipate the answer that will be given after consultation.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is doing far more than the late Government did when they cancelled ships?
    Following are the details:
    The numbers of workpeople now employed in each of H.M. dockyards at home on new construction and on repair work respectively are as follows. The numbers on repair work include all workpeople employed in the professional departments of the dockyards on the repair of all kinds of ships, yard craft, boats, etc., and also on the general dockyard services:
    1570

    New Construction.

    Repair Work.

    Portsmouth

    906

    9,022

    Devonport

    723

    8,971

    Chatham

    1,086

    5,581

    Sheerness

    60

    1,687

    Portland

    —

    143

    Total

    2,775

    25,404

    Mr. ROBERT SMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what vessels are now being constructed by His Majesty's Government in the Royal dockyards and private shipyards respectively?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:

    Ships under construction for the British Navy on 25th July, 1929.

    Dockyards.

    Contractors Yards.

    Cruisers.

    Dorsetshire.

    Shropshire.

    Norfolk.

    Exeter.

    York.

    Surrey. Northumberland.—All work on these two vessels is suspended, vide Prime Minister's announcement in the House of Commons on 24th July.

    Leaders.

    Codrington.

    Keith.

    Destroyers.

    Acasta.

    Basilisk.

    Achates.

    Beagle.

    Active.

    Blanche.

    Antelope.

    Boadicea.

    Anthony.

    Boreas.

    Ardent.

    Brazen.

    Arrow.

    Brilliant.

    Acheron.

    Bulldog.

    Submarines.

    Odin. Parthian.

    Olympus.

    Pandora.

    Rainbow.

    Orpheus.

    Regent.

    Phoenix.

    Regulus.

    Perseus.

    Rover.

    Poseidon.

    Royalist.

    Proteus.

    Rupert.

    (Two of the above contract submarines are to be cancelled, vide Prime Minister's announcement in House of Commons on 24th of July.)

    Dockyards.

    Contractors' Yards.

    Sloops.

    Hastings.

    Folkestone.

    Penzance.

    Scarborough.

    Repair Ship.

    Resource.

    Submarine Depot Ship.

    Maidstone.—(The struction of this ship has been cancelled, vide Prime Minister's announcement in the House of Commons on 24th July.)

    Mr. GREENEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what reduction in the personnel of His Majesty's Navy will be immediately and ultimately necessitated by the proposed restriction of this country's naval shipbuilding programme; and what provision he proposes to make for the officers and ratings who will be adversely affected by the Government's reduction of naval armaments policy?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It is not possible at present to estimate the effect on personnel of the decision taken as regards the naval shipbuilding programme. I shall, however, give the matter the closest attention.
    Mr. GREENE: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that such officers and ratings who lose their employment will he adequately compensated?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I can add nothing at present to my previous reply.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the Government have decided that the full brunt of the proposed reductions in naval shipbuilding is to fall upon the national yards whereas the private firms remain unaffected; and why the national shipbuilding is not to be placed with the national yards?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Having regard to the type of vessels to which on grounds of general policy it has been found desirable to apply the decision, there was, except as regards submarines, no choice in the matter, since no large ships were allocated in the 1928 programme to contract.
    In the case of submarines, the brunt of the reductions falls entirely on the
    1572
    contract yards. I may add that dockyard-built cruisers and depot ships are supplied by contract with a large amount of material and equipment such as gun mountings, armour, armament and machinery; and the amount of this work suspended or cancelled clearly demonstrates that the reductions in the 1928 programme fall to be borne as much by private firms as by the Government dockyards.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is hardly an answer to my question, and that all the loss which the private firms have suffered is the two submarines, whereas practically the whole of the dockyard programme is cut out, and is not that very difficult to reconcile with the policy of sending national work to national yards?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: That is entirely a matter of opinion.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "VINDICTIVE" (EXPLOSION).
    Commander SOUTHBY (by Private Notice)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any further information regarding the explosion reported by the Admiralty to have taken place at Chatham on board His Majesty's Ship "Vindictive"?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: On the 23rd July an official statement was published by the Admiralty reporting the death of one naval rating and the serious injury of two others, owing to an explosion which took place on board His Majesty's Ship "Vindictive" on that morning. According to a report received from the Royal Naval Hospital at Chatham last night, the coroner's inquest on the engine-room artificer who was killed found that death was accidental and due to injuries caused by the bursting of a fuze, issued in mistake for a bomb-pistol, which deceased was engaged in cutting through. In a rider, the jury recommended that in future some distinctive marks be used to prevent a repetition of the mistake. A Court of Inquiry has been held, but the Report has not yet reached the Admiralty, and I regret that I am obviously unable to give further information until the Report of the Court of Inquiry has been carefully considered.

  SCOTLAND.

    AFFORESTATION.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether it is proposed to put into operation any new schemes of afforestation in Scotland; and, if so, will his Department take steps to secure that there will be no interference with the security of tenure of smallholders.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): New schemes of afforestation will be put into operation as land is required, but there will be no interference with the security of tenure of smallholders.

    FISHING HARBOURS AND PIERS.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received any recommendations from the Development Commissioners in connection with the payment of debts upon fishing harbours and piers in Scotland, and the taking over of any personal guarantees given for loans advanced for the construction or improvement of such piers and harbours?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The Development Commissioners have not yet submitted any recommendations on these matters. But I understand that they hope to be in a position to report shortly.

  PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the large preliminary legal costs that many of our public utilities, like the Manchester Ship Canal, have to carry as dead weight; and whether, with a view to increasing employment, he will order an inquiry, from which the legal profession is excluded except as witnesses, with a view to cheapening and quickening the legal procedure in the formation of public utilities?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I am afraid that I have not had time to examine the implications of the hon. and gallant Mem-
  1574
  ber's question, I ought to add that the hon. and gallant Member's note, which he was good enough to communicate to me, explaining his purpose, has only just come into my hands.

  FOREST OF DEAN.
  Mr. VAUGHANasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will favour the establishment of a national park in the Royal Forest of Dean, with the object of providing rest camps and other amenities on a large scale and of affording employment; and whether the Government will co-ordinate the different Departments, together with the Forestry Commissioners, with this object in view?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am asking the Departments concerned to examine the proposal fully and to report to me as early as possible.
  Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the similar proposals in regard to Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

  DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
  Mr. MACKINDER(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is now in a position to announce the constitution of the new Advisory Committees under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill and the Colonial Development Bill?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The following Gentlemen have agreed to serve on the Advisory Committee under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill:

  Sir Arthur Duckham, K.C.B. (Chairman).

  Mr. Gaspard Farrer.

  Mr. George Hicks.

  Sir Clement Hindley.

  Sir Frederick Lewis, Baronet.

  Sir William McLintock, G.B.E., C.V.O.

  Sir Henry Maybury, G.B.E., K.C.M.G., C.B.

  Mr. Frederick Palmer, C.I.E., M.Inst., CE.

  Mr. Arthur Pugh.

  1575
  The following have agreed to serve on the Advisory Committee under the Colonial Development Bill:

  Sir Basil Blackett, K.C.B., K.C.S.I. (Chairman).

  Mr. Ernest Bevin.

  Mr. R. H. Jackson.

  Sir Felix Pole.

  Mr. Alan Rae Smith, O.B.E.

  There is one further appointment to be made to this committee.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' SMOKE ROOM).
  Mr. REMER(by Private Notice) asked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division if there is any truth in the rumour that the Members' smoke room is being changed during the Recess, and if he will give an undertaking, as was given by his predecessor, that no change will take place till Members have expressed their opinion?
  Mr. COMPTON: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) on Monday last. I am not aware of any undertaking being given by my predecessor of the nature suggested in the question, but no change will take place until the Members' views have been secured.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I understand that the Leader of the House wishes to make an announcement about Business after the resumption.
The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that some exception has been taken to the proposal that the Second Reading of the Widows' Pensions Bill should be taken on Tuesday, 29th October. In order to meet what are understood to be the wishes of the Opposition on this point, the Business for the first week after the reassembly of Parliament will be:
Tuesday, 29th October, Coast Protection Bill, Second Reading; Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill, Second Reading; Collecting Charities (Regulation) Bill, Second Reading:
Wednesday, Unofficial Members' Motions, as announced.
1576
Thursday, Widows' Pensions Bill, Second Reading, in order to enable the Opposition to formulate and put on the Paper any Amendments to the Second Reading. I think it is a reasonable request;
Friday, Widows' Pensions, Money Resolution, Committee; and, if time permits, commencement of the Committee stage of the Widows' Pensions Bill. That announcement, the House will remember I have said, is subject to the possibility of having to find time for a Resolution of the House on Russia.
On any day, if time permits, other orders will be taken.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday 29th October."—[The Prime Minister.]
Mr. S. BALDWIN Mr. S. BALDWIN rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion deals only with the specific point of the date of reassembling after the Adjournment. This Motion must be taken first, and then we must get this out of the way and then take the Motion for the Adjournment.
Question put, and agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
"to continue certain Expiring Laws," presented by Mr. Pethick-Lawrence; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kennedy].

EGYPT (LORD LLOYD'S RESIGNATION).
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter, or matters, of great gravity arising out of the resignation or dismissal of Lord Lloyd, and I hope—and those who sit behind me, and, I am sure, the whole House hopes, though I wait perhaps with a livelier hope than confidence—that the Foreign Secretary will be able to dispel the mists which closed round this subject 24 hours ago—mists which have only been thickened into fog by the Debate in another place, and, though I shall take no longer time than I deem to be necessary, as there are many subjects which Members wish to raise to-day, the importance of the matter must justify me in treating it in some detail, as this is a matter which closely concerns Parliament, and upon Parliament the ultimate responsibility must rest.
I think it well at the beginning to make clear the situation which existed up to the present moment. Hon. Members will remember that the old Turkish suzerainty over Egypt was terminated by the Great War in 1914, and Egypt was declared a British Protectorate. The announcement in due course was made to the Powers, and an Egyptian King was chosen. Shortly after the War, in 1922, a most important declaration of policy was made which has been the foundation of British policy from that day to this. I think the House should have the very brief points in that policy clear in their minds for the purpose of this discussion. The first point was that the British Protectorate in Egypt, which was set up in 1914, was terminated forthwith. Egypt was recognised as an independent sovereign State. Secondly, it was stated that as soon as the Egyptian Govt, passed an Act of Indemnity, with application to all inhabitants of Egypt, martial law, which had been proclaimed in the autumn of 1914, should be withdrawn. That happened. The Indemnity was proclaimed, and martial law ceased to exist. Then comes, perhaps, the most difficult part of
1632
this Declaration. There were certain matters, four of them absolutely reserved to the discretion of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain:
"until such time as it may be possible by free discussion and friendly accommodation on both sides to conclude agreements in regard thereto."
They were:

"1. The security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt.

2. The defence of Egypt against all foreign aggression or interference, direct or indirect.

3. The protection of foreign interests in Egypt and the protection of minorities.

4. The Sudan.

Pending the conclusion of such agreements the status quo in all these matters shall remain intact."
There is no doubt, as I think was foreseen at the time, that a Declaration of that kind imposed a great responsibility on the statesmen both of this country and of Egypt, and more than a responsibility. It set them to an extraordinarily difficult task, and I can say—and I think that the Foreign Secretary will admit this readily—that ever since that time British Governments have earnestly endeavoured to interpret that Declaration in a liberal spirit, and efforts have been made both by the present Prime Minister and by the late Government to effect a settlement of these difficult outstanding questions, and to effect it in a liberal spirit. In the Autumn of 1927 a settlement was very nearly effected, and I think the House should consider for a moment what the Treaty which was negotiated between Sarwat Pasha on behalf of the Egyptian Government and His Majesty's Government at that time involved. The House will remember, because it is barely two years ago, that if the Treaty had been signed and ratified then, the Declaration of 1922 would have been superseded by the terms of the Treaty. The Treaty made a formal alliance, described as such, between Egypt and Great Britain. We promised, following the implicit terms of the Declaration, that we would give immediate help to Egypt if she were involved at any time in a defensive war. On the other hand, if good relations were imperilled between Egypt and any other country, Egypt would at once consult with us with a view to obtaining our help to dissipate such difficulties. Then it followed that, in view of the co-operation between the two armies in the event of Egypt having to defend herself, and to

1633
defend herself with our aid, the Egyptians undertook that their army should be trained on British lines, and, if they required instruction in military work of any kind, they would look to this country to provide the necessary assistance, and not to any foreign country. Reciprocally, in the event of our being at war, Egypt undertook to give us all the help that she could by allowing us to use all her ports, her aerodromes, and her transport.
Now we come to what was, of course, a very important and difficult part of the Treaty. Permission was given to Great Britain to keep such armed forces in Egypt as she thought necessary and desirable to preserve the lines of communication of her Empire, and in the annexe to that Treaty, the Egyptian Government undertook that lands and buildings then occupied—that is 1927—should be made subject to a Clause that comes later. It was stated specifically that the presence of the troops in no sense meant an occupation of Egypt, and in no sense prejudiced the sovereign rights of that country.
Mr. MACLEAN: Germany and Belgium!
Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that that was the view of Sarwat Pasha. There was a Clause that at the end of ten years the question of localities was to be reconsidered. If Egypt and Great Britain were unable to agree, the matter was to be referred to the Council of the League of Nations. If the decision of the League of Nations was unsatisfactory to the Egyptian Government at that time, they had a right to bring the subject up at intervals of five years. There were other points dealing with capitulations, an undertaking by us to endeavour to secure the entry of Egypt into the League of Nations, and one or two minor questions. But, as the House knows, after negotiations had occupied the best part of three months, that Treaty failed, and it failed, I think, because of the part played by the extremists in Egypt. There is no doubt that they had hoped that, under some other Government, they might get far better terms for themselves even than in that Treaty. Yet they had little official grounds for believing that. There was nothing in the negotiations between the present Prime Minister and
1634
Sarwat Pasha which showed that he at that time was prepared to make any serious departure from the Declaration of 1922. The House will remember the draft despatch of the present Prime Minister, which was prepared in 1924, shortly before the fall of the Labour Government, in which he said:
"No British Government in the light of that experience"—
meaning the European War—
"can divest itself wholly, even in favour of an ally, of its interest in guarding such a vital link in British communications"—meaning, of course, the Suez Canal,
"Such a security must be a feature of any agreement come to between our two Governments, and I see no reason why accommodation is impossible, given goodwill. The effective co-operation of Great Britain and Egypt in protecting these communications might, in my view, have been ensured by the conclusion of a treaty of close alliance. The presence of a British force in Egypt"—
and I commend this to hon. Members who seemed amused at my earlier reference to it—
"provided for by such a treaty freely entered into by both parties on an equal footing would in no way be incompatible with Egyptian independence, whilst it would be an indication of the specially close and intimate relations between the two countries and their determination to co-operate in a matter of vital concern to both. It is not the wish of His Majesty's Government that this force should in any way interfere with the functions of the Egyptian Government or encroach upon Egyptian sovereignty, and I emphatically said so."
If those words mean what they say—and I have no doubt that they do—there is not a great deal between the views expressed there and the views expressed in the Treaty which unfortunately failed. At this point, we find ourselves, having failed in the attempt to make a treaty, falling back once more on the Declaration of 1922, and that stands to-day. It stood through the time of the Coalition Government, of Mr. Bonar Law's Government, of my first Government, of the Labour Government, and of my last Government, and for all we knew it stood until the other day.
Throughout the last four or five years, Lord Lloyd was the High Commissioner in Egypt and the servant of the British Government in that country. No one who has any knowledge of Egypt can ever doubt the difficulty and the responsibility of that position. I need not embroider

1635
that subject, but it is one of the most difficult posts to which an Englishman can be sent. He played his part in attempting to secure, under the directions of the late Government, a liberal settlement of our difficulties. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] Perhaps the hon. Member who seems to have special knowledge will enlighten us later. Lord Lloyd is of the type which, I am glad to think, is not uncommon among those men who represent our interests abroad. He is never afraid to speak his own mind, and I regard it as part of the duty of our representatives in positions like that to speak their minds freely to the Government at home. They have special knowledge, they are on the spot, but the responsibility rests with the Government at home. They are glad to have criticism in difficult circumstances; it is their duty to receive it; it is their duty, as it is the duty of their representatives to argue when occasions arise, on the merits of proposals, and if His Majesty's representative can convince the Government that their view is right, the question falls to the ground. If, on the other hand, His Majesty's Government decide that their view is right, then there are only two courses open to His Majesty's representative; he must either loyally carry out the instructions of the Government, or, if he regards the matter of sufficient importance, as a matter of principle, he must resign. There is no question about that whatever. That has been the practice of our representatives, it is now, and will, I hope, always continue to be so.
But now we come to the point which is of real vital interest to this House: Why did Lord Lloyd resign, or why was he dismissed? The two terms have been used interchangeably. For the purpose of my argument, I do not much mind which is used, because, after all, this question is far greater than the personality of Lord Lloyd or any other public servant, however distinguished. Did the Government desire his resignation because they did not want a public servant who would criticise their decision as he had criticised those of their predecessors? Did they wish a dummy in that position, or, in the alternative, is there some change of policy which they knew would lead immediately to Lord Lloyd's resignation, and did they
1636
think it would be simpler to get him cut of the way before that change of policy took place?
I am going to put one or two questions to the Foreign Secretary. I know the difficulties, but I do beg that he will be as candid with the House as he can, because there is nothing so detrimental to our interests and to peace as wild rumour. I want to know the truth, and then we know where we are. I want to know if the policy which has been the policy of successive Governments since 1922 has been changed, and, if so, in what respect. I want to know if the Government are contemplating making a new treaty with Egypt. If so, I want to know if they are in consultation with the Dominions, because any treaty with Egypt affects Australia and New Zealand as much as it affects us. I want to know, particularly, if in the event of their making, or contemplating, or having made, a new treaty, they are contemplating going beyond the concessions which we made in the treaty which failed to materialise in regard to the position of the soldiers in Egypt. If they are making any changes in that regard, I Want to know if they have consulted their military and naval advisers. If they have, and if they think fit to disregard that advice, they must take the full responsibility of what they are doing. I want to know one more thing, and that is, if negotiations have been going on, are going on or are completed, have those negotiations been carried out without the knowledge of the High Commissioner of Egypt? Those are very plain and very simple questions, and I hope we may have an equally plain and simple answer.
I would like to say this to the House, because there are many members of this House who are sitting in it for the first time, and it is sometimes difficult for those who have not been brought into contact with or had experience of what are generally termed foreign affairs, to realise that no action in the world on the part of a power like Great Britain, with her world-wide Empire, can take place in isolation. The results of any action of ours vibrate through the world from end to end, and any action in Egypt that contains within it the germ of disaster of any kind reacts swiftly and immediately all through the East and in the vital part of our own Dominions, in Australia and

1637
New Zealand. I would add this. Lord Lloyd is not the first distinguished servant of a Brtish Government in our history who has either resigned at a critical time or been compelled to resign. Many Governments in our history have come to hasty conclusions on matters in remote parts of the world, and often terrible events have followed later. But the responsibility of statesmen in this country, great as it always is, is peculiarly great, and the responsibility of Parliament is peculiarly great, in these matters of foreign affairs, because if disaster comes, if bloodshed comes, as it often has come in our history, the politician always escapes.
Mr. THURTLE: What about Churchill and Russia?
Mr. BALDWIN: The worst that can happen to the politician is loss of office; but the men who give their blood are generally those whose hands have had nothing to do with the laying of the train that led to the explosion. That being my view, my firm and convinced view, I say, as my last word, that if there be a new treaty in prospect involving changes and concessions beyond those made in the projected treaty of 1927, then the responsibility for it ought to rest upon Parliament, that we all ought to take our share in the examination of it and in the forming of our own conclusions. This is the more necessary in that no party to-day has a majority over the rest of the House of Commons. The responsibility ought to be corporate, and I ask the Government, if there be changes of the nature I have indicated in contemplation, or if such changes are being made, that this House and Parliament shall either approve or condemn before finality is reached.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech on a note that must appeal to all sections of the House, but may I be permitted to say that it is a little unfortunate that that note was not struck earlier in the proceedings during this week in this and another place. The right hon. Gentleman occupied a great deal of his time in outlining the policy which has been pursued by successive Governments since 1914, and I think I can say, straight away, that in the statement he made regarding the position since that date there is very little that
1638
we would take exception to. I think it has been a conspicuous part of the policy of each Government, including the Labour Government of 1924, to raise the relationship between Egypt and this country above party, and to keep always in mind the great responsibility that rested upon us as a British Empire and the British Commonwealth of Nations. The right hon. Gentleman gave testimony to the position we took up on these benches when we occupied them on a former occasion, and he referred to the statement—a very natural, frank and important statement—made in the year 1924 by the present Prime Minister. I think the present Prime Minister would probably be prepared to tell the House that the policy outlined in that statement remains his policy to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a policy of goodwill. May I say that every move that we have made, and every move we contemplate making, to improve the relationship between Egypt and this country will be influenced by a spirit if goodwill? The right hon. Gentleman, after reciting the policy to which I have referred, made this very surprising statement, that it was the policy until the other day. I expected he would have gone on to show us where the change has taken place and where there has been any departure from that policy, but I am surprised that he sat down without doing anything of the kind and proceeded to another subject. I want to say most emphatically that there has been no change.
12 n.
I will now tell the House what we have done up to the present time. There is no secret about it. I answered a question in this House on the 10th July, in which I said:
"I have had a conversation with the Egyptian Prime Minister, in the course of which various aspects of Anglo-Egyptian relations were naturally touched upon. His Majesty's Government are prepared to give the whole question their most careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any general statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1929, col. 855, Vol. 229.]
That was our position on the 10th July. There has been a suggestion in the speech to which the House has just listened, and which was made more emphatically in another place, that we have been carrying on negotiations behind the back of the High Commissioner. I challenge that state-

1639
ment most emphatically. Who is to decide when a Government responsible to the country for its policy is to place its officials in possession of that policy, and when that policy has to be placed in possession of the officials? Is it to be placed in the possession of the officials before the Government has decided it? That is the position we are in. As I told the House in the replies I have just given, we had conversations with the Egyptian Prime Minister. He went away to Paris for some days, and when he came back he had a conversation with some of my officials, and they took down the various points. I at once asked for a Cabinet Committee to consider the whole question in the light of the statement that I read and I gave to the House on the 10th July, when I said most emphatically that we were prepared to give careful consideration to the whole question.
May I inform the House that the first meeting of that Cabinet Sub-Committee to consider these proposals with the intention of presenting a report to the Cabinet was held on Monday last, and I think that ought to dispose of the charge that we have been negotiating—at any rate, it appears that a new meaning has been given to the word "negotiating." We have merely listened to the Prime Minister of Egypt, and he is the Prime Minister to-day. If he comes to this country and asks to see the Foreign Secretary, and he sees him, and we discuss and talk over matters, as I informed the House we did, then we are not supposed to do that, and, if we do it, we are charged with carrying on negotiations behind the back of the High Commissioner. Moreover, I have some dates here. The High Commissioner during most of the time that has elapsed since I had a conversation with the Egyptian Prime Minister has either been away in Syria or travelling to this country. I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentlemen who have made so much of this and have gone even to the length of saying in one instance that he had heard a rumour and on that rumour he informed another place that we had signed—that the Government had actually signed—a treaty, and have made that statement merely on a rumour—
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not in order in referring to
1640
speeches made in another place in order to influence this House.
Mr. HENDERSON: I think I heard a reference to something that has been said in another place. Perhaps it was the result of my being a little more direct than other speakers.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is very difficult for us to discuss this matter except in relation to all the declarations made by Ministers. Would it be completely out of order to refer to the statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It will be exceedingly difficult to elucidate the whole of the facts unless we can do so.
Mr. SPEAKER: It would not be out of Order to make references to any statement of policy that had been declared in another place, but it would be entirely out of order to quote, or almost quote, as I have said, the speeches made and the kind of words used, in order to influence this House. Any references must be confined merely to statements of policy
Mr. MACLEAN: Further on that point of Order. I want to ask whether it will be in order, seeing that you have allowed criticisms of policy, to refer to a criticism in the other House of the rumour that has been alluded to by a leading statesman there?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have clearly laid down that references to statements of policy made in the other place would be in order, but it is a very long standing custom and rule in this House that direct references to speeches in this House, and quotations, should always be declared to be out of order in this House.
Mr. THURTLE: In order that this matter may be quite clear, may I ask you, Sir, if your ruling means that there may be references in this Debate to declarations made by Ministers in another place, but that there may not be any references to, speeches made by other Members of that other place?
Mr. SPEAKER: I really think that the ruling I gave was quite clear.
Mr. HENDERSON: I do not propose to pursue the matter. I want now to come to what engaged the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in the, second part of his speech, and that is the

1641
resignation, or, as I think he said, the dismissal, of Lord Lloyd. I want to give the House as briefly as I possibly can the history. Within a few days of my going to the Foreign Office, a communication was received from Lord Lloyd. I read that communication, and was very much struck by the language and what I believed to be the spirit which underlay it. I at once asked for papers to be handed to me going back during the greater part of the time that Lord Lloyd had been the High Commissioner, and I must say I could not but be impressed with the very wide divergence of view that was manifested in those papers—divergence of view between the position taken up by my predecessor in office and Lord Lloyd. May I say, in passing, that I most profoundly regret personally the absence of my predecessor to-day. In making that statement I am fully aware that he had no knowledge—I want to be perfectly fair, and I am not going to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is away purposely—he had no knowledge, at the time that he left this country, that such a Debate was to be held. As I have said, I could not but be impressed with the wide divergence of view between my predecessor and Lord Lloyd.
I was very pleased to notice that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech said nothing about the laying of papers. I just want to say in passing that I think the right hon. Gentleman has acted wisely in not pressing for that. All the papers that would have to be laid would be papers in connection with his own Government. But I am under the necessity of taking from some of the papers the position as I have seen it over the last three or four years. I think I can say that there were four or five occasions when the difference of opinion between my predecessor—and I suppose to some extent his Government—and the High Commissioner were most marked, and I am going to ask the House to permit me to read several instances where this divergence of view has been so marked. The first one was in the early summer of 1926. The question arose as to whether His Majesty's Government should or should not oppose the resumption of office by Zaghloul. My predecessor was strongly in favour of nonintervention. Lord Lloyd, on the contrary, wished to prevent Zaghloul from
1642
becoming Prime Minister. After a lengthy telegraphic dispute, Lord Lloyd's view was accepted by the Cabinet. In the winter of 1926–1927, the question of British officials in the Egyptian service generally, and the State railways in particular, came to a head. Lord Lloyd wished to reverse the policy of the preceding years, and to insist rigidly on the retention of a large proportion of British officials, and, in the case of some departments, an actual increase in their number. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I think that some of the "Hear, hears" had better be deferred. My predecessor held that such a reversal of policy was unjustifiable in itself, and calculated to defeat its own object by generating ill-feeling. A very lengthy exchange of telegrams and despatches resulted in Lord Lloyd being overruled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheer now!"]
In the summer of 1927, there occurred what came to be known locally as the Army crisis. Lord Lloyd considered that the Egyptian Army was a grave threat to our position in Egypt. My predecessor did not believe in the seriousness of the danger, and was convinced that, if a clash were inevitable, our own attitude should be constructive and not merely negative. A protracted exchange of very long telegrams took place, and continued for some weeks. Finally the issue went to the Cabinet, who decided mainly in favour of Lord Lloyd. Battleships were despatched to Egyptian waters, but no conclusive solution was reached. In the spring of 1928, a further crisis occurred on the introduction of the Assemblies Bill. Lord Lloyd held that, unless the Bill was withdrawn, it would be necessary to dismiss Nahas Pasha's Government and dissolve Parliament. My predecessor informed Lord Lloyd that His Majesty's Government did not desire to tear up the Egyptian Constitution. Nahas Pasha postponed the Bill. His Majesty's Government had obviously secured their object. Lord Lloyd, however, still wished to proceed to extreme measures but was overruled, and the episode closed.
In the early Spring of this year the Egyptian Government sought the concurrence of my predecessor in the imposition of certain new taxes on British subjects in Egypt. Under the capitula-

1643
tions, these taxes could not be imposed without our consent. The taxes proposed were moderate and reasonable in themselves, and the Egyptian claim that they were fully justified on equitable grounds in imposing them was unanswerable. Lord Lloyd, however, strongly opposed any concession whatever in respect of most of them. After a telegraphic argument he was overruled. It was this controversy which led up to my predecessor issuing—this is most remarkable in my opinion—on the 28th day of May, two days before the General Election, to a Commissioner who had held office under the Government for four years, a complete restatement of the principles upon which the Government decided to conduct the relations between this country and Egypt. I leave it to the House to judge whether there had not been running through the last three or four years of the relationship between my predecessor and the High Commissioner, as these statements indicate, this divergence of opinion to which I referred at the beginning.
In addition to these five cases, numerous minor differences of opinion revealed themselves between the time of these major disputes to which I have referred. I ought to say that, during the early part of this year, things became so bad that the conduct of business became difficult, since on few, if any, points was Lord Lloyd able to accept the views of my predecessor, and vice versa. An examination of the papers clearly demonstrated that the policy of my predecessor was a minimum of interference in the internal affairs of Egypt. I want to say that very frankly. That run through the whole of the proceedings so far as my predecessor was concerned—a minimum degree of intervention in purely internal affairs in Egypt and a liberal interpretation of the declaration of 1922. What was Lord Lloyd's attitude to this? In numerous instances he is clearly out of sympathy with both these objects which I have stated. Having read these papers, having very carefully considered the position, believing that the policy of my Government and my policy, or my position in interpreting that policy, would not be less liberal or less generous in expressions of goodwill, I was faced with this dilemma. Could we contemplate a perpetuation of this stream of dissatisfaction,
1644
a stream of which it could be said normally it was restless, very frequently it was turbulent, never smooth and never clear? Could we, I say, as a new Government contemplate, after all the illustrations and instances I have given, going forward with the policy that we hoped eventually to submit to the House with any degree of confidence if this marked determination to misinterpret or ungenerously to apply, that characterised the views of the High Commissioner during the last four years, had to be continued? Therefore, I came to the conclusion that we could not do so.
It has been said that what we ought to have done was to give Lord Lloyd a trial, that we should have produced our policy and trusted him to carry it through to the satisfaction of the Government. Let us image for a moment that we had pursued that course, and that we had gone on, say, for a year. Would the opposition of right hon. Gentlemen and those behind the Front Bench have been any less? Would there not have been a, much greater justification for the suggestion that there was complete disagreement between the High Commissioners and ourselves and that we "fired" him because of that? I came to the conclusion that the best thing I could do was to intimate to Lord Lloyd that we were dissatisfied with the position that had obtained during three or four years. I made an intimation to Lord Lloyd to the following effect.
In the short time at my disposal since taking office, I have endeavoured to review in their broad outlines the sequence of political events in Egypt since 1924. To be quite candid, I feel bound to tell you that I have been impressed by the divergence of outlook which has from time to time been apparent between my predecessor and your lordship. That this difference of outlook was perfectly sincere I do not for a moment doubt, but I confess that it appears to me so wide as to be unbridgeable. The success of my policy, which will certainly not be less liberal than that of my predecessor, will depend on the extent to which it may be interpreted with understanding and sympathy by His Majesty's representative. In the light of recent correspondence, I should be lacking in frankness did I not warn you that the possibility of your views being harmonised with those of either my predecessor or myself appears to me remote, and in these circumstances I should like to discuss the situation with you on your return."
Lord Lloyd arrived in this country this day week. I was prepared to give him an

1645
interview the following morning. He expressed a desire to see me on Tuesday morning. I saw him and in the frankest way we discussed the position with each other, may I say not only frankly, but in a friendly manner. After we had been together probably half-an-hour he handed me his resignation and asked me if I was prepared to reciprocate. As he was handing me a note couched in friendly terms, would I reciprocate. I had not then read the note. I said, "If you will hand me your note and allow me to read it, I shall then be prepared to express my opinion." I read his note, and I said "Yes, I shall reciprocate very fully." I handed to him a rough draft which I had made out, and he put up three suggestions, and I accepted them all. I am telling the House this as an indication of the desire that I had, if it were at all possible, that Lord Lloyd and myself should part company on the very best of terms. I have nothing personally against Lord Lloyd. He was in this House for many years, and we were on the most friendly terms.
I do not think that it would have been possible for au interview to have ended more friendly than the interview did between him and myself on Tuesday last. In leaving me he had only one suggestion to make. No, I think I ought to say he had two suggestions. He had one suggestion. Did I object to him showing the letters that we were just then exchanging to his leader—the right Hon. Gentleman who has just spoken—and I at once replied: "I have not the slightest objection." The next point was—and I say this in order again to indicate the friendly character of the interview—that in leaving, as he rose from his seat, he said: "Well, Mr. Henderson, I may yet be of some service." I think all went well until he had an interview with the right Hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not know what the House thinks of the change of attitude that has taken place. There was a friendly exchange of notes. Lord Lloyd on his own admission saw the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, I suppose, we had the result of it two days ago at Question time, when I was asked, not in a very friendly way, whether I had extorted the resignation from Lord Lloyd.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Did not the right Hon. Gentleman, in answer to that Question, inform the House that he had sent Lord Lloyd a telegram, the result of which would, in his opinion, have led anybody to terminate his appointment?
Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that that lays me open to the charge of being an extortionist. At any rate, I have read a paraphase of the telegram, and the House can judge for itself. I only want to say that I have tried to put before the House the position in which I was placed as a result of my reading of the position over the last three or four years. I have tried to show to the House that I think it would have been a mistake for us, whatever our policy may be—and, may I say, in order to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, that whatever our policy is, it will not be put into operation until it has been submitted for the approval of the Egyptian people and until it has been submitted to this House for ratification. It seems to me, that if a Government is to be asked to go beyond that there is going to be an end of reasonable negotiations. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Dominions?"] I think the House has already been informed that we are taking no step such as will be involved in any new agreement or treaty without full consultation with the Dominions. I was placed in this very difficult position. If I had wanted to take the line of expediency, I could have done so. I could have avoided a disagreeable necessity, but I preferred to do my duty in the way I have done.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1929.

2. Government of India (Aden) Act, 1929.

3. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1929.

4. Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Act, 1929.

5. Colonial Development Act, 1929.

6. Housing (Revision of Contributions) Act, 1929.

7. Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929.

1647

8. Land Drainage Act, 1929.

9. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1929.

10. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1929.

11. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1929.

12. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1929.

13. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Act, 1929.

14. Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

15. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Act, 1929.

16. Kilmarnock Water Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

17. London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

18. Inverness Water and Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

19. Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

20. Dunfermline and District Traction Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

21. Falkirk and District Traction Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

22. Greenock Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

23. Ross and Cromarty (Dornie Bridge, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

24. Ayr Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

25. Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Traction Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

26. Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

27. Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and Dumbartonshire Education Authorities Order Confirmation Act, 1929.

28. Clyde Navigation Act, 1929.

29. Hendon Urban District Council Act, 1929.

30. Grand Junction Company Act, 1929.

31. Derby Corporation Act, 1929.

32. Barmouth Urban District Council Act, 1929.

33. London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Act, 1929.

1648

34. Romford Gas Act, 1929.

35. Stoke-on-Trent Extension Act, 1929.

36. Sutton District Waterworks Act, 1929.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).
Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: This Debate arises because of the challenge presented to the Government by the official Opposition and consequently in our view the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary is not unjustified in quoting the record of events which have passed between his predecessor and Lord Lloyd. At the same time, most of us must regard it as unfortunate that it should have been necessary to detail in the presence of all the world these differences of opinion which have taken place between the British Cabinet and one of its principal representatives abroad. The situation in Egypt has for many years past been almost continuously difficult and delicate, and I much fear that the proceedings in this House to-day will have tended to add to our future difficulties. All these facts must have been known to the Opposition; they must have had very prominently in their minds the many successive instances of friction and disagreement which have occurred, and if any untoward results may follow, somewhat damaging to Imperial interests, from such disclosure, I think in fairness the House will feel that the responsibility must rest with those who have issued this challenge.
The question was asked whether Lord Lloyd has been kept fully informed of the negotiations that have taken place. Consultation between a Government and one of its representatives is, of course, necessary in almost all circumstances, but it does presuppose that there should be a measure of mutual confidence, and that the Government should feel that there is an essential unity of purpose between themselves and the agent in question. In all ordinary cases a change of Government here ought not to involve a change of representatives abroad That is a matter of fundamental importance in the conduct of our vast and multifarious affairs throughout the various countries of the world. But a Government has the right to feel that its policy is sympathetically presented to those to whom the

1649
agent is accredited, and since it has to bear itself the brunt of any failure of its policy it must have the right to feel that when it adopts a policy it will be offered and pressed in a manner which is consonant with its own intentions. So far as this Debate has proceeded most of us who are wholly impartial in this matter must feel that the Government could not have had that assurance in this particular case, and unless what has been said is controverted in the later course of the Debate I think that is the general conclusion to which the House and the country will come.
The personal question is not really the most important question at issue to-day. This House is far more concerned to know whether there has been, or is contemplated, any serious change of policy in our relations with Egypt. I do not say at the outset that a change of procedure or method would necessarily be wrong. After all, negotiations have been proceeding for many years and have not hitherto been carried to success. There remain questions of great gravity and importance still unsettled, and any Government would be rendering a great service to the Empire if it succeeded in arriving at a friendly understanding with the Government and people of Egypt. The House is unanimous with respect to the four points which were reserved in 1922, and I understand that the Government maintains the position which the same right hon. Gentlemen took up when they were in office in 1924. The Foreign Secretary on behalf of the Prime Minister has reaffirmed the attitude which he adopted then, and in that course and in their negotiations they will be generally supported by the House of Commons. Before anything definite is done the House ought to know whether the Government also adheres in all points of substance to the provisions of the draft Treaty of 1927; the treaty which was entered into by the right hon. Gentleman the late Foreign Secretary and Sarwat Pasha, who was Prime Minister of Egypt.
If there is to be any change of a substantial character I feel, and feel strongly, that Parliament should be informed before it finds itself committed. There I am entirely in agreement with the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) who said that the whole House should bear a common responsibility for
1650
any change that is made, for these matters are of vital importance to the whole Empire and a mistake once made would be exceedingly difficult to rectify. The Prime Minister has asked that this House should regard itself as a Council of State in dealing with great matters of policy and I, speaking on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, said we would very readily respond to that appeal. This House ought to be informed and consulted before any definite commitment is made if it is a departure in any substantial degree from the policy hitherto adopted by this country. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Egyptian people are to be consulted; that he would endeavour to secure that they should be consulted before any agreement is reached. It is difficult to know what form that consultation should take; but I will not press the right hon. Gentleman to-day on that matter. I know how difficult these negotiations are, and a question of that character could only be embarrassing. But if the Egyptian people are to be consulted before any decisive step is taken, the British people should also be consulted, as well as the Dominion Governments. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would present any Measure to this House for ratification. I hardly think that is adequate to the circumstances of the case, but without detaining the House longer I want to make an earnest appeal that the Government should be slow to take any definite course without carrying with them the general body of opinion in this country as represented in the House of Commons.
Mr. CHURCHILL: After the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has delivered, and after the very clear and emphatic manner in which he expressed what I believe is the opinion of the majority of this House as to full Parliamentary discussion before final commitments are made, I can abridge what I was about to have said, and, indeed, I should not have risen at all were it not for the fact that I feel that the position in which matters have been left after the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and also after the speech of the right hon. Member for Darwen, is in many respects unfair to Lord Lloyd. There are, of course, two questions at issue, the personal question

1651
of Lord Lloyd and his dismissal or resignation, and the general question of the future of Egypt.
I do not dispute the right of the executive Government to choose and change its agents when it requires to do so, but the fullest justification must be offered to Parliament for such changes. In attempting to give that justification to Parliament the Foreign Secretary has gone back over the last four years, and has disclosed the internal discussions which have taken place between the late Foreign Secretary and Lord Lloyd, between the Cabinet and the late Foreign Secretary, and generally has laid these matters, some of them touching extremely delicate points of policy, before the House, the public and the world. I think that the statement that he has made and read out, from the papers so assiduously and eagerly collected and placed at his disposal by those on whom he relies—[Interruption]. The right hon. Gentleman must begin by learning that he is not going to intimidate me. I say that the reading of those papers undoubtedly produced a wrong picture, a wrong impression of the actual relationship which no doubt existed between the parties concerned Lord Lloyd as the man on the spot, facing these difficulties, facing risks in Cairo, naturally had his point of view. The Government here, seeking their general policy of appeasement in these Egyptian and foreign affairs, had their point of view. Why should there not be a free interchange of views? What is there in the whole of this narration to show anything but a healthy, active and closely reasoned discussion proceeding between parties who in the end were unitedly agreed on every grave executive decision?
Does anyone quarrel with the explanation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) gave of the duties of representatives of the Crown? They have the fullest freedom for putting forward their views. They put them forward fearlessly. They ought to put them forward fearlessly. Do you want to have puppets, people who sing the tunes that you are habituated to and that you think are popular? You want to know what they really think. You also want to know that when the Executive has reached its decision, the policy on which it has decided will be accepted and
1652
loyally carried out. Certainly nothing in the relationship of His Majesty's late Government with Lord Lloyd gave us the slightest ground to complain of the loyalty and fidelity with which he carried out his duties. Again and again he took the view, in the Egyptian atmosphere, which was not the same as the one taken here, but when a decision had been taken, sometimes in one sense or another, he instantly accepted the view which we took. So I say that, while I do not dispute at all that another Government may require a different agent, it is not necessary to reflect upon the official discharge of his duties by Lord Lloyd under the late Administration, nor to represent him in any unfavourable light in that respect.
1 p.m.
But I think that the Foreign Secretary, having made this statement to the House, has probably made it extremely difficult for our representatives in every part of the world to express their views with candour and with courage upon these matters, because they will never know that the mere fact that, however well they have done their duty, they have at some stage of discussion expressed a view which is not popular with a new Government which may come in—they will never know that that will not be brought up against them. But, as I say, the late Government had placed their confidence in Lord Lloyd. They knew perfectly well his qualities, and that he had a strong view in certain matters of Egyptian policy, in some cases a stronger view than that which the Government themselves were ready to carry out But, after all, let us pay some tribute to his work. What were the conditions under which Lord Lloyd went to Egypt The murder of the British Sirdar of the Egyptian Army had but recently taken place; a very grave state of disorder and anxiety prevailed throughout Egypt, and especially in Cairo; the foreign communities were in the deepest anxiety and looked to us for protection.
Lord Lloyd has been there for four years. It is true that there are many things in the present condition of Egyptian politics which no one would say are desirable in all respects, but those are not matters for which Lord Lloyd had responsibility; they are matters which arise out of that very independence and freedom to manage their own affairs

1653
which we have conceded again to the Egyptian people. As far as peace and order are concerned, as far as public confidence and security and tranquility throughout Egypt are concerned, Lord Lloyd's four years' tenure of office, in conditions so difficult and so varied, is a monument which no aspersions will diminish. I must say another word or two about Lord Lloyd. I have spoken of his relations with the late Government. I must say that I think there has been a certain streak of prejudice in the Foreign Office against Lord Lloyd—I can speak after four years of intimate knowledge of this matter—partly natural, some of it, very easy to understand. [HON. MEM-BERS: "Is that an attack on the Civil Service?"] I will say in this House whatever is in Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Civil servants cannot reply."] But they have their Ministers to reply for them. I do say that there is a prejudice against one who is not a member of the Civil Service being placed in that position. A man of independent position who has been a Member of Parliament, a man who has access to the Ministers of the day in the Government of the day—such a man, I venture to affirm, is not entirely in accordance with the traditions and feelings of some of the great and powerful departments in this country; and I am bound to say that I noticed more than one instance of it during the last four years.
Now, I come to the question to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred—Was Lord Lloyd treated with the courtesy which he deserved? The right hon. Gentleman read the telegram which was sent in regard to which he has stated that it was difficult for anyone not to have terminated his appointment after receiving such a telegram; or words to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it was a very courteous interview. The right hon. Gentleman is always very courteous in his manner, and Lord Lloyd has a very agreeable manner, and I have no doubt that it was a courteous interview, although it dealt with a grave and sad business. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he wishes the House to believe that that is all that has passed between Lord Lloyd and the representatives of the Department over which he presides. Does he really suggest that there was nothing between this telegram, asking Lord Lloyd to come home, and the
1654
letter which was presented to the right hon. Gentleman in his room at the Foreign Office? Does he suggest that that is so? Has he any knowledge of any other communications which have been made? I ask the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] The House will note the silence of the right hon. Gentleman.
I have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any knowledge that any other communications have taken place. Even to that question he remains silent. Is he aware—[Interruption.]—I am choosing my words—with what sternness the demand was made upon Lord Lloyd to send in his resignation, and how clearly it was intimated to him that, unless he did so, he would be dismissed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that? Is he aware of that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Are you?"] I have Lord Lloyd's statement to me. Lord Lloyd is my friend. He has served under the Government of which I was a Member. I have been, like the right hon. Gentleman, his colleague in the House of Commons for many years before the War, and during the War. So long as Lord Lloyd was a servant of the Government opposite, he made no communication of any sort or kind to me, or to anyone else. He kept himself entirely a servant of the Administration, but when he had resigned his appointment, when he had vacated his appointment, it is perfectly true that he did on that day come to see me. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had knowledge of that. He told Lord Lloyd that he had knowledge of it, and that he took steps to find out who it was that he went to see on that day. Is that really the proper way to treat a high official of the Crown who had just resigned?
Mr. A. HENDERSON: On a point of Order. I never made any such statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say how it was that he knew.
Mr. HENDERSON: If the right hon. Gentleman has got himself into a difficulty, I am not going to get him out.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I am in no difficulty at all. The right hon. Gentleman himself brought this point out. He chose to bring up, in his great position as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, an interview

1655
which had taken place between two private persons, and he used that for the purpose of influencing the debate. Therefore, in view of that, may I not ask him on what he based that statement? It was quite true, but on what did he base that statement?
Mr. HENDERSON: I based it on the statement of Lord Lloyd, who told me that he had "seen Mr. Churchill."
Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, but after he had heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he was in possession of that information. That is rather a clever shuffle. The point is not of importance, but it illustrates the manner in which this matter has been treated, and the sort of thing that is going on. The right hon. Gentleman says that he based himself on Lord Lloyd's statement to him, but it now appears that he had previously informed Lord Lloyd that he had the information. Let us apply that to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that no negotiations were going on behind the back of Lord Lloyd. Is it true to say that? Discussions and negotiations were taking place. I am not allowed to mention names, but in another place a Minister of the Crown, yesterday, used the word "negotiations" repeatedly. He said that negotiations were in progress but, "We cannot communicate the progress of these negotiations until they have reached a further point." That was a public, official statement of a Minister of the Crown. Now, the right hon. Gentleman says that no negotiations were taking place; that there had been only two conversations, and the Cabinet committee had only just assembled. It is quite clear that something in the nature of negotiations were going on, and the High Commissioner was not, in fact, informed. It is usual in these matters of importance that when Governments at home begin discussions, they should, in the first place, tell their officer on the spot, while he remains their officer, that they are having discussions and proceeding with the business.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has in any way disposed of the criticism which was made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that there had been negotiations behind the back of the High Com-
1656
missioner during the short period since the new Government came in. I say, taking together these negotiations, the telegram which was sent, with the deliberate intention to secure the resignation, the pressure which was put upon Lord Lloyd, apart from what we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman; taking all these three things together, I cannot think that Lord Lloyd has had from His Majesty's Government the treatment which his own perfectly frank and straightforward character and his conduct as High Commissioner in Egypt entitled him to expect. Governments may change their agents, and may choose their agents. Why have the present Government been so very anxious to change Lord Lloyd? It is because, undoubtedly, Lord Lloyd has stood for firmness in defence of British rights in Egypt. That is why he has been singled out and selected for early change.
The fact that a man who, undoubtedly, was identified with the successful assertion of lawful British rights in Egypt, has had to resign, will not he confined in effect only to Egypt, It will raise great difficulties and embarrassments there and elsewhere. This quick and sudden change will cause difficulties all over the British Empire. Administrators, great and small, will have an example before their eyes of the fate which overtakes, under the present Government, public officials and public servants if they stand up with some firmness and stiffness for British rights and interest, and refuse to lend themselves to sloppy surrender and retreat. That is why he was obnoxious, and that is why he has been removed, and I say that it is a very curious action for a minority Government to have taken, at the very time when the Prime Minister has been appealing for national cooperation and goodwill in the treatment of external affairs. It would have been much more prudent and wise to have continued to discuss these matters with Lord Lloyd, and when you had some fault to find with him yourselves, and when you had some grievance with him or some difference had arisen with him in your administration, then you would have had a perfectly good ground for choosing whatever agent you thought would carry out your policy, and it would not have been necessary to go back into the past and to put a completely wrong gloss upon

1657
the inevitable discussions, sometimes very keen, which take place behind the closed doors of Cabinets and Administrations.
I have said that much about Lord Lloyd, but I must ask a few questions on the infinitely graver matter of the policy in Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman did not give, I thought, a very precise answer to the questions which were put by the Leader of the Opposition. After all, this is not a matter which can be settled only by general phrases; it can only be settled by precise answers. In the Draft Treaty of 1927 which was discussed with Sarwat Pasha we made certain military proposals, and those proposals were the extreme limit to which we were prepared to go. They were the extreme limit, and only in return for a full acceptance with good will by the Egyptian Government. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his expression "no change of policy" means that he will not go further in the direction of removing the British troops from Cairo than was prescribed in the Articles of the Treaty discussed with Sarwat Pasha. I think we are entitled to an answer. I trust the Prime Minister will be speaking later in the Debate, and after all he has our interests in his hands in the next few months, and no doubt he will have the largest measure of national support behind him in negotiations in other spheres which he will be undertaking. I appeal to him to give us the maximum reassurance in his power, to let the House separate with the greatest sense of security, in matters about which we are so gravely concerned, and I ask him to answer the specific questions which were asked by my right hon. Friend: Was there any modification of the military provisions; had the Government consulted their military and expert authorities upon them; had they their agreement upon them, and other questions of that kind? May we have the answer to them?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman respond directly to the appeal made to him by my right hon. Friend below the Gangway, and will he give the House an assurance, an absolute assurance, that the future relations of Britain and Egypt will not be compromised in any irrevocable sense by any decision or action which is taken by the Government before Parliament has reassembled? I think it is a fair request to make. I never wish
1658
to see the Executive unduly crippled, but considering that the right hon. Gentleman does not possess a Parliamentary majority—it is quite possible that on this Egyptian question he will be in possession of a majority; I do not prejudge it—I do say that, as he is not possessed of a normal Parliamentary majority, he ought to be doubly careful to make sure that he has a majority of the House behind him before, on a matter so controversial and grave as this, he takes irrevocable decisions. Therefore, I ask him to reassure the House that nothing will be settled which will have the effect of altering the present position in Egypt, altering the position adopted in the Sarwat Treaty, without our having had the fullest opportunity of discussing the whole of the proposals before any final decision is taken or signature appended.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I regretted it very much when notice was given to us that this subject was to be debated to-day. I did not regret that because I am less jealous of the rights of this House than are any hon. or right hon. Members opposite; I did not regret it because I wished more liberty for my colleagues in the Government and myself than other Governments which have gone before us had claimed and had received; I did not regret it because the subject of the resignation of a representative of His Majesty abroad was regarded by me at all as a subject that was not fit for discussion in this House; but I did regret it from the point of view of Egypt itself. Two speeches have been delivered to-day, one by the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, the other by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), to which no possible exception could be taken, but we have just listened to a speech the mischievous character of which it is impossible to exaggerate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), himself a Minister of the Crown, or a late Minister of the Crown, himself a Member of the Cabinet, himself the head of an important Department of State, has made one of the most unjustifiable attacks upon the Civil Service, and he has based that attack, not upon his own personal experience, but upon the most contemptible tittle tattle, which every man who is a Member

1659
of this House and who frequents clubs and such places could pick up by the armful. Not only that, but as this incident has happened—a very regrettable incident—if hon. Members opposite would confine their remarks to expressions of regret, they would find that there is no division in this House; but the right hon. Gentleman has used this most regrettable incident to proclaim to the representatives of the Crown in other parts of the world that it means that not a single one of them is going to be allowed to express their independent opinions in confidence, and, as it is their duty to do, to the Government in office. He knows very well that that suggestion is absolutely baseless.
I say that the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that when we came into office we did not merely inherit the unsolved four points of reservation; he knew perfectly well that when his Government was investigating this problem, when it drafted proposals for dealing with it, his Government did not regard the observations of the High Commissioner in Egypt as the due and proper critical observations which every foreign representative is bound to make to his Government; he knew perfectly well that within two or three days of our coming into office, and when my right hon. Friend on my right had got, so to speak, into the saddle in the Foreign Office, it was not the Sarwat Treaty that he had to consider, it was not the situation of Mahmoud Pasha that he had to consider, it was not the relation between this country and Egypt that he had to consider; he knew perfectly well that one of the first points that my right hon. Friend would have placed in front of him, and upon which he would have to come to a decision, would be the continuance in office of the High Commissioner of Egypt. There is no bench in this House which is less surprised that action had to be taken in the matter than the Front Bench opposite.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I had no knowledge of any kind that there was any question of removal of Lord Lloyd when the late Administration left office.
The PRIME MINISTER: That is a very convenient paraphrase of what I said. I said that there is no bench in this House that ought to be less surprised
1660
that action had to be taken in this matter. By that I do not say that the Front Opposition Bench is associated with us in any way whatever in the action that we did take I am not going to say anything about private or public conversations in that respect, but I do say that everyone on that Front Bench, those at least who were Members of the Cabinet, knew that that was a question which we should have before us, whatever the decision was that we came to. I prefer to leave it, so far as Lord Lloyd is concerned, there. The late High Commissioner went to Egypt in most difficult circumstances. He had a task imposed upon him when Sir Lee Stack met his death at the post of duty that was one of the most difficult that an administrator of the British Empire who was devoted enough to the public service to accept it could have undertaken. He did what he considered to be his best, but I do claim this—I believe that every responsible man in the three parties in this House will agree with me—that a Government administering the affairs of a colony, or dependency, or whatever you like to call it, must enjoy the comfort of full confidence in their representative, and my right hon. Friend is within his rights—that is all that this House is concerned with—in following precedent after precedent, not in view of his own personal experience of the High Commissioner. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in pursuit of the extraordinary tactics he has been showing in the last three or four weeks, would have liked, if it had been possible for him, to have said that it was not on account of the past but on account of some friction with my right hon. Friend. That is mere pettifogging tactics. My right hon. Friend, not because the High Commissioner had come up against him, but on his perusal of the records, said "I cannot feel the confidence in the High Commissioner that I should like in anyone representing the Government."
On the matter of policy the right hon. Gentleman comes up and says "I want an assurance that the Government activities are going to be suspended until I am in my place." The Government activities, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, will not be suspended. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are going to pursue an

1661
examination into this question of Egypt, and the considerations put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen will be fully borne in mind; that nothing final can be done until this House has agreed to the ratification. The Government are going to make their suggestions. They are going to try this, that, and the other thing. In other words, I happen to know something about the Sarwat negotiations. I will follow exactly on the same lines. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition knows that the Sarwat Treaty was sent away to Egypt without the events taking place which the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping desired to impose on us. We know our responsibility. We know our position here. We will do what we think the interests of this nation and the interests of Egypt require us to do, remembering all the time our responsibility to this House.
I have nothing to hide so far as the circumstances of the present moment are concerned. We are exploring the situation. The right hon. Gentleman says: Will I give him a pledge that we shall not go beyond the extreme of limit which he and his friends embodied in the Sarwat Treaty? Will he in his kindness give me an extra inch? Is a document accepted by the right hon. Gentleman going to be regarded as the very last word which any Government can ever say? Really, the right hon. Gentleman must open his eyes and see the absurdity of his suggestion.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I made that request, because the Foreign Secretary said that there would be no change in the policy, and I wanted to know whether that "no change" covered the definite military clauses which were embodied in the Sarwat Treaty?
The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the Sarwat Treaty was defended in certain quarters, because it was an adequate expression of the policy of 1924. Is my right hon. Friend not to be allowed to consider the Sarwat Draft Treaty in relation to the policy of 1924, which he himself has said to-day is still our policy? The right hon. Gentleman has not improved his position.
I will tell the House exactly what is going on. There are four reserved points.
1662
In connection with each one of those points, there have been many proposals as to how they should be handled. The question of the military occupation of Cairo in the Sarwat Treaty may be revised at the end of ten years, and then every five years afterwards, and they actually weaken this by saying that, if there is no agreement, it may be referred to an outside body. Is that the last word in securing our communications through Egypt? Really, if it is, we have come to a very sad impasse. Are there no other suggestions approved by the authorities, for securing our communications through Egypt except that? If the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues have any doubt about that, I will tell them this: the whole matter, while I am talking and while he is listening, is being considered, because it has been referred to them already; it is being considered by the three heads of the Service Departments. Does that satisfy the right hon. Gentleman? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this from me, however unwilling he may be to do it, and however damaging it is going to be to the peculiar campaign which he is conducting? Will he take it from me that all other points of the same difficulty, and the same variety of possible solutions, are being treated in the same cautious, and the same careful way? Not until everything has been explored, and until the best proposal that can be made has been devised, will the instrument which is vital, which is living, and to which the Government will commit itself, make its appearance. May I appeal to the House not to do any further damage to Egypt, and to allow us to go on with other business.
Mr. SKELTON: Nobody can doubt that we have had this morning a Debate of the first importance, and I do not propose to add more than one or two words to what has already been said. Matters of such importance to the whole parliamentary and governmental system of our country should not be allowed to pass by those who are interested in the conduct of Governments without a word or two from the back benches on this side of the House. I am going to say one or two things which are not in complete agreement with certain words which have fallen from the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I want to state what, in

1663
my view, is the true cause of the anxiety which all who are interested in the proper conduct of public affairs have a right to feel in the action which the Foreign Secretary has taken. There can be no question that we are dealing in this matter of the dismissal of an important public servant with a topic of grave import to the conduct of government. Nobody can doubt that the whole question of the dismissal, or the enforced retirement, of agents in foreign countries is a matter of grave importance to the whole relationship between the Government at the centre and its representatives abroad. I have one serious criticism, above all others, to make of the action that has been taken. I cannot believe that it is right for a Cabinet, newly installed in office, to dismiss or to cause the resignation of a High Commissioner of Egypt, not upon their own experience, but upon the supposed experience of their predecessors.
I am not competent to enter into—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is a pity that one cannot admit the limits of one's own knowledge without those comic "hear, hears!" from the other side. I am not competent to enter into the discussion which went on between Lord Lloyd and other administrations, but I am satisfied that here a large principle of the behaviour and the conduct of Cabinets is involved, namely, that if they, are going to dismiss their servants abroad, it must be upon their own experience and not upon the experience of others. So far as the Foreign Secretary has described his relations with Lord Lloyd, it appears that there was no direct discussion between the present Foreign Secretary—perhaps I may have the right hon. Gentleman's attention. [Laughter]. When the hon. Gentleman who laughs is an older Member, he will know that that is a courtesy which is freely given; at all events, it is a thing which all of us are agreed should be given, especially when a matter of grave public importance is being debated. This question is important, not only on its merits, but in relation to the whole conduct of public affairs. As far as I understand from the Foreign Secretary's account, he, as the new Foreign Secretary, had not discussed Egyptian policy, Egyptian conditions, and the facts of the
1664
Government of Egypt, with Lord Lloyd before he sent a telegram to Lord Lloyd clearly indicating his disapproval of his continuance in office.
I believe that it was highly improper to take any opinion but the opinion of his own experience, in coming to a decision of such importance, and one cannot in the face of such an incident as that but ask the Foreign Secretary why he did not wait until he knew from his own judgment that Lord Lloyd was not in such consonance with his policy as would enable the Government to have full confidence in him? Why should he not have waited until he had seen for himself the nature of Lord Lloyd's views upon topics which would have to be administered. This is a matter of real importance for future Governments, and the action which has been taken is a retrospective condemnation of Lord Lloyd upon facts which were not directly before the right hon. Gentleman while responsible for foreign affairs. The dismissal of an important public servant should not be undertaken by a Cabinet until they know, after they have had the responsibility of office, that he is not in consonance with their views. Out of the whole circumstances of this retirement, this is the large public issue which is involved. Is it not the duty of a new Cabinet not to rely upon past discussions between a previous Cabinet and their servants but to test for themselves and to judge for themselves the capacities of the public servants whom they find in office when they themselves come into power? If I may say so, I think this is a very unsuitable subject for public controversy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then sit down!"] No, I do not propose to sit down. I think this is a matter which might well have been left without public controversy at all.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: Hear, hear!
Mr. SKELTON: But the subject having been raised I do not think we can safely leave undiscussed and unanalysed what I regard as the grave impropriety of a new Cabinet, a new Foreign Secretary, accepting the evidence of a previous Cabinet and not judging from his own experience the fitness of their servants abroad. I am sure that such a thing is unsuitable and improper, and for this reason, that every public

1665
servant such as the late High Commissioner has a right, before he is dismissed by the responsible Government, to have an opportunity of showing his capacity and his power in the conduct of the business with which he has been charged. Lord Lloyd has been given no such opportunity by the Foreign Secretary. Lord Lloyd has not been dismissed because his relations with the present Cabinet have been unsatisfactory. The Foreign Minister has taken action upon the experiences of the past Cabinet, and has decided that the past Cabinet ought to have dismissed Lord Lloyd, and has dismissed him in their place. That is the criticism I venture to make. I would like to make it quite clear that that does not seem to me—I may be wrong, and if so I shall be corrected—to be the way to induce confidence in our agents abroad, that a Cabinet may dismiss them not upon their dealings with that Cabinet but on their dealings with another Cabinet.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!
Mr. VAUGHAN: May I, as a new Member, ask whether a speaker is entitled to say the same thing more than six times?
Mr. SKELTON: When the hon. Member is more familiar with this House he will know that my interventions in Debate, though fairly frequent, are nearly always very moderate in length. Nor do I think that on a matter of such grave public importance, and raising a point which has not yet been fully discussed in this House, I ought to be subject to the discourtesy of that kind of interruption. It is an interruption such as I should never have made myself, although I have had experience in three Parliaments. Will the House permit me to develop the line of thought which I am putting before hon. Members and regard the incident which has just occurred from the point of view of the agent abroad? He has been the confidential servant of the late Cabinet. That Cabinet has never hinted at the possibility of dismissing him on account of the representations he has made. That Cabinet falls, and a new Cabinet comes into power. Is that agent abroad to be under the fear that when a new Cabinet comes into power he may be dismissed for the representations he made to the previous Cabinet? Believe me, that is a
1666
totally unsound and untenable principle of relations between a Cabinet and their servants; and I believe that when this matter is fully thrashed out, when we have the time to regard this affair as a whole, when tempers have cooled and the whole matter has passed into the realm of history, this will be the criticism which is a matter of real seriousness—that the present Foreign Secretary accepted the advice given to his predecessor by Lord Lloyd as a case for dismissing him. Surely the Foreign Secretary would have been wiser to wait until he himself had had some personal discussion of Egyptian policies with the public servant whom he has dismissed.
I leave that point, no doubt to the intense gratification of the hon. Member opposite. There is only one other observation which I wish to make, and it is one which I would willingly leave unsaid. For my part, I wish here and now to dissociate myself entirely from the introduction into this House of any expression of the supposed views of the Civil Service as opposed to the supposed views of the Cabinet. I have never held office, and I do not suppose I ever shall hold office, but I am sufficiently conversant with the conduct of the public life of this country to know that the Civil Service deserves and the proper conduct of Parliament demands that the views of the Civil Service as opposed to the views of their political heads should never be brought into public discussion in this House. Speaking from these back benches, I say that, in my judgment, that is a rule which under no circumstances, under no provocation, under no excuse, should ever be contravened.
I have attempted to show to the House what, in my view, are two important points which have emerged from this debate. I think a grave mistake in method has been made, the effects of which will resound amongst the agencies and other offices which are held abroad by our representatives, and I should not have been doing justice to myself if I had not pointed it out. But, for my part, I propose to let what I regard as an error of method in this Government not interfere with what I ventured to to say during the Debate on the Address was the line which, as a humble back bencher, I proposed to follow. The line I propose to follow in this Parliament

1667
is to give honest, disinterested consideration to the proposals of the Government. The burden of public life in this country is not becoming lighter, it is becoming heavier. I have no doubt that this Government, like other Governments, will make mistakes of gigantic scope. [Interruption.] If so, then no question will arise as to the necessity of extreme criticism. Till that moment comes, I am prepared, speaking as an Opposition Member, to give the proposals of the Government such careful consideration as their high station requires, and only to oppose them when I think their proposals are definitely against the public interest.

REPARATIONS.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not rise to continue the very interesting, if somewhat exciting, discussion which I have been listening to for the past two or three hours. I propose to call attention to a totally different matter, and, although I think it is one of equal, if not greater, gravity, I am of the opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will be more likely to discuss this matter in an atmosphere of greater calm, and I shall be surprised if at the end of the discussion we do not find ourselves in agreement. I wish to deal with the Young Report on Reparations. I do so with much reluctance, but I am not taking up this question in order to embarrass the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any negotiations which may take place. On the contrary, I think this discussion may strengthen his hands when he comes to the very important conference which must take place at some time or other. I have read the Young Report, and it seemed to me so incredible that I read it a second and a third time, and each time I read it with feelings of amazement that such a report could be presented to the British Treasury as a fair settlement of the claims of Great Britain.
I have no desire to criticise the very distinguished expert who represented us in this business. On the contrary, I think we were represented by one of the ablest economists in the world, but there he was in a position of isolation, largely due to the fact that a very able colleague of his had been stricken down in the middle of the negotiations. Our representative was pressed by other Powers, and most of them benefited by the sacrifices which
1668
we were called upon to make. Our representative seemed to be in the position of the juryman who after holding out against the opinion of his fellow jurymen for hours, days, and perhaps weeks, in the end had to accept the responsibility of being the one and only dissentient. The responsibility cannot be placed on our representative. The responsibility, in the first instance, rests with the Government and undoubtedly with this House. I want to say here and now that I earnestly trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will use his great authority and influence to secure very substantial modifications in the scheme adopted by the Young experts before it is adopted by this House.
2.0 p.m.
I will give my reasons for that course. I do not object to a reduction in German payments; on the contrary, when the Dawes Report was before this House five years ago I said the figures were too high, and that I had no doubt a further reduction would have to be effected in due course. I do not think we have seen the last reduction, because every revision which has taken place up to the present has ended in a reduction, and I do not believe that this is the last. I am not objecting to the Young Report on the ground that it has reduced the contribution of Germany Germany's contribution is still a very heavy one. We shall find it difficult to raise a sum running up to £34,000,000 which we have to pay to America, and we are in a much better position that Germany. I think the Young contribution is very stern and severe.
My objection is that the whole of the sacrifices have been made practically at our expense, and, if there is to be any abatement in the German annuity, it should be distributed fairly. That is not the case; practically we have been called upon to foot the bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that we cannot continue to pursue a policy of making sacrifices at the expense of our own people, or of bearing further financial burdens in order to help those who are better able to bear their own burdens. That is the statement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to reparations. I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will impress that view upon the Conference, and

1669
that he will be able to secure a very substantial improvement in the Young terms as far as we are concerned.
Let me summarise the alterations which have been effected in our position and to our detriment by the Young report. First of all, there is the reduction in the Spa percentages. I cannot give the exact figures, but perhaps the Chanceller of the Exchequer will inform us. It looks as though what is now proposed will mean a reduction of about £2,000,000. That is a reduction of £2,000,000 a year in our share which was fixed at the Conference at Spa between the Allies and Germany, and that was the proportion of German reparations allocated to us. My recollection is that it means a reduction of about 22 to 20 per cent.
Why should there be any reduction? On what ground has a reduction taken place? Were we receiving too much under the Spa agreement in proportion to the sacrifices which we made in the war? Under the Spa agreement, France was to receive 52 per cent. of the whole, and we were to receive 22 per cent. That means that France was to receive 2⅓ times as much as we were to receive, and I think that was an extremely generous settlement as far as France was concerned. I am not minimising the sacrifices France made in the War, but as a matter of fact neither in lives nor money were the sacrifices of France two and a half times more than our own. When you come to the question of devastation, our devastated areas are of a different character. Our devastation has been in our trade, and especially in our international trade. We have not yet recovered more than 80 per cent. of our great international trade at the present time. We ought to be, not merely 100 per cent. of what we were before the War, but about 120 per cent., taking the populations into account, and certainly we have not recovered more than 80 per cent. That means that since the War we have lost, at the very least, £3,000,000,000, of trade directly owing to the devastation of the War. We are repaying £34,000,000 a year, which will run up, I think, to £38,000,000, to America in respect of a War debt which we incurred really to finance the Allies. Had it not been for the obligations we incurred to finance the Allies in respect of food and munitions, it would have been quite unnecessary for
1670
us to have borrowed that £800,000,000, or whatever it was, from America, which, with arrears, has run up to about £1,000,000,000. I cannot see on what ground we can be called upon to assent to a decrease of the proportions which were laid down by agreement after a good deal of conference and consultation and examination by experts in the year 1920; but we are now invited to agree to a proportion that will reduce the sum of money which we shall receive in respect of reparations by £2,000,000 a year.
A much more serious thing, in my opinion, is what has happened about the division of the German annuity. For the first time the German annuity is to be divided into two categories, the conditional and the unconditional. The unconditional is to be paid whatever the state of trade may be in Germany. The conditional can be postponed for two years if the trade conditions in Germany are of such a character, or if her currency difficulties are of such a kind, that she cannot secure a sufficient number of foreign securities to enable her to pay the whole of her annuities. She is entitled to give 90 days' notice. She must pay the whole into the Reichsbank, but there is to be a postponement of the transfer. In the second year, she can even suspend payment to the Reichsbank to the extent of 50 per cent. In the third year a committee is to be set up to consider what is to be done with the arrears. It is of no use to us that our share has been paid into the Reichsbank; the whole question is, how we are to secure that share by means of the transfer. When the third year comes, Germany will be confronted with the payment of the whole of her annuity for that year, and something like £140,000,000 of arrears. Does anyone imagine that she can do that? She has just recovered—that is the hypothesis—from two years of severe trade depression, and the first year that she recovers she is called upon to pay, not merely the whole of her annuity, but the two years' arrears as well.
What is to be done with the unconditional payment? The unconditional payment is a payment of 660,000,000 gold marks, that is to say, £33,000,000. Germany must pay that whatever her trade conditions may be. The rest of the annuity, which comes to something like 1,400,000,000 gold marks, or roughly about

1671
£70,000,000, is conditional. Practically, we receive nothing of the unconditional payment. £25,000,000 goes straight to France. France has the first charge of £25,000,000 out of that £33,000,000. Italy has 42,000,000 gold marks; Italy has a guarantee of over £2,000,000. That leaves £6,000,000. Then you have the service of the Dawes Loan; so that practically nothing will come to us out of the uncondidional payment. If there is any depression in Germany, if Germany cannot purchase the necessary foreign securities in order to pay the unconditional part of the annuity, we shall be left out. We have to pay our £34,000,000 to America, and £38,000,000 later on. We made arrangements by which we are to receive from France and Italy and Germany seven payments which will make up that £34,000,000 or £38,000,000, but for two years that may be suspended, and, at the end of the two years, it is to be left to a Committee, on which we shall be one out of seven, to decide whether we are going to recover those arrears or not.
It is incredible to me how anybody could have signed this report. Not merely are we to be left for two years with nothing, but we may have such a revision at the end of two years that even then there will be a reduction. The £25,000,000 paid to France is about the best security in the world. We have absolutely none. Our payment will be precarious, doubtful; I have no doubt that the bulk of it will vanish. Why do I say that? Germany has only been enabled to pay her Dawes contributions by borrowing on a large scale and by keeping down her wages. Those two processes cannot be continued indefinitely, and the result will be that Germany sooner or later will be confronted with the aggregation of those huge borrowings for the purpose of paying these annuities, and there will be another revision; but when that comes France will be secure, and Italy will be secure as to her proportion of £2,000,000, or 42,000,000 gold marks. We shall be left the rest, which is precarious and vanishing; we shall be left with nothing but a £34,000,000 payment to America, which is secure enough. I do not think that in these circumstances our Government ought to append its signature to a report which is not merely a set-back to us, but a humiliation to us. I think it is one which no Government, in the interests
1672
of the taxpayers of this country and in the interests of fairness, ought to be called upon to sign. We used our credit with great generosity for the benefit of the whole of our Allies during the War. Agreements were made in which we were put down last. I cannot trust myself to say what I think of the way in which we have been treated in the whole of these arrangements, and I would rather not; I would rather state the facts as they are. But that is not all. There are certain safeguards, but I believe they will vanish. There is something to the effect that for the first deficiency France is to pay 500,000,000 too, but that is only for the first deficiency. I am hoping that at any rate the 20 per cent. will be safeguarded. In the main, however, we are left with nothing.
I am sorry that there is a third thing which is, I will not say more serious, but just as serious, and that is in regard to payments in kind. Under the Treaty of Versailles, which I had a hand in negotiating, there were payments in kind in respect of coal, and also in respect of some other things for about four or five years. I forget what the other things were at the moment—dyes, potash, and a few things of that kind. There were payments in kind in respect of coal for 10 years, because of the devastation of the Belgian and the French coalfields. I thought at the time that ten years was a very liberal limit. As a matter of fact, the French coal fields were not only restored but improved in less time than that. Under the Treaty of Versailles, payments in kind would have come to an end this year. Unfortunately, under the Dawes Report the ten year limit was taken away. I have been condemned, especially in the coalfields, for my share of the responsibility, but mine was a ten year limit. It would have come to an end this year and there would have been no payments in kind at all. I must remind hon. Members opposite that it was in 1924 that that limit was taken away. That is never stated in the coalfields. It is one of many things that I shall one day have to tell my friends the miners—the sort of things I have been blamed for, for which I had not the slightest responsibility.
However, that is another matter. I did not raise it for that purpose. I raised it for the purpose of seeing the effect of the Young Report. On the face

1673
of it, the Young Report is a limitation. It extends for ten years. There will be deliveries in kind for another ten years. The most serious thing there is that provision is made in the new regulations to permit the several Powers to dispose of some of their quota outside their own territory under suitable restrictions. That means that France and Italy can now get their quota of coal from Germany under reparations—not under the Treaty of Versailles but under the new regulations which have been made since. They need not consume it in their own territory. They can sell it outside for any price. There is no regulation at all in regard to that. In the Treaty of Versailles we had careful safeguards to prevent that coal from competing with British coal. As far as I can see, there is no restriction at all as to the price which these countries can charge when they are selling their surplus coal, which they get from Germany, in the markets of the world. What they want is the cash now. Italy does not need the coal to the same extent as formerly, because of her gigantic development of water power. Even her railways are independent of coal. The coal is to be sent to the Governments. The Governments do not require it, and they can sell it outside, as far as I can see from these provisions, without any restrictions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take very careful note of that.
Here is another point. When Germany postpones her transfers, as I read this report, she can make arrangements for liquidating the arrears and for further deliveries in kind. That is very serious for a country like ours which is an importing country. See what it means. The suspension of payments in kind is an act by Germany. She can give 90 days notice and can claim suspension for two years. She is passing through a period of depression. She has a surplus of goods. She can dispose of that surplus by way of reparations. She can pay her reparations, and liquidate her arrears, by getting rid of goods which she could not dispose of otherwise. That is a very serious thing that ought to be examined. I think it is quite capable of being manipulated in a way that would be disastrous for an exporting country like ours. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take very great care that a provision of that kind is not inserted. We seem by
1674
this Young Report to be hit all round. First of all the contribution we receive is to be reduced from 22 to 20 per cent., which means £2,000,000 a year. In the next place, the annuity of Germany is to be divided into two, one the unconditional one—where we receive nothing—and a conditional one which may be suspeuded for two years if Germany is in a had way, and there will be no guarantee that at the end of two years you will receive anything. We are hit hard there. Then come these provisions with regard to payments in kind which are the most injurious of all. Although there was an American Representative there, and for the first time there was a kind of linking up of debts with reparations, in the arrangements that were made I did not observe that, during the two years in which we were not to receive our share of reparations, there is any provision that America is not to receive her annual payment in respect of debt. America is represented on this body, which can at the end of seven years wipe out those arrears and leave her short of nothing. That consultative body cannot even consider the question of the repayment of the American debt.
This seems to be a very one-sided transaction. The thing has been weighted against us in every direction and in every particular. I am not against reduction. On the contrary, in every conference I have attended my plea was always for a reduction of Germany's payments. I never believed that the great demand that has been made on Germany could be sustained, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows, when you go into a conference you have to give way here and there and you feel that you have carried the thing as far as you possibly can at a particular stage, but another conference will come later on when there will be a revision. That is all you can do in an international conference. Many a time have I communicated with the United States to beg them to bring the debts into a sort of ambit of the discussion about reparations. I made the appeal to President Wilson. I have here the letters that passed between us, but I do not think I will detain the House by reading some of the passages: I found the Americans very gentle, taking a very broad and munificent view on questions of reparations, but whenever you came to questions of debt you found them exceedingly hard,

1675
unyielding and unbending. In our proposals in 1922 we proposed to abandon every claim we had against any country in respect of debt owing to us. We offered to abandon, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, our claim to every penny of German reparations provided America was prepared to abandon her claim against us. It is a grave misfortune that a proposal of that kind was not carried. It would have meant wiping the slate, and it would have meant getting rid of all these burdens which are crippling industry and depressing wages throughout the whole of the year. As long as these huge claims for reparations and debts are on the shoulders and on the chest of Europe, you are bound to have harsh industrial conditions. Therefore, in 1922, we made that offer, that we were prepared to clean the whole slate. We had £3,000,000,000 due to us. [Interruption.] There was a war on in 1918. I had not forgotten that. The hon. Member means 1918.
Mr. LEACH: The 1919 election.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I made it in correspondence which passed between ma and the President of the American Republic at that date, and I am quite prepared to publish that correspondence. I said "If we are to have a sort of abatement, let us have abatement all round." We were prepared in 1919 to have debts brought into account and to have a settlement which would have had the effect of wiping out all these obligations. I do not mean to say to relieve Germany altogether; certainly not. I have never taken that line. It was due that she should pay a very considerable sum of money in respect of the devastation which she caused by the War, and for which she was responsible. The proposal was made in 1922. That is seven years ago. [Interruption]. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House he would, possibly, have made it before—and perhaps not. If he knew a little more about the subject he would realise things which he is incapable of comprehending at the present moment. I am not in the least urging any objection to reductions in the obligations of Germany. On the contrary, I say that these things can possibly be accomplished. I earnestly entreat the right hon. Gentleman—I am not sure that it is necessary to press him very hard
1676
upon it, because I have read the speech which he delivered in the City of London and which gave me great gratification—that he will consider once, and consider twice, before appending the signature of the Government to a document which would be so disastrous to this country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I do not in the least complain that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this question. On the contrary, I think that it will be of service to those who have to conduct in what must in any case be very difficult circumstances, the consideration of this Report on behalf of this country. For a very great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman has said he has had no more sympathetic listener in the House of Commons than myself, but I am sure that hon. Members will realise that in speaking upon this subject today I am in a somewhat delicate and difficult position. Indeed, I feel a certain amount of hesitation in dealing with the matter, and I envy the right hon. Gentleman his position of greater freedom and less responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman has given such a very clear and full account of the main provisions of the Young Report that it is not necessary that I should follow that ground beyond, perhaps, illustrating one or two points by figures which are in my possession and to which the right hon Gentleman perhaps had not access.
I would like at the outset to make it clear that the Government are not in any way committed to the acceptance of the recommendations of that Report. Hon. Members will remember that this Committee had its genesis in conversations which took place at Geneva last September between certain foreign Ministers. The German Foreign Minister raised the question of the evacuation of the Rhineland, and in the conversations which followed, I understand some other Foreign Ministers tried to link that up with the question of Reparations. I believe that it had been the policy of the British Government up to that time not to admit, or not to accept, any direct relation between the evacuation of the Rhineland and the payment of Reparations.
However, as a result of the agreement which was reached at Geneva, and at

1677
which I think it ought to be mentioned no Finance Ministers were present, this Exports' Committee was set up. It is quite true that the members of that committee were appointed by the respective Governments, but in the case of Great Britain at any rate, they were not there directly as representatives of the Government. They were there as independent financial experts. My predecessor in office stated a few weeks ago quite firmly, and, I think, quite properly, that the Government did not regard themselves as bound to accept whatever conclusions the Experts' Committee might recommend. I am not aware that up to the present any of the Governments affected by this Report have formally accepted the Report, or rather I ought to say, any of the creditor Powers. I believe that the German Foreign Minister has stated that the German Government accepted it as a basis of a conference, but it is not within my knowledge that any of the creditor Powers have accepted the Report. On the contrary, I think that they all regard the proposals of the Report as being open to consideration and negotiation by that conference. We cannot assume, and it would be ridiculous to assume, that every Government is committed to accepting everything that a committee, constituted like this expert committee, might choose to recommend. There would be no need to have any conference if the Governments were compelled to accept the Report as it stands. All that would be necessary would be that post-cards would be exchanged between the different Governments notifying their acceptance, and then for certain technical experts to set to work and prepare the machinery for carrying it into effect. Having said so much about the genesis of the Experts' Committee, I will pass on to deal with other matters.
May I carry back the memories of hon. Members to an incident which happened during the sittings of this Committee about the beginning of May. The American Chairman of the Committee put forward a proposal before the Committee that the German annuities should be fixed at £110,000,000 a year for a period of 37 years, and with debt cover only for 22 years more, but we were expected to find the Dominions share of reparation. Hon. Members will not forget the indignation that the proposal
1678
aroused in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) put a question to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said very boldly and firmly that the Government would not accept such a proposal, if it were finally embodied in the Report of the Experts Committee. There are degrees in everything and the difference between the proposal that was made then and rejected, and the proposals which finally appear in the experts report are differences of degree only.
As there may be Members of the House who did not hear the very clear analysis of the amount of the annuities and their distribution by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, may I in a word or two recapitulate what he said. I may preface my remarks under that head by saying that the Government are willing to agree to the amounts which have been proposed for the German annuities. We have no desire to increase the amount of the claims which Germany may be called upon to pay. That is the one point in the report on which I think there will be very general agreement. The scheme is that there shall be 36 annuities, starting at £85,000,000 and rising to £120,000,000, an average of £99,500,000, but outside that, or rather beyond that, there is war debt cover for the next 22 years between 1966 and 1988 and there the amounts begin at £85,000,000 and gradually fall to £45,000,000. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, of this average annuity of about £100,000,000, £33,000,000 is unconditional. That is to say, it is to be paid, I suppose, in any circumstances other than the complete bankruptcy of Germany, a thing which we do not anticipate. Therefore £33,000,000 out of the £100,000,000 is unconditional and the rest is postponable. I need add nothing to what the right hon. Gentleman has said in explanation of that. His explanation was accurate and clear. I may have a word or two to say later as to what the views of the Government are on the distinction between conditional and unconditional annuities. As the right hon. Gentleman says, France is allocated a large share of the unconditional annuities but has to provide a guarantee fund of £25,000,000, in case of the operation of the postponement provisions

1679
of the report. We are given no appreciable share of these unconditional payments but five-sixths of the free amount go to France and most of the rest to Italy. Our share of the annuity might be compared to the ordinary shares of a perhaps not very sound concern, whereas the unconditional payments might be regarded as first-class debentures. That is roughly the distinction between the two parts of the annuities. France, as the right hon. Gentleman said, gets five-sixths of these unconditional annuities and the reason, I understand, for this, was the desire of France to have first-class securities which they could commercialise or mobilise.
I come to that part which perhaps stirred the right hon. Gentleman to the greatest depths of fury—that is the distribution. The right hon. Gentleman said he wondered why these changes had been made in the percentage of distribution. If he will search—and I gather he has examined the report of the Experts Committee—he will find that there is no word of explanation and, as far as I know, none has ever been given. But, of course, nobody is better able to imagine what is the explanation than the right hon. Gentleman with his unique knowledge of international conferences. At Spa it was agreed that German reparations should be divided in accordance with certain percentages. That, I think, was in 1920. Since that time a large number of other conferences have been held for the consideration of this question, and I am not aware that the percentages which were fixed at Spa have ever been seriously called in question before. At the time when these percentages were fixed, Lord Bradbury said they represented a considerable sacrifice on the part of Great Britain for the benefit of the other creditor Powers. When we consider the revised distribution under the Experts' plan we ought to bear these facts in mind—that no explanation and no attempt at justification has been given for revising our percentages; that for eight or nine years all the creditor Powers have, without question, accepted the percentages agreed to at Spa as governing the distribution of any revised scheme of reparations or annuities. Perhaps the House would like me to work out what the reduction of our percentage means to this country. The right hon. Gentleman
1680
put it at £2,000,000. It is more than that. It works out at an average of £2,415,000 a year practically all of which goes to Italy and France but mainly to Italy. Of the £2,400,000 Italy gets £1,840,000. In regard to the distribution of the actual sum between the various creditor Powers, the right hon. Gentleman worked it out in percentages—
Colonel WEDGWOOD: The loss is far greater if the conditional annuities are not paid?
Mr. SNOWDEN: I will come to that point later on. The right hon. Gentleman worked out the percentage and went on to refer to the difference between our share and the share of some other countries. But the difference will appear to be more striking if expressed in actual figures. If the full annuities are paid we shall get on average £17,300,000 a year or say something under £l8,000,000 a year. The Dominions, whose shares are not altered, get £2,660,000 on average. France gets £52,500,000 and Italy just under £11,000,000. As I said before, the sacrifice which Great Britain is called upon to make by the acceptance of this Report reduces our share of the annuities by just under £2,500,000 a year. This is another demand for a sacrifice on the part of this country.
What is our position? We are supposed to get from the conditional annuities and the debt payments of our former allies just enough to meet our future payments to America. Let us examine that. If we get all that we can expect under the proposals of this Report we shall get with the payments from our European debtors just enough to pay our future annual payments to America. There is no surplus for Great Britain. In the case of France there will be a surplus of £21,000,000 a year on an average after her debt payments have been met. All the other principal creditor Powers too will all have surpluses beyond their outgoings. Suppose we assume that the payments are regularly made and that thereby we are covered in our future payments to America. That does not give us the conditions laid down in the Balfour Note because there is already about £200,000,000 difference between what we have paid to America and what we have received from our Continental debtors, including Germany, in the way

1681
of payment in respect of war debts and reparations. If, therefore, the recommendations of this Committee were accepted, we should have to sacrifice £2,500,000 a year as a result of the changed distribution, and we should have to abandon all hope of ever getting anything towards that £200,000,000 of arrears to which I have just referred. If we could get our full Spa percentage it would go a little way to meeting that deficit of £200,000,000. We calculate that that £2,500,000 a year would be worth about £37,000,000 in capital value.
There is another point of considerable interest in the Report to which the right hon. Member did not refer, and it is this—that if the creditor Powers receive any relief in respect of their war debt liabilities to America, Germany gets two-thirds of it and the creditor Powers get one-quarter of it. The difference between two-thirds and one-quarter is to be invested and accumulated to help the payments during the last 22 years of the German annuities. I now come to what he said about deliveries in kind. May I offer one word of observation about what he said about the imposition of deliveries in kind in the Dawes scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has had a long experience of these matters and just after his reference to the deliveries in kind in the Dawes Report, he gave the explanation why from the British point of view that was incorporated in the Dawes scheme. He said that at these conferences you fight for days and weeks to get your point. You cannot get everything you like. You have to get a settlement, and when the scheme is finally evolved you accept it in every detail and you try to make the best of it. That is my answer. I do not know if I am making any breach of confidence after all these years if I say that we had a very big struggle in the Conference on the Dawes Report on that matter. We fought for a very long time to try to get out of deliveries in kind. For some reason or another we did not get the assistance from certain members of the delegations which we had expected. I do not mean British delegates. We realise, as the right hon. Member does, the seriousness of these questions for an exporting country like our own, and I can assure not only him but the House of Commons that what he said will not be lost sight of in
1682
the forthcoming deliberations, and anything we can do to ease the situation will certainly be done.
There are, it seems to me, three main points in this Report which have very serious interest to us. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with all of them. I will put it like this. The British Government will raise no protest against, but will accept the scale of German annuities. On that we are all agreed. Now as to the question of distribution. It is very difficult indeed to choose one's words, but I might perhaps get out of my difficulty by saying that I am in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In regard to deliveries in kind we could not agree, unless of course we were finally compelled to do so, to accept the proposals with regard to deliveries in kind which are embodied in the Report. We will, of course, have something to say in the Conference upon the distinction which has been made between the postponable and the unconditional annuities. That is a matter of the greatest importance.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And the fact that we have no share at all in the unconditional annuities.
Mr. SNOWDEN: That is a matter on which we shall certainly take into account the position described by the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House will realise the very difficult position I am in, in dealing with these matters. The proposals do constitute a new demand for further sacrifices from this country. From the point of view of national finance our position is sufficiently serious already, and therefore we should maintain such rights as we have. Of course we are starting now a long way from the beginning. The mischief began, I think, with the issue of the Balfour Note, and it has been aggravated by the settlement with the United States, and by each subsequent war debt settlement which has taken place since. I am expressing my own view, and I think the view of the Government, when I say that the limit of concessions by this country has been reached.
On a previous occasion, I believe I used the word "quixotic" in a speech to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Our past sacrifices have been magnanimous, generous and quixotic.

1683
They have imposed a burden of £60,000,000 a year on our own people, which will remain even if we are able to get our payments to America covered by our share of the German annuities and the receipts from our continental debtors. France owed us £600,000,000, and yet she is to get £25,000,000 a year out of the unconditional annuities from Germany, and in the near future she will be getting altogether a surplus of £35,000,000 a year over her outgoings, while we are asked to take what is at any rate a risky cover for our debt payments. Italy owed us £560,000,000. Our settlement with her reduced this in effect to a present value of £78,000,000, and now by the transfer of part of our just share in the distribution of reparations it is proposed that her debt of £560,000,000 to this country should be effectively reduced to £48,000,000.
I think I am justified in the remarks that I made just now, that our generosity has reached its limit. I realise what a difficult task I have in approaching the problem. I can only say that I shall do my best to maintain the interests of this country in this matter. I have indicated to the House what our line will be. I do not know to what extent we shall succeed, but whatever the result of the conference may be, I can assure the House that there will be no further sacrifice or British interests which a determined man can prevent.
3.0 p.m.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the last Parliament, when the first proposals of the Young scheme were put forward, the right hon. Gentleman opposite indicated quite clearly that the proposals would not be accepted by the then Government. The final proposal of the Young Committee is even worse, so far as this country is concerned, than the proposal put forward some four months ago. It is not necessary for me to go into these proposals. They have been explained to this House clearly by both the right hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. I can only add that, having gone through that Report, I would prefer the original proposal of the Young Committee to the one in which our reparations are classed among the conditional ones, while the Italians and the French
1684
secure their reparations unconditionally. That is a very dangerous position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been put in an exceptionally difficult position in this matter by his predecessors. He has told us that the Young Committee was originally set up on account of conversations at Geneva in regard to the evacuation of the Rhineland.
The terms of reference to the Young Committee were read out in this House. They dealt only with the limitations of the reparations to be paid by Germany. There was not a word about varying the distribution of these reparations once they were paid by Germany. Those were the terms of reference. We made it quite clear that our experts appointed on that Committee were independent experts, uninfluenced and undirected by the Treasury or the Government of this country. That policy, unfortunately, was not followed by the other countries that appointed experts on that Committee. The French, Italian and German experts were in constant touch with their Treasuries and Governments. Our Government ostentatiously denied, amidst cheers in this House, that they would use the slightest influence upon our experts sitting on that Committee. Unfortunately one of the experts changed during the process of the Committee, and Sir Josiah Stamp must now take nearly all the responsibility for the work on the Young Committee.
But the original mistake was made when our Government, washing their hands entirely of what was going on on that Committee, allowed the question of the distribution of the reparations to be opened up. Sir Josiah Stamp made a protest at the time, but he was not backed up from home, and the protest was overruled, and for the first time the question arose as to whether the Spa percentages of 1922 should be varied and varied against the interests of this country. Directly that was accepted you got the proposal that was put forward four months ago, which the Government of the day frankly told the Committee would not be accepted by this House if it were the report of the Committee.
Then came the final report of the Young Committee, which to my mind is worse financially, from the point of view of this country, than the report which was going to be made and which would have

1685
been made if the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said that it could not possibly be accepted. We have had from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer descriptions of the Report, which must make it obvious to every Member of this House that it would be fatal for the British people to accept the Report in its present shape. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid it down that he will not make any further concession; but it is not clear from what he says whether he means that he will not make any further concessions than those embodied in the Report, or whether he means that he will not make any further concession from what the position was before that Report was presented. I hope he means that he will not allow the Report of the Young Commission to involve this country in making further concessions. He admitted that he was going into this conference to do his best. He can only do his best if he is prepared to face the issue of not accepting the Young Report.
What we ought to consider to-day is whether it is not our duty to say we would sooner have no Report than the Young Report. What would be the disaster to this country and to Germany if there was no agreement on the Young Report, and if the conference failed? I hope that everyone will agree that unless we are able to go into the conference saying: "We will not accept this Report at all," we are almost bound to accept a compromise which would injure the interests of this country. Suppose there is no Young Report, what happens? The Dawes scheme goes on, and the connection between the payment of reparations and the occupation of the Rhineland ceases to be binding. There is nothing to prevent this country evacuating the Rhineland, although the Dawes scheme continues. The evacuation of the Rhineland can go on whether the Young scheme for the distribution of reparations is accepted or not.
Everybody knows that the Dawes Scheme cannot go on indefinitely. A time must come when, if the Young Report is not accepted, the Dawes Scheme will break down or become impossible to work, and some other Committee has to be appointed to consider scaling down and rendering definite the obligations of
1686
Germany. When that comes about, I think we shall be in a stronger position if we no longer have troops in the Rhineland, to be used as a pawn for the coercion of Germany. The British taxpayers are likely to come out much better from some report in the future by a future expert committee if our experts on that committee have the advantage, which was enjoyed by the experts of every nation on the Young Committee, of constant communication with and co-operation from the Treasury and Government of this country. On the Young Committee our representatives have been hobbled all the time. They have been acting as independent experts, while all the other experts have been the agents of their Governments, fully advised of the intentions of their Governments, and fully coached in every way. When a new Experts Committee is appointed, which I hope to see a year or so hence, and it brings forward something in the nature of a revised new scheme, our agents on that committee will be in the best possible position to get the best terms for the taxpayers of this country, and will not be hampered as they have been in the past.
This is the only opportunity that this House can have of discussing something that may cost this country not £2,500,000 a year but anything up to £12,000,000 a year, with additional taxation for 60 years. This is the only opportunity we have to discuss it, and, whether or not we shall save that money, depends entirely on whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes into these proposed negotiations that commence on the 6th August able to say, "Sooner than sacrifice the interests of the British taxpayer, we will not have this Report at all." Unless he can do that, he is in a hopeless position to bargain for slight variations of the terms of that Report.
Dr. BURGIN: As one who has not hitherto addressed this House, may I crave the indulgence which is ever generously accorded to one in that position. It might be' thought, after the speech Of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), accepted, as I gather, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and elaborated by him, that there would be little more to be said upon the question of this Young Report and the disadvantages which it foreshadows

1687
for the British taxpayer, but I rather gather that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself welcomes this discussion, and that he feels, as was suggested by the right hon. and gallant Member for (Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), that he will go into this Conference better armed as a result of the discussion here to-day and of the arguments that have been put at his disposal as a consequence. I want, as a humble student of foreign affairs, to detain the House for a very few moments with some reflections upon this reparations position. We have heard, and rightly, criticisms and comments upon this Young Report, which are of great value, and it is only right to infer that the whole reparations problem has been one of those features bequeathed to us by the cessation of hostilities, which has perhaps given rise to more problems than it has solved, and that any attempt to deal with a serious international position by a conference of experts meeting round a table is bound to be of advantage.
Although we find this Report distasteful, although unquestionably it suggests that we should accept sacrifices which the country is not minded to accept, we should treat it as a step forward in the sense that it is another indication by the creditor Powers of Germany that in dealing with an international problem, financial or otherwise, they are prepared to pool their experts' brains, to meet round a table, to settle their differences, and to find a way out. It is no blame to the experts if a problem at once political and financial should not be found immediately capable of solution. No one with experience of big business of an international character would imagine that there is anything simple in the settlement of such a problem as this of reparations. Has it not been proved that in the economic as well as in the moral world it is very often more blessed to give than to receive? Is not the whole argument centring round reparations in kind a long convincing proof of the truth of that old adage?
I wish, on behalf of those who sit on these benches, to express our wholehearted satisfaction with the statement that has been made this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We feel particularly grateful for those assurances
1688
that this House and the Government are in no way committed by this Report of the experts. We had no fear that it could have been otherwise, but such a very emphatic declaration gives us all a feeling of confidence that, we shall have all the different views represented in this forthcoming Conference and that nothing but good can result from the discussion. We then welcome the analysis that has been made across the Floor of this House of what is a complex and intricate argument, dealing in millions of figures of such a size that it is hard for the ordinary Member to follow their entire implications. The analysis that was made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs appeared to be so adequate in its character that the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired only to add to it some examples by way of figures, which indeed showed it to be under-stated rather than exaggerated in any form.
In one sense also the Young Report is an advance. The Dawes scheme was in fact a national receivership of Germany. It was perhaps the largest operation of a receivership as applied to another nation ever carried out. That scheme was breaking down. It had one inherent difficulty attached to it: there was never any incentive to Germany to pay her debt. As her prosperity increased, so her annuities were more heavily weighted, and there was no spur which would induce Germany to so put her house in order as to be able to face the future. I think that history will show that the restoration of Germany's credit and industry is one of the wonders of the world; and, in this regard, I was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer make reference to the fact that such progress as Germany has made has been largely on borrowed money. For every dollar that Germany has paid anyone, she has borrowed two. The figures are almost mathematically exact. That was a situation and a state of affairs that was not the concern of Germany alone, nor of any one country.
Perhaps the only excuse for a new Member intervening in such a Debate is that reparations is a matter that concerns the taxpayer of every country in the world, and none more than those living on the border line, not having surplus wealth, and being virtually concerned with the price of any article of which

1689
taxation forms a part. If the Young Report is a sign of an international attempt to deal with an international problem by conference and reason; if it means that by discussion in the Parliaments of the world terms are improved, then the experts will be the first to desire that improvement. Men of such character as Sir Josiah Stamp are only anxious for the best results from a difficult problem, and I feel confident that if as a result of the discussion this afternoon it is found that any country has unfairly suffered the experts will be glad to have it put right. I am struck by one, the difference in character of the unconditional and postponable annuities that has been brought out. If further comments as to the nature of the difference between those two classes of annuities were needed it would be only necessary to
1690
point to the fact that France receives five-sixths of one to show that she regards that annuity as of a different character to the other. I conclude by saying that if in any of these international matters we can get one step nearer the stage at which in regard to any of the penal clauses of the Versailles Treaty, we can, in the words of General Smuts, pass the sponge of oblivion over that aspect of the matter, then we will have reached one stage nearer the establishment of peace in Europe.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes after Three o'clock until Tuesday, 29th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords].
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [Lords].
Read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT)Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered.
The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Colonel Clifton Brown): The Amendments proposed by the promoters are drafting Amendments.
Amendments made.
Bill to be read the Third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered.
The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means: These promoters' Amendments are purely for the correction of clerical errors.
Amendments made.
Bill to be read the Third time.
West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR (SUPERANNUATION)ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Harbour (Superannuation)," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]

DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (KIRKINTILLOCH STREET IMPROVEMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scot-
1430
land) Act, 1936, relating to Dunbartonshire County Council (Kirkintilloch Street Improvement)," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Lanarkshire County Council," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW ELECTRICITY, ETC., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Motherwell and Wishaw Electricity, etc.," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  GERMANY (NEWS-LETTER PROPAGANDA).
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister what representations have been made to the British by the German Government with regard to the issue to German subjects in Germany of statements of opinion and fact by Commander Stephen King-Hall; and what reply has been sent?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): None, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: Have any suggestions on this subject been received from His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin?
  Mr. Butler: Naturally we have communications from His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin in the ordinary course of business. We have had no official representations from the German Government.
  Mr. Mander: Is there any objection to British subjects exercising their liberty to tell the truth as they see it to German subjects?
  Mr. Duncan: Is it quite clear that Commander Stephen King-Hall had no communication or conversation with the Foreign Office before writing these letters?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave on Friday to the right hon. Gentleman for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) from which he will see that we repeated the categorical denial given in the German broadcast of 14th July that His Majesty's Government are in any way connected with or responsible for these letters.
  Mr. Mander: Have the Government any objection to them?
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a very good thing to send this information to Germany?

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister particulars of the results of the investigations made by the British Ambassador to Spain with reference to the five British subjects who are still under arrest as a result of the recent civil war?
  Mr. Butler: Of these five British subjects, four have been convicted on criminal charges and are undergoing varying terms of imprisonment, while one is awaiting trial.
  Mr. Day: Have the Foreign Office given instructions for legal aid to be furnished to the one awaiting trial?
  Mr. Butler: We have asked His Majesty's Ambassador to take a close interest in this case.

  FAR EAST (SITUATION).
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the Anglo-Japanese negotiations in Tokyo?
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the Tokyo negotiations?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The negotiations opened in Tokyo on Monday, 24th July, and the meetings so far held have dealt only with questions of procedure and fact finding.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask whether the reply of the Japanese Government to the Tokyo formula has been to take measures which restrict the food supplies of Hong Kong, to blockade the Pearl River and the Shameen and to arrest a British official at Shanghai?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been called to the serious reactions in America to this Tokyo agreement?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether the Japanese Government have yet furnished His Majesty's Government any evidence showing the guilt of the four Chinese alleged to have murdered a Japanese agent at Tientsin?
  Mr. Butler: This is one of the matters which will be discussed during the conversations which have just opened at Tokyo, and at present I have nothing to add to previous statements.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall not hand over these four Chinese until evidence of their guilt has been produced?
  Mr. Butler: I have given an assurance on this very matter to the hon. Member and the House on previous occasions.
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not the case that the Chinese have a right to try these individuals, which neither the Japanese Government nor the British Government have?
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether the recently-concluded agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government will preclude His Majesty's Government from continuing to regard the Chinese Government as the de jure Government of all China; from providing, in their discretion, further financial assistance to the Chinese Government; or from a complete observance of the provisions of the Nine-Power Treaty?
  Mr. Cartlandasked the Prime Minister whether the recent agreement with Japan precludes His Majesty's Government from assisting General Chiang Kai-Shek's régime by granting it credits or otherwise?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. As the Prime Minister stated in the House on 24th July, the declaration does not connote any change in the general policy of the Government towards China.
  Mr. Henderson: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the statement issued by the Japanese Foreign Office this morning to the effect that following this agreement the Japanese Government expect His Majesty's Government not to grant any further financial assistance to the Chinese Government, and does that not indicate that the Japanese Government put a different interpretation on the agreement?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. and learned Member asked me the view of His Majesty's Government, which I have given him very clearly, that is to say, that it does not connote any change in our policy towards China.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Does that mean that in the view of His Majesty's Government the Tokyo formula in no way recognises belligerency?
  Mr. Butler: There is another question on the Paper on that point.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Are any representations being made about the extension of the blockade policy to Canton?
  Mr. Butler: This whole matter is under consideration.
  Mr. Priceasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement giving particulars and the dates of any help given to China since the beginning of the present dispute by members of the League of Nations and by the United States of America?
  Mr. Butler: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the statement made by my Noble Friend at the League Council meeting on 22nd May, in which he gave a general account of the measures taken by His Majesty's Government. I am not in a position to make an authoritative statement about measures taken by other Governments.
  Mr. Price: Will the Under-Secretary say whether the recent agreement with Japan in any way prejudices financial or other economic assistance for China in the future?
  Mr. Butler: I think I have answered that question this afternoon, and the Prime Minister answered it in a recent statement.
  Mr. Priceasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to any steps which have been taken, by which Powers and when, to discourage and pre vent the sale to Japan of aircraft, arms, munitions or war material?
  Mr. Butler: No licences have been issued for the export of war material from this country to Japan since 4th February, 1938. My Noble Friend is not aware that any Government has made any public statement on this matter apart from a circular communication addressed by the United States Government to manufacturers, the text of which was published in the last annual report of the National Munitions Board to Congress.
  Mr. Price: Is the Under-Secretary aware that Japanese aeroplanes shot down recently at Chunking had guns on them which had been manufactured in this country?
  Mr. Butler: I should be very glad to receive any information about that which the hon. Member has.
  Mr. Macquisten: Is the Under-Secretary aware that an enormous quantity of munitions has been supplied to China by Germany?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, that is certainly the case.
  Mr. N. Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman knows more about that.
  Mr. Butler: I have stated quite categorically that no licences have been issued for the export of war materials from this country to Japan since 4th February, 1938. That is a perfectly categorical statement.
  Mr. Priceasked the Prime Minister whether any invitation has been sent by the Council of the League of Nations in consultation with the Far Eastern Committee to study the practical application of measures of aid to China in accordance with the resolution of the League Council in May, 1939, and with what result; and, if no such invitation has been sent, whether His Majesty's Government will urge such steps to be taken without delay?
  Mr. Butler: The invitation contained in the Council resolution was addressed to the members of the League, and I cannot say what are the views of other Governments.
  Mr. N. Macleanasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have now recognised the war aims of Japan in China; and whether all further negotiations between this country and Japan are to be conducted on the basis that a large portion of China has been conquered by Japan and is now under their jurisdiction?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir.
  Mr. Maclean: If that is the case, why is it that all these negotiations are going on between this Government and the Japanese Government in a territory that does not belong to either of them?
  Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister referred to the situation as one of fact, and that is what we are considering all the time.
  Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that neither Government has a right to consider a question of fact that applies to China and not to them?
  Mr. Butler: Sometimes one has to consider facts, however unpleasant.
  Mr. Macquisten: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that Burns said:
  "Facts are chiels that winna ding,
  An' downa be disputit."

  ANGLO-FRENCH-RUSSIAN CONVERSATIONS.
  Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the negotiations between Monsieur Molotov and Mr. Strang?
  Mr. Daltonasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any further statement on the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
  The Prime Minister: Fresh instructions were sent to Sir William Seeds last night, and I hope to be in a position to make a Statement early next week.
  Mr. Dalton: Is it right, as stated in the Press, that it has now been agreed to send military and naval officers to Moscow for staff talks?
  The Prime Minister: We have sent certain instructions to Sir William Seeds, but we have not yet heard what are the reactions.
  Mr. Mander: Are the French Government also proposing to send a military mission to Moscow?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot answer about the French Government, but I can assure the House that the French Government and the British Government are acting in full collaboration.

  DANZIG.
  Mr. V. Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Nazi forces in Danzig persist in fortifying the Free City; whether these fortifications constitute a breach of the strategic integrity of Danzig; and, if so, whether he proposes any action?
  Mr. Butler: While some military preparations have been undertaken in Danzig, the information in the possession of my Noble Friend does not at present lead him to view the situation with undue concern.
  Mr. Adams: Does that mean that the answer to the second limb of the question is in the negative?
  Mr. Butler: It is a little difficult to define what the hon. Member has in mind. Perhaps he will tell me what he has in mind and I shall be able to give him a clearer answer.
  Mr. N. Maclean: Can the right hon. Member explain what he means by "un-due concern" and what is "due concern"?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    FLYING BOAT "CONNEMARA."
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueterasked the Secretary of State for Air when the joint report, being prepared by his Department and the Home Office, on the cause of the loss of the 24-ton flying boat "Connemara" by fire, at Hythe, on 19th June, will be issued?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): It has been ascertained that the fire in question originated not in the flying boat but in the barge, and accordingly the question of issuing a report on the matter is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    PRACTICE FLIGHTS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
    Squadron-Leader Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air how many flights by Royal Air Force bomber squadrons have been made over French territory up to date; and whether similar flights over other friendly countries are contemplated?
    Sir K. Wood: Three flights have taken place to date. In regard to the second part of the question, as I informed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on Wednesday last, it is hoped that other practice flights will be possible, but I am not at present in a position to give any details.
    Squadron-Leader Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement in regard to flights over this country by squadrons of French aircraft; and whether similar facilities will be extended to the air forces of other friendly nations?
    Sir K. Wood: I understand that this matter is now under consideration by the French Government. I am prepared to consider any requests for similar facilities that may be made.

    AUXILIARY FORCES.
    Squadron-Leader Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air whether lapel badges for members of the Auxiliary Air Force are now available and when distribution to units will be completed?
    Sir K, Wood: Yes, Sir. Approximately 75 per cent, of the badges are now available for distribution and the remainder should be available by the end of this month.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will explain fully the functions and the varying status of the Auxiliary Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air Cadets; the reason for so many categories, and the cost per unit of each?
    Sir K. Wood: The Auxiliary Air Force consists of flying squadrons and balloon barrage squadrons recruited on a Territorial basis, intended to play their part in the air defence of this country as units. The Air Force Reserve, including the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve is designed to provide trained individuals to act as reinforcements to the regular air force in time of war. The Air Force Reserve proper comprises mainly personnel with previous service in the regular Air Force, and the Volunteer Reserve is composed mainly of those without such service. Thus each force meets a different requirement in our defence organisation. The Air Defence Cadet Corps is an organisation sponsored and administered by the Air League of the British Empire with a view to stimulating interest in air matters and giving elementary training in aircraft and maintenance to boys who join the Corps. The Corps receives small cash grants and certain assistance in kind from the Air Ministry. I regret that comparative figures of cost are not available.
    Mr. Williams: What is the difference in the cost in the buildings and equipment generally of the Auxiliary Air Force and of the Air Force Reserve, and what is their difference of function either in time of peace or of emergency?
    Sir K. Wood: I doubt whether those matters are really comparable, as they perform different functions.
    Mr. Crossley: Is there any age-limit under which recruits are not taken?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I recently issued a statement on that matter which I will send to my hon. Friend.

    AIR STRENGTH.
    Mr. V. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, since it is contrary to the public interest to disclose the existing air strength of Great Britain at any specified moment, he will arrange to publish the relevant figures in arrear after the lapse of a period of, say, three to six months?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. It would not be in the public interest to publish the figures suggested.
    Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister think that such retrospective publication, which would do no harm, would help to foster our national self-confidence?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I am advised that it would, in fact, give an indication of our rate of expansion.

    CIVIL AVIATION (DE-ICING).
    Sir Robert Birdasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to state the result of his consideration of the methods employed by foreign competitors of British air lines for protection against ice accretion; and in particular whether he will now adopt the recommendation of the Civil Airworthiness Committee appointed by the Air Ministry that the equipment of British air liners with de-icing systems shall be made compulsory?
    Sir K. Wood: As I informed the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on Wednesday last, the issue of further regulations on the subject of de-icing equipment for passenger-carrying aircraft is under review and it is hoped to make an early statement. The recommendations of the Civil Airworthiness Committee published in Air Ministry Pamphlet No. 86 were implemented by the issue of Air Navigation (No. 3) Regulations, 1938, which came into force on 1st November last. Since then the protection of instruments and radio apparatus in aircraft capable of carrying ten or more persons including crew, whenever weather conditions predisposing to ice formation are indicated, has also been made compulsory by the issue of the Air Navigation Regulations, 1939, which came into operation on 1st April last.
    Sir R, Bird: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I impress upon him the urgency of doing something in this matter, in view of the great increase in the number of aircraft and the near approach of ice-forming conditions in the early autumn?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "THETIS."
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make as to the progress of the salvage of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis"?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make on the progress of the attempts to salve the "Thetis"?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): The question of what further steps should be taken to salve His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis" is being considered by all the parties concerned, in the light of the recent unsuccessful attempt to lift the submarine.
    Mr. Adams: May I take it that there is no intention of abandoning the efforts at salvaging this boat?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Our only desire is that this submarine may be salved as soon as possible.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are any charges falling upon public funds at the present time in connection with these attempts at salvage; also, in the event of the underwriters who are financing them being no longer able to defray the expenses of the salvage, is it the intention to assist the attempts at the public expense?
    Mr. Shakespeare: That is a hypothetical question and I would rather the hon. and gallant Gentleman put it on the Paper; if I say that we are taking every step to see that the "Thetis" is salved, perhaps that will satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Mr. W. H. Greenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, whilst recognising that differentiation in pensions to the dependants of the "Thetis" disaster as between officers and other ratings is a matter of Service practice, he will instruct the representative of the Royal Navy on the committee responsible for the disbursement of moneys now being received in response to public appeal, to try to secure that no such differentiation shall be made in respect of those disbursements?
    Mr. Shakespeare: This matter is one for decision by the council which has been set up by the Lord Mayor to administer the fund referred to, and I do not consider that it would be proper for me to issue instructions in the sense proposed by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Green: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that the Naval representative on this committee at least raises the question, in order to get it considered?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I think they can be trusted to see that justice is done.
    Mr. Logan: Is not a principle at stake, and should there not be intervention in order to see that this public fund is administered so as to prevent people having to seek Poor Law assistance because of the loss of their relatives?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I am sure that will be prevented.

    PROMOTIONS.
    Mr. Leslieasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many men in the Navy were promoted to the rank of warrant officers last year, and how many to commissioned ranks during the same period; and in each case what was the percentage of candidates for promotion who were promoted?
    Mr. Shakespeare: During 1938, 200 promotions were made to warrant and 150 promotions from warrant rank to commissioned rank. Twenty-four direct promotions to acting sub-lieutenant and acting sub-lieutenant (E) were made. Full details concerning the candidates for direct promotion are contained in the answers given to the hon. Members for Romford (Mr. Parker) and Newton (Sir R. Young) on 16th November, 1938, and 6th July, 1938, respectively. Promotion to warrant rank or commissioned rank from warrant rank requires a recommendation.
    Mr. Leslie: Is that what the Minister calls the democratisation of the Navy, since such a very small percentage of experienced men has been promoted?
    Mr. Speakerrose —
    Mr. Leslie: On a point of Order. Was there anything wrong with my supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: I stopped the hon. Member because he was asking the Minister to give an expression of opinion.
    Mr. Alexanderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the schools attended before joining the Navy of the 24 successful candidates and the 17 rejected candidates, respectively, of the 1442 seamen ratings who have this year undergone the nine-months course of training for commissioned rank and recently appeared before the Final Selection Board?
    Mr. Shakespeare: As the answer involves a list of some length, I will, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:
    The 24 successful candidates attended the following schools before joining the Royal Navy:

    Chatham Junior Technical School

    2

    Royal Hospital School, Holbrook

    2

    Park Street Elementary School, Brighton

    1

    Creighton School, Carlisle

    1

    George Watson's College, Edinburgh

    1

    Thomas Riches, Gloucester

    1

    Training Ship "Warspite"

    1

    Training Ship "Arethusa"

    1

    Westcliff High School

    1

    Price's Secondary School, Fareham

    1

    Training Ship "Mercury"

    1

    Brighton Grammar School

    1

    Watts Naval Training School

    1

    Lewis Grammar School, Glamorgan

    1

    Richmond County School

    1

    Bronspick Avenue Elementary School, Hull

    1

    Kimbolton Grammar School, Huntingdonshire

    1

    Hamilton Crescent Secondary School, Glasgow

    1

    St. Boniface, Beaconsfield, Plymouth

    1

    Wivenhoe Elementary School, Essex

    1

    Mathematical School, Rochester

    1

    Christs Hospital School

    1

    The 17 unsuccessful candidates for pro-Motion to commissioned rank attended he following schools:

    Royal Hospital School, Holbrook

    4

    Newhay Council School, Rochdale

    1

    Training Ship "Warspite"

    1

    Toxteth Practical School

    1

    Kings College, Mangere, New Zealand

    1

    Folkestone Grammar School

    1

    Esplanade House Private School, Southsea

    1

    Halesworth Central School, Suffolk

    1

    Looe Elementary School, Cornwall

    1

    Paradise Road Secondary School, Plymouth

    1

    Lancastrian Elementary School, Shrews- Bury

    1

    Hamilton Crescent Secondary School, Glasgow

    1

    Logie Elementary School, Angus, Scotland

    1

    Bridgend Practical School, Glamorganshire

    1

    Mr. Alexanderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of selections made of executive and engineer warrant officers, respectively, for the rank of lieutenant and lieutenant (E) under the new scheme announced four
    1443 months ago; their ages on selection; branch of warrant rank; seniority as such; and whether from ship or shore appointment and home or foreign service, respectively?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The selection of these officers has not yet been completed, as it has necessitated obtaining reports from Commanders-in-Chief on the various stations throughout the world.

    PROPOSED AIR STATION, CRAIL, FIFESHIRE.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now make a statement on the proposal to establish a naval air station at Crail, Fife?
    Mr. Shakespeare: It has been decided to construct a naval air station for the use of the Fleet Air Arm on a site near Crail in Fifeshire. Negotiations for the purchase of the site are proceeding, and it is hoped to commence work early in September next. About 1,150 workmen are expected to be employed on the work by the various contractors.

    AIR AND SUBMARINE TRAINING (CADETS).
    Mr. Dayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what training in aviation is provided for the naval cadets and midshipmen at Dartmouth College; and are arrangements made for these persons to take periodical flights in aeroplanes, or trips in submarines during the course of their training?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Naval cadets undergoing training at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, are given lectures on aviation by the Fleet Air Arm officer on the college staff; opportunity is taken for these cadets to visit submarines when they call at Dartmouth. All naval cadets —both from Dartmouth and special entry —are given some air experience in the aircraft carried in the training cruiser His Majesty's Ship "Vindictive." Midshipmen, while serving in the Fleet, are, whenever possible, given a short air course in an aircraft carrier; where circumstances prevent this, it is carried out at a later stage of the officers' training.
    Mr. Day: Do we understand that these cadets do not have a chance of continual periodical flights?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Not at all.
    Mr. Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these cadets are not given air training until comparatively late?

    DOCKYARDMEN (MILITARY TRAINING).
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give an assurance that craftsmen employed in the dockyards who are called up under the Military Training Act for training in the Royal Naval Special Reserve will not be called upon to undertake at the rate of is. 6d. per days duties similar to those of their civil occupation?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.
    Sir R, Young: Does that reply mean that these men will not be employed in the dockyards during their period of service?
    Mr. Shakespeare: That is so.

    PENSIONERS (CALLING-UP NOTICE).
    Mr. J. H. Hallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he proposes to deprive of their pensions naval pensioners who ignore the recent calling-up notice on the grounds that a state of emergency does not exist?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Any pensioner failing to report when called up under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act would be liable to forfeit his pension, but I can confidently assure the hon. Member that such an instance is not in the least likely to occur.
    Mr. Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these pensioners fear that, if they are called up at the present juncture, there is a likelihood that they may lose the employment they are now following? They are quite willing, of course, to observe all their obligations should a state of emergency arise, but there is a widespread opinion that a state of emergency does not exist at the moment.
    Mr. Shakespeare: I appreciate that fear, but I think the House will agree that the Government have gone a long way, in the recent legislation, to remove that fear from the man's mind.

    EXCESS EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. Alexanderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Board of Admiralty has been directed to the recent Report of the Committee of Public Accounts; whether he has any statement to make in regard to the excess expenditure on additional accommodation at the Royal Naval Barracks, Chatham, and on the magnetic survey vessel "Research"; and whether it is now proposed to treat as urgent the necessity for improving financial control within the Admiralty?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. I think it would be unusual for me to make any statement on the two specific matters referred to in the question before these have formed the subject of comment in the Treasury Minute on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee and the Minute has been considered by that Committee. As stated in the Treasury Minute of 20th December last, a committee, over which I am presiding, is engaged upon examining the Admiralty arrangements for financial control in the light of the observations of the Public Accounts Committee. My committee has recently consulted representatives of the Treasury, and I hope that its report will be completed within a very short period.
    Mr. Alexander: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great uneasiness about this financial control in the case of the Admiralty; and is it not very strange that the committee over which he is presiding have not consulted the Treasury at all between last December and a few weeks ago? What is the reason for that great delay?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The problem required a good deal of investigation, and on three occasions something intervened — the mobilisation, all the preparations in connection with the Military Training Bill, and the submarine loss. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the report will be completed at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Alexander: May I ask for an immediate assurance that there will be no further case of failure to consult the Treasury about heavy excess expenditure such as occurred in the case of the 1446"Research," which seems to have been a very grave omission?
    Mr. Shakespeare: That is one of the points which arise out of our inquiry, and I hope that a case like that will not occur again.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the case of the "Research," in which the estimates were enormously exceeded without consultation with the Treasury, been before the committee over which the hon. Gentleman tells us he is presiding?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Yes; we have gone with very great care into each of the cases mentioned by the Public Accounts Committee. Our report goes to the Treasury, and the Treasury, I presume, will make their comments to the Public Accounts Committee upon our report.

    TRAWLERS (PURCHASE).
    Mr. Garro Jones(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement concerning the purchase of 84 modern trawlers from the existing fleet and in particular whether he will consult with the other Ministers concerned to minimise any adverse effect of this transaction upon employment, upon fish supplies to the public and upon any particular section of the fishing industry?
    Mr. Shakespeare: It has been decided to purchase additional trawlers to be converted for use with the Royal Navy; the number will probably be about 80. Full consultation has taken place with the Trawler Owners Federation and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been informed of the reasons for this purchase. The hon. Member can rest assured that the interests of all sections of the industry have been borne in mind.
    Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is satisfied in existing circumstances with the arrangements for the manning of these vessels on naval service?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I am not in a position yet to make a statement on that point, as the manning of these vessels will require special arrangements, but I will do so at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Alexander: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this purchase is the purchase which he foreshadowed in the Debate on the Navy Estimates, and is it intended in order to bring our mine-sweeping power up to war standard?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir, I think in the Debate on the Navy Estimates I did state that in an emergency the Admiralty would take up a number of trawlers. These particular trawlers are not for mine-sweeping but for anti-submarine work, and my Noble Friend and the Board of Admiralty thought that, in view of the fact that this does greatly enhance our preparedness, it would be advisable to acquire and convert these trawlers now.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will the Admiralty consider allowing the men who are at present serving on these ships to continue serving in them when they are taken over by the Admiralty?
    Mr. Shakespeare: While we shall try to do that as far as possible, there is this reservation, that the men we want to employ in the first place are those who have been trained in the patrol service as regards anti-submarine work.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Does the hon. Member not consider that these men who have been trained in this work should have special consideration, particularly as they have special knowledge of the use of trawlers?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, that is so, and we shall try to do that as far as possible, but I would point out that it may not be always possible. In so far as we are taking up these trawlers I imagine that those men who may not be required will find it easy to get employment elsewhere.
    Mr. Windsor: Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm the statement that at least 500 people will be thrown out of work in Hull and Grimsby, and can he say what efforts the, Government are making to find other employment for them?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think that follows at all. If the hon. Member would like to consult me on this question I will gladly go into it with him.
    Mr. Windsor: Is the hon. Member aware that a number of these trawler 1448 owners, in agreement with the trades unions concerned, have already indicated that 500 men will be thrown out of work?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think that follows at all.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the hon. Member say whether there is any intention of purchasing any drifters for naval purposes?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Not till the emergency arises.
    Mr. Buchanan: Has the hon. Member considered that new trawlers might have been built in a comparatively short time in some of the yards which are shut up, or which are partially employed, and would not new boats be much better for this work?
    Mr. Shakespeare: In all these problems we try to strike a balance. We have a number of trawlers being built, and these trawlers are being converted now so that they may be immediately available.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have the Admiralty considered building an equivalent number of trawlers in order that these trawlers may be returned as soon as possible?

    GERMAN WARSHIPS (SALVAGE OPERATIONS, SCAPA FLOW).
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the salvage operations for raising the late German fleet at Scapa Flow are to be continued; how long these operations have been in progress; what ships or property have been recovered; what is the estimated value of such ships and property; and what is the estimated cost of the salvage operations to date?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The salvage operations on the German ships at Scapa Flow have been in progress since 1923. The vessels in question were sold outright to various firms, who have conducted salvage operations at their own risk and expense. I have no information as to the value of the ships raised, or the cost of the salvage operations carried out, nor whether further attempts at salvage are intended.
    Mr. McEntee: If this is done at the expense of the contractor, what happens to the ships when they are brought up?
    Mr. Shakespeare: That is not our business, but I presume he sells them for scrap.
    Mr. Thorne: Do I understand that these ships belong to the people who have raised them, and not to the Government?
    Mr. Shakespeare: We sold them outright.
    Mr. Macquisten: Could not these people raise the "Thetis" without the slightest difficulty, seeing that they have raised these battleships without accident of any kind?
    Mr. McEntee: Can the hon. Gentleman say for what price they were actually sold?
    Mr. Shakespeare: They were sold, I think, for about £24,000 at the end of the War.

    GAMBIA AND SIERRA LEONE (EXPORTS).
    Sir Joseph Leechasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what active steps he has taken or is taking to develop the export of agricultural produce from Gambia and Sierra Leone to foreign countries and to the British Empire?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Special attention has been paid to the improvement of the quality of export produce from these territories by the institution of produce inspection, which now applies to groundnuts, palm kernels, beeswax and hides and skins in the Gambia, and to palm kernels, palm oil, beeswax, and ginger in Sierra Leone. Attention is also being given to the encouragement of the extension of production for export of hides and skins in the Gambia and of palm kernels, palm oil, piassava, kola, ginger, and hides and skins in Sierra Leone. In the latter Colony much attention is also being paid to the development of rice production, primarily to meet internal needs but also with a view to the ultimate development of an export trade.

    BRITISH GUIANA (REFUGEES).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the prospective number of refugees to be settled in British Guiana, and the pro-1450 spective date of the beginning of the same?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The tentative proposals under consideration by the refugee organisations in this country and in the United States contemplate an experimental settlement of from 250 to 500 persons, to be started with the despatch of a pioneer party in the autumn of this year. The ultimate number to be settled under the proposals would depend on the results of the experimental settlement, and of the further inquiries which the proposals contemplate into the agricultural and industrial possibilities of the interior.
    Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that the report with regard to British Guiana indicated that experimental settlements would be made of 5,000 persons and upwards, is it not intended to carry the matter out on a larger scale?
    Mr. MacDonald: This is a matter for decision by the refugee authorities. They are considering very carefully the possibility of an experiment on the scale suggested in the report, and seem likely to come to the conclusion which I have indicated in reply to the question.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Would it not cost more to send one man to this district than to send 10 to Palestine?
    Sir Richard Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an idea of the number of people who will form the pioneer party? Is it tens, or hundreds?
    Mr. MacDonald: The matter is still under consideration by the refugee authorities, and I would prefer not to give any answer until they have reached a final conclusion on the matter, which I hope will be the case in the very near future.

    SEYCHELLES.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the resolutions from the Seychelles Taxpayers' Association, a body representative of all classes in this colony excepting Government officials, requesting an amendment to the constitution whereby adequate popular representation of the inhabitants and a reduction in the excessive costs of the administration may be secured; and what action he proposes in the matter?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I have seen the resolutions to which the hon. Member refers and propose to discuss the various matters dealt with in the resolutions with the Governor, who is now home on leave.
    Mr. Adams: Can the House be advised of the results of these discussions if I put another question down?
    Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member will put another question down, I will give him such information as I can from time to time, but I do not anticipate that I shall be able to give him any further information next week.

    WEST INDIES (CIVIL SERVICE).
    Mr. Jaggerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has inquired into the position of establishing Whitley Council machinery in the West Indian Civil Service; and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am in sympathy with the principle of consultation with recognised associations of Colonial civil servants, and am considering whether any further developments regarding this are feasible and desirable in the West Indies.
    Mr. Jagger: If I put down another question, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me a reply?
    Mr. MacDonald: When I have any further information.
    Mr. Jaggerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the discontent existing in the Trinidad Civil Service because of the rise of approximately 15 per cent. in the cost of living; of the two promises made by the Governor that the Civil Service would be reorganised; that in this reorganisation the question of the cost of living and other matters would be dealt with; and when it is expected that particulars of the pro posed reorganisation will be furnished to the Civil Service Association?
    Mr. MacDonald: The Government of Trinidad have had under consideration the revision of conditions of service and the regrading of salaries of civil servants in the Colony. I understand that comprehensive proposals on the matter will be introduced in the Legislative Council when it reassembles.

    COLONIAL AFFAIRS.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement regarding the institution of a standing Parliamentary Commit tee for Colonial Affairs?
    The Prime Minister: I am not at the moment in a position to make a statement, but I expect to be able to do so before the end of the Session.

  FOOD DEFENCE.

    FLOUR (STORAGE).
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the response of bakers to the special offer in connection with the storage of flour?
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The scheme to which the hon. Member refers has met with an excellent response, and has led to a substantial increase of the stocks of flour held by bakers. One of the advantages of the scheme is that the stocks are widely dispersed and are maintained close to the point of consumption. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the bakers and their trade organisation for their co-operation. I may add that the scheme is being extended to flour millers and flour importers.
    Mr. De la Bére: Was not this very largely a device to enable the Millers' Mutual Association to unload flour son to these unsuspecting bakers at an uneconomic price? Will my right hon. Friend think very deeply before he replies?
    Mr. Morrison: The answer is "No, Sir."
    Mr. De la Bére: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I never accept "No"?

    BAKING CAPACITY.
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, since the absorption of bakery concerns by the milling combines direct or by holding companies controlled by the milling combines is undermining the independence of bakers in all districts in this country, which it is essential to safeguard in connection with Food Defence Plans, he will
    1453 introduce legislation to defend the independent bakers against the encroachment caused by this practice?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: My information does not confirm the premises of my hon. Friend's question, and I see no need to introduce legislation for the purpose suggested. I am satisfied that there is sufficient baking capacity to meet the needs of the country in time of emergency.
    Mr. De la BéreIs my right hon. Friend aware that evasion and stonewalling are no good against me? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Millers' Mutual Association is a public menace, and that a public inquiry must be held?
    Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of all that.

    WHEAT RESERVES.
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in connection with the substantial additions which have recently been made to the Government's wheat reserves, preference has been given to the purchase of Canadian and Australian wheats; and whether he will, as far as possible, en-deavour to give preference to wheat from the Dominions in purchasing emergency supplies in future?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. De la Bére: But what about the American Kansas wheat? Is that not delivered here free of import duty, and is there not a profit of 5s. on the American subsidy, which enables the Millers' Mutual Association once again to make an additional profit on the standard price of flour? Will my right hon. Friend give this really deep thought?
    Mr. Morrison: I will give it thought when I have an opportunity of considering it. Perhaps, in order to enable me to do so, my hon. Friend will put the question on the Paper.
    Mr. De la Bére: Is there no one in the Government who has the courage to stand up to the scandal of the milling combines?

    ARMAMENT CONTRACTS, CANADA.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1454 whether, as a result of the Bren gun investigation in Canada, there has been any curtailment of orders for munitions, armaments, or military supplies placed in Canada by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am advised that the answer is in the negative.

  PALESTINE.

    IMMIGRATION.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent in numbers during each of the last three years and for the last three months of illegal Arab immigration into Palestine, and what steps are being taken to prevent it?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not these figures available, but am asking the High Commissioner for a report. The land frontiers of Palestine are closely patrolled, with a view to preventing unauthorised entry by Arabs or other persons.
    Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at least the same energy will be shown in preventing illegal Arab immigration into Palestine as in preventing illegal Jewish immigration?
    Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Crossley: Does the answer not prove conclusively that the Arabs of Palestine are a separate and distinct people from the Arabs of other countries?
    Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the matter of immigration into Palestine, he will consider making a concession on behalf of the elderly dependants of already established Jewish immigrants from the countries of persecution, and will allow such dependants to be brought in as an addition both to the proposed ordinary quota and to the proposed special category for refugees, in view of the fact that these elderly dependants can neither add to the future Jewish population nor compete in the economic field, and will be in no way a burden on the financial resources of the State nor a military menace to the Arab population?
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider a modification of the impending suspension of immigration of

    1455
    Jews into Palestine in the case of aged parents or near relatives of persons already settled there, who will undertake full responsibility for them?
    Mr. MacDonald: I cannot contemplate any modification of the policy regarding immigration set forth in the White Paper and in my recent statement concerning the next six-monthly period.
    Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Member aware that, at present Jewish colonists are often faced with the cruel choice of whether to bring in aged parents, faced with destitution and misery, or young adults, who would be of some economic value to the colony; and would not my suggestion do something to conciliate world opinion?
    Mr. MacDonald: All those considerations, and many others, were taken carefully into account before we decided on this policy.
    Mr. T. Williams: As the suggestion in the question does not in any way vitiate the general immigration policy, could not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his policy for the first year in regard to aged people, who could not be a burden on the Palestinian Arabs?
    Mr. Pickthorn: Does not the hon. Lady's supplementary question show that such a concession would affect the general immigration policy?
    Mr. MacDonald: Certainly.
    Mr. Dalton: On a point of Order. Would it not be proper for the Minister now to answer the question of my hon. Friend, which he would have answered but for the supplementary of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)?
    Mr. Speaker: I have no objection to his doing so.
    Mr. MacDonald: The suggestion which was made would involve a modification of the policy which had been decided on, and I said in my original answer that I could not contemplate any such modification.
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Would the point made by the hon. Lady not be best met if the organisation concerned would stop illegal immigration?
    Mr. T. Williams: Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to suggest that the official organisation, which is part and parcel of the Mandate system, is in any way responsible for illegal immigration?
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not understand what the hon. and gallant Member said.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the agreement made, with the approval of the Home Office, by the Agricultural Subcommittee of the Co-ordinating Committee on Jewish Refugees, on which is represented the National Fanners' Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the Agricultural Workers' Union, for the training in this country of 1,000 German refugees at agricultural institutes and on English farms with individual owners, for emigration to Pales-time within one year, 200 of such emigrants to leave in October, 200 in November, and the remainder in December, which arrangements were made with his knowledge and approval, his order to stop all immigration into Palestine for the period from 1st October will apply to these men?
    Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I would add that the plan to which the hon. Member refers was not made with my knowledge or approval. I was informed about it by those responsible after it had been made, and I gave no undertaking that immigration certificates for Palestine would be available for the persons concerned.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the effect of this policy so far as English agricultural labourers are concerned, and of the fact that it will represent a breach of faith all round if this policy is pursued, will the right hon. Gentleman treat this as a special case?
    Mr. MacDonald: If I treat one case as a special case, I shall have to treat a great many as special cases. This is the result not of our policy, but of enormous illegal immigration into Palestine.

    BRITISH SOLDIERS AND OFFICIALS (CASUALTIES).
    Mr. Lambertasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of

    1457
    British soldiers and officials that have been killed and wounded during the past seven years in Palestine?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: During the past seven years the number of Army and Air Force casualties have been 113 killed and 377 wounded. During the same period 28 British officials, including police, were killed and 79 wounded.
    Mr. Lambert: Is that not a heavy British sacrifice in order to settle the Jews in Palestine?
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the number of deaths, either through accidents or ill health, among British soldiers who have been sent to India during that period?
    Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down to the appropriate Minister.
    Mr. Mander: How many Jews were killed fighting for us in the Great War?

    REFUGEES (COASTAL PATROL).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the size and number of ships of the British coastal fleet engaged off the coast of Palestine in preventing Jewish refugees from landing; how many ships have landed refugees in the last month; and to what extent arrangements are contemplated for transferring them to Cyprus or elsewhere?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: One division of destroyers and five Government motor launches are engaged in this patrol service. With regard to the second part of the question, I am making inquiry of the High Commissioner. With regard to the third part, I cannot add to the general statement which I made in the course of the Debate on 20th July.
    Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where he expects the ships to go when the Jewish refugees are successfully driven off by the British fleet from their national home in Palestine?
    Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member will recollect that what I said in my statement in the course of the Debate was that the situation is one in which these ships are usually captured by our patrols and taken to Palestine.
    Mr. Alexander: Do I understand that a whole flotilla of destroyers is engaged in this work?
    Mr. MacDonald: One division.
    Mr. Alexander: What is a division?

    WEST AFRICA (COCOA COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the Cocoa Commission Report arising out of the West African dispute?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I have now received the recommendations of the Governors of the Gold Coast and Nigeria on the Cocoa Commission Report, and I have them under consideration.
    Mr. Creech Jones: How soon may we expect from the Government a statement on their policy in the matter?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have undertaken to consult interests in this country before I make that statement. I shall undertake that consultation at the earliest possible moment.

    COLONIES (GRANTS AND LOANS).
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of financial grants made to Colonial Governments in any form during 1913, 1923, 1933, and 1938?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply contains a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the reply:
    The net expenditure in the years mentioned from the Votes which are now comprised in the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote was as follows:

    £

    1913

    526,885

    1923

    13,328,250

    1933

    548,722

    1938

    4,380,000 (estimated).

    The expenditure in 1923 includes £6,614,905 on defence services in the Middle East and £3,750,000 in respect of a financial settlement with the British
    South Africa Company, which can perhaps hardly be classed as grants made to Colonial Governments.
    In addition, in the years 1933 and 1938 the net expenditure from the Colonial Development Fund was £358,336 and £381,184 respectively.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of loans outstanding to Colonial Governments to the last convenient date; and whether any and, if so, what amount of interest is in arrear?
    Mr. MacDonald: As regards the first part of the question, the figures of un-repaid advances by the United Kingdom at 31st March, 1938, were £10,892,685 exclusive of outstanding loans from the Colonial Development Fund of £1,205,068. No arrears of interest are outstanding on the loans from the Colonial Development Fund. As regards the amount of interest outstanding in the case of the unrepaid advances, the position is somewhat complicated, and I would refer the hon. Member to pages 86-88 of the latest edition of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the punctilious financial rectitude which the right hon. Gentleman imposes on the Colonies, is it still the policy of the Government that they should be self-supporting as between revenue and expenditure within each Colony, irrespective of the position of the Colonial Empire?
    Mr. MacDonald: That is a very different question, and I could not reply within the bounds of a Parliamentary answer.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman formed any estimate as to what percentage of the capital value of the Colonies is represented by this £10,000,000?
    Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: What is the rate of interest charged upon these loans?
    Mr. MacDonald: If my hon. Friend will look up the publications to which I have referred, he will see the rates of interest.
    Mr. Cartlandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the Crown Colonies have received no grant in aid from the Imperial Exchequer during the last three years?
    Mr. MacDonald: As the answer contains a long list of territories I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the answer:
    No provision was made for grants or loans in aid to the following Colonial Dependencies in the Estimates of the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote for the years 1937–38, 1938–39 and 1939–40 (including the Supplementary Estimate of 7th July, 1939 (Cmd. No. 147 of 1939):Aden Colony, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Solomon Islands Protectorate, Ceylon, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Federated Malay States, Gibraltar, Grenada, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Mauritius, North Borneo, St. Helena, St. Vincent, Sarawak, Seychelles, Straits Settlements, Trinidad and Zanzibar.
    All the above dependencies have, however, with the exception of Gibraltar and Sarawak, been granted during the three years in question assistance of varying amounts in the form of grants and/or loans from the Colonial Development Fund.

    CYPRUS.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the terms of the exclusive licences granted by the Governor of Cyprus to certain private companies to export tobacco and wines to the United Kingdom; and what effect these monopolies have had upon the interests of the Colony?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: As the terms of the licences are long I propose to place copies of them in the Library of the House. Broadly, in the case of wines, the system of marketing adopted has led to higher prices being paid to growers for grapes and to an increase in exports of wines and grape juice to the United Kingdom from nil in 1926, the year before the licence was granted, to 650,000 gallons in 1938. In addition, a scientific winery has been built and quality improved up to a standard at which Cyprus wines,

    1461
    hitherto used solely for blending purposes, are being sold to an increasing extent under their own name. In the case of tobacco, the licences have succeeded, by rigorous supervision of quality and by careful marketing, in creating a demand within the very limited United Kingdom market for a type of Turkish cigarettes manufactured from Cyprus leaf.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the people of Cyprus resent the imputation cast on them that signatures to the recent petition were obtained improperly and by misrepresentation, and whether he will receive a small deputation of well-known Cypriots at present in London who desire to explain the position to him and make their protest personally?
    Mr. MacDonald: With regard to some of the methods used by those connected with the recent circulation of petitions in Cyprus, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in answer to questions on 5th July. If those concerned wish to make representations to me on the matter they should do so in the normal manner through the Acting Governor, and I shall readily consider them. In the circumstances, I do not think that a useful purpose would be served by my receiving a deputation in London.
    Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be well to receive a deputation from the many Cypriots of different points of view in London now, and is not he aware that it would encourage them to make statements to him so that he might get to know at first hand, apart from the official point of view, the reactions to activities in the Island?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am never reluctant to see citizens who come from the Colonies but this question is concerned with certain quite recent events in Cyprus, and I am not certain that Cypriot residents in London would necessarily be those best calculated to make representations on this matter. What I am suggesting is for authoritative representations from those concerned in the Island through the normal channels, and I will
    1462
    readily consider anything they may represent.
    Mr. Mathers: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I mean those people who are here visiting London and who are always, apart from a very brief period, resident in Cyprus and arc in a position quite definitely to make representations on the matter.
    Captain Alan Graham: Is it not the fact that the chief of these Cypriot visitors to London at the moment was one of the originators of the petition, and one who, in the riots of 1931, openly deserted the British Government in a most offensive fashion and should then have been deprived of his British decoration?
    Mr. Benn: Will Government officials in Cyprus prohibit the Press from publishing any account of these questions and answers?
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of signatures obtained to the recent Cyprus petition asking for a measure of self-government and the number which the officials of the Colony state have been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have not the information asked for, but would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) on 20th July.
    Mr. Mathers: As the right hon. Gentleman has taken a decision with regard to this matter and now appears to say he is not informed of the position, on what basis did he take his decision?
    Mr. MacDonald: The decision was taken by the authorities in the Island, and I have taken steps to get from the authorities in the Island the information which the hon. Member requires.

    COLONIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO IMPERIAL EXCHEQUER.
    Captain A. Grahamasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Imperial Exchequer receives any financial contribution, other than those offered voluntarily for defence purposes,

    1463
    from any Crown Colony; and, if so, from which Colony, and for what purpose?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: With the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, I will circulate in the Official Report a statement showing the contributions made by Colonial Governments to the Imperial Exchequer. Apart from the contributions made for the specific purposes mentioned in the statement and certain voluntary contributions towards defence the Imperial Exchequer receives no contributions from Colonial funds.
    Following is the statement:
    As indicated in Sub-head 2 of Head L of Vote I of the Army Estimates, contributions towards the cost of Imperial Defence are made by the Governments of certain Colonies in which Imperial garrisons are stationed. The amounts estimated to be received during the current year are as follow:

    £

    Bermuda

    3,500

    Jamaica

    10,000

    *Cyprus

    14,000

    Mauritius

    59,000

    Ceylon

    216,000

    Straits Settlement

    700,000

    Hong Kong

    379,000

    * The reason for the contribution made by the Government of Cyprus is explained in the Note to Sub-head A I of the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote (Class II, Vote 8).
    As indicated in Sub-head I of Head K of Vote 8 of the Air Estimates a number of Colonial Governments contribute towards the cost of the Empire air services. These contributions are as follow:

    £

    Ceylon

    1,000

    Fiji

    100

    Hong Kong

    17,000

    Kenya

    9,000

    Mauritius

    400

    North Borneo

    200

    Northern Rhodesia

    2,000

    Nyasaland

    2,000

    Sarawak

    200

    Seychelles

    50

    Straits Settlements and Malay States

    20,000

    Tanganyika

    6,000

    Uganda

    6,000

    Zanzibar

    500

    In addition, as indicated in Sub-head F of the Vote for Colonial and Middle Eastern services, it is estimated that the sum of £1,500 will be received from Colonial Governments during the current year in respect of contributions by Colonial Governments towards the cost of testing and marketing Colonial timbers and towards the cost of certain schemes met in the first instance from the funds of the Colonial Empire Marketing Board.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAFFIC-LIGHT SIGNALS.
    Captain Sir William Brassasked the Minister of Transport what would be the approximate cost of adding to an existing traffic-light signal, a special signal with the three colours placed in a suitable position for the guidance of foot passengers, in order to indicate when they should or should not attempt to cross the road?
    The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): The total cost of fitting an additional three-light signal of a normal pattern to an existing traffic signal depends so much on the circumstances of each case that it is difficult to give any general estimate. I understand that the cost of an additional three-light signal of a normal pattern would be about £8 10s., but to this must be added the cost of fitting to the signal head and also of making the necessary alterations to the cables. If, as in many cases, the whole junction would have to be recabled, the cost would be very considerable.
    Sir Percy Harris: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that in all new traffic-light signals a third light should be added for the safety of pedestrians?
    Captain Wallace: I shall be glad to consider that.
    Sir W. Brassasked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a circular to local authorities asking them to experiment with the fitting of some traffic- light signals of a special kind with the three colours for the guidance of foot passengers who are endangered when crossing the road by being unable to see when the traffic lights are in their favour?
    Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir. I propose to issue to highway authorities a circular

    1465
    calling attention to the desirability of providing additional three-light signal faces of the normal pattern on traffic-light signals wherever these are practicable and warranted.
    Sir W. Brassasked the Minister of Transport whether at the traffic-light controls in the Metropolitan area any check is ever made of the duration of the green and red periods with the normal traffic flow at different times of the day and night and on Sundays in order that unnecessary delays when the traffic is light can be avoided at minor crossings?
    Captain Wallace: The fact that the great majority of the traffic control signals in the Metropolitan area are vehicle-actuated ensures that unnecessary delays are avoided when traffic is light along the side streets. Periodical checks are, however, made of the timing of all installations and these are taken at various times of the day and night. Checks on Sundays are not considered necessary.
    Sir W. Brass: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that there is a very considerable delay on Sundays, and would he consider installing the system adopted in France whereby the yellow amber light is blinked at cross roads so as to give a warning signal when the rest of the lights are turned out?
    Captain Wallace: If my hon. and gallant Friend suggests that that should be done on Sundays only, I think that it would be impracticable.

    RAILWAY FOOTBRIDGE, GLYNCORRWG.
    Sir William Jenkinsasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to get the Great Western Railway Company to proceed with the work of erecting the station footbridge over the railway, which is jointly owned by the Glyncorrwg Urban District Council and the Great Western Railway Company, which is a source of public danger and a great public inconvenience?
    Captain Wallace: I understand that the heads of the necessary agreement between the urban district council and the railway company for the reconstruction of the footbridge are now under discussion, and that the work will be put in hand as soon as possible.

    FACILITIES, GLASGOW—INNELLAN.
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the further representations on the lack of transport facilities between Glasgow and Innellan; and whether he will make a statement on the subject?
    Captain Wallace: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the answer:
    The London Midland and Scottish Railway Company inform me that except on Saturdays a train leaves Glasgow (Central) at 6.45 p.m. giving a connection with a steamer leaving Gourock at 7.40 p.m. and arriving at Innellan at 8.20 p.m. On Saturdays a train leaves Glasgow (Central) at 7 p.m. connecting with a steamer leaving Wemyss Bay at 8.10 p.m. and arriving at Innellan at 9.25 p.m. There is also an earlier train on all weekdays from Glasgow (Central) at 6.10 p.m. arriving at Gourock at 6.59 p.m. (6.56 p.m. on Saturdays), but without a connection to Innellan. I am still in communication with the company on the further points brought to my notice by the hon. and learned Member, and I will let him know the result as soon as possible.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Transport the number of fatal and other accidents that have occurred to persons boarding or alighting from stationary tramcars during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and will he consider introducing legislation or making further regulations prohibiting either mechanically-propelled or horse-drawn vehicles from passing on the near-side of stationary tramcars whilst passengers are boarding or alighting?
    Captain Wallace: For the country as a whole the latest available figures for fatal accidents to persons boarding or alighting from stationary tramcars are those for 1933 and 1935 which were given to the hon. Member on 15th July, 1936. When the last detailed analysis of fatal and non-fatal road accidents was made for the year ending 31st March, 1937, it was not deemed necessary to analyse the figures of accidents to persons boarding or

    1467
    alighting from vehicles according to the type of vehicle. The particulars for which the hon. Member asks are, therefore, not available. I do not think that any amendment of the law in the sense proposed by the hon. Member is necessary. Paragraph 27 of the Highway Code gives clear instructions on the subject of passing stationary tramcars on the nearside, and the existing law provides severe penalties where the practice referred to is a cause of danger.
    Mr. Day: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that regulations on these lines would minimise fatal and other accidents?
    Captain Wallace: No, Sir; if I agreed with that view I should have given a different answer to the hon. Member's question.

    Systems.

    Number of Persons.

    Average per million passenger vehicle miles run.

    Killed.

    Injured.

    Killed.

    Injured.

    Tramcars

    …

    …

    …

    …

    17

    4,672

    .26

    70.9

    Trolley Omnibuses

    …

    …

    31

    3,7553

    .68

    82· 4

    Motor Omnibuses:

    Central Area Omnibuses

    …

    67

    11,002

    .29

    47·9

    Coaches

    …

    …

    …

    11

    524

    .39

    1.7

    Country Omnibuses

    …

    …

    7

    805

    .24

    2.3

    Total

    …

    …

    133

    20,756

    .33

    52· 2

    The figures of injured include all cases reported, however trivial.
    The board add that the relatively high figure for trolley omnibuses is incidental to their introduction and that this figure diminishes with experience as is already apparent from those routes where trolley omnibuses were first introduced.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport on what grounds he has decided not to hold an inquiry into the accident near Lancaster on 9th July involving a motor coach and the death through burning of five passengers; whether a contributing cause of the fire resulting from the accident was the cotton carried by the lorry into which the motor coach crashed; whether it is in the public interest that cotton should be carried by lorry rather than by rail; whether the rear lighting of motor lorries is adequate and was so in this case; whether the time
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport how many persons have been killed, and how many injured, in road accidents involving, respectively, tram-cars, trolley omnibuses and motor omnibuses per 1,000,000 passenger miles run by the London Passenger Transport Board for the 12 months ended 31st December, 1938?
    Captain Wallace: As the answer contains a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the answer:
    The London Passenger Transport Board inform me that the numbers of persons killed and injured in road accidents involving, respectively, their tram-cars, trolley omnibuses and motor omnibuses, during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1938, were as shown below:
    schedule of the coach was in order; and, in view of the necessity of elucidating these and other facts, will he reconsider his decision?
    Captain Wallace: I obtained a report on this regrettable accident immediately after it occurred, and in my opinion a Public Inquiry into it would serve no useful purpose. There is always the possibility of legal proceedings arising out of an accident of this kind, and it would therefore not be proper for me to make any statement as to its causes. In any case it would not be practicable to prohibit the carrying of cotton by road.

    ROAD FACILITIES, WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Transport what amount of assistance he is prepared to offer towards the cost of reconstruction of the main road in Bernaray Island, Harris?
    Captain Wallace: The position remains as stated in the answer given to the hon. Member's question on the same subject on 22nd March, 1939.
    Mr. MacMillan: May I ask whether the county council is putting the road on the classified list; and, if so, will he then make any grants?
    Captain Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that question on the Paper.

    STORNOWAY STEAMER SERVICE.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement regarding the new steamer to be put on the Stornoway service by Messrs. MacBrayne's, with details about accommodation for passengers and crew, service speed minimum, stock and goods accommodation, etc.; and the date at which it is likely to begin service?
    Captain Wallace: I am informed by Messrs. MacBrayne that the plans of the new steamer for the Stornoway Service are still under consideration but will be submitted to me as soon as possible. By the terms of their contract Messrs. MacBrayne are required to provide the new vessel for this service before the end of next year.

    ROAD WORKS.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Transport whether he will urge upon Highland county councils the advisability, in view of the high level of local unemployment in some areas, and in view of the very poor condition of second-class and unclassified and parish roads, that they prepare plans to undertake the reconstruction of these roads while all the plant for the first-class road schemes is still in these areas and available at the completion of these main schemes, and so effect economies in transport of plant and material, thus reducing the cost of certain new schemes especially in the Outer Islands; and whether he will be prepared to advance financial aid for the period of such reconstruction at low charges?
    Captain Wallace: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. I attach great importance to the principle that contracts for road works
    1470
    should be publicly advertised for competitive tenders; and it cannot be assumed that any particular contract will go to a firm which happens to have plant employed on other road schemes in the locality. Moreover, whether particular works can be put in hand at any given time must be judged in relation to the financial resources then available both locally and nationally. It does not follow that because certain improvement works are being carried out in any district therefore other unrelated works should be put in hand at the same time or immediately afterwards. Whether a grant can be made towards any particular scheme of improvement submitted by a highway authority must always be considered on its merits in relation to the demands for other purposes.
    Mr. MacMillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a certain amount of co-ordination in the various transport schemes is highly desirable? Does he not agree also that great savings could be made by fitting these schemes into each other from year to year and in plant transport? Is it nescessary to restrict planning to this year to year method on isolated schemes?
    Captain Wallace: I do not think that these considerations override those stated in my answer.
    Mr. MacMillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be highly advisable to establish system and co-ordination in the transport system in the Highlands and Islands which is absolutely lacking to-day?
    Captain Wallace: I think we have done a great deal to help transport there.
    Mr. MacMillan: You certainly have not done much about parish and local roads, so far.
    Mr. Macquisten: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the sea is a highway, that the sea is free, and that transport by sea ought to be free?

    RAILWAY ACCIDENT, DOWNHAM MARKET.
    Mr. Maxwellasked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to make any statements on the inquiry which he instituted on the recent railway accident near Downham Market?
    Captain Wallace: The report of the Chief Inspecting Officer who held the inquiry into this railway accident is not yet completed, and I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make any statement on the matter. In any case, criminal proceedings are being instituted against the lorry driver concerned in this accident, and until such proceedings are concluded it would not be proper for me to make public the findings of the Chief Inspecting Officer.
    Mr. Maxwell: When the inquiry is over and the criminal proceedings are completed, will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider having a general inquiry into the whole question of level crossings, particularly pedestrian crossings?
    Captain Wallace: That is a much wider question.
    Mr. De Chair: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when the report will be ready?
    Captain Wallace: No, Sir.

    RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that when young men surrender their season and period rail tickets on account of being called up for military training they have returned to them a lesser proportion of the amount originally paid; and whether he will consult with the railway companies with a view to rectifying this grievance?
    Captain Wallace: I have consulted the railway companies on the question of allowances in respect of non-user of season tickets. They point out that the existing regulations under which they make these allowances are designed to put the season ticket holder, who surrenders his ticket, in at least as good a position as if he had taken out a ticket or tickets for the actual period of user.

    GLENSHEE BRIDGE.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to conversations between the Perth and Kinross County Council and the national transport authorities involving consideration of a scheme for the demolition of the Spittal of Glenshee Bridge and the erection of a new bridge on the site of the old one; if he is aware that the old bridge
    1472
    has been scheduled as an ancient monument and that its destruction would be deeply resented in Scotland; and whether he will agree that further action should be postponed pending further consideration of the practicability and cost of repairing the old bridge?
    Captain Wallace: As I indicated to the right hon. Gentleman on 20th June last the approval of the First Commissioner of Works, who is responsible for ancient monuments, has not been given to the demolition of Glenshee Bridge. Alternative proposals for the improvement of the road in this locality are under review; and before any decision is reached, regard will be had to all the relevant considerations.

    LONDON BUS EMPLOYES' FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
    Mr. Messerasked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of the members of the London Passenger Transport Friendly Society in view of the proposal that the benefits shall be reduced, as this proposal is in conflict with the undertaking that the benefits to which the employés of the London General Omnibus Company were entitled would be guaranteed by the London Passenger Transport Board?
    Captain Wallace: I assume that the society to which the hon. Member refers is the London General Omnibus Company Employés' Friendly Society. I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that this is a voluntary society organised and administered by certain members of the staff for their own benefit and registered under the Friendly Societies Act. The board do not participate in its management nor have they, or their predecessors, the London General Omnibus Company, contributed to its funds. I am further informed that no undertaking has been given either by the London General Omnibus Company or by the board that the benefits paid by the society would be guaranteed.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: On a point of Order. I have a question on the

    1473
    Order Paper, Question 96, which has not been reached. May I ask whether by postponing it now I can have it answered to-morrow in the time available for questions? It concerns the servants of this House, and we are anxious to help them in any emergency.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member will, no doubt, receive a written reply.
    Mr. Harvey: Is there any opportunity, Mr. Speaker, by which Members of the House generally, who are deeply concerned in this matter, may express their views, if the question is not answered orally?
    Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that when questions are not answered they may be withdrawn and put down for another day? I have done it scores of times.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give us an opportunity of discussing this question of the servants of this House and their conditions? The servants are our friends. Am I not entitled to ask the Prime Minister that question?
    Mr. Speaker: Not now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the business for to-day and also for Friday?
The Prime Minister: It is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to obtain the business up to and including the fifth Order on the Paper. I need not stress the importance and urgency of the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Bill which has been treated by the House as a non-party measure. I announced last week that the Government would ask the House to take the remaining stages to-day so that the Bill could go to another place. I hope that it will be possible for us to finish the Bill tonight, but if it is felt as the evening proceeds that the report and Third Reading should be deferred until after the Vote of Censure to-morrow, I recognise that it would be unreasonable for me to press the House to dispose of the Bill to-night. I think we must see how we get on in
1474
Committee, and I would suggest that as the evening proceeds the usual channels should consult together.On Friday we shall consider Supplementary Estimates in Committee for the Home Office, Foreign Office and Diplomatic and Consular Services in so far as they relate to the preparation of plans for a Ministry of Information and Foreign Publicity. Any other outstanding Business will also be taken.
Mr. Benn: While no one desires to prevent appropriate powers being given to the Government in connection with these outrages, the Prime Minister will have noticed that the Government themselves have put on the Order Paper for the first time to-day Amendments which must be considered carefully, and that, therefore, a Report stage will be necessary?
The Prime Minister indicated assent.
Mr. Locker-Lampson: As we have spent a whole night discussing our own affairs could not a small portion of our time be reserved to discuss the conditions of the servants in the House?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member can raise that question on the Motion for the Adjournment or any night after Eleven o'Clock.
Sir P. Harris: Is it not too late to discuss that question after Eleven o'Clock?
Mr. Locker-Lampson: Would it not be possible to appoint half a dozen hon. Members to go into this question?
Lieut.-Commander Agnew: In view of the reported serious explosion this afternoon, can the Prime Minister say whether it is true, and, if it is true, is it not desirable that the Bill to deal with this kind of outrage should be passed into law at once?
The Prime Minister: I understand that there was an explosion at King's Cross Station this afternoon. I have not received sufficient information to say how serious it was, but I am told that a number of people have been hurt. What effect it will have on the consideration of the Bill I will leave to hon. Members themselves.
Viscountess Astor: We might all be blown up.
Mr. Locker-Lampson: Do I understand that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House we shall be allowed to discuss the question of the conditions of the servants of this House?
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 131.

Division No. 284.]

AYES.

[3.57 p.m.

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

Evorard, Sir William Lindsay

Markham, S. F.

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

Fildes, Sir H.

Marsden, Commander A.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Findlay, Sir E

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

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

Fleming, E. L.

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

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

Furness, s. N.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

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

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

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

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Apsley, Lord

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

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Assheton, R.

Gledhill, G.

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

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

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

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

Goldie, N. B.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Balniel, Lord

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirra!)

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

Bailer, A. Beverley

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Beamish, Rear Admiral T. P. H.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Grimston, R. V.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

Gritten, W. G. Howard

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Beechman, N. A.

Guinness, T. L. E, B.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Beit, Sir A. L.

Hambro, A. V.

Patrick, C. M.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Hannah, I. C.

Peake, O.

Bernays, R. H.

Harbord, Sir A.

Peal, C. U.

Brabner, R. A.

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

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Petherick, M,

Brass, Sir W.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Haneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Pilkington, R.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Hepworth, J.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Hoare, Rt. Hen. Sir S.

Procter, Major H. A.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

Radford, E. A.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Hopkinson, A.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

Butcher, H. W.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ramsden, Sir E.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Rankin, Sir R.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

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

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Cartland, J. R. H.

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

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Cary, R. A.

Hume. Sir G. H.

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

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

Hunloke, H. P.

Riekards, G. W. (Skipton)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hunter, T.

Ropner, Colonel L.

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

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Marioneth)

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Channon, H.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Keeling, E. H.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Kellett, Major E. O.

Rowlands. G.

Christie, J. A.

Kerr, Colonel C. l. (Montrose)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R,

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

Russell, Sir Alexander

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

Kimball, L.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

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

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

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

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

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Schuster, Sir G. E.

Croft. Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Lees-Jones, J.

Scott, Lord William

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Shakespeare, G. H.

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Crossley, A. C.

Lewis, O.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Liddall, W. S.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Lindsay. K. M.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

De Chair, S. S.

Lipson, D. L.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

De la Bert, R.

Little, J.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Denman, Hon. R. D,

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Smithers, Sir W.

Denville, Alfred

Locker-Lampson, Comdr, O. S.

Snadden, W. MoN.

Dodd, J. S.

Loftus, P. C.

Somerset, T.

Donner, P. W.

Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Dugdale, Captain D. L.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

Duggan, H. J.

M'Connell, Sir J.

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

Duncan, J. A. L.

MeCorquodale, M. S.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Dunglass, Lord

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Eckersley, P. T.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Storey, S.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

McKie, J. H.

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

Edge, Sir W.

Macquisten, F. A.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Magnay, T.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Sutcliffe, H.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Manningham-Butter, Sir M.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

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

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsond)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Thomas, J. P. L.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Wise, A. R.

Thornton, Sir J. D. W.

Wayland, Sir W. A

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Titchfield, Marquess of

Wells, Sir Sydney

Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.

Touohe, G. C.

Whitaley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

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

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Captain Waterhouse and Mr.

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

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

Munro.

NOES

Acland, Sir R. T. D.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Adams, D. (Cornsell)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Oliver, G. H.

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Parkinson, J. A.

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

Grenfell, D. R.

Pearson, A.

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

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

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

Amman, C. G.

Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

Poole, C. C.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

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

Price, M. P.

Banfield, J. W.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Pritt, D. N.

Barr, J.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Batey, J.

Hardie, Agnes

Riley, B.

Bellenger, F. J.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Ritson, J.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Mayday, A.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Benson, G.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Bevan, A.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Sexton. T. M.

Bromfield, W.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Silkin, L.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Simpson, F. B.

Buchanan, G.

Hopkin, O.

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

Burke, W. A.

Jagger, J.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Capa, T.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Smith, T. (Ncrmanton)

Chartelon, H. C.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Sorensen, R. W.

Chatar, D.

John, W.

Stephen, C.

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

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

Cooks. F. S.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N.)

Collindridge, F.

Kirby, B. V.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Cove, W. G.

Kirkwood, D.

Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth)

Daggar, G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Thorne, W.

Dalton. H,

Lathan, G.

Thurtle, E.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Lawson, J. J.

Tinker, J. J.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lee, F.

Tomlinson, G.

Davies S. O. (Merthyr)

Leonard, W.

Viant, S. P.

Day, H.

Leslie, J. R.

Walkden, A. G.

Dobbie, W.

Logan, D. G.

Walker, J.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Watson, W. McL.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

McEntee, V. La T.

Westwood, J.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McGhee, H. G.

White, H. Graham

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Maclean, N.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

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

Mander. G. le M.

Wilmot, John

Fool, D. M.

Marshall, F.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Gallacher, W.

Mathers, C.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Gardner, B. W.

Maxton, J.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Garro Jonas, G. M.

Messer, F.

George, Major G, Lloyd (Pembroke)

Montague, F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Naylor, T. E.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, —
Mining Industry (Amendment)Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords'], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) (Re-Committed) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) (Re-Committed) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1. —(Provision of senior non-provided schools.)
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    4.5 P.m.
    Mr. Ammon: I think the Committee will agree that this is a very remarkable addition to our legislation on education, and still more striking as an instance of the harmonising of sectarian differences. Perhaps it would not be a waste of time if some comment were made on the Bill before we pass it into law. The striking thing is that here we have a Bill that has come from a part of the country which has been notorious for sectarian differences, and that it has now arrived at a measure of agreement which everyone will appreciate. But we are mindful that the 1936 Act, which was passed for the purpose of harmonising and bringing together these various elements has, I understand, been the cause of one or two elections in that city, elections which were not harmoniously conducted, and naturally, when this Bill came before the Select Committee the Committee were a bit concerned as to exactly where was the catch in the Bill, and witnesses were questioned as to what had given rise to this Bill instead of the carrying out of the agreement under the 1936 Act.
    Here, harmoniously settled, is a question that in the past has not only given rise to violent dissension but has sometimes resulted in bloodshed. Naturally questions were put to the witnesses, because the Select Committee were a little sceptical as to whether or not, after the long record of sectarian differences with regard to the schools, a settlement could be reached in the manner set forth in the Bill, and the only answer we could get was that there undoubtedly had been a change of heart. What that means one does not quite know, unless it is to be interpreted as meaning that the rival factions have decided to forget their religious differences and to act as Christians, in which case we have the Bill before us
    1498
    to-day. When we had given in evidence the names of the advisory committee representative of the different sections it was felt that something like an anticlimax had been reached. Everyone welcomes this agreement and this condition of affairs in Liverpool. But I think it would be as well to enter a caveat against what one might call special legislation for different sections of the community. Otherwise we shall be landed into rather serious trouble in the future if major Bills are to be set aside in this way. We rejoice in the decision that has been arrived at, for while the seniors have been quarrelling the children have been suffering. This Bill will at least ensure that the children will receive the advantage of better school buildings and of more up-to-date equipment. For these reasons we welcome the Bill, and we hope that it will be the precursor of better and more harmonious times in Liverpool.
    4.10 p.m.
    Mr. Cove: I am sure that we all desire the quick passage of the Bill, and I shall, therefore, not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes; but I would like to comment on the fact that the supporters of the Government in Liverpool were undoubtedly the cause of the delay that has occurred in that city, and indeed, they made political capital out of the religious question there. They succeeded, as a matter of fact, in defeating Members on this side of the Committee who stood loyally by the provisions of the 1936 Act. In passing, I would like to congratulate the Board of Education on the strong line they took. There has undoubtedly been a change of heart, but I should imagine that that change of heart was largely brought about by the fact that the Board resolutely refused to bend down to the Liverpool authority. In Liverpool there are some very bad buildings and those who opposed the 1936 Act in Liverpool were perpetuating those bad buildings. I can recall that when the 1936 Act was going through there was a general consensus of opinion that that agreement should be applied all over the country, that every section of the community should make its contribution to the agreement embodied in that Act.
    I want to obtain, if I can, from the Parliamentary Secretary two specific promises. One is that the detailed agreement in Liverpool is not to form a precedent to be applied in other parts of

    1499
    the country. This is a very exceptional Measure, as a matter of fact. We had the Act of 1936, which was to apply to the whole country. The Liverpool authority, the Conservatives, refused to apply that Act. Now, owing to that fact, these special arrangements have had to be made—special financial arrangements. I want from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, if I can have, it, a specific promise that there is to be no more contracting out of a national Act of Parliament so far as this question is concerned. The other promise I want from the hon. Gentleman is this: I am glad in one sense that this agreement has been arrived at, because in these religious differences it is the children who always suffer when they are educated in bad buildings. Presumably the Bill will provide for new buildings to take the place of the old buildings in Liverpool. I want to get from the Parliamentary Secretary a definite statement that there will be no dilatoriness so far as these schools in Liverpool are concerned, that the building of the new schools will go on, and go on rapidly. Anybody who knows anything about the conditions in the bad schools in Liverpool will realise that it is absolutely essential that speed should be the order of the day.
    In the sense that an agreement has been made, we all welcome this conclusion, for it will be of benefit to the health of the children when the new schools are built. I want to repeat that the Liverpool Conservative party, over a period of years, have resisted a national agreement that had been arrived at, and have done so to the detriment of the interests of the children of Liverpool. They ought to be very grateful that, though they have resisted, wiser feelings have prevailed here and broader statesmanship has been shown as far as the education services are concerned. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give specific assurances on the points I have raised, I shall be prepared to facilitate the rapid passage of the Bill.
    4.16 p.m.
    Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: I want to say only a word or two at this stage. While I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) into controversies of the past, he will realise that I cannot accept the conclusions he has
    1500
    drawn. Considering the pains that have been taken not only by persons in Liverpool but by the Board of Education and by everyone who has assisted in securing this agreement, we are anxious not to go into old controversies and rekindle old fires. With regard to the points which the hon. Member raised, I will only say that it is not our idea to make this a precedent. The Bill deals with the unique distribution of population which there is in Liverpool and the unique problems that arise there from. As to the question of the rapidity with which the buildings will be put up, it is the intention of all parties in Liverpool that they should be erected as quickly as possible, and the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of these matters, will understand that there is very good reason why they should be put up by 1943. Therefore, as far as Liverpool is concerned, although of course I do not presume to give an undertaking, the hon. Member will realise that, having come to this agreement, everyone is anxious that the best that can be done should be done for the children of all sections of the population.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. Logan: I feel that at this stage one has to be as charitable as possible with regard to the difficulties through which we have passed in this matter. I assure every hon. Member that we are very well pleased that there has been a solution of this problem that has arisen in Liverpool. I should have liked to have seen the 1936 Act carried out, but difficulties arose in Liverpool that were not caused by the non-provided schools. It was a foreign element which caused all the trouble, and I trust that the death of that foreign element has now taken place in connection with the unanimous compromise which is embodied in this Bill. I am convinced that the Board of Education have done wisely in bringing all parties together and getting an arrangement in this matter. There is one fundamental fact which must be borne in mind, and which shows that this Bill is the only course, and that there is no alternative. I do not want anyone to have a wrong impression. It is founda-mental to the non-provided schools that religious training should be given in the schools, and from the point of view of the particular body to which I belong,

    1501
    there could be no arrangement with regard to education unless that were agreed upon.
    I am grateful to Members of the Labour party and particularly to those who, in spite of their own opinions and their principle that there should be a common law for the whole country, have given way in this matter because they feel that this is a domestic matter to Liverpool. During the whole of the negotiations, I have found a feeling among my colleagues that it would be well if we could settle the Liverpool difficulties without there being any question of personalities, and so once and for all bury the hatchet in order that the children should have opportunities of a fuller and better education as a result of these facilities. All my life I have lived in the Scotland area of Liverpool, in the Kew district, which is a dilapidated part of the city, and I know its people, We are very glad indeed that a solution has been found. Along with my colleagues, I can say that we are delighted that this particular business is now being ended. I feel that this is the only solution, and as an agreement has been come to, which ought to be accepted by hon. Members, I feel there is no necessity to waste any more time on the matter.
    4.21 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): As unanimity exists in the Committee, it would be idle for a Minister to intervene. Whatever has happened in the past, the real point is that the children will profit in the future. Therefore, I have much pleasure in recording the unanimous agreement both in Liverpool and in this Committee.
    Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    4.22 p.m.
    Mr. Cove: I have not had answers to the questions I put, and if I am not to receive answers, I must speak on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill.
    1502
    I think that in courtesy some reference ought to be made to those questions, and if the Parliamentary Secretary will give me assurances on those points, the Bill will be passed very quickly.
    4.23 p.m.
    Mr. Lindsay: I am sorry if any discourtesy was shown to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I thought that in a sense his questions were cancelled out by the speech on this side of the House. The title of this Bill, which is "Senior Public Elementary Schools (Liverpool) Bill," should make it clear that it is a Bill which applies only to Liverpool, and inasmuch as fresh legislation would be needed, and there is precious little chance of getting it, I do not think there is any possibility of this applying anywhere else, or of any other city getting a similar Bill. Furthermore, I thought the hon. Member was aware that the conditions in Liverpool are unique. For that reason, in addition, I think he may take it that no precedent is being created. As to the second point which the hon. Member made, there is a time limit, and we shall try to see that these buildings go up as rapidly as possible. I give the hon. Member that undertaking on behalf of the Board.

  PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

    CLAUSE I. —(Power of Secretary of State to make Orders.)
    4.25 p.m.
    Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page I, line 10, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that he shall make a report to Parliament at least once in every three months as to the number of occasions upon which such powers have been exercised and the number of persons affected thereby."
    4.25 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): Before the hon. Member proceeds to speak on his Amendment, perhaps it would be well if I said that I am ready to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Chairman: Mr. Foot.
    4.26 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: Before the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) moves his Amendment—in page 1, line 11, at the beginning, insert: "Subject to the provisions of the Schedule to this Act "—I should be obliged to you, Sir Dennis, if you would give the Committee some guidance as to the course which the Debate will take on this Amendment and other similar Amendments. There is a number of Amendments on the Paper all of which, in one form or another, raise the question of judicial procedure or judicial vetoes on the Secretary of State's power. I suggest that it would be better to have a general discussion on the Amendments and then, if necessary, to have separate Divisions on individual Amendments, but to have only one discussion.
    The Chairman: I think the Committee will agree in the main with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The discussion of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) necessarily involves the discussion of the proposed new Schedule in his name and necessarily involves, no doubt, considerable reference to an Amendment relating to the same issue standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman himself; I have regarded these in my mind as superseding also certain other Amendments dealing with the same principle. All those methods of dealing with the particular matter at issue would, of course, be open to discussion on this Amendment.
    4.28 p.m.
    Mr. Logan: Before a general discussion takes place, I should like to have some guidance from you, Sir Dennis. I should like to know how I shall be able to raise the question of organisations which are not attached to this particular body, but which may be Irish bodies of a kindred kind in this country, and whether the right of entry given in this Bill will apply in the case of those kindred organisations. There would be a necessity for a differentiation, and I should like to be able to raise the question as to what the Minister intends to do under this Bill in regard to those bodies.
    The Chairman: I think that is a matter for debate and not a matter in which I can help the hon. Member. He speaks of different organisations, but as far as I
    1504
    have ascertained, no organisation is referred to in the Bill.
    Mr. Logan: I am aware of that, Sir Dennis, but there cannot be persons without an organisation; and therefore, it follows that the right of entry might be given in the case of a particular body, outside the purview of this body, when it came within the category of certain people who might be mentioned in the Bill. I am anxious to know how kindred organisations, having individual membership, would be protected in regard to the right of entry, and whether the right of entry will be given ad lib with regard to any of those bodies.
    The Chairman: That is, obviously, a matter upon which I cannot give the hon. Member any guidance at this stage. If it arises on any of the Clauses of the Bill, he will have an opportunity of referring to it later.
    Mr. Pritt: With regard to the proposal that there should be a general discussion to cover, once and for all, the question of the extent to which the judiciary is to be allowed to come into this matter, I am the last person to waste time or to have unnecessary repetition but, at the same time, I feel a little anxious in this respect. The question of principle, of how the judiciary can be brought into this matter at any particular stage, may arise in very different forms in relation perhaps to three or four different provisions in the Bill. I should not like to find myself in an hour or two in the position of learning that something to which I attached importance was something which I could not discuss, or, alternatively, being compelled on this Amendment to make a speech which I did not want to make at this stage, to which nobody wanted to listen at this stage and which was not properly applicable or properly apprehended at this stage.
    The Chairman: I do not want to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman used language which appeared to mean more than he intended; but I think this is a matter in regard to which the hon. and learned Gentleman may rely upon the Chair. I intended only to widen the discussion as far as was necessary to allow us to deal with the principle raised by the Amendment which I have called, coupled with the proposed Schedule in the name

    1505
    of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and other hon. Members. There are probably other parts of the Bill in relation to which the question of the position of the judiciary may arise. In such cases, of course, the question will clearly be open for discussion except in so far as concerns any Amendment on which it may be sought to do something contrary (not to what any hon. Member had said in the course of the discussion), but contrary to a decision already arrived at by the Committee.
    Mr. Pritt: I am grateful to you, Sir Dennis.
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, in page I, line II, at the beginning, to insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of the Schedule to this Act."
    The object of this Amendment is to provide that the power of making an expulsion order, contained in Clause I shall only be exercised subject to the provisions of the proposed Schedule (Procedure for making expulsion and prohibition orders) which will be found later on the Order Paper. We have a similar Amendment referring to the case of prohibition orders. We propose that no expulsion or prohibition order should be made except where a judge has made a report on the case, and that, before exercising his discretion the Secretary of State must have regard to the judge's report and to any recommendations which the judge may make. It is also proposed that notice must be served on anybody against whom it is proposed to make an order, calling upon him to appear on a certain date before a judge in chambers to show cause why the order should not be made against him. There is also a provision that evidence may be taken and that the person against whom it is proposed to make the order shall have an opportunity of knowing the charges against him and of cross-examining the witnesses who support those charges. Finally we propose that if the judge definitely recommends that no order should be made, then the right hon. Gentleman shall not be empowered to make the expulsion or prohibition order at all. Apart from that we leave him a certain measure of discretion.
    1506
    I do not suggest that the proposed procedure is ideal or that it is one which I would wish to see followed in the normal course. But I think it represents a. great improvement on what is in the Bill and it is certainly a great deal better than what the right hon. Gentleman himself proposes in a later Amendment to Clause 2. This raises the biggest issue in the Bill, namely whether a person against whom it is proposed to make one of these orders is to have any form of hearing or trial. That is the fundamental question which we have to decide. As the Bill stands, there is no provision for any hearing or trial and I think it was a scandal that a Minister should stand at that Box and recommend that that should be so. We have now seen the terms of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon the Order Paper and to which I presume I may refer. In this Amendment it is proposed that if the person on whom notice has been served objects, and says that there are no grounds for making the proposed order, he may state in writing the reasons for his objection and the Secretary of State shall, unless he considers the reasons to be frivolous, refer the matter to the advice of a person nominated by him not being an officer of police or of any Government Department, and the person so nominated shall interview the objector, examine his objections and report to the Secretary of State.
    That procedure, of course, is very different from what I am suggesting in this Amendment and in the proposed Schedule. We do not know who is to be the person appointed by the Secretary of State. If he is appointed by the Secretary of State he can be dismissed by the Secretary of State and he is therefore in a very different position from a judge who is independent of the Home Office. One can well imagine that if the Home Office considered that the person who had been appointed for this purpose was taking too favourable a view of these cases, they would probably substitute somebody else. Apart from that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, although an improvement on the Bill as it stands, does not meet the chief objections which we have put forward to Clause I. In the first place, there is no opportunity for the man who is charged to know what case is being brought against him. He does

    1507
    not know the grounds on which it is proposed to make the order against him. He is expected to meet a case which he has not heard. If he is an innocent man, all he can say is, "I have never had any connection with the Irish Republican Army." He is required to prove a negative, which is always, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, exceedingly difficult. He does not know who his accusers are. He has to make representations in writing and a person appointed by the Home Secretary is then to consider the matter.
    Again, under this procedure, the accused person has no opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses who support the charges. That is a vital difference. It is not enough for some persons appointed by the Home Secretary and for the right hon. Gentleman himself to examine carefully the various statements made. The right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking that he would, himself, examine with the greatest care every one of these cases, but all he will do will be to examine the reports of the person he has appointed and these various written statements which are put before him. That is very different from anything in the form of a trial. Again and again, those of us who spend some of our time in the criminal courts, have seen cases in which, on the depositions, it looked as if there could be no defence. But as soon as you get the witnesses for the prosecution into the box, and cross-examine them when the other witnesses are out of court and show the jury the discrepancies in their evidence you often find that there is no foundation for the charge.
    I would remind the Committee of one famous example—not in this country— which took place thousands of years ago namely the case of Susanna and the Elders. Under the procedure proposed in this Bill and in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, Susanna would have been disbelieved, because there would have been only these written statements and there would have been no opportunity of cross-examining the Elders. Susanna would have been stoned to death and the Elders would have been justified and held up as examples to all men. That must, inevitably, have happened if the right of cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution had been taken away in that case and that is bound
    1508
    to happen in some cases if a procedure such as the right hon. Gentleman now suggests, is embodied in the Bill. I am not under-estimating the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made but it does not go far enough. I think he must go further. There must be, first, a statement of the grounds on which, and the reasons for which, it is proposed to make the order; secondly, there should be an opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses who support the charge, and, thirdly, the investigation should be carried out, not by a person appointed by and responsible to the Home Secretary, but by someone in the position of a judge who does not owe his office to the favour of a Government Department.
    4.42 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) whose knowledge of the Bible is as great as his father's knowledge of Burke. In the course of a very persuasive speech, and I say at once that the point which he has raised goes to the heart of the Bill and deals with the principle on which the Bill is based. I wish at the very beginning of this Committee stage to put before hon. Members the position as the Government see it. Let us begin by considering what is common ground between us. First, I suggest that, assuming that the men who are to be brought within the scope of the Bill are potential terrorists, the procedure we propose is a very reasonable procedure. What is in the minds of hon. Members is not the position of the guilty, but the risk to the innocent. Secondly, I suggest, we are all agreed that we should take every possible precaution that is practicable within the scope of the Bill against injustice being done and against mistakes being made. It is worth remembering that there are a number of safeguards already in the Bill.
    First there is the scope of the Bill, which we have made as narrow and as limited as we could. We intend that the Bill shall be restricted to the cases of these potential terrorists and if any hon. Member can suggest a narrower or better definition to make it quite clear that we do not want to use these powers generally in other fashions, we shall be perfectly ready to consider such suggestions. The Title of the Bill is, I would remind the Committee, a much more restricted Title

    1509
    than the Title of the Official Secrets Act, to which reference was made more than once in the Second Reading Debate. Secondly, there is the further safeguard that we restrict the scope of the Bill to persons who have not been resident here for a certain number of years. That again is a further safeguard, restricting it to comparatively recent arrivals in this country. Thirdly, the duration of the Bill is limited to two years, and that shows in itself that it is meant to be an emergency Measure to meet what we hope will prove to be a temporary emergency. Lastly, there is the general safeguard of Parliamentary control, and there is the undertaking, which I gave in the course of the Second Reading Debate, that the Secretary of State would look individually into every one of these cases.
    The hon. Member for Dundee wishes us to go further and to add the safeguard of what is really a judicial procedure. He said that such a procedure would allow the Secretary of State some discretion, but within a very narrow field. The only discretion to be allowed the Secretary of State would be that he should be allowed to confirm the orders alreadymade—not a very wide discretion. He further wishes to introduce into the procedure of the Bill the procedure of the law courts. These proposals do really strike at the very root of the Bill. If we felt that the police could carry out their duties effectively without these extra-judicial powers, we should not come to the House of Commons to-day; we should take the cases into the courts of law, and we should hope to get convictions. But the very basis of this Bill is that there is a number of cases of suspicion in connection with this conspiracy to which this legal procedure is not applicable. I do not want to gloss over the fact at all. There is the fact that we have in mind a number of suspects in the country, whom we are convinced are at the centre of this trouble, whom, for one reason or another, we cannot take into a court of law, and in whose cases the ordinary legal procedure is not applicable. They are not cases in which you can have the ordinary legal cross-examination. If you did, you would endanger, not only your sources of information, but the lives of individuals who are in contact with the Government.
    The older Members of this House will remember the early days of this Irish agitation. Time after time these blood
    1510
    vendettas went on, and one or other man who was in contact with the Government was killed, very likely quite a long time after the incident. We cannot run that risk. These are essentially cases, as I say, to which legal procedure is not applicable. If you set up a legal procedure, I am inclined, speaking as a layman, to think that it would be a mere parody of what we believe to be the way in which legal proceedings should be conducted. These cases, by the admission of the hon. Member, ought to be held in camera. I cannot myself see, in cases of suspicion of this kind, the ordinary legal procedure applying. In fact, I think the result would be to set up a new system of Star Chambers, in which a judge would be apparently acting upon a basis of legal procedure, but in actual practice he would not be so acting, and in which the House of Commons would not have the remedy, supposing the powers were abused, as it has in the Bill, against the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Foot: If the Secretary of State makes an order under our proposal, why is he not to be answerable to the House of Commons?
    Sir S. Hoare: Suppose the Secretary of State is convinced that an order should be made in the interests of the security of the State, and suppose the judge for some reason or other refuses that order. The Secretary of State cannot make the order, and subsequently the man blows up the Houses of Parliament. Who is responsible then? [Hon. Members: "You would be."] It is a very inverted form of responsibility. Let me remind hon. Members that the basis of the Bill is preventive. We are not imprisoning the suspects, we are not proposing to put them into internment camps; all that we are proposing to do is to send them back to the country from which they came.
    Mr. Silverman: How do we know? It is not in the Bill.
    Sir S. Hoares: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that that is the intention of the Government. This is not the kind of case that was more than once quoted in the Second Reading Debate, of a British citizen being sent to prison without charge. It is preventive action. We want to get these people out of the country and to prevent them

    1511
    coining into the country, and I should have thought, taking that into account, and taking into account the objections that I have urged against the introduction of judicial procedure, that the Committee generally would come to the conclusion that any proposal such as is made by the hon. Member for Dundee and a number of other hon. Members whose names are on the Paper is quite in applicable. I do say in the Committee this afternoon, with all the force that I can command, that if a judicial procedure of this kind is introduced into the Bill, the Bill, from the point of view of giving the Government, the police, and the community generally greater security against these outrages, is useless.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what sort of person he has in mind as the person to whom he is going to refer these cases?
    Sir S. Hoare: The right hon. Gentle man, with his agile mind, jumps on more quickly than most hon. Members. I, with my slower mind, was coming to that point. It may be said that there is nothing more to be done except to leave the Bill exactly as it is. I will be quite frank with the Committee, and I can say, as Home Secretary, that provided the ultimate responsibility of the Home Secretary is left intact, I would welcome the opportunity of having an outside opinion upon the cases, unconnected with the official administration of the Home Office, or a Government Department, or the police force. I say, first of all, that you must retain the ultimate responsibility of the Home Secretary, but within that limitation I should welcome the help of a man or men of this kind. The kind of people whom I have in mind—and I will be ready to discuss personalities with the right hon. Gentleman and with other people interested—are men who would obviously be independent in their position and who would be regarded as in partial people, whose opinion would carry weight.
    Mr. Pritt: With legal training?
    Sir S. Hoare: With or without legal training; I would not exclude one or the other. I do not think— and I say this with great deference in the presence of distinguished lawyers—that this is the kind of job for an acting judge, because
    1512
    the procedure is so very different from the procedure in a court of law, but I would by no means exclude men with legal experience. The whole point is that men of this kind should be people whose opinions would carry respect, and I would, supposing the Committee agreed with my proposal, give these gentlemen all the information that we had at the Home Office or that the police might have about these cases. I would further see that the complainants were inter viewed by them. I attach considerable importance to a man being confronted by someone who is neither a Home Office official nor an officer of the police, but someone outside the Home Office and the police force, and I would give these gentlemen considerable latitude as to how, further, they carried out their inquiries I believe, myself, that that is the real way to deal with this problem. I be lieve, myself, that there is a number of hon. Members of this House who, while agreeing with me that a legal procedure is not applicable to these cases, would yet like to be satisfied that someone out side the Home Office machine should look into these cases, see the complainants, and then advise the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: If the validity of the objections depends on securing statements from other persons, would the individual appointed by the Home Secretary to examine the objections be allowed to have the benefit of the evidence or statements made by such other persons?
    Sir S. Hoare: I would give these men very great latitude as to how they con ducted the inquiry, and I would not exclude that. I should imagine that cases might have to be dealt with upon their merits and that what might apply in one case might not necessarily apply in another. The whole object is not to make some smoke screen behind which the Secretary of State can hide, but to give the Home Secretary real help from outside in avoiding mistakes and injustices that might otherwise be made. I would include in the subjects of inquiry the subject of the duration of the man's residence. That is the kind of question that I should allow any inquiry to take within its scope. I think I have said enough to show the Committee quite clearly what is the Government's position. We cannot accept a legal procedure in any form, but

    1513
    I believe, myself, that the proposal that I am prepared to make when my Amendment on the Paper is called will meet the suspicions of nine out of ten reasonable people in this House, and will make it much less likely that there will be mistakes or cases of injustice in the future, or, what is equally important, that people may think that there will be cases of that kind. With these words dealing with the general proposition, I would ask the Committee to resist the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee.
    Mr. Foot: Under the procedure that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed as an alternative to our own, am I not right in thinking that there is no provision at all whereby the person against whom it is proposed to make an Order will be served with any documents setting out the case against him, and no provision for letting him know the grounds on which it has been decided to make the Order?
    Sir S. Hoare: The case that he has to meet is obviously that he is suspected of conspiracy.
    Mr. PrittIf under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal he refers the matter to a person nominated by him to interview the objector and examine the objection. If the person interviews the objector and hears nothing of the right hon. Gentleman's case he is more likely to be recommended to be let off. Therefore in the long run the right hon. Gentleman is sure to put before the nominated person the outline of his case.
    Sir S. Hoare: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman can have heard what I said. I said that the examiner would have full information already.
    5.1 p.m.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I sympathise perhaps more with the right hon. Gentleman's attitude than some of my hon. Friends of the legal profession because I am not of the legal profession. I was at one time a member of a special judicial body set up for the purpose of examining appeals by officers. That tribunal had as chairman a gentleman of legal experience, who subsequently became a magistrate, a representative of the military authorities, and myself as representative of the medical point of view. We reviewed the evidence, which was very often not evidence which a lawyer would have accepted. It was very
    1514
    difficult to sort out but we came to such conclusions as we could to the best of our ability. Would not a tribunal of that kind be better than an individual? Does not investigation of this kind, though it cannot be conducted on legal lines, require someone with legal knowledge to guide other members of the tribunal, who might be able to look at it from a different point of view?
    Mr. Bevan: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider that the person should not in fact be appointed by him?
    The Chairman: The Debate is getting a little out of hand. I permitted one or two Members to ask questions, but this is developing into a disorderly Debate.
    Mr. Bevan: I thought we were going to discuss genuinely the matter of judicial procedure.
    The Chairman: That may be, but the hon. Member has not yet been called.
    5.4 p.m
    Mr. Pickthorn: Might I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether there is any intention of calling the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) and myself and the new Sub-section (7) in our names?
    The Chairman: No. I regard that as superseded.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I hope it is in order to try to indicate what seems to me rather the different point raised by those two Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman fully convinced most of us, if we needed conviction, that the full judicial procedure asked for by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) would hardly do, but at the same time I thought some of his arguments did not fully meet the point to which they were addressed.
    The Chairman: I may have misled the hon. Member. It is true that I was not proposing to call these Amendments in his name, but he may be interested to know that I was proposing to call the one immediately before it, which has the same effect.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I think the effect is not quite the same.
    The Chairman: That may be. I am just informing the hon. Member of why I was not calling his Amendment.
    Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman listed four safeguards. The first was that he had to act within a particular scope, and the second that he had to act only in respect of non-residents. If what is being asked is some sort of safeguard of a legal, or judicial, or quasi-judicial character, the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the first two limitations seems to me to have validity only if it can be supposed that there is some hope, or some risk, as one's feeling may be—some chance—that the courts might entertain a question about whether any particular order was within the scope, or was dealing with non-residents; otherwise the right hon. Gentleman's argument seems to me not to be directed to the point that it was intended to meet. In a case (ex parte Sacksteder) in 1918 Lord Justice Pickford said:
    "I am certainly not inclined to say that in no case can the court go behind an order, which on the face of it is valid, ordering detention or custody. If that order is practically a sham, if the purpose behind is such as to show that the order is not a genuine or bona fide order, it seems to me that the court can go behind it."
    Practically the same thing was said in concurrence by, I think, Lord Justice Warrington. It occurred therefore to my hon. Friend and myself that it was perhaps possible to go a modest way in the direction that the hon. Member wants, and at the same time to be in this respect strengthening the Secretary of State's hand, because at present the Secretary of State has to be satisfied not merely that there is suspicion against a particular man; he has to be satisfied that the man is concerned in certain nefarious practices. The dictionary sense of definition in this connection is,
    "furnished with sufficient proof or information; assured or set free from doubt or uncertainty; convinced."
    I do not wish to suggest that any Secretary of State could be more conscientious than the present Secretary of State, but a very conscientious Secretary of State might feel himself limited by the word "satisfied" to cases where there was very strong and very rigid proof.
    It must really be in the interest of administration that it should be made clear that what the Secretary of State has to have is a reasonable suspicion. In that case, might it not be possible to give us the new Sub-section (7), this small step towards traditional legality, judiciality,
    1516
    that a judicially practised person sitting in camera should be able to hear appeals, not against conviction, because there would be no conviction, but simply appeals in which he would decide, as no doubt he would generally decide, that the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds of suspicion, or in rare cases that he had not. Some such arrangement as that, even if the drafting of our Amendment is not all that it might be, would really go further than the Government Amendment to meet the objections of the hon. Member for Dundee and at the same time might really, on the whole, rather strengthen the executive than weaken it.
    5.11 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: The Bill has had a Second Reading, and I do not want to discuss it on any footing except that it is a Bill that is going through, whether it ought to or not, and that we all want, without heat or unnecessary controversy, to get into it as much proper safeguard as we can. Nevertheless, I feel that what the right hon. Gentleman is offering is very little indeed. He said it would be common ground between all of us that, assuming the people to be potential terrorists and not innocent men mistakenly accused, this was very reasonable procedure. Really that means quite nothing because, if you can safely assume the guilt of people, you do not want any investigation into their guilt at ail, and the whole point is that you can never assume people to be guilty, or to be potential terrorists, and therefore we can all surely agree that assuming as proved the one thing that has got to be proved, there is no need to worry any further. I am not making a debating point because the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was a possibility of injustice and mistake and we must take every possible precaution against this thing happening. We have spent 500 years, and goodness knows how many millions of pounds, building up a set of precautions against injustice. When I criticise them I get strongly criticised for doing so. Now the right hon. Gentleman wants to jettison the lot as far as a certain number of people are concerned. He agrees that a very strong case has to be made out for doing that. He gave a number of reasons but they do not convince me. He says that any legal procedure will be fatal to his object. I want

    1517
    to submit a few considerations why that cannot be so.
    It cannot be right to say that you can never safely, in a matter of this kind, have the intervention of any one who has been trained to decide questions of fact, and must leave it entirely to people whom a lawyer would describe as amateurs in the most difficult trade in the world, to decide a question of fact in a case in which neither party is telling the truth. 1 think the principal objection in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman is the belief that the judges will bring to bear upon the decision of any question of fact the ordinary rules of legal procedure and apply the rules of evidence; in other words, they will tend to demand the same standard of proof about these suspicions as they would demand if it were an actual indictment for some offence not dissimilar in description. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman greatly underrates the intellectual ability of judges. I myself have done that from time to time. I certainly have never believed that there is the slightest difficulty in asking a judge to decide a point on a different standard of proof. We know that there is one High Court Judge, who has endeared himself to many of us, who has never decided an objection against evidence in his life. He always says, "We will hear the evidence and see what it comes to." I think he would be one of the best possible men for this work, but I must not give his name.
    I myself have a little of the quasi-judicial experience that most barristers have who have sat as arbitrators. I have sat as an arbitrator under the strict rules of evidence, as an arbitrator in cases where the parties mutually agreed to allow a great deal of what would be normally inadmissible evidence to be heard, and once in a case where it was expressly stated that I was to disregard the rules of evidence and take into consideration everything that seemed to have anything to do with the matter. I do not regard myself as an overwhelmingly intelligent person, but I did not find the slightest difficulty in applying either of those two what I may call irregular standards of proof. Therefore, I submit that the right hon. Gentleman could at some stage submit either to the advice or to the actual decision of a trained judge, either one still on the Bench or
    1518
    even a retired judge, the same task as is being committed to him, namely, to satisfy himself that "a person is concerned," and so forth, as described in the Bill. If he can, as he proposes to do, remit any such question to what I may call an amateur examiner, as is proposed in his own Amendment, there is no earthly reason why it should not be remitted to a judicial authority. I would rather it were remitted to a judicial authority siting in open court.
    The right hon. Gentleman says it is obvious that such a thing could not be done and that it will have to be done in camera. I say that it would be far better to have a responsible judge sitting in camera than an individual only very indirectly responsible to this House sitting in a room in the Home Office. If it be said that we must not let the man get away meanwhile—a thing I am quite capable of understanding—they might arrest him at the beginning of the proceedings and hold him meanwhile. If it be said that we cannot give away in the presence of the accused person the identity of the informants—agents, spies, or detectives—one answer is, "I do not like it, but it is better than nothing," and another answer is that it should be possible to arrange that their identity should not be disclosed to an accused person, although I contemplate a procedure in which he has the advantage of being present. The right hon. Gentleman says that in that way we should be building up a new Star Chamber. He is building up something that has not got even the light of the star.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman very ingeniously made our flesh creep—and I have got such a lot of flesh to creep—by saying, "Suppose a man is, so to speak, acquitted by one of these judicial authorities and then comes along and blows up this House." The real answer to that is that it is just as likely to happen when the right hon. Gentleman himself decides the matter. If the imperfections of the evidence or the ingenious answers to the evidence can deceive a High Court judge to such an extent as to make him say that he is not satisfied that the person in question has been concerned in the preparation or instigation of acts of violence when he is, in fact, a person who is immediately afterwards to walk down Whitehall and blow up this House—if somebody can

    1519
    fool a High Court judge to that extent, then he can also fool the Home Secretary.
    I would add a word about the Amendment of the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) and Cambridge Univesity (Mr. Pickthorn). I think that to add to the words "if the Secretary of State is satisfied," the words "that there are reasonable grounds to suspect" would make things a little easier for the Secretary of State. I thought it was meant to make it a little better for the individual, but if I have misunderstood the point I will not take up time by talking about it. For these reasons it is my submission to the House that the suggestion that this Bill cannot possibly work if the persons primarily intended to decide questions of fact in relation to criminal activities, that is, the judges, are brought in, is a very serious contention indeed and one which ought to fail.
    5.23 p.m.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I should like to make it plain that I have no desire to make things more difficult for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. No one realises more than I do the extreme gravity of the present situation and the responsibility he has to this House and to the country for the protection of the public. One hon. Member behind me reminds me of what happened at King's Cross to-day, and that is a good example, but that a bomb has exploded in King's Cross is no reason why hon. Members should not give the most careful consideration to a Measure of this kind. My right hon. Friend was assuming that the people who are brought within the scope of the Bill are potential terrorists, but it is not potential terrorists alone who come within its scope. You, Sir Dennis, and I are brought within the scope of the Bill, like any other member of the public. If I go to an Underground station with my suitcase and put it down for a moment and pick up another by mistake, and go on to the British Museum, and then a ticking noise is heard coming from the suitcase and I am arrested, I am within the scope of the Bill just the same as anybody else, and am subject to its provisions.
    My right hon. Friend said something about "suspicion" and "suspect." He has used those words on several occasions. He said that when a man was
    1520
    before this person who is nominated by him he would know the charge, which was that he was suspected. I find myself in some difficulty, because in Clause 1 I do not see anything about "suspicion," I do not see the word "suspect" even mentioned, and in those circumstances it is a little difficult to understand just what is the charge that either my right hon. Friend or the person nominated by him is going to investigate. If I may answer the question put to me by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) my Amendment was designed to meet this very point. Clause 1 as it stands creates a number of new offences. If my hon. Friend says that it does not create offences, at any rate it sets down a number of acts, and says that anyone who does them will get into serious trouble. It also sets up a tribunal or a person before whom these offences are tried. In this case it is the Home Secretary. Before the Home Secretary can act in the matter it is perfectly plain, from the wording of the Bill, that he has to be satisfied about a number of facts and matters connected with design and intention. If he is so satisfied he can make an order.
    My difficulty is that I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman ever can be satisfied. He has already told us that while he has suspicions about these people, and refers to them as suspects, he has no evidence upon which he could ask any jury or High Court judge to convict. Surely the standard of evidence which is satisfactory is not a different standard for a Home Secretary and for a High Court judge, or for any reasonable person, and in those circumstances my hon. and learned Friend was right in putting down that Amendment in an endeavour to assist my right hon. Friend. I thought it was better, as he was going to convict these people on suspicion, that we should say so quite frankly, rather than use the phrase, "if he is satisfied," when on his own admission he has nothing upon which he can be satisfied. Moreover, my right hon. Friend having said he had got no evidence on which he could satisfy a judge, our feeling was that if the matter ever came before a judicial tribunal, where these matters would be investigated in any proper manner by a judge, we should

    1521
    lessen the onus upon him and make it easier for him to prove his case before that tribunal. It was our desire on the one hand to lessen the standard of proof and on the other hand to increase the standard of the tribunal before whom the person was tried.
    As at present advised I am bound to say that I am in sympathy with the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I am open to reason and am waiting with interest to hear the reply. I do not know when the Government Amendment which is designed to be a substitute for that one was put down but in the short space of time at my disposal I have endeavoured to study it. I do not think anybody has had time to put down any Amendment to it. I do not want to be dogmatic about these things, I am willing to listen to any reasonable solution of the problem, but there are certain matters of principle which really ought to be considered. The first thing that comes to my mind is that anybody who is charged before the Home Secretary or the person nominated by him should know with what he is charged. My right hon. Friend was questioned upon that matter in the Debate. He says the man is a suspected person. That is typical of the sort of difficulties which will arise. Under this Bill he may be suspected of one of about a dozen things —of being concerned in preparing an act of violence, or instigating an act of violence, or harbouring someone. He ought to be allowed to know what is the charge against him. Moreover, he ought to know the time and date at which the offence is alleged to have taken place, where it is alleged to have taken place or whom he is supposed to have harboured. These things may seem elementary, but they are no legal quibble. If I were charged with an offence I should certainly want to know what those things were.
    The second point of principle is that the person ought to have an opportunity of stating his case in person. My right hon. Friend has gone some way towards meeting that point because the person can go along and state his case. I may be rather prejudiced in this matter but I would prefer that he should be allowed to state his case with the assistance of solicitor and counsel. I will not press this point because I realise that I may
    1522
    have a bias. That suggestion may come better from somebody else. The principle is that he should have an opportunity of calling witnesses in his own defence. I hope that the point I am putting will be answered. I should like to know whether, in the arrangements visualised by my right hon. Friend, the accused will be able to call witnesses to give evidence on oath as to his character, movements and so forth.
    Fourthly, I suggest that he should be allowed to confront his accusers and to ask them questions. He should be able to ask questions tending to show that what they had said was false or that they were biased and prejudiced against him. Will any such opportunity be given in any circumstances? I realise that there is some difficulty, because matters of public policy may be involved and you may not want to disclose the name of a witness; but such difficulties have been met before. They were met in the Revolutionary and Anarchical Crimes Act, 1919, in India, where a situation had to be faced which was far worse than this. Special provision was put in that the investigating committee, or a body such as is now suggested, should certify in writing that any particular witness could not be called to speak in respect of any facts put before the accused.
    The last point of principle which I wish to put goes really to the root of the matter. It relates to independent third-party judgment. In raising these points I cast no reflection on the Home Secretary whatever, because I am certain that he will administer this Measure to the best of his ability; but third-party judgment is not merely a legal quibble. It is a matter upon which constitutional lawyers have rather prided themselves for a number of centuries. I do not believe in old forms merely for themselves, and I do not think anybody can call me a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative, but I am certainly sufficiently Conservative, when I see something which has been going on for a long time and working very well, to wonder whether it is wise to take it away at once unless there is some very good reason.
    This practice has very good reason behind it. Suppose some person's case is investigated by my right hon. Friend and he entertains some doubt, not as to his guilt but as to his innocence. What

    1523
    would he do then? He might say: "He is better out of the country. I am not going to run any risks. Suppose the House of Commons is blown up; I shall have to answer to the House and to the country." I do not think we could find it in our herats to blame him if he took that view. That is the reason why we should have some third person with an opportunity of investigating these matters. I have already referred to the Revolutionary and Anarchical Crimes Act, 1919 in India. At that time the authorities were faced with a very much graver situation than that with which we are now faced. That Act was devised to meet crimes of treason, torture, murder, manslaughter and damage to property, and contained provisions similiar to those that we are suggesting. They strove to the best of their ability to maintain some substantial constitutional liberty.
    I think I have said enough to indicate that my right hon. Friend has not satisfied me, at this stage, that it is necessary to sweep away these various points of principle and that some of my criticisms should be met. Perhaps they could not be met in the way suggested in the Amendment now before us, but by extending my right hon. Friend's own Amendment; in my view, they should be met.
    5.36 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I should like to join with the hon. Member who preceded me in saying that none of us would seek to embarrass the Home Secretary in dealing with the present situation. It is very important to know that the Home Secretary has the whole country behind him in the desire to prevent these crimes of violence. Whatever the political outlook of the individuals may be there is, I believe, unanimity throughout the country to assist the Home Secretary in preventing those crimes of violence. One thing that impresses me is that the steps proposed by the Home Secretary may have the very opposite effect from what he desires. The provisions in Clause 1 may lead to harsh treatment of innocent people, and that would in turn create sympathy for the terrorists, especially if the innocent people had been treated in a harsh and oppressive way. In framing his Measure the Hon.; Secretary must see to it that he is creating no possibility that will give
    1524
    strength to the terrorists in their policy of conspiracy.
    When the Home Secretary was dealing with his own proposal in opposition to that which is before the Committee he seemed to suggest that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) practically insisted upon a legal tribunal, but as I read it the Amendment does not imply an ordinary legal tribunal in accordance with the laws of evidence. The distinction between what is proposed by the Home Secretary and what is proposed now by the hon. Member for Dundee is that under the latter proposal the person who will operate in this connection has to have a certain amount of experience in weighing facts and points of evidence, so that he will be able to bring to the consideration of a case a certain amount of experience. Because of his experience he will have judgment to bring to bear in dealing with these cases. The proposal of the Home Secretary, on the other hand, is to nominate somebody—and it may be anybody— without any experience. I am doubtful whether the Home Secretary's proposal will not make matters worse, because it would put this untrained and inexperienced person between the Home Secretary and the House of Commons, if the Home Secretary should be called into question afterwards with regard to any action that had been taken.
    The Home Secretary would then have the defence: "I put the papers before Mr. So-and-So, who agreed with me that this fellow ought to get put out, or that this order should be made that the individual should be registered, should report to the police and be put into the position contemplated in Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. Mr. So-and-So's opinion was the same as my own." Such a defence is of practically no importance, because while the right hon. Gentleman will have what facts have been put before him by the Homo Office in connection with the case, and may have seen the man, the man has had no opportunity of putting forward to him anything very material in opposition to the case that has been made out against him. The Amendment suggests that there may be not sufficient evidence to get a conviction by a jury or by a judge, but nevertheless sufficient evidence to lead a judge to see that there is grave suspicion against the individual; and that on account

    1525
    of that grave suspicion the Home Secretary is justified in taking reasonable precautions.
    That is a dangerous position, but the Home Secretary has come to the House and said that something of that kind is necessary. He has said: "I want you to leave it with myself and this other individual whom I am nominating," but surely it is better that there should be some sort of order in this matter and that the accused person who is to be treated in this fashion shall have some idea of the case which he has to meet. He is to be allowed 48 hours to send in a notice to the Home Secretary, and if the Home Secretary thinks it is not frivolous it will be very difficult for him to give material reasons in telling the man that he has to register here. The man will say: "Why have I to register? They must think that I was acting suspiciously." Then he will send in an account saying that he met Mr. Murphy only on a certain occasion. Possibly it will not be his association with Mr. Murphy which is the reason for the action, which is being taken in respect of something entirely different.
    Mr. Buchanan: Will the Amendment prevent that?
    Mr. Stephen: As I read it, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee gives the individual an opportunity to appear before the judge. The individual would know something about the charges with which he was faced. The Amendment would have a certain force in stopping what will be possible under the proposals of the Home Secretary It means the difference between something that has a certain amount of organisation about it, that has a certain amount of reasonable consideration attached to it, and something that is completely haphazard. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the whole matter, because I am convinced that the greatest service will be done to the terrorists if decent, honest people come under suspicion and are harshly treated in this way. I venture to prophesy that this procedure of the Home Secretary may bring about a movement for the terrorists. In spite of what has happened, I very much doubt whether there is at the moment any real strength at all in the terrorist movement, but, if hundreds of people are subjected to the procedure under the Home Secretary's
    1526
    proposal, even as modified by the Amendment to-day, I can see it bringing ever so much sympathy to the friends of these people. That will spread again to many others, and will have the effect of creating a movement in support of the terrorists, which would be regrettable. I hope the Home Secretary, when he is going the extreme distance of wanting to act on suspicion, will see the advantage of making sure that the safeguards in connection with acting on suspicion are as great as they can be, in contradistinction to the ordinary judicial procedure.
    5.47 p.m.
    Sir Arnold Wilson: I oppose this Amendment and support the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will give way no further. He has perhaps gone too far. We have heard a great deal about suspicion and suspects. I was taught in my youth that a thing might be said to be true when a reasonable man in the conduct of his private business was justified in assuming that it was so. The Home Secretary has to be "satisfied," and that word should suffice without further elaboration. I entirely dissent from the gloomy prophecy of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that hundreds of persons, many of them innocent, are likely to be affected by the operation of the Bill. In Tennyson's words:
    " You make our faults too gross,
    And hence maintain
    Oar future darker;
    May your fears be vain."
    There is no likelihood of any large number of persons coming under the operation of the Bill.
    Mr. Stephen: Surely it is a grave matter if it requires a special interference with the whole judicial machinery that has been brought into being as a result of centuries of experience. It is not simply to deal with one or two. Surely there will be hundreds.
    Sir A. Wilson: It is a grave matter, but our first concern should be to get the ringleaders. They will not risk their own skins, but only the lives of their dupes, I hope we shall not have any element of judicial procedure spatchcocked into this Clause. It seems to me to be most unfair to the judiciary to use them in a matter which is necessarily for the executive. The business of Government is to govern. The Home Secretary has to stand up as his predecessors—Socialists

    1527
    Liberals and Conservatives —have stood up, and to take the responsibility of governing. [Interruption.] The fact that the Home Secretary advises the Sovereign as to the commutation of the death penalty is an example of the great responsibility he exercises, and we have no reason whatever to be ashamed of it —the responsibility of revising the sentences of judges. [Interruption.] I will not split hairs with the hon. Member as to the difference between commuting a death sentence and revising a sentence. There is no sentence to pass under this Act, only a change of residence.
    Mr. Foot: Surely to draw a distinction between a death sentence and another sentence is not to split hairs.
    Sir A. Wilson: So far as my argument is concerned it is splitting hairs. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorney-croft) suggested that, if he picked up a bag which might contain an explosive that might thereafter go off, he might thereupon become a suspected person. May I tell the House very briefly the story of what happened on 24th January, 1885? At ten minutes past two p.m. on that day part of the House was blown up. Partitions were smashed and blown into the lobbies; the Peers' Gallery was damaged; great pieces of timber were thrown into it. Mr. Gladstone's seat was smashed to pieces by dynamite which was left under the cross benches parallel with the seat of the Sergeant at Arms. Police Constable Cole was injured in Westminster Hall. Police Constable Cox had been seriously injured outside the Chamber. Two persons were found in or near the Chamber, blackened and terrified but uninjured. They were at once arrested. They were quite unable to say why they were there except that they were members of the public and that they had as good a right to be in the House of Commons on a Saturday afternoon as anybody else. They were arrested, taken to Bow Street, and strictly and minutely examined, and they were thereupon released. I do not doubt that that is what would happen to the hon. Member were he to be found in possession of a bag of explosives.
    Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman veil the House what the Government did to meet that serious situation?
    Sir A. Wilson: The situation was just as serious in 1885 as it is now. It was a Liberal Government that passed Measures compared with which the present common-sense Bill is mild—[Interruption.] I am referring to the Coercion Acts. At that time we were responsible for Ireland; we are now trying to keep order in England; and it seems to me entirely unfair to the judiciary to seek to place upon them a responsibility which properly belongs to the Home Secretary. I hope he will give way no further.
    I have had some experience of con spiracies followed by murder, and of incendiarism and the like. Less than 20 years ago I lost half a dozen of my best friends by organised murder within six or eight months. It was quite impossible to obtain evidence, for any witnesses whom I might have brought before a court would unquestionably have been murdered the following week. It was quite impossible to obtain such proof as would have justified a judge in court in passing a sentence of death. I had no alternative but to resort to deportation and detention. It was a state of affairs parallel to that in India. The head of the Government was bcund to exercise in good faith the responsibility that lay on him to protect His Majesty's subjects and was justified by the outcome. Within a few months the ringleaders who were really behind what I might almost call the innocent dupes who had committed the murders were placed under arrest, and the murder campaign stopped almost as quickly as it had begun. It was the most humane, the most common sense, and by far the quickest method of putting an end to a state of affairs which might have involved thousands of innocent lives. The Home Secretary will never regret the bold action he is taking in putting for ward this Bill, and I earnestly hope he will not go a single inch further than the concessions he is already proposing in the Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper.
    5.55 p.m.
    Mr. Buchanan: I intervene because I do not take the view of this Amendment that is taken by almost all who have spoken on this side of the Committee. I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. I have a feeling that, in the case of all these Measures, we nearly always get, not the ringleaders, but people who

    1529
    in the main, compared with the ring leaders, are relatively innocent. One of my strong criticisms, not merely against this Clause but against the whole Bill, is that I do not think it will achieve the object that the Home Secretary desires. If I thought that it would, I would never oppose it, but I have taken that view, and I hold it still. Looking at this Amendment, one fears that the effect will be to take these actions outside party politics, and I want the Home Secretary's actions to be kept within party politics. I am very much afraid that, if a judge is appointed to act in this matter, the Home Secretary will have a defence in this House. As the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) put it very well in an earlier Debate, Members of Parliament ought to have the unquestioned right to raise an issue like this, and I feel that this matter concerns me perhaps more than most people, because of the district that I represent in this House. It may well be that, if a judge is appointed, the Home Secretary's answer when the question is raised will be that it has been decided by the judge, and I should be told by the Chair that I have no right of criticism. The word "judge" is constantly used throughout the Schedule—
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Member will see that the procedure I propose is that the judge shall make a report to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State -shall have regard to the report and recommendations, if any, in arriving at his decision. The one exception is where the judge comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds at all. In either case the final responsibility under the procedure remains with the Secretary of State, and he will be open to criticism in this House.
    Mr. Buchanan: I agree, but what will the Home Secretary say to me? He will immediately say that a responsible judge has told him what has happened, and that will be the end of it. The Home Secretary will have a perfectly valid, defensible case if he says that a judge has been appointed and he has decided the matter. Those who look over other pieces of legislation of this type will find the same thing running through them. Quite frankly, I would much prefer that the Home Secretary should take whatever course he thinks proper and take the responsibility attaching to it. The Home
    1530
    Secretary may make a serious mistake, but it is just as possible that a serious mistake may be made by a judge. There is, however, this difference, that if the judge makes a serious mistake nobody can remove him. [Interruption.] Hon. Members know as well as I do the impossibility of tackling a judge in this House. The lay judges in Glasgow sometimes do the most irresponsible and indefensible things, as was mentioned by an hon. Member for one of the London divisions the other day, but we cannot even raise the matter here. If the Home Secretary is not given this defence, it is quite possible that in certain circumstances he might be much more severely dealt with than if he has this defence given to him by the appointment of a judge. The Amendment, as far as I can see, proposes to set up an examiner. He must not be a member of the police or an employé of the Government, and he will have power to make recommendations to the Home Secretary. I would like to know who the examiner is to be. I hope the Home Secretary is not going to tell us that he is afraid to say who the examiner is; because if he does that, he will get to the stage of being afraid to tell us who the Home Secretary is. If there is one man who is in danger it is the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Stephen: Would the hon. Member also propose carrying this principle right through, and abolishing the umpires?
    Mr. Buchanan: No. The hon. Member and I once tried to get the House of Commons, and not the umpire, to be the judge in regard to the courts of referees. I myself took an active part in connection with that proposal, and an Amendment was moved. If the hon. Member will look back through the records he will find that that is so. I am anxious to keep the position so that the Home Secretary shall have nobody to pull in between him and me, and so that I shall have the right to attack him. There is a danger that if some mistake is made it will strengthen the terrorists. My fear about the Bill altogether is that it will strengthen, and not weaken them, but now that we have carried the Bill, I am not prepared to give the Home Secretary a way out. I would make him take the consequences if the Measure does not succeed.
    Mr. Benn: We have some misgivings over this Bill. It makes very dangerous inroads into individual liberties. If our misgivings had not existed before, they certainly would have come into existence after the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson). Suppose he were Home Secretary. He is a very distinguished administrator, and he might be Home Secretary one day. I am certain that nobody in the House would confide in him the powers which are given to the present Home Secretary, in whose sense of fairness, I think, hon. Members have great confidence. Another misgiving we have about the Bill is as to its effectiveness as a means of stamping out crime. I hope the Home Secretary will believe that the remarks I am going to make are made in order to assist in stamping out this movement.
    I am not able to join in the legal arguments which have been advanced so skilfully by the gentlemen of the long robe, but in this country we have had a great deal of experience of this sort of question. No Empire in the world has had so much experience of terrorism and turbulent minorities as ourselves. The same things as are being said about these people were said about General Hertzog and General Smuts and people in India, and in Ireland in the past. I should like the Home Secretary to view the thing in the light of the experience which we have had in these matters. Above all, I would say to him, "Do not overpaint the picture." The one thing that is required to-day is to keep the temperature down. I do not think the Home Secretary was well advised to bring forward in his speech the other day that "S" plan, which was exposed at Bow Street some months ago, and which has provided splash headlines for the newspapers and suggestions about Guy Fawkes, and so on. If only we keep the temperature down, we deprive these people of something which would help them, and we prevent them from gaining sympathy. Of course, I am not defending these men, but I am trying to make a practical, commonsense suggestion.
    When I was in office I had experience of terrorism, as the Home Secretary did in the same office. We know that when you are forced into violent measures you
    1532
    have lost the trick, and when you get through without violent measures you are winning your way to greater peace. I remember the Meerut case. There was tremendous feeling in India and this country about that case, which had arisen before I went into office. I was pressed to intervene on this case. I refused, and was very severely criticised; but it turned out to be just as well in a way, because the judges, after an intolerably long investigation, vindicated one man, who afterwards was made a Member of this House. That had a good effect. Do not forget that your strongest weapon in dealing with terrorists is the belief of the people that you are being fair. When you have men or boys sent for 20 years' imprisonment, and they go shouting "Up Eire" you have to consider the psychology of them. Suppose you are driven to inflicting capital punishment. That will set us back in our efforts to stop this sort of thing. At present there is no sympathy for these people at all, but suppose that the wrong man is punished for something. The Home Secretary knows that I am not attacking him; I have the sincerest sympathy with him for the burdens that he is having to carry. He may be faced with hunger strikes. We have not forgotten the Lord Mayor of Cork, who died in Brixton Gaol. If anything of that sort happens the Home Secretary will be exposed 10 criticism, but if he can say "We have been fair," public opinion here and elsewhere will support him. I regard this Amendment as fundamental.
    This matter affects our relations with Ireland. They have been much sweeter lately than they were before, but the Irish people will be very soon roused if innocent Irishmen are punished in this way. Our relations with America are very critical indeed for the peace of the world. We still have enemies there— they are thinning out, but they are still there. If it is believed that innocent men have been punished under this Act it will have a bad effect on those relations. The Home Secretary has said that there is the safeguard of the House of Commons. He has accepted an. Amendment of ours. But I wonder what the report which he will make to the House of Commons as a result of that Amendment will be like. It may be just numbers and dates. I have an Amendment down, which proposes to allow the House at any time

    1533
    to discuss the matter. Yet how can we influence the Home Secretary on matters on which he is bound to secrecy? I support the Amendment for the reasons I have given, and because we have never been driven to anything of this sort in our history. The Home Secretary has been very much interested in Irish affairs. If this had not been so serious a Debate, I should have liked to refer to that. We have never been driven to this sort of thing before in connection with Ireland. We had our serious troubles in Ireland in 1922 and 1923. We illegally deported Art O'Brien. That matter was brought up in the House of Lords—not the judicial body, but the legislative assembly. I remember Lord Grey making a speech in which he said that their lordships ought to affirm the general principle that the Government should not have power to deport without trial, and he moved an Amendment. Again, when Ireland was in a state of turmoil—it was just after a party of British soldiers had been shot at Queenstown—the Government appointed a committee to inquire as to what regulations should be made. The members of the committee were Mr. George Talbot, the present Lord Runciman and Lord Chelmsford. Having examined the regulations in the light of that state of affairs, they said:
    "What, then are the defects in English criminal procedure and in the powers of the police which, it is said, impede the prevention and punishment of such crimes? We need not refer to such difficulties as are necessary incidents of any system which requires proof in open court and forbids the detention of accused or suspected persons without trial. These cardinal principles of English law do undoubtedly make less easy the prevention and punishment of crime; but encroachment upon them cannot be justified unless by some exceptional and overwhelming anxiety, such as cannot, in our opinion, be said to exist in the present circumstances."
    They went on to recommend two special powers—a power of search and a power of obtaining information. We have faced that situation of terrorism many times, and we should have learned something about it. Excessive severity, the appearance of injustice, only increases the terrorism. It is on the ground that the Government must appear to the world to be administering perfect justice that I support the Amendment.
    6.15 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The Members of the Com-
    1534
    mittee who heard the reply of my right hon. Friend to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) will, whether they agree with him or not, agree that he dealt very fully and clearly with the issues of the Amendment and his reasons for rejecting it. There is not much that I have to add to the general case which he then made. I would, however, like to recall the Committee, before coming to the specific points raised, to the situation which has led to the introduction of the Bill and the procedure under it, because this Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman said, goes to the heart of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft), in a speech which seemed to disregard a very large number of the material facts, spoke of things which had gone on well for 500 years and said that he preferred to keep them as they were. The position is that, under the ordinary police and criminal procedure, what he must have known, in spite of the fact that last February they had the most complete knowledge of the existence of this conspiracy and that arrests were made in February and January, and have been made since, and that nobody suggests that the police have not been alert and efficient in dealing with these matters, we still have a succession of acts of violence in pursuance of this conspiracy. I agree that there has been one, or, I think, two explosions to-day, but that does not in any way mean that we should not scrutinise the Bill with care, or that we should legislate in a panic, but it does show that the ordinary methods of preventing crime and dealing with a conspiracy have broken down.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the Attorney-General has rather misrepresented what I said. I was not talking about the ordinary procedure. All I was asking was for third party judgment and the entitlement of a man to put his case.
    The Attorney-General: I do not want to be unfair to my hon. Friend or to anybody else. I was dealing with the impression which I certainly got from his speech. I am coming to the specific points later. My right hon. Friend said there are a number of people about whom the police are satisfied, and believe they can satisfy my right hon. Friend, as being concerned with the preparations for these acts, but who could not be proved in a court of law to be guilty of, or concerned

    1535
    with, an existing offence within the words of the Sub-section. As everybody knows, in some of these cases you cannot disclose the source of your information without not only imperilling, in the sense that you might not get any more information, but endangering someone's life. You have to be careful not only not to disclose the name, but in some cases not to disclose the nature of the information which it would be perfectly easy for somebody to trace to the source. That is the kind of problem that has led to the introduction of this Bill and to my right hon. Friend asking for these special powers.
    I think there has been a certain misconception as to one sentence or two which fell from my right hon. Friend. He has not any objection to a man with legal experience being the person nominated under the section. The objection is to the sort of judicial procedure embodied in the Amendment. Some right hon. and hon. Members have expressed the view that they think that someone with legal or judicial experience would be the most appropriate appointment under the proposed Amendment. My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking—I do not think that there is any precedent in an Act of Parliament that the Home Secretary should appoint after consultation with the leaders of the Opposition—that he would be ready to consult or to receive suggestions as to suitable persons. He said that the whole point is that the person nominated should inspire confidence, and, if it is the general feeling of the Committee that persons with legal or judicial experience would be most likely to inspire the confidence which he desired should be inspired, then he would certainly have regard to that view. As I have said, the objection is not to the judicial or legal mind operating on this case, but to the legal procedure envisaged by the Amendment, and one or two other Amendments which have come under discussion. I think there was great force, though he put it in a slightly different way from that of my right hon. Friend, in the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). It would, in our view, be a wrong position in which to put a judge.
    This is, and in our view should remain, an executive act. It is an act to be taken admittedly on evidence which cannot be
    1536
    produced and sifted according to the ordinary legal rules by which evidence has to be sifted if you are having a judicial inquiry. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that a legal mind is perfectly capable of dealing with matters on the basis of evidence other than evidence admissible in law. In fact, most of us take the vast majority of the actions in our ordinary lives not on legal evidence, but on a mass of evidence wholly inadmissible in a court of law. Therefore, there is a difficulty in acting on evidence other than legal evidence. There is no objection to the legal mind, but there is objection, in our view, to bringing in a judge as a judge. The hon. Gentleman said with force that however much you pare down the power of the judge as a judge, it still remains that, if he has to have power, some responsibility must pass from the Home Secretary to him. My right hon. Friend took the example of a case where he believed a man ought to be deported, and the judge said, "No." It turned out that the Home Secretary was right, and that the man was in fact concerned with the preparation of these acts. The judge thought the evidence insufficient, and the Home Secretary thought that it was sufficient. That seems to me an impossible solution.
    Mr. Foot: That would arise under the Amendment of the Home Secretary.
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir; the Amendment of the Home Secretary has been carefully drawn to leave the responsibility entirely with the Home Secretary. He can under the Amendment if he so chooses, disregard the report. It is the advice to him, and the safeguard is—and it is a real safeguard—that the whole case will be investigated by a person of independent mind and independent of the Executive, and the Home Secretary will have the benefit of his advice. He cannot under that Amendment shift any responsibility from his own shoulders on to those of his advisers, whereas if you have a judge as a judge, it is inevitable that there should be that transfer of responsibility.
    Mr. Foot: In the vast majority of cases the Home Secretary will act upon the advice of the examiner whom he has appointed, and the example which the Home Secretary gave of the man against whom an order was not made and who

    1537
    afterwards blew up the Houses of Parliament may equally well occur under that procedure.
    The Attorney-General: In the large majority of cases he will act on their advice, but he does not get rid of his responsibility because he has been advised. Under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment that is not so. You cannot attack the Home Secretary when he has not made a deportation order. He could not make a deportation order when the judge had reported against it, but he could under his own Amendment. That is the answer to the procedure suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford in asking for a third party judgment. That definite expression shows that the Home Secretary is to be responsible to a third party. That would be wrong. It would be taking away from the Home Secretary the responsibility that he should have, and putting it upon shoulders upon which it ought not to be put. This House will have no control, and therefore we think such a safeguard is unsatisfactory, and for these reasons we reject it and ask the Committee to reject Amendments involving some form of judicial veto.
    We believe that the Amendment that we have put down is a real safeguard. We think it is desirable—and I wholly agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn)—that when you are faced with matters such as this you should do everything possible to satisfy the people that you are going to take these exceptional powers with fairness and administer them with the object of fulfilling the primary purpose, which is the preservation of law and order. He referred to the great experience which, in the course of our history, we have had in different parts of the world in these matters, and he, I know, had personal experience of them when at the India Office. To judge in the light of that experience. I suggest to the Committee that this Measure is a very moderate Measure. This only allows an expulsion or prohibition order to be made in cases where men belong to some country other than this country. The period of an order under this Bill is only two years. It is not a perpetual exile as some people have suggested. The
    1538
    Measure is of a limited kind. I hope that I may have induced the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment. At any rate, I have done my best to put before the Committee our reasons for believing that in practice and in principle the introduction of the words which the hon. Member suggests would be wrong, I hope the Committee will feel that my right hon. Friend has gone as far as he could reasonably have gone to provide a safeguard for independent investigation.
    6.31 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Bill only provides for exile for two years. On Monday, he agreed with me that it provided for perpetual exile
    The Attorney-General: I said that I would look into it, I said that I thought it was two years, but as the hon. and learned Member took a different view, I did not want to be dogmatic, and I said that I would look into it.
    Mr. Pritt: The words that I heard were "Yes, I agree." It does not however matter what was said on Monday but what stands now, and as I understand it when an order is made for expulsion it is an "uno ictu" order for expulsion lasting for ever unless it is revoked; and even the power to revoke ends at the end of two years. It is true that the power to inflict a penalty for breaking the order will disappear at the same time, but as the Bill stands that order and any disgrace that may be attached to it—these men may think it an honour rather than a disgrace, although I regard it as a disgrace—will stand, and the disgrace will be that there will be the order for ever.
    6.32 p.m.
    Mr. Lansbury: I had not intended to take part in these discussions, but after listening to the Debate and realising that we are discussing some very fundamental issues I should like to put my point of view before the Committee. It is impossible to move an Amendment incorporating what I want to say. Of course, I was not a Member of this House in 1870 or before then, but my earliest recollections go back to the blowing up of the wall of Clerkenwell Prison and to the shootings in Manchester, for which three Irishmen paid the penalty with their lives. Then followed a long series of years when, in Ireland, and to a lesser extent

    1539
    in this country, we were subjected to coercion Bills of various descriptions. What we are doing to-day is playboy legislation compared with that which was passed during the Land League disorders in Ireland.
    As I listened to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) and I heard the argument of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) I could not help feeling that all this is just beating the air. You will not put this thing down by legislation of this sort. You are dealing with people who are fanatics and who believe that Ireland is kept divided by this country and that Ireland would be united but for our power. I cannot argue that now, but I would appeal to the Committee. I realise that we must maintain law and order and protect the citizens from this sort of outrage that is taking place, but there is always some deep-seated reason that makes men risk life and liberty in this manner. It was the same with the women suffrage movement and it is the same in India. I would implore the Committee not to be satisfied with passing this legislation, not to be satisfied with this legal argument whether it is best to have a judge or somebody else to advise the Home Secretary. I know I am getting out of order, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I could not get into the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think you will forgive me, because it is the kernel of the Bill that we are discussing. I should like to appeal to the Government and to my hon. Friends to make a determined effort by trying to do what is the only thing that van be done, namely, to get the Northern and Southern Irelanders together to discuss how they can remove these grievances in the only sensible manner, by becoming decent Irishmen one towards another.
    6.36 p.m.
    Sir Richard Acland: There is one part of our Amendment with which the right hon. Gentleman has not really dealt. I am not going to insist on the exact words of our Amendment, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the principle involved and see whether there is not some way in which it might be incorporated in his own Amendment. The right hon. Gentlemen have led the Committee to assume that nobody is to be
    1540
    dealt with under this Bill unless he is, in fact, taking part in a conspiracy. I would like them to face fairly and squarely the fact that some people will be dealt with under this Bill who are entirely innocent. [Hon. Members: "How?"] Because it is the essence of the right hon. Gentleman's case that the police cannot deal with this matter if they are asked to comply with the very high standards of proof which are required in our criminal courts—standards of proof which are so high that we can say that out of a thousand people who are convicted of high crimes probably not one was innocent the whole time. Therefore, the Ministers are asking the Committee to allow action to be taken against individuals on a lower standard of proof. In the case of high crime such as burglary, the country is prepared to allow a number of guilty burglars to be acquitted rather than run the risk of one innocent person being convicted. Now we are asked, in view of the great danger to life and property involved in the present conspiracy, that we shall slide down to a lower standard of proof and that we shall not run the risk of even a few of these conspirators being at large.
    By adopting a lower standard of proof, surely we are doing something which makes it almost certain that although in each single case the Home Secretary may say "The suspicion is good enough for me," yet in the course of action taken under the Bill a number—the number may be small—of wholly innocent people will be tampered with. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite have an extraordinary confidence in their own judgment if they can be quite certain that with a lower standard of proof it will not be the case that a man who is wholly innocent will be suspected by the police. What will be the position of an Irishman who has not been living here for the full 20 years but has been living an ordinary, decent life, and he suddenly receives notice of an expulsion order which has been made against him? He will have to take advantage of the Amendment which the Minister has put before us. What can he do if he has no more knowledge than that the order has been made against him? The only thing he can do is to write on a piece of paper and send it to the Home Secretary saying that he is entirely innocent. He can do nothing else. Surely,

    1541
    in order that he may have a chance of submitting his case to the Home Secretary he must have more information than that.
    There is nothing in the Bill which requires anybody to tell him whether he is accused of preparing an act of violence, instigating an act of violence or harbouring a suspected person. Without revealing any source of evidence, it ought to be possible to give the man some information as to what he is supposed to have done, so that he may be able to state his case to the Home Secretary. If he is given no information, he can merely say: "I am completely innocent of any of the acts charged against me," but in nine cases out of ten the Home Secretary will say that that is frivolous. I submit, therefore, that there ought to be one further stage, so that the person on whom such a notice is served may ask for an amplification of the reasons for which the notice has been served upon him, and after receiving them he may be able to deal with them in writing to the Home Secretary. If that is not done, you are not giving the man a chance. In the case of an entirely innocent man who I submit will, through inadvertence, be charged—and I submit that innocent men will be charged in order that you may make certain that you are charging the guilty—you will be aggravating the bitterness felt already, if such a man is not given a better chance of dealing with the charge that it made against him. He ought to be given such information that he can send to the Home Secretary an answer which will be coherent and which the Home Secretary will not be able to dismiss by merely saying that it is frivolous. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to adopt some of the essence of part of our Amendment.
    6.43 p.m.
    Mr. Radford: I wish to intervene for only a very short time but it seems to me after listening to the speeches that one might think the Home Secretary was proposing to do away with the old maxim that a man has to be proved guilty or else he is regarded as innocent. All that my right hon. Friend is proposing is that if he is satisfied that an individual is a party to one form or other of this criminal conspiracy he shall be required to leave this country for a period, or he may have to register with the police, or if he is out of the country and is seeking to come in,
    1542
    he shall be debarred from entry. It is an absolute distortion of the facts to hear all this scientific discussion as to whether or not an innocent man may be adjudged guilty on inadequate information. There is no other country where such a discussion as that we are having this afternoon could take place, seeing that within the last two hours a dozen innocent people have been killed or wounded.
    Sir R. Acland: What difference does that make?
    Mr. Radford: The hon. Member shall hear now. I will give him his reply.
    Mr. Max ton: I am interested in the speech of the hon. Member, but is it not a little out of order on this Amendment?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am bound to say that it seems to me we are getting on to subjects which are not quite in order on the Amendment. The Amendment is very wide, but we must not go outside, and I think the hon. Member is now introducing elements which may engender heat.
    Mr. Radford: I do not want to trespass beyond the bounds of order, and I will conclude by saying that I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment. I do not know whether I shall be in order in answering the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) who asked, "What has this to do with it?" The right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) made a reference to the Bill making an inroad into our liberties. What about the liberties of those people who cannot go to a left luggage office and leave their luggage there without the danger of being blown to pieces? That is a danger to our liberties. Before I resume my seat I should like the Home Secretary to know that ordinary, plain Englishmen are behind him in the very moderate action he is taking under the Bill.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, as most of the arguments for and against the Amendment have already been made. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) and the Attorney-General were stretching the matter a little far when they suggested that the responsibility of the Home Secretary to this House was any safeguard of the liberties

    1543
    of any man. If the psychology which has just been displayed is any indication of the mood of the House, then, if further outrages take place, what chance is there of our raising any individual case here? The Home Secretary will say, "I am satisfied that he is a suspect and should be deported, and in the interests of public safety I cannot disclose the information." In fact, the individual has no protection at all, and hon. Members would be unable to exert any influence on the Home Secretary. It is unworthy of the Attorney-General to suggest that the responsibility of the Home Secretary to this House has any practical significance in that regard. The Home Secretary is responsible where a principle is involved, but where it is a matter of the treatment of an individual there is no chance of any hon. Member exerting any influence at all.
    But suppose that, after these powers are obtained, the outrages continue? I imagine that the Home Secretary will use these powers with great diffidence and care. He will satisfy himself in every instance that he has good grounds for suspecting the persons who are being dealt with, although the kind of evidence which would satisfy him is rather difficult at the moment to distinguish. Nevertheless, he will not use these powers excessively. But let us suppose that the outrages continue, that these powers are ineffective in suppressing them. What will be the result? The pressure upon the police will be so great that the Home Secretary will be bound to relax his vigilance, and more and more people will be drawn in, many innocent people may be deported. We all have in our constituencies large numbers of people who belong to the nation involved. Feelings will be stirred up and, instead of dealing with this problem, we shall be creating a very much wider one. In the interests of the police I think they should be protected from the temptation to exercise these powers, because in the circumstances they might exercise them in such a way as to raise far greater difficulties.
    It seems to me that the suggestion made by the Home Secretary in his proposed Amendment will have to be amplified a great deal before there is much value in it. Is the individual to whom these cases are to be referred to have access to all the information which the
    1544
    Home Secretary will possess? The Home Secretary can, of course, refuse to refer a case to the investigating agent, but if he refers a case has the individual, that is the investigating person, power under the proposal to receive all the information in the possession of the Home Secretary? I presume so, because the Home Secretary might not otherwise be able to convince the investigating agent that an order should be made, but there is no power to enable the investigating agent to require the information. In the next place, is the investigating agent to be told the name of the informer? There is the point that if the accused person is informed of the name of the informer there might be terrorism and intimidation against the informer, but cannot the investigating agent be told the name of the informer without the information leaking through to the accused person? There is nothing in the proposed Amendment to enable the investigating agent himself to interrogate the witnesses against the man.
    It seems to me that the investigating agent should have additional powers if he is to form a proper judgment on the matter, and I ask hon. Members to realise that unless the investigating agent is armed with these powers, then the accused person is not, in fact, receiving the protection which the Committee thinks he should receive. It is all very well for hon. Members to talk about the powers of the judiciary. When we speak of the powers of the judiciary we are speaking of the liberties of the subject, and here is an attempt on the part of the Home Secretary to bring in a third-party judgment. If that third-party judgment is to be exercised by a man without any power of cross-examination or power to call witnesses, then it is a protection which is not of much value. I hope when we come to consider the Home Secretary's proposal we shall have some improvements in regard to these details. I think it would be far better if the Amendment were accepted. The police should always be protected from temptation of this kind, and I am afraid that in a time of stress and panic these powers will be exercised in such a way as to widen and not mitigate the problem which we are considering.
    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to put before the Committee a matter of the very greatest

    1545
    importance, and I hope that every hon. Member will see to it that the Home Secretary gives a favourable answer to the question I am going to put. The Attorney-General has pointed out that an individual can be arrested on information given, but the information will not be disclosed nor will the name of the informer. If the information were disclosed it might be possible to trace it back to the informer. I want to ask the Home Secretary if he will put something in his proposed Amendment that will guarantee that in no circumstances will an agent provocateur be used? I refer the Home Secretary to the tragic case of the Wheeldon family. An agent provocateur was sent there and he lived in their home. He made suggestions about attacking the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the late Mr. Arthur Henderson, and after he had made these suggestions he got them to talk. He reported them, and as a result Mrs. Wheeldon got 10 years and her daughter and son five years each. There never has been in the history of this country such a gross and malignant
    travesty of justice. In 1916 the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was in Edinburgh as a deportee. An hon. Member of this House went to see him and he also saw the military authorities. When he saw the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs he said, "I have seen a document about you that would justify your being shot." The evidence was provided by lies and by informers; there was not a word of truth in it. I ask the Home Secretary very seriously, will he put something in his Amendment which will guarantee that in no circumstances will an agent provocateur be used?
    Sir S. Hoare: I can give the hon. Member the guarantee which he desires at once. I hate the very idea of an agent provocateur, and I am strongly opposed to any such thing. Any authority I have will be used against any such proceeding.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 212.

    [Division No. 285]

    AYES

    [6.59 p.m.]

    Acland, Sir R.T.D.

    Grenfell, O. R.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Pearson, A.

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

    Griffith, J. (Llanelly)

    Pools, C. C.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Groves, T. E.

    Price, M. P.

    Adamson, W. M.

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

    Pritt, D. N.

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

    Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)

    Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Riley, B.

    Banfield, J. W.

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

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Barr, J.

    Hayday, A.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Beechman, N, A.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Silkin, L.

    Benson, G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bevan, A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jagger, J.

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

    Brawn, C. (Mansfield)

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sloan, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cap., T.

    John, W.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cooks, F. S.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stephen, C.

    Collindridge, F.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

    Cove, W. Q.

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Daggar, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lathan, G.

    Taylor, R. j. (Morpeth)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Thorne, W.

    Davies, S. O. Merthyr)

    Lee, F.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Day, H.

    Leonard, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Viant, S. P.

    Ede, J. C

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacLaren, A.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Maclean, N.

    White, H. Graham

    Evans, D. D. (Cardigan)

    MacMillan, HI. (Western Isles)

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Gallacher, W.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Marshall, F.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Mathers, G.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Maxton, J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Gibson R. (Greenock)

    Messer, F.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Foot.

    NOES

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peake, O.

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Petherick, M.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Porritt, R. W.

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

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Radford, E. A.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hannah, I. C.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Harbord, Sir A.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Read, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Balniel, Lord

    Haslam, Sir J- (Bolton)

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Barrie, Sir C.C.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Remer, J. R.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Bower, Comdr. R, T.

    Hepworth, J.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Bracken, B.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Rosbotham, Sir T.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Ross, Major Sir R. O. (Londonderry)

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Hopkinton, A.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Brooklebank, Sir Edmund

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rowlands, G.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham), W.)

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

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Hunloke, H. P.

    Samuel M. R. A.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hunter, T.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Scott, Lord William

    Cary, R. A.

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Shakespeare, G. H.

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

    Keeling, E. H.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Cazalet, Thelms (Islington, E.)

    Kellett, Major E. O.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univ's.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Christie, J. A.

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Kimball, L.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Smithers, Sir W.

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

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Snadden, W. McN.

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

    Letch, Sir J. W.

    Somerset, T.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Leas-Jones, J.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Croft, Brig-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Levy, T.

    Spens, W. P.

    Cross, R. H.

    Lewis, O.

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Storey, S.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    De la Bére, R.

    Little, J.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Doland, G. F.

    Looker-Lampson, Com dr. O. S.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Donner, P. W.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Drewe, C.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

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

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)

    Tifchfield, Marquess of

    Dunglass, Lord

    McKie, J. H.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Magnay, T.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. 4.. (Hull)

    Edge, Sir W.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Markham, S. F.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

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

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

    Errington, E.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

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

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Flaming, E. L,

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

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

    Furness, S. N.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leylon, E.)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel C.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Wise, A. R.

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

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Gledhill, G.

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Glyn, Major Sir R. C.

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

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Nivan-Sptnce, Major B. H. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

    Granvillo, E. L.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Mr. Munro and Captain McEwen.

    Grldlty, Sir A. B.

    O'Connor, Sir Taranse J,

    Grigg Sir E. W. M

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    7.6 p.m
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move in page i, line 11, after "is," to insert "reasonably."
    Sir S. Hoare: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and learned Member, but if
    1548
    he will allow me to do so, may I say that I am willing to accept this Amendment?
    Mr. Benn: I am not obstructing and we are trying to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman, but does the insertion

    1549
    of the word "reasonably" mean that someone will be in a position to go to a court and say that the Home Secretary has made such an order but has not made it reasonably in respect of the policy on Irish affairs?
    Sir R. Acland: Can the Attorney-General give us some information on what the Amendment means?
    The Attorney-General: It makes clear that the Home Secretary is required to be reasonably satisfied having regard to what is put before him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page I, line 12, to leave out "in his opinion."
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. In my view it is rather linked up with the words "reasonably satisfied." If it is accepted the Clause will run:
    "If the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied that any person in Great Britain, not being a person who is and has been, throughout the last preceding twenty years ordinarily resident."
    If the satisfaction has to be reasonable it should not be recommitted to a mere opinion, and the reasonable satisfaction should be left to cover both the question of the person being 20 years ordinarily resident and the question of the person being concerned. I am, therefore, asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider accepting the removal of the words "in his opinion." It will not, of course, remove the matter from his judgment, but it will leave it plain that his reasonable satisfaction is required in connection with both questions.
    7.10 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. and learned Member's reasons or his explanation of this Amendment. I think that the words "in his opinion" refer only to the period of residence of a man who is the subject of the Clause, and have nothing whatever to do with any acts which may have made him suspect in the eyes of the law. The question of whether a person is or has been resident throughout the period of 20 years in this country is a question of fact which is easily capable of exact proof in the ordinary way, and I think that the words "in his opinion" are unnecessary. The question
    1550
    of whether a person belongs to the category of persons who may be dealt with under this Section should be strictly proved. My name is down to the Amendment, and I support it because in my opinion the words "in his opinion" leave a question of fact to be determined as though it were a question of opinion when it is nothing of the kind.
    7.12 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I think that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to meet the point as put by the hon. and learned Member for Hammersmith North (Mr. Pritt) but it would not be met by the Amendment he proposes, and if my hon. and learned Friend will leave it at that, before the Bill passes through all its stages we will try to meet the point of leaving it to the Secretary of State. But the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) is, of course, a quite different one and that we are not prepared to meet. The hon. Gentleman put it as being a pure question of fact as to whether a person is "ordinarily resident." He has not, perhaps, had quite the same misery of acquaintance with Income Tax Acts as some of us, or he would know that books have been written on this topic, and the number of the judgments on the subject is legion. I think the real answer to the question he put is that this would be, of course, one of the matters which would come under the consideration of the examiner who is being introduced by the subsequent Amendment of the Home Secretary which we have not yet reached.
    Mr. Pritt: I am almost certain I can accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests if he will say if this is the sort of thing he has in mind—" If the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied that any person in Great Britain is not a person who is and has been throughout the last preceding 20 years ordinarily resident in Great Britain," etc.
    The Solicitor-General: Without committing myself, that is the kind of thing we have in mind.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement not merely with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite but with the hon. and learned Gentleman

    1551
    who sits beside me. I can see the force of the argument which led the Home Secretary to resist any suggestion that in the circumstances he could submit to the test of ordinary judicial proof the reasons which led him to take a view that a man should have an expulsion order or a registration order served upon him. But I cannot see how or why any of those objections apply to the question of where a man has been ordinarily resident during the last 20 years. I know that the matter of ordinary residence is not a simple thing, and I know there have been a number of legal decisions on the point, but however difficult it may be sometimes, I do not think it is difficult in ordinary cases. There it is simplicity itself. However difficult it may be in some exceptional cases, it is still capable of proof, and it is the sort of question which the Government can prove in the ordinary way in a court of law, under ordinary judicial principles. I think this is a point of substance. With regard to a question of facts of this kind, there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should be exempted from proving his facts in the ordinary way, particularly as the special position in this matter would be in no way prejudiced by his having so to do.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: I should like to say a word or two in support of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). It seems to me that the two issues are entirely different. The issue that has to be decided when the Secretary of State is making up his mind whether or not to grant an expulsion order is a matter very largely of conjecture. These questions of suspicion can be nothing more. The right hon. Gentleman has to decide whether, on the slender information, it may be, in his possession, a person is probably associated with this particular conspiracy. That is something which does not lend itself to exact examination. But when the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the question of 20 years' residence, it is something that can be definitely proved to the satisfaction of any ordinary tribunal. My hon. Friends and I have a new Clause on the Paper in which we suggest that on this one issue of 20 years' residence, it should be possible to appeal from the Home Secretary's order to a judge, and that the judge should be entitled to quash
    1552
    the order if he finds that, in fact, the person against whom the order is made is outside the class of persons whom Parliament intended to include in the Act. In those circumstances, I wish to support the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter, and consider whether they cannot leave it to any ordinary court, at any rate in the last resort, to decide a pure question of fact of the sort which the courts have to determine every day.
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.18 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out "twenty," and to insert "five."
    Sub-section (2) of the Clause covers only those who have been ordinarily resident in Great Britain for less than 20 years, or, to put it another way, any person who can prove that he has lived in this country for more than 20 years is outside the scope of Clause 1, Subsection (2). I should like to ask the Home Secretary why he has fixed on a dividing line of 20 years. There might be cases of one person who had lived in this country for 21 years, and another person who had lived in this country for 19 years. The first person might have been born in Ireland and lived most of his life in Ireland but have been in this country for more than 20 years, and so would be outside the scope of the Subsection. The other person might have been born in this country, he might be 19 years of age, and therefore, he would be within the limit of 20 years and would be brought within the scope of the Bill. I realise that there may be a case for concentrating on those who have come to this country more recently, and that the ringleaders of this campaign of terrorism are more likely to be those who have more recently come from across the water. I should have thought that that would involve taking the view that there may be many people, resident in this country for 10, 15, 18 or 19 years, who may be the rank and file of the movement, and not the persons principally responsible for the campaign. In speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Home Secretary said:

    1553
    "The individuals with whom we shall be dealing will in the main be recent arrivals to these shores."
    Strangely enough, he went on to say:
    "That is the reason we have put in the Bill a 20 years limit." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1939; col. 1053; Vol. 350.]
    I should have thought that a person who had lived here for 19 years was not a recent arrival in this country. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways. Either he has a reason for fixing the limit of 20 years, or he is not concerned merely with recent arrivals, because it is quite ludicrous to suggest that a person who has been in this country for 19 years is a recent arrival. In the Amendment I suggest that the period should be five years. I believe that the Home Secretary would be able to cast his net over all those who are responsible for the campaign if the limit was five years instead of 20 years.
    7.22 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: The period of 20 years is an arbitrary decision to a great extent. We had to consider what period of time we would take. We were anxious to make it clear in the Bill that its scope extended, not to established British citizens in this country, but to persons who have come into the country within recent times. The question then arose as to whether we should take a period of 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. What should be the period? Without going into details, I can tell hon. Members that I looked very carefully into the type of cases with which we might have to deal. I looked into specific cases. On the whole, far the greater number of the suspects we have in mind are people who have come into this country in quite recent times, the last few years. At the same time, there are some who have been resident within these shores for a longer period, and in some cases they are perhaps not less dangerous on that account. If we are to make this Bill effective, I advise the Committee to accept the 20 years' period. I can give hon. Members the undertaking that we should naturally look with great care, perhaps with specially great care, at cases of men and women who have resided here for a very long time. Obviously, the fact that they have roots in this country and so on would have to be considered. We should have to take all those facts into account, but hon. Members would
    1554
    be taking a considerable risk, and the Home Secretary would be taking a considerable risk, if this limit of time were reduced, even though the actual number of suspects involved was a very limited one.
    Mr. Bellenger: May I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman? Suppose that there were a person whom he had reason to suspect, and that person had lived here just over 20 years, could that person be dealt with under the Bill?
    Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: There are two things I should like to say. In the first place, the Home Secretary has very frankly told us, what a good many people know, that there is a list of people who are suspected and in respect of whom the right hon. Gentleman can see hopes that, in a few days' time, he will become satisfied of certain facts, and that the 20 years' period rather than a shorter period has been chosen because some of the people on the list would not have been covered if there had been a period less than 20 years. While, of course, there are times when we have to do that sort of thing, it is a very dangerous thing to do, and it is something which ought not to pass without at any rate some mention being made of it.
    The other point to which I want to refer has been mentioned already. I do not like the Bill, but I want to be fair about it. The Bill very fairly recognises, in Sub-sections (2) and (3), the distinction between people who really are, in the matter of their daily life, surroundings, friends, chance of earning a living and so on, domiciled in England, and people who are guests or visitors, or are not exclusively rooted in England. The Bill recognises this in the very real sense that it says that some of the people who are regarded as being concerned in this are nevertheless to be regarded as having their roots in England to such an extent that the only thing to be done in their case—although it is serious enough in a way—is that they shall be required to register and report, but if they want to blow up this building or some other building, they will be left tolerably free to do so. The Government have gone some way towards recognising that distinction. If that be so, surely a period of 20 years is far too long. It is all very well to

    1555
    say that the right hon. Gentleman will be very reasonable; but whenever we ask him to be what we think is very reasonable, he at once replies by asking, "How can I take any risks in the present state of affairs? "He says that if he allowed the question of suspicion to be handled by a High Court judge, he might be responsible for having the House of Commons blown up. In these circumstances, we are forced to regard this Measure as one that will be used up to the hilt. I suggest that as a distinction between people who have real roots in this country and those who have not, the period of 20 years is a ludicrous one.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: I wish to make it clear that we are not attempting to stop the progress of this Bill. We are really trying to prevent innocent people getting into trouble. That is the only purpose we have. Let me give a case in point. It is the case of a girl named Norah Glenn, who was charged at Manchester. She is 18 years of age and therefore would come within the compass of this Bill. The police were convinced that she was guilty, otherwise they would not have charged her. Under these powers, being 18 years of age, she would have been put away.
    The Attorney-General: Not put away
    Mr. Benn: She would have been sent away; she would have been deported. The Attorney-General probably knows the case. This girl was charged with a number of others at the police court. When the case came to the Assizes a month later, she was acquitted. That is the sort of difficulty which will arise. We are not trying to put difficulties in the way of the Home Secretary. We want to help him by calling attention to the difficulties that will arise. Surely he can see that, although he must fix a time, this period of 20 years will give rise to difficulties. Here is the case of this girl of 18. Unquestionably she would have fallen under the mischief of this Bill if it had existed at that time. What does the Home Secretary propose to do in a case like that? If I may express my own personal opinion, I do not think it is for us to fix any period of years. I think that once you start with this sort of business, you must allow the Home Secretary to decide, but a case like that which I
    1556
    have quoted must give rise to serious misgivings.
    7.3 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: Of course it is possible to quote individual cases in relation to almost every conceivable he kind of conditions. I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the case which has quoted, that these powers are permissive, and I cannot believe that any Home Secretary would order the deportation of a young person of that kind, who really had no connection with any other part of the world. In that kind of case a deportation order would not be made. The kind of case which has to be taken into account is the case of the man of say, 45 years of age, who has been here for 20 years and who may be a very-dangerous terrorist. It is towards a case of that kind that this provision is directed and not towards cases of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    7.34 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I do not think this matter is as simple as the right hon. Gentleman would make it appear. I agree that he would not desire to do anything unreasonable, but there will be other Home Secretaries and there may be other periods of panic. The words in the Measure are perfectly plain. They provide for a period of 20 years. What is the good of saying that this Bill is intended to apply only to persons of the age of 45 and that persons who, by reason of the date of their birth, could not possibly come within this exempting provision, will necessarily be exempt? Suppose the right hon. Gentleman's advisers reported to him that a person had brought himself, in every detail, within the liability to an expulsion order, but that he was only 18 years of age. Would the right hon. Gentleman feel that he should not make an order in that case? I feel sure that he would make an order. Yet that would be a person who could not possibly be exempt by reason of this 20-year provision. Suppose the case of another person, aged 21 and born in this country, who has never been out of this country. He is not within the Bill but the right hon. Gentleman has none of these special powers in his case, even though that person may have done all the things which, if he had been born in Ireland, or had lived part of his life in

    1557
    Ireland, would have made him amenable to this special legislation.
    It is not good enough to say that such persons are not being put away. I do not read the Clause in that way. If an expulsion order is served upon a person, the right hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to facilitate that person's withdrawal from this country. It is true that under a later Clause he has power to do so but he need not do so. He can leave the onus of getting himself out of the country, upon the person who has been served with an order, "requiring him to leave Great Britain." Suppose such a person wants to obey the order but cannot, because no other country will take him. He has then committed an offence under this Measure and is liable to five years' penal servitude. It was said earlier that two categories of persons were affected. In view of the Amendment which has first been accepted there is a third category now. There is the class of person of whom the right hon. Gentleman is "reasonably satisfied" that they have not been ordinarily resident in this country for 20 years. It is not necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to prove that those persons have not been here for 20 years. He need only be "reasonably satisfied" that they have not been here for 20 years, though in fact they may have been here for that period. Considering the number of persons involved and the unfairness which may be caused by this provision, I submit that the period of 20 years is too long.
    7.38 p.m.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Perhaps the Home Secretary would help the Committee in regard to the specific case of young people born in this country who have not attained the age of 20 years. These are the very sort of persons liable to be influenced by those who desire to promote this campaign of terrorism. If they commit an offence under this Measure, are they to be asked to leave the country, and, if so, where are they expected to go? This is a very special case and I ask the Home Secretary, before coming to a final decision on the Amendment, to give us some assistance on that point.
    7.39 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: It is difficult for me to tie myself down rigidly in regard to a form of procedure which must be adapted to particular cases. With that general
    1558
    reservation I can tell the hon. and learned Member that in cases of the kind he has mentioned it is most improbable that we should make a deportation order. Upon the face of it, those persons would have nowhere to go, and if they have nowhere to go there is no point in making a deportation order against them. I think hon. Members must assume that, setting aside the present occupant of this office, Home Secretaries are bound to behave reasonably and sensibly over these matters, if they are given these powers for the exercise of which they will be responsible to Parliament.
    7.40 p.m.
    Mr. Logan: I am concerned about the case of the young man under 20 who has been born in England and who does not know anything about any other country. I want to say straight away and to be quite clear about it, that having regard to what is going on, I have no objection whatever to regulations being made. I do not want anybody to be under any misapprehension about that, and I am not saying it with any reservations. All I am concerned about is that injustice should not be done to innocent people. The innocent people are the only people I am concerned about. The others must take the responsibility on their own shoulders. I understand that this Clause gives the Home Secretary the power of deportation and that, if there is not deportation there may be imprisonment. A young misguided man may come into this country and get into touch with families in this country. You may have the case of boys or girls born here of Irish parents and resident here and having no connection with anywhere else, although their sympathies may be over the water. Are those people to be deported out of this country and alienated from the only home they know? The question of association enters into this. A boy or girl of 20 having no connection whatever with this matter, may, by the very fact of having visited certain people, be brought within this Bill, and made liable to deportation. That seems an absurd proposition and I do not know how any Member of the Committee can regard it in an easy fashion.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is now getting rather wide of the Amendment and is discussing the whole of Clause I.
    Mr. Logan: With all due respect we are considering here a very important point, and all I wish to do is to ask that the case of the young person of 20 years of age should be considered. As it is, this seems a rather stiff proposition. I think some exceptions should be made, and that the Home Secretary would be well advised to give it further consideration.
    7.44 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: The Home Secretary said that if a young person were born here, a deportation order would not be made against him because there would be nowhere for him to go. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange before the Report stage to put definite words into the Bill making that clear? As I see it, the Home Office might take the view that a deportation order should be made. The young person would be unable to satisfy the order and would therefore go to prison. The, Home Office would be unable to go to the court and have the young person imprisoned on suspicion. They might be unable to prove a case against him in court. But in order to get that person out of the way, they would make a deportation order which could not be complied with and thus get the young person into prison by a roundabout way. The Home Secretary seems to signify disagreement. If it is the case that that would not be done in any case, I hope he will see that it is made statutorily impossible.
    7.45 p.m
    Mr. Pritt: I should like to ask the Home Secretary to consider, before the Report stage, whether, after the words "throughout the last preceding twenty years," he would not insert some such words as "or throughout his life, whichever period is the shorter"
    Sir S. Hoare: I will look into that suggestion.
    7.46 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: I wish the Home Secretary would say something more than that. I went through this Bill very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that this Clause might enable the Home Secretary to deport a Scotsman. My son was born in Scotland, and if he were interested in Irish matters, might he not be deported from his own native land? Surely it is not the Home Secretary's intention that a
    1560
    law should pass on to the Statute Book of this country that enables a Minister to deport British-born British citizens to places unspecified.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is getting quite beyond the scope of the Amendment, which is to substitute the word "five" for the word "twenty."
    Mr. Maxton: But if five years were substituted for 20 years, the points that we are raising would not arise. Surely the Home Secretary would not dream of deporting a child of five. We should assume that he would not regard such a child as a dangerous terrorist, but a young person of from 18 to 20 years of age, who is in what might be called the hobbledehoy stage, might be held to be just the kind of person to whom this sort of thing might appeal. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that some words will be found to make it impossible for him to deport a British-born British citizen.
    7.48 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: I can tell the Committee that the people whom we intend to deport are people whose home, speaking in a general term, is outside these shores. A check on any abuse of this power is that if people have not got a home or association of this kind, a deportation order will not work. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) may say to me, "What would happen supposing you attempted to deport one of these young people who had nowhere to go to, and who came back because there was no place to take him? "I am sure that in that case the Attorney-General would take that into account in deciding whether or not to institute a prosecution. I must repeat that in the interests of security we deem this period of 20 years necessary. If we did not have it, the net against these people would not be wide enough. We have to take into account the kind of anomalies that have been brought to our attention, and I will look into them to see whether we can meet them, but after the assurances that I have given as to the way in which this provision is going to be administered, I think the Committee ought to carry it.
    7.50 p.m.
    Mr. Silver man: On a point of Order. I want to ask whether, when the Committee is discussing the legal effect of

    1561
    the words of some Amendment, it is relevant to be told by the representative of the Government what the intentions are of this particular Administration. I do not raise that in any frivolous spirit, but it seems to me to be somewhat important. Time after time in these discussions, when it is pointed out that the strict meaning of words which we are discussing is to give certain powers to the Government, we are met with the reply, "You are perfectly right, but we do not intend to exercise those powers, and, therefore, you ought not to bother about them."
    The Deputy-Chairman: There is no question of a point of Order here. The Home Secretary must make his statements in his own way, and the Chair cannot interfere.
    7.51 p.m.
    Mr. A. Henderson: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, and of the fact that he has given an undertaking to consider the possibility of inserting an Amendment to Sub-section (2) to deal with the point of the position of an infant under 21 who has been born in, this country, but who may offend against the provisions of this legislation, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.52 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "is, "to insert "knowingly."
    One of the two sub-heads, and the more serious qualification—
    Sir S. Hoare: I will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Pritt: Then I will only formally move it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 2, line 1, after "is," insert "reasonably."
    In line 4, after "is," insert "knowingly." —[Mr.Pritt.]
    7.53 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out "place of work."
    If the Home Secretary has a person's full name, address, photograph and measurements, I do not see any reason
    1562
    why his place of work should be brought into the matter at all, and the man be subjected to all the difficulties in relation to his employer and his fellow workers what do arise if police inquiries are being made at his place of employment.
    Sir S. Hoare: We accept this Amendment, but I would point out that there might be cases in which the police would have to warn an employer. Speaking generally, we have no wish to carry on any kind of espionage on a man's work, and I will, therefore, accept this Amendment.
    7.55 p.m
    Mr. Eastwood: I would like to utter a word of warning to my right hon. Friend. Surely there can be no question here of any undue interference with a person at his place of work. This person, whoever he may be, who becomes suspect has to register certain information with the police, and there is no extra labour or inconvenience to him, whether he registers, together with his name and address, his place of work or not. Surely the whole essence of this Bill is to try and stop episodes such as happened to-day at King's Cross. We want the authorities to be able to get all the information that they can. A man comes under suspicion, and they should be able to get to know as soon as possible as much as they can about him. What happens after that is in the discretion of the Home Secretary, but I do hope that in this and in other matters he will not be too eager to make concessions, so as to limit his discretion, when, for all we know, he may have to come to us later on and ask for even greater powers than the present Bill gives him.
    7.57 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: I would point out that this applies not only to people who are resident here, but to everybody
    Mr. Eastwood: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to that fact. If I am going to be liable to be blown up, and that can be stopped, I would like to have it stopped whether the person concerned has been resident here for 20 years or for 50 years.
    Mr. Benn: Hon. Members opposite, whenever a point is brought forward that they cannot argue, beg the question, and

    1563
    they always say, "We are going to be blown up by a bomb. "I should like to point out—and I should be ashamed if I did not point it out—that any citizen of this country is liable to be put on ticket-of-leave in certain circumstances by the Home Secretary as a result of this Bill. We hope it will be transitory and specific, but there is the power. I am not objecting, but I think it would be shameful for a Member of this House to let that pass, without comment, that the Home Secretary now, by a lettre de cachet, can put everybody on ticket-of-leave if he is himself satisfied. Let us not assume that everyone who is trying to protect the rights of the innocent is in favour of the guilty.
    7.59 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: In reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Eastwood),I agree fully that we want to make certain of catching these people, and I have not the least intention of accepting any Amendment which would have the effect of making that more difficult. I accepted this Amendment for this reason, that I think these words might create a lot of unnecessary suspicion and give the impression that the police are constantly going to get information from employers about employés, and, whether rightly or wrongly, the impression will get about that men are being dismissed for reasons that they do not understand. I would rather avoid that kind of suspicion if I can. I do not think the retention of these words is essential to the Bill. I feel that the police will be able to get the information that they want without an express provision of this kind, and, therefore, I think it wise, on the whole, to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Maxton: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite did not intend to suggest that I moved this Amendment because I approve of railwaymen at King's Cross being injured.
    Mr. Eastwood: I know the hon. Member too well.
    Mr. Maxton: I do not think the fact that railwaymen are injured at King's Cross is a reason why shipyard labourers should be driven out of their employment on the Clyde. If the Home Secretary knows where a particular man is, where he is staying, and what his appearance
    1564
    is, I think we can safely leave it in the hands of the authorities to deal with that person.
    Amendment agreed to
    Further Amendment made: In page 2 line 14, after "is" insert "reasonably." —[Mr. Pritt.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
    CLAUSE 2. —(Effect of expulsion orders and prohibition orders.)
    8.5 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that if a person upon whom such a notice has been served objects that there are no grounds, or no sufficient grounds, for the making of the order against him, he may within forty-eight hours of the service of the notice send to the Secretary of State representations in writing stating the reasons for his objection, and upon receiving such representations the Secretary of State shall, unless he considers the reasons to be frivolous, refer the matter for the advice of a person nominated by him (not being an officer of police or of any Government department) and the person so nominated shall interview the objector and examine his objection, and shall report to the Secretary of State who shall as soon as may be reconsider the case and either revoke the order or notify the person against whom it was made of his refusal to do so"
    I can assure the Committee that in my view this proposal would be a very real safeguard against an order against an innocent person. I want it to be a genuine safeguard and I shall certainly make it my business to see that it is worked in that spirit
    8.7 p. m
    Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line I, after "notice" to insert "or notice of a registration order."
    If the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is inserted without these words, this qualified right of appeal is given in a case where an expulsion order is made, but no corresponding right of appeal is given where an order for registration is made. It will probably be admitted that, if it is right in principle to allow some sort of review in the case of an expulsion order, it is right to allow the same kind of review in the case of a registration order. For one reason it is even more important, because a registration order can be made against anyone. It is not a question of orders against residents, or normal

    1565
    residents, in some other country. Any person in Great Britain may have a registration order made against him. Therefore, it will probably be agreed that, since it has been thought right to provide this additional machinery in the case of expulsion orders, it ought not to be withheld in the case of registration orders.
    8.9 p. m
    The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend has only just seen the Amendment and I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking to accept it at the moment. The position of a registration order is, of course, quite different from a case where an expulsion or prohibition order is made. In the case of a registration order the person against whom it is made is required only to give notice of his movements and to register, and, generally being a person who is under the reasonable suspicion of the Secretary of State, to account for his movements from time to time, if required by the police. That is very different from the case in respect of which we put in this check on the administration in the case of an expulsion order. It would certainly complicate the Clause and add to the amount of investigation which would have to be done by the person my right hon. Friend has in mind, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared at the moment to accept an Amendment on these lines. I can, however, give an assurance that the matter will be looked into before the later stages of the Bill to see whether the objections are as formidable as we think they are at present.
    8.11 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: The hon. and learned Gentleman suffers from the disadvantage of never having been on ticket of leave and not knowing how very serious this form of restriction is. I have not been on it either, but I have known people who have. In actual practice being on ticket of leave is a very unpleasant thing indeed, and the right hon. Gentleman has recognised it in some of his legislation by generously making arrangements to abolish it. In giving consideration to the matter, as promised, I hope it will not be regarded as at all a light thing to be registered, finger-printed, measured and made to report. It is the easiest way in the world to lose your job, however sympathetically administered—and it is not always administered sympathetically.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 7, after "department," to insert:
    "serving upon the objector at the same time a short statement of the facts upon which the Secretary of State has relied in making the order."
    I think it will commend itself to anyone that a person who is about to be expelled, or prohibited from coming here, should be given some statement of the facts on which the Home Secretary relies.
    The Solicitor-General: I very much regret that my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to accept this proposal. As he has explained, necessarily a good deal of the material on which he will make up his mind will be material of a confidential character. To disclose the facts to the objector will necessarily put at risk the people who supplied the information in-some instances. It will be disclosing an avenue of information which it is most undesirable that we should disclose, and for that reason alone it is not possible to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I would add this as a reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman. As I think the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) pointed out, when the matter comes before the referee, or whatever one cares to describe him as, it must be quite obvious that a gentleman of the calibre of my right hon. Friend has described will at once put before the objector the kind of case that is being made against him. It is proposed that the examiner or referee should be put in possession of all the relevant facts, and he will, no doubt, at an early stage of his interview with the objector make known, with discretion no doubt, to the objector the case that is going against him.
    Mr. Benn: Would the Government accept an Amendment on those lines?
    The Solicitor-General: I think it is preferable that the functions of the examiner should be left at large as much as possible. The confidence that the House and the country will feel in the examiner will be justified by the appointments or the-nominations which my right hon. Friend makes. If an examiner were, as my right hon. Friend suggested he might very well

    1567
    be, a retired judicial officer with experience, it is quite clear that he would be unable to discharge his functions unless he notified in sufficient outline to the objector what was the case against him, but that is a very different matter from requiring him to serve on the objector a statement of the facts on which the Home Secretary is relying as the ground for making the Order. Therefore, I am afraid that this Amendment to the proposed Amendment cannot be accepted.
    8.17 p. m
    Mr. Pritt: In my humble submission this is really very bad indeed. For the benefit of hon. Members who are thronging the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman I will explain not only what this Amendment does but what the next Amendment, which I understand is not going to be accepted either, would do. The Bill as it stands simply says that the referee shall interview the objector and examine his objections. Literally that means that he shall say to him, "Thomas O'Flaherty, you are going back to Ireland. Will you tell me why you object?" Thomas O'Flaherty will object because he is not to be allowed to remain in England. It will not be as badly managed as that, of necessity, but the referee will say, "It is suggested that you come under this Act. I will read you the Clauses of it. What can you say?" and the man can only say, "I do not; will somebody tell me in what way it is suggested that I do come under it." Then says the hon. and learned Member, "Oh, the referee is sure to tell him the nature of the case." He is telling us that the Government refuse to tell the man the substance of the case but saying that the referee is sure to do it.
    As the Clause stands, the referee does not even need to be told himself, and with a Home Secretary who says that he is terrified of this, that and the other, terrified of some "nark" or somebody being spotted and then being dealt with brutally, it is very likely that he will not tell the referee very much, Therefore, one says naturally, "If we are asked to abandon this not elementary right, but this tiny fragment of an elementary right, let us see whether there is something which could be put in the Bill to say that the referee shall be able to tell him." Accordingly we have proposed to add after
    1568
    the statement in the Clause that the person so nominated shall interview the objector and examine his objections the words "and all the evidence in the possession of the Secretary of State," and the hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that he will not have that Amendment either. Every single thing that the hon. and learned Gentleman says will surely be done is offered by us in Amendments and we are told that we are not to have them. When we reintroduce this Bill in a few years' time and call it the "Prevention of Financial Sabotage (Temporary Provisions) Bill," and put in the word "banker" instead of "person concerned" we shall get all sorts of objections from hon. Members opposite
    The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is undoubtedly tending to discuss this and the next manuscript Amendment together. I think that would not be inconvenient for him, but it is a little inconvenient for the Committee without their knowing what the second Amendment is.
    Mr. Pritt: I have just read it, and I read it very slowly.
    The Chairman: If the Committee assent to the two Amendments being discussed together I think that would be for the general convenience: only it is difficult for hon. Members to realise what the two Amendments would do from only having them read out
    Mr. Pritt: I will read it again. It comes in at line 8. The Clause says that the person so nominated shall interview the objector and examine his objection, and we want to add words after the word "objection" so that it will read "the person so nominated shall interview the objector and examine his objection and examine all the evidence in the possession of the Secretary of State." I should like to point out that when we have some person as gentle as myself as Home Secretary dealing with bankers who have committed financial sabotage this is what we shall be able to do. We shall be able to say: "We are not bound to put any of the evidence before the referee, but certainly we will put the bulk of it. We will not put before him any of the evidence that really gives away the sources of our information, but we will put enough to convince him, and if he is convinced he will so report to our Secretary

    1569
    of State and the reconsideration of the case will be quite a formal matter and we shall maintain the order." But if the referee reports back that on the evidence we have condescended to put before him he really does not think we have made out a good enough case we can then go back to our own room and sit down and say to ourselves, "Well, we have to reconsider the whole case, the responsibility is ours. On the evidence we put before him it may be that, perhaps, he is not unreasonable in recommending us to revoke the order, but we have something up our sleeve, and adding what he has seen to what he has not seen we shall maintain our order."
    That will be making an absolute farce of the whole of this procedure, and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that we ought to trust him not to make a farce of it. For the moment I am dealing with the case on the footing that we do trust him not to make a farce of it, but unless these Amendments are adopted he is almost forced by his own statement to make a farce of it, because he is saying, "I will not give the man a short statement of the facts, because it might be dangerous and give the show away, and I will not undertake to put all the evidence in my possession before the referee, because that might indirectly give the show away." So he is saying that he must be left in the position, when the referee has reported, of being able to consider the referee's report and consider the evidence which the referee has never had a chance to see, and the order will ultimately be what I might call not revoked—but that will have been done on something which the referee has never had a chance to bring his independent mind to bear.
    If that is not to happen I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment indicated. I am not very proud of the words, which we have had to draft very quickly to put into a Clause which itself was drafted quickly, but he ought to say that either he will accept those words or put the substance of them in on Report stage. I am entitled to make this general observation: that it is notorious to the whole world that policemen are not much worse than other people, but they have got their job to do and have to show results, and if you once let policemen know that they can
    1570
    keep their witnesses back and never let anybody see them witnesses will become as fruitful as the vine.
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: I would like to support briefly the two Amendments to the proposed Amendment. The Solicitor-General said in answering the first of these Amendments that it was dangerous to inform the person against whom it is proposed to make an order of all the facts alleged against him. My first comment on that is that the difficulty might be dealt with in the way that was suggested by us a short time ago. If the Solicitor-General will look at paragraph 2 of the Schedule it will be clear that why we proposed that a notice should be served on the person concerned specifying, with sufficient particulars and reasonable information the nature of the facts alleged against him, the ground on which they were alleged and the order, if any, made against him. That would not bind the person who drew up the notice to include all the facts in possession of the Home Secretary who had thought it necessary to make the order, but it would enable the man to know the nature of the case which he had to meet.
    Upon an earlier Amendment, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) pointed out how many different types of case might arise. There is the simple case which occurs to all of us in which a man might make his defence by proving an alibi. He is alleged to have been at a certain house at a certain time when some bombing outrage was being planned. If he can prove that he was actually 100 miles away he has a perfectly simple defence. That is the kind of thing which is likely to arise. What will happen under this procedure? You have to disclose to him at some stage that this kind of thing is alleged against him. Then he says: "I can call a friend of mine to prove that I was at that place 100 miles away on the night in question." What will then happen? The referee who is holding the inquiry will, if justice is to be done, adjourn the inquiry until some future date, and the man will have to be kept in custody until the witness can be brought. Thus you have waste of time and the man unnecessarily kept in custody for a longer period than would have been the case, and, in addition,

    1571
    you are adding slightly to the burden placed upon the referee. All that difficulty, trouble and delay would be avoided if you gave the man the sort of notice that was suggested in the first place.
    The other argument is the one about giving away your sources of information. It is obvious that that situation must arise and I can appreciate the force of the argument. The Solicitor-General himself, and the Home Secretary in an earlier speech, made it clear that at some stage you have to give away the source of your information if the inquiry by the referee is to be worth anything at all. Consider again a kind of case that I have mentioned, in which he case against the accused is that he I as been in a certain place with a well-known incendiary on a certain night. Questions have to be put to him that will convey clearly to his mind that there are only one or two people who could have given information against him. You are bound to come up against that difficulty whatever form of procedure you adopt. Since you cannot obviate it entirely it would be much more satisfactory to give the man some sort of notice and indication of the case—I do not say of the facts— in good time before the hearing so that he might know the sort of case he has to meet and the sort of defence that might be accepted.
    We have not yet had any indication of this kind, but is it contemplated that the referee shall hear any evidence other than that of the man himself? Suppose the man says, as he is bound to say, in certain connections: "I can prove that I am innocent of what you are alleging against me if I am able to call certain friends of mine who were with me at that time"; is it contemplated that it will be within the competence of the referee to call those witnesses and test them by cross-examination? If not, the position will be serious, because you will be depriving a man of what might be a very simple way of proving that he is innocent of the allegation advanced. I hope we can have an answer that other evidence will be called at the hearing before the referee, since at one stage or another you have to reveal something of your case. If the trial by the referee is to mean anything at all surely there is an overwhelming case for giving the
    1572
    man notice in some form before the proceedings start
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Solicitor-General in dealing with the first Amendment to the proposed Amendment said that the referee—or call him what you will—will at once put before the accused the kind of case which is being made against him. If that is to be done, is there any objection to the kind of case which is to be made against him when he comes up being given to him say 48 hours before, so that he can have a look at it and see what is going to be said against him. The hon. Member who has just spoken has had a wide experience of police courts, and he knows how difficult it is to meet a case when you are put into court at the last moment without any instructions whatever. It is not unreasonable to ask that, say, 48 hours' notice should be given to the accused man, who is probably in custody, any how
    On the second Amendment to the proposed Amendment my right hon. Friend is, I understand, refusing that point too. All that is suggested is that the evidence in his possession should be given, not to the accused, but to the right hon. Gentleman's own nominated investigator. I would like an answer to this question: Suppose that investigator were a judge of the High Court; would my right hon. Friend refuse to communicate to that judge of the High Court the information in his possession, and if so, why?
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to put to the Home Secretary one small point on this question of evidence. Many Members of the Committee quite appreciate the difficulties that are present to the mind of the Government over this matter, but the Government have said that at some stage or other the man must be given the substance—not the details and not the evidence—of the charge against him. My feeling is that if that is to be the case, there ought to be some provision for it in the Bill. There is nothing whatever in the Bill that even suggests that that procedure, which the Solicitor-General tells us will be followed, will in fact be followed. Hon. Members who are raising these points will be satisfied if words which the Government think meet the case—not necessarily the words

    1573
    that have been proposed on this side of the Committee—are included, and provided there is in the Bill itself some mention of the fact that the substance of the charge against the man will at some point that is not too late be given to him who is the sufferer in the case. Otherwise, the whole procedure will be fruitless. If the man is not to know the substance of the case against him there is no point in having the referee. The man might say: "I am quite guiltless, "but that is all he can say. He must know something of the charge against him, and some reference to this procedure should be included in the Bill.
    8.35 p. m
    Sir R. Acland: I support the plea which has just been made, and should like to make it a little more specific. We thought that, although the Government were not being very generous towards our Amendment, they were showing Some appreciation of the point of view we tried to express on the Second Reading; but, now that they are rejecting these two Amendments, we are forced to revise our view about the Government's desire to meet us. That is the more unfortunate because we have recently been informed that the Government desire to get the whole of this Bill to-night. I hope that, if we are asked to co-operate with the Government in this way, they will cooperate with us as far as they can. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has suggested one alternative set of words which might be taken from paragraph 2 of our Schedule I would submit another set, which would be even easier for the Government to accept, as an Amendment to the first of the manuscript Amendments which we are now discussing. I would suggest that it might be made to read in this way:
    "Serving upon the objector, so far as he can without detriment to the public interest, a short statement of the facts upon which it is proposed to make"—
    and so on. Is it conceivably possible that the Government could resist an Amendment in these terms? It seems to me that they would be completely safeguarded as to everything they do not want to do, and yet would be undertaking in the Bill to do everything which they say they will do. There is an important distinction between the Minister saying that something will be done and having it in the Bill in black and white, and I think the
    1574
    Government ought to realise that that is so. At any rate, we feel strongly that it is so, and that they should try to meet us. As to the rejection of the second manuscript Amendment, that seems to me to be so amazing that I cannot understand it, and find myself quite incompetent to make any comment on it.
    8.38 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I do not complain at all, because, by the nature of things, if an Amendment of the Government appears on the Order Paper on a particular day, one must expect manuscript Amendments; but it is very difficult in such a case to do anything except deal with the terms of the Amendment which are in manuscript before you. You cannot go on making Amendments to Amendments with any great convenience and without getting into hopeless confusion. Therefore, I have to deal with the first Amendment on what it says. It says that you must serve on the objector at the same time a short statement of the facts on which the Secretary of State relies. I have already said that my right hon. Friend cannot contemplate an Amendment in those terms, because it would involve his telling the objector what his material is. It may be extremely confidential; it may expose people to risk of life or bodily injury. If I may give an example that has occurred to me while I have been sitting on the bench as the Debate was going on, supposing that this were done, and that the referee reported, as he would be entitled to report, that the man had been for more than 20 years ordinarily resident here, the Home Secretary would revoke the order without prejudice to the facts. He might still remain perfectly satisfied that this man was an accomplice in the conspiracy, and yet, because it was reported to him, and he accepted the report, that the man had been here 20 years, the man would go free of the expulsion order. But he would have in his possession, if this Amendment were accepted, a statement of the confidential facts on which the Home Secretary had been brought to make up his mind in the first instance. Obviously, that is a situation which could not be contemplated, and therefore it is quite impossible to accept the first Amendment.
    What does the man against whom an order has been made know? He knows

    1575
    that an expulsion order has been made, and he knows that it has been made because the Home Secretary, responsible to this House, is satisfied that he has been concerned in the preparation or instigation of acts of violence directed against this country. It is true that at the present moment there is no requirement in Clause I that that statement of the nature of the offence must be served upon him, but my right hon. Friend would be prepared to look into the question whether the nature of the offence should be disclosed to him with the original notice. There is, of course, the presumption that everyone knows the law, but, stretching a point in this case, that might be got over by including something in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1 providing that notice should be given to the man, when the expulsion order is originally served, of the circumstances in which an expulsion order ought to be served.
    Mr. Benn: Does the Solicitor-General mean that the man would be told that he is being served with an order because he is believed to be concerned according to the terms of the Act?
    The Solicitor-General: That is all that I mean. He is supposed to know why the expulsion order is being served, but I can see no very great objection to that. As to the serving of a notice of the facts upon which the Home Secretary's mind would be made up, my right hon. Friend, for the reasons I have given, could not accept that suggestion. I pass to the second Amendment which we are also discussing, and which would provide that the referee, as we may call him, should be given all the evidence in the possession of the Secretary of State. Again I must deal with the Amendment as it stands. It is obvious that the referee will not in every case want all the evidence that is before the Secretary of State. Suppose, for example, that the only objection made by the objector is that he has been here for 20 years. If that is decided in his favour, and the Home Secretary accepts the report, it is conclusive and settles the matter, and in these circumstances there is no point in the person who is conducting the inquiry being given all the material which went to make up the Home Secretary's mind on the matter. But my right hon. Friend has given an
    1576
    express assurance at this Box that it is his intention in every case to give to the referee all the material that is relevant to the making up of his mind on the issue that is before him. I suggest that that ought to be enough, and that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), who is not at the moment in his place, was, quite unwittingly and un designedly, misrepresenting my right hon. Friend when he said he would not undertake to give the referee all the material.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Will he give that undertaking?
    The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend has given it in my hearing and in the hearing of all of us at this Box this afternoon. I think my hon. Friend must have overlooked it. It has been given explicitly here.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The Solicitor-General cannot get away with that. How a particular Home Secretary, while he retains that office, administers the Bill is not relevant to our discussion. We are discussing whether this Bill, in its present form, should become an Act without any Amendment embodying the idea that we are discussing.
    The Solicitor-General: That is a different objection. All I am saying at the moment is that it is not fair to say that no assurance has been given that the referees will, in fact, be put in possession of all the relevant materials. That assurance has, in fact, been given. The right hon. Gentleman says that an assurance is not enough; that he would like to see it embodied in an Act. I will tell him one-reason why my right hon. Friend does not desire to see it embodied in an Act. This is emergency legislation, dealing with a critical position, and the more you put into a Clause of this kind which enables the matter to be brought before the jurisdiction of the court, the less effective and prompt you make the legislation. It is possible to conceive types of proceedings by which questions of whether the tribunal was properly furnished are brought for decision before the High Court. The moment you permit that, you rip up the whole purpose of the legislation. In matters of legislation the House of Commons has to be governed by the pledge of the administrator as to the way that

    1577
    the Act is to be administered. For these reasons neither of the Amendments would, in our opinion, effect the purpose of the Bill, which is to enable us to deal promptly with these things.
    8.48 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: We are concerned here to see that innocent people do not get into the clutches of a secret process. If it were believed that that was going to happen, this Bill would do so much damage to the administration that it would outweigh anything which could be achieved
    Sir Joseph Nail: What about the people who are being maimed and killed?
    Mr. Benn: I do not think it would assist people who are being maimed and killed to arrest people who are innocent.
    Sir J. Nail: It is much better to deport a dozen innocent persons than to allow one innocent person to be killed
    Mr. Benn: The first Amendment we moved provides that the person charged should be told what he is charged with. We are as anxious as the hon. Member is to protect the public safety.
    Sir J. Nail: What about Kings Cross?
    Mr. Benn: We all feel exactly as he does about that, but we do not feel that justice can be done to the people who suffer by punishing the innocent. Of course, this is a very difficult problem; but I have often seen cases where public sentiment has been involved, and I have regretted afterwards that I have not had the courage to stand up for what I believed in because public sentiment was against me. There was a case after the outrages some time ago in Tottenham Court Road. A man named Fluke was brought up because the police believed that he was guilty of taking part in that outrage. Under this Measure, the police, believing him guilty, would have recommended him for deportation. Suppose that he did not know what was the charge. He would have been deported. But knowing what the charge was, this man was able to produce an alibi to show that when the outrage occurred he was not there; he was proved, in fact, to be a man who was not in sympathy with Eire at all. Why cannot the Government agree to an Amendment which asks for the most elementary right, that a man
    1578
    who is charged should be given information as to the charge which is laid against him?
    8.52 p. m
    Mr. Harvey: The Government have shown themselves very much in earnest in their desire to, meet points which have been raised in different quarters with a view to safeguarding the rights of citizens, and I hope they will be able to go a little further than the learned Solicitor-General felt able to do. It ought to be possible to give some general indication of the charge without going into details. I can quite see that there is an objection to giving any detailed information, but it ought to be possible to give the accused a general indication before he is confronted in secret with the investigator or referee. If he knows the charge only at the very last moment, when he is confronted with the referee or investigator, he is at a very great disadvantage—and I do not think the Government wish to put an innocent person at a disadvantage. It should be possible for the Government to look into this with a view to themselves finding words, which they can themselves introduce if necessary, to make it possible that, at the very earliest opportunity and before the accused person is brought before the investigator, he will know the general nature of the charges brought against him. That can be done without revealing any facts which it would be dangerous to the public interest to disclose. I hope the Government will be able to see their way to meet the very weighty objection which has been raised on this point.
    8.54 p.m.
    Sir J. Nail: The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) quite clearly expressed himself most concerned about rights. As I understand the Bill and the Government's attitude to this Amendment to the proposed Amendment they are more concerned with the lives and safety of individuals. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), the safety of one person was much more important than the civil rights of a dozen, and I am sure the public at large would rather see a dozen persons wrongly deported than one killed.
    Mr. Maxton: That is not always the hon. Member's attitude when the question of safety in mines is under discussion
    Sir J. Nail: The hon. Member has no right to say that. I have never, in this House or elsewhere, endeavoured to impede safety in mines.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 190

    Division No. 286]

    AYES.

    [8.57 p.m.]

    Acland, Sir R.T.D.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adams,D.(Censett)

    Griffiths, J. (Llineliy)

    Pearson, A.

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

    Groves, T. E.

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

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)

    Poole, C. C.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Price, M. P.

    Banfield, J. W

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pritt, D. N.

    Barr, J.

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

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Batay, J.

    Hayday, A.

    Riley, B.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Ritson, J.

    Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Benson, G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Bevan, A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jagger, J.

    Silverman, S S.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, A, (Pontypool)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sloan, A.

    Cape, T.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, E. (Stake)

    Chater, D.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cooks, F. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stephen, C.

    Collindridge, F.

    Lathan, G.

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Daggar, G.

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Leonard, W.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Logan, D. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbia, W.

    Lunn, W.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    MacDonald, G. (Inc)

    Viant, S. P.

    Ede, J. C.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    MacLaren, A.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Evans, O. O. (Cardigan)

    Maclean, N.

    Westwood, J.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales

    Marnier, G. le M.

    White, H. Graham

    Foot, D. M.

    Marshall, F.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Gallacher, W.

    Mathers, G.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maxton, J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Messer, F.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Montague, F.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Naylor, T. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES-

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Nod-Baker, P. J.

    Mr. Charleton and Mr. John.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Oliver. G. H.

    NOES.

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

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Cross, R. H.

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

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

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

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

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Hambro, A. V.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    De la Bére, R.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Donman, Hon. R. D.

    Harbord, Sir A.

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

    Dodd, J. S.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Doland, G. F.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Donner, P. W.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Drewe, C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Hepworth, J.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S,

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Holdsworth, H.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Edge, Sir W.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

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

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Emmett, C. E. G. C.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Hunloke, H. P.

    Gary, R. A.

    Errington, E.

    Hunter, T.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Findlay, Sir E.

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

    Christie, J. A.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Jennings, R.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Furness, S. N.

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

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

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

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

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

    Gledhill, G.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

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

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Kimball, L.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Smith, Sir Ft. W. (Aberdeen)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Peake, O.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Lees-Jones, J,

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Somerset, T.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Petherick, M.

    Somorvell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Levy, T.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Spans, W. P.

    Lewis, O.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Liddall, W. S.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Little, J.

    Power, Sir J. t.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Sutoliffa, H.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Radford, E. A.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

    Loftus, P. C.

    Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    M'Connell. Sir J.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Touche, G. C.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Remer, J. R.

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

    Macdonald, Gap). P. (Isle of Wight)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H, F.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Magnay, T.

    Rosbotham, Sir T.

    Webbe, Sir W. Harold

    Making, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Ron, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

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

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

    Markham, S. F.

    Rowlands, G.

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

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

    Mills, Major J. 0. (New Forest)

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Wise, A. R.

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

    Salt, E. W.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Wright, Wins-Commander J. A. C.

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

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Young, A. S. L, (Partick)

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Scott, Lard William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

    Munro, P.

    Sellay, H. R.

    Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Buchan

    Nail. Sir J.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Hepburn.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    The Chairman: Mr. Pritt.
    Mr. Pritt: I do not know whether it would be in order for me to speak now.
    The Chairman: I suggest that if the hon. and learned Member really wants to make a statement, I can call the second Amendment to the proposed Amendment for the purpose of enabling him to do so
    Mr. Pritt: I do not want to move my Amendment.
    9.4 p. m
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Cannot the Solicitor-General give some indication between now and the Report stage that he will consider whether some words can be put into the Bill which will meet our difficulty? There is no guarantee in the Bill that the referee shall know the facts, or that, if he does know the facts, the man should be told. Cannot the Solicitor-General give a promise that between now and the Report stage some consideration can be given to the matter?
    The Chairman: There is nothing before the Committee at the moment. I will put the original Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Benn: We have discussed the two Amendments to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment together, and as far as we are concerned, we have no desire to divide on the second.
    Question again proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
    9.5 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I am not sure Sir Dennis, whether you are putting the whole of the Government Amendment. There is an Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) which we have not yet discussed. May I make a few observations about the second manuscript Amendment—in line 8, after "objection," to insert:
    "and examine all the evidence in the possession of the Secretary of State."
    I should like to reply to what has been said by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). I have given my reasons why we cannot accept these words as they stand, and he has asked whether we will look into the matter between now and another stage of the Bill and see whether we can surmount the objection that I outlined and meet the case which they have made. I certainly will give that undertaking. That shall be looked into, and if we can see a way round the difficulty, my right' hon. Friend does not see any objection in principle to having embodied in the Bill the assurance that he has given.
    9.6 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: Our difficulty is this. We feel strongly about the points we have raised, but we are equally anxious that

    1583
    the Government should receive all the powers they want as soon as possible. We do not want to stand in the way of that, and we are willing and anxious that the Committee stage should come to an end to-day, but that makes it very difficult with regard to drafting an Amendment. If the Amendments are made in another place by the Government and they come back to us here as Amendments, we should have freedom to discuss them as such almost with the same latitude as if they had been moved in this House. There are, of course, certain limits. I think that is the best thing that we can do, because there is no opportunity for the drafting of an. Amendment now unless the right hon. Gentleman has his Amendment ready. Therefore, the best arrangement would be that the undertaking given by the Government will be implemented by Amendments which will be moved in another place and that those Amendments should come to us and we shall be given a reasonable chance of examining them in the light of the promises made to us. Would that be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman?
    9.8 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I certainly agree. With regard to the points that we said we would consider, perhaps I might be able to confer with the right hon. Gentleman. So far as we have given undertakings, whatever form they take, we shall carry them out. I think the best plan would be, if it suits the right hon. Gentleman, that to-morrow he should have a talk with me, and then we should adopt the procedure suggested, namely, that the changes, if changes are to be made, will be made in another place.
    Mr. Pritt: As the right hon. Gentleman's main Amendment is now before us, may I, in order to get something on record, ask him to consider this point? Now that this right has been conferred by the proviso, may we take it that if, out of the blue, a man gets a notice of expulsion, he shall be given a statement informing him that he has the rights that are mentioned in the Secretary of State's new words. That is to say, that if he objects that there are no grounds or that there are unsufficient grounds for the charge, he may make application.
    9.10 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. That relieves us from the difficult' of discussing the Amendment which the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has handed in to that effect. It is our intention to incorporate the effect of that Amendment in Clause 1 (5), and at the same time to implement the promise I made that we will also incorporate something in Sub-section (5) which will enable an indication to be given to the person who is served with an order that he is in fact believed to be concerned with preparation, instigation or harbouring, as the case may be, which are the provisions of Sub-section (2).
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 3, line 2, leave out "has been made," and insert "is in force."
    In line 5, after "but," insert "subject as hereinafter provided."
    In line 7, at the end, add:
    "Provided that no person shall without his consent be so placed on board ship as aforesaid until after the expiration of forty-eight hours from the service upon him of notice of the order made against him or if he makes representations to the Secretary of State in accordance with the last foregoing Sub-section until after the decision of the Secretary of State with respect thereto has been notified to him."—[Sir S. Hoare.]
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. Benn; I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, at the end, to add:
    "(3)This Section shall have effect only in cases where some other country in which such person can reasonably reside without endangering his liberty is willing to receive him."
    I should like to ask what the Government intend to do with the man who has nowhere to go. I understand that four men who have been convicted came from Northern Ireland. Suppose you propose to deport some men to Northern Ireland and the Government of Northern Ireland say that they do not want them. Suppose their home town will not have them? What is to be done with them? Are they to be subjected to imprisonment or internment? That is the difficulty that I visualise in this Amendment. I do not know whether Eire will take back the people whom the Home Secretary may wish to send there. I am trying to

    1585
    foresee some of the difficulties that may arise. Suppose the difficulty does arise and Eire will not take them and the North of Ireland will not take them. It looks as if we shall be obliged to have some form of internment. Once we have an internment camp for people of this kind, people of passionate fanaticism, then all kinds of trouble will arise. I should be sorry for the Home Secretary if he had to intern people who had not been subjected to trial, not subjected to any charge, or convicted, but who were kept prisoners in a country they hated. That would have the worst possible effect on the future. Therefore, I move this Amendment to get some information from the Government as to what they intend to do with such persons.
    Sir S. Hoare: I certainly do not like the idea of internment and I hope very much that we shall be able to avoid having recourse to any such expedient.
    Mr. Benn: I hope the Home Secretary is not under the impression that I am advocating internment.
    Sir S. Hoare: Not at all. I have as much dislike to internment as the right hon. Member. The Bill is based upon the assumption that the countries of origin will take back their citizens, and I believe we shall find that they will do so. Whatever course we may have to take I prefer to base the Bill on that assumption, but if they do not do so, and on a large scale, we shall have to have a new Bill. If there is an individual case in which for some reason, perhaps because the man or woman is not accepted as a citizen and is voluntarily sent back here, having been deported, then we shall have to take into account the fact that a return is impossible.
    9.17 p.m.
    Mr. Logan: I think the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly justified in accepting the Amendment, because if the difficulty should arise that any of these countries refuse to accept these people, then he has an alternative which will enable him to deal with the matter. It is certainly an Amendment which would give him power to deal with a particular case. As I understand, Eire is not only making its own regulations, but that in the case of persons convicted there would not be any entry into Eire. Therefore,
    1586
    these people who have been put on board ship would be on the high sea. What is going to happen to them? The I.R.A. Rave been proscribed in Southern Ireland, and if we suspect these people, they are to be put on the first ship out. Where are they to go? If they are inhabitants of Eire and Eire refuses to accept them, where are they to go? If the Amendment is not accepted I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman is going to be in some difficulty in dealing with these cases.
    Mr. Benn: As I understand, the Home Secretary says that if these cases of refusal arise he will introduce a new Bill. In those circumstances I do not propose to press the Amendment.
    Sir S. Hoare: What I said was that the basis of the Bill is that the countries of origin will take back these people; if not we shall have to take other measures which might almost inevitably mean a new Bill. I think that the wise course is not to put anything into the Bill which would give the impression that the countries of origin will not take back their citizens.
    Mr. Benn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 3. —(Offences and penalties.)
    9.22 p.m.
    Mr. Harvey: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, after "fails," to insert "without reasonable cause."
    We all recognise that it is necessary there should be severe penalties for a breach of the order which is made, but I am sure the Government would not wish the penalty to fall upon someone who through no fault of his own was prevented from fulfilling the obligation within the time limit. There are several obvious cases in which this might happen, and where I am sure it is not the intention of the Home Secretary that any penalty should be imposed. A man might fall ill, be stricken down with grave influenza or some infectious illness, when it would be quite impossible for him to fulfil the terms of the Order. He may at the last moment be delayed by reason of the death of his wife or child, and in that case I do not think the delay of a week ought

    1587
    to be a ground for penalty. It may be a case of accident, a broken ankle, or a broken collar bone, which would make it difficult for him to get away. I am sure that the Home Secretary wishes to be merciful in cases of that kind, and I am certain that the insertion of these words would not interfere with the object of the Clause.
    9.24 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: While appreciating the sort of case which the hon. Member has in mind, I think it is better not to insert these words. First of all, there is the fact that the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General has to be obtained before further proceedings can be taken, and cases of sickness or accident would, of course, receive consideration. I think it is much better to leave the offence absolute, and, in the cases which the hon. Member has in mind, to rely on the ordinary safeguards which apply in many other cases. There are many other cases in which there may be a breach of the law but where it is quite plain that there is no culpability, and I think that we should take the same course in this matter.
    9.25 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: Would the Attorney-General deal with the case of a man who is quite willing but quite unable to find the means with which to go. A great number of these young men, particularly in the circumstances arising now as the result of these I.R.A. outrages, will probably be out of work. It may be that they have not the fare to get to Eire, America or anywhere else they may desire to go. What will you do in cases like that? If a case like that arises have you got that power or will you exercise some other power you may have to see that they get an opportunity of going by having a ticket presented to them?
    The Attorney-General: Provision will be made in exactly the same way as under the Aliens Act.
    9.26 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: The Attorney-General advances two reasons for not accepting this proposal. One of them is absolutely baseless. He says that you cannot institute the proceedings without the consent of the Law Officers. The Bill says that you cannot institute the proceedings without the consent of the Law Officers
    1588
    "except such as the court may think necessary by remand or otherwise to secure the safe custody of the person charged, but this Sub-section shall not apply to Scotland or to any prosecutions instituted by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
    The Director of Public Prosecutions institutes practically every prosecution of the slightest importance in the country. The fiat of the Attorney-General, therefore, simply does not exist. I do not suppose there will ever be a prosecution under this Section which is not instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions acts under the general instructions of the Attorney-General, but the Attorney-General is responsible.
    Mr. Pritt: That is even sillier. Most of us know that in many cases he consults the Attorney-General, but there is a well recognised form of protecting people from wrong prosecutions, and that is that it shall not be done without the fiat of the Attorney-General. He then has to make up his mind whether he will grant it. This is not that case. The Attorney-General so often gives us so bad a reason for something which may be good in itself that we do not know where we are.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.29 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out from "to," to "or," in line 18, and to insert "imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
    This Amendment deals with the term of imprisonment which the court may inflict under this Clause. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment, and, therefore, I beg to move it formally.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out "three," and to insert "four."
    The purpose of this Amendment is that the liability for imprisonment should be raised from three to four months. It is done to create a right of appeal.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to leave out "three," and to insert "four"

    1589
    This is exactly the same thing. It is not a right of appeal but the right to claim trial by jury.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4. —(Detention and identification of suspects, and searches.)
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after "he," to insert "reasonably."
    This deals with the right of search and similar matters. Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects of having committed an offence under this Act or any person whom he suspects to be a person against whom an expulsion order or a prohibition order has been made. I want to have the word "reasonably" inserted.
    Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:
    In page 3, line 39, after "he," insert "reasonably."
    In line 42, after the first "person," insert "so." —[Mr. Pritt.]
    The Chairman: The next Amendment I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).
    Mr. Benn: Do I understand that you are not calling the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and myself in page 4, line 1, setting a time limit on the period during which a suspect may be kept under arrest without warrant?
    The Chairman: That is so. I am not selecting it.
    Mr. Benn: Do I understand that you do not select any of the Amendments dealing with this point?
    The Chairman: No, that is not right. The Amendment in page 4, line 2, which I am calling, is the second of two Amendments of a similar effect.
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 2, at the end, insert:
    "Provided that no such person shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours except with the authority of the Secretary of State expressly given in each case."—[Mr. Pritt.]
    9.34 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out "or in any other place."
    The purpose of this Amendment is a simple one. I am not urging the Secretary of State to tie himself to this particular Amendment, but I do think that to give the Minister power to detain a person affected by this Measure anywhere—the words are "may be detained in any prison or in any other place" —gives much too general a description. I am not attempting to bar the use of a police station or any authorised place of detention. I understand that in some of the courts there are recognised places where aliens under sentence of deportation can be detained. I do not for a moment object to the use of such places for this type of case, but to give to the police the power to keep prisoners in any unauthorised or secret place seems to me to be a very great departure which I am sure goes outside the intention of the Home Secretary. I would rather that the right hon. Gentleman would agree to insert in the Clause some words that would make that quite impossible.
    9.36 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: I can give the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) an assurance that will, I think, satisfy him. The words "or in any other place "mean a police station, I am informed, and nothing else. They mean also that if it was necessary to keep a person in custody for two or three days while representations were being heard, arrangements for his removal to a prison would be made, so that he could be kept only in a police station or in prison. I agree with everything which the hon. Member said about the grave objections to having any place of confinement other than police stations and prisons. I will look into the wording and see whether, in another place, it can be made more clear that that is so.
    9.37 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: It seems to me to be a great pity that, if a police station is meant, that is not said. After all, when in this Committee we allude to another place, we certainly do not mean a police station.
    Sir S. Hoare: I have said that I will look into the wording.
    Mr. Ede: There is another point that I want to raise. Is any notification to be sent to the relatives, if known, of the person who is arrested, of the fact that he has been arrested and the place of his incarceration, whether temporary or permanent? As the right hon. Gentleman has admitted more than once, we are dealing with an exceptional Measure. There are, of course, instances at the present time where the police of other States visit a person, take him away, and his relatives and friends have no knowledge of where he is, and do not know anything about him. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to make a provision which may place citizens of this country in that very difficult position merely on the suspicion of a police constable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that, as soon as possible after arrest, the relatives, if known, will be notified of the man's arrest and informed of the place of incarceration.
    Sir S. Hoare: Certainly, I will look into that point, and I do not think I shall find myself in disagreement with what the hon. Member has said. I do not think the question arises specifically on this Amendment, but I undertake to look into it.
    Mr. Maxton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.40 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out "justice of the peace," and to insert "Judge of the High Court."
    The object of this Amendment is to make a search warrant dependent on the decision of a judge of the High Court and not a justice of the peace. In drafting a number of these Amendments, I have simply gone through the Incitement to Disaffection Act and found out where this Bill is, from the point of view of search warrants, more rigorous or looser, whichever way one puts it, than the Incitement to Disaffection Act; and nearly all these Amendments have derived from that examination. I know that it is the right hon. Gentleman's desire to hasten, and judges of the High Court are, by the very nature of their important office, available in London and elsewhere. It may be that the difficulty
    1592
    of location is troubling the right hon. Gentleman, but the trouble is that there are so many different kinds of justices of the peace.
    9.41 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: An exception was made in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Act. In a very large number of Acts, the search warrant is issued by justices of the peace. I do not want to revive old controversies about the Incitement to Disaffection Act, but certain misapprehensions, which happily proved to be unfounded, were then expressed which led to that exception to the general rule being made. I advise the Committee to stick to the ordinary constitutional precedent of having search warrants issued by justices of the peace, particularly having regard to the very great urgency which there may be in some cases. It is the search warrant that has enabled most of the 64 cases where convictions have been obtained to be brought before the court. This is the normal procedure for search warrants, and I recommend the Committee to stick to it.
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I know something about the introduction of the provision regarding a judge of the High Court in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, because it was I who drafted the Amendment that was carried. I would like now to suggest that the Government should compromise on this matter, and that instead of the reference being to one justice of the peace, it should be to two justices of the peace. That would make the position correspond to what would be the case in Scotland, where it is the sheriff. [Interruption.] In Scotland, the sheriff corresponds to practically a bench of magistrates here. I think the Government ought to consider this suggestion. The fact that the assent of two justices of the peace rather than one justice of the peace had to be obtained would give a certain weight to the action, and there would not be the same tendency to act irresponsibly.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 18, leave out "procuration," and insert "instigation."ߞ[Sir S. Hoare.]
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, after "is," to insert, "knowingly."
    Mr. Benn: I should like to raise a point on this Amendment. I am concerned with the position of a man who finds himself landed with an order, is not told why the order is made against him, and knows himself to be perfectly innocent. I want to know what his position will be. Supposing that a man comes to my house or to the house of my agent and says, "I am an Irishman, I have received an order to leave, but I am innocent." I may say or my agent may say, "I will make representations to the Home Office and in the meantime you may stay the night here." Is that to be considered as harbouring a man against whom it is known that an order has been served, and can a search warrant be issued in that case? As I have said already, I do not want to stand in the way of this Bill. If it can get at the people who are committing these crimes, then let that be done, but do not let us, because we are afraid to examine the Bill in detail, pass all sorts of powers which may lead to great injustice.
    9.46 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: The words, if this Amendment is accepted, will be "who, knowingly, is harbouring any other person so concerned." The justice of the peace would, of course, make up his mind on the information before him, but he has to be satisfied that it is a case of knowingly harbouring a person concerned in the preparation of such acts of violence.
    Mr. Benn: That means to say that the justice would have the power in a case such as I have mentioned, to issue a search warrant. If a person on whom an order had been served went to a friend and asked for his assistance to get in touch with the local Member of Parliament and have his case put to the Home Office, and if the friend asked that man to stay at his house, he would be knowingly harbouring a person on whom an order had been served and his house could be searched.
    The Attorney-General: The person has to be a person "concerned in the preparation of such acts of violence" and not a person on whom an order has been served. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the case not of a person concerned in the
    1594
    preparation of acts of violence, but a person against whom an order has been wrongly made. I think that, on the whole, these words are favourable to the case which he has put forward.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.48 p.m.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, after "may," to insert:
    "on an application made by an officer of police of a rank not lower than that of inspector."
    Sir S. Hoare: I accept this Amendment. Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "any," to insert "such."
    This Amendment is consequential.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think this is consequential. This would mean that an officer of a rank not lower than that of inspector would have to be present whenever a search warrant was executed. That we do not regard as administratively practicable.
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: I am afraid I misled my hon. and learned Friend by telling him that this was consequential. I recognise that it is no good having a search warrant unless you can serve it quickly, but in connection with these searches abuses may and sometimes do arise, and it is not a very strong requirement to say that it must be done by an officer of a certain rank.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 27, after "time," insert "within one month from the date of the warrant."ߞ[Mr. Pritt]
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that if a search warrant under this Act has been executed on any premises it shall be the duty of the officer of police who has conducted or directed the search to notify the occupier that the search has taken place, and to supply him with a list of any documents or other objects which have been removed from the premises, and where any documents or other objects have been removed from any other person to supply that person with a list of such documents or other objects."
    These words I have taken from the Incitement to Disaffection Act in this

    1595
    country. Even in Germany, when it was a civilised country, they had very strict rules of this kind and they were carried out even in periods of the greatest stress. Young men who are provided, I suppose, with more explosives than money, and who come from another country to cause trouble here, are generally to be found, one presumes, in lodging houses and similar places where many different kinds of people, having no particularly close ties with each other, are also to be found. These people will have all sorts of miscellaneous bits of property. When the police have gone some things may be missing and I can well imagine Mr. A alleging that Mr. B's missing property must have been taken by the police and this leading to a breach of the peace and further legal proceedings. If it is necessary to carry out a search in a hurry, let it be carried out in a hurry, but at any rate tell these people many of whom are not even charged with or suspected of any offence, what you have stolen from them.
    9.53 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: If in the execution of a search warrant, the police did steal something, they would be liable to the ordinary process of the criminal law just the same as anybody else. All that the search warrant entitles an officer to do is to take articles which he has reasonable ground of suspecting to be evidence in relation to these matters. If he takes any article which he has no reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of these matters, he is just as much liable as anybody else who takes an article which he is not entitled to take. The hon. and learned Member said these words were taken from the Incitement to Disaffection Act. Again, I do not want to raised old controversies, but it was suggested that the search warrant under that Act might be used to search peoples' libraries. I do not think that arises at all in connection with this Bill.
    There is an additional reason why this Amendment would be undesirable. The police might find documents the nature of which it would be extremely desirable to keep secret. If this Amendment were passed they would be compelled to give to the occupier who might not himself be involved, particulars of all the documents which had been found.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. Leslie: I should have thought the Minister would have been more reasonable in this matter. We all know that the Irish are extremely clannish and that young Irishmen like to lead a communal life. The result is that quite a crowd of them will board together. Imagine what may happen. The police make a raid and ransack the belongings of the inmates of a house, taking away papers and other things, and no list of the articles is left behind. A man gets a summons, and he may or may not accept the statement that the police have ransacked his belongings and taken his goods away. You can imagine what might happen in a boarding house. Surely it is not too much to expect that when the police ransack the belonging of the individuals in that house, they should give a list stating that they have been there and taken from the house certain articles, so that nobody else would be suspected of doing what the police have done. Surely that is a reasonable request.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.57 p.m.
    Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, m page 4, line 34, to leave out "it appears to."
    This Amendment goes with the next Amendment to line 35, and is one which, in my submission —
    The Attorney-General: We are prepared to accept these Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 35, after "superintendent," insert "has reasonable grounds for believing." —[Sir R. Acland.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5. —(Short title, and duration.)
    9.59 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, to leave out "two years," and to insert "one year."
    It is one of the excuses, if I may so call them, for this Bill that it is purely temporary, and everybody hopes that the trouble will be long over past within two years or even one year. As it is so very exceptional a matter, I submit that it would be very much better that we should show that we are not unduly perturbed by these matters, and that this Measure

    1597
    is very temporary, by making its duration one year only. If at the end of the year there is still trouble, the Government will then have to put it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. It would be a simple matter, if they found it necessary, to put the Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If the Amendment were accepted, at least it would mean that at the end of 12 months we should certainly have an opportunity of reviewing in this House the whole operation of the Bill. I know that an Amendment has been accepted under which a report is to be made to this House every three months as to the number of persons who have been dealt with under the Measure. That does not take us very far, because, of course, the number of occasions which we shall have for discussing these reports will be limited, and the reports may not tell us a great deal, but if this were carried, it would mean that at the end of 12 months we could have a full discussion on the way in which these exceptional powers have worked. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Bill regrets having to ask for powers of this kind, and he would not have done so but for these exceptional circumstances. I think it would help to reconcile many of us to the fact that these powers have to be given if they could be passed only for the shortest possible time.
    10.2 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: I would like to associate myself with this Amendment and to appeal strongly to the Home Secretary. I think it would be the general view of the Committee that if this Bill has not produced its results at the end of 12 months, it is not a case of asking for its continuance for another 12 months. Obviously, it is then up to the Home Secretary and to this House to devise some other way of dealing with the problem. Therefore, a 12-months duration for this particular Measure seems to me to be completely adequate and, indeed, more than enough. Members will look forward with very great hope, although many doubts have been expressed to the Home Secretary, that these additional powers will have put a stop to this sort of thing in much less than 12 months,
    1598
    but if they have not done so then, it is no good continuing the powers, and the right hon. Gentleman will have to get something else.
    10.3 p.m.
    Sir S. Hoare: I think the Committee ought to remember, first of all, that the powers in this Bill will be exercised only if they are needed. If it is found that the terrorists' attempts are coming to an end, and that we have succeeded in a short time in getting rid of the most dangerous conspirators, quite obviously the powers will tend to diminish and fade out altogether. It will come to this, that the powers in the Bill will be exercised only if they are needed. Secondly, the Committee ought to remember, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has just reminded us, that I have undertaken to make a periodical report to the House on the cases of deportation. Taking these two facts into account, I think the Committee have every necessary safeguard against the powers in this Bill being exercised in an abusive way, or being exercised for a longer period than they are needed. I further think that I should be misleading the Committee tonight if I told them that we could safely reduce the duration of this Measure to 12 months. I hope we shall get level with the danger during 12 months. I do not wish to be either sanguine or pessimistic, but looking at the gravity of the problem with which we are faced, I think two years is the minimum that the Committee ought to put in the Bill today, taking the assurance from me that these powers will not be exercised a day longer than they are actually required.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    10.5 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: I wonder whether the Attorney-General could clear up a point that was raised earlier by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) as to the duration of orders. The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed the view that, although the Act might come to an end in two years, nevertheless orders made under it would continue. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has had time further to consider the matter. If so, perhaps he would enlighten us.
    The Attorney-General: I think it is clear that an order ceases to be of effect when the Act comes to an end. There cannot be an order under an Act which has come to an end.
    Mr. Foot: Clause 2 says:
    "Any person on whom notice of an expulsion order or of a prohibition order made against him has been served shall leave Great Britain in accordance with the requirements specified in the notice."
    It might conceivably happen that one of the requirements specified in the notice would be a time limit. If the Attorney-General says that is not the intention, I accept it, but a time limit might be included there and the time might ran beyond the duration of the Act.
    The Attorney-General: As I read the Bill, an order cannot be an order for a specific period. It is an order which, on the face of it, would not name a period. It remains in force until revoked by an order made in like manner under Clause I (6). Therefore, when the Act comes to an end, the order ceases to be in force. …Clause 2 (i) says:
    "and shall thereafter while the order is in force remain outside Great Britain."
    Mr. Gallacher: Then are we to understand that the position is that a person who is ordered to leave the country and does not go can be sentenced to five years' imprisonment but, if he does go, he is only put out of the country for two years and at the end of two years he can come back again?
    The Attorney-General: I have stated the position as clearly as I can. I do not think there is any point in stating it again.
    Mr. Gallacher: I think it ought to be clearly stated that people who are deported are deported for two years, and that at the end of two years they will be permitted to come back.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to repeal Act.)
    If a resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament for the repeal of this Act, it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council by Order to repeal this Act to such extent as may be specified in the Resolution.—[Mr. Benn].
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.12 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    1600
    This Clause permits a Motion to be made in either House for the repeal of the Act. In taking the very great powers that he is taking, the Home Secretary has always told us that it is here that his actions may be controlled, and that he is going to make a report, how full we do not know, of cases in which he deports people by his signature under the Act. I am very anxious that the House should have an opportunity, if it so desires, to call the right hon. Gentleman to account and to ask him what he has done under the powers conferred upon him. We may want to know what success he has had, or it may be that we shall want to criticise cases in which we think he has inflicted injustice. The Clause means that any day any Member of Parliament may put down on the Paper a notice of Motion for the repeal of the Act. Unless, of course, he has the support of a majority of the House the Act will not be repealed, but the Motion has this merit that, being made in pursuance of the Statute, under the Standing Order it is exempted business, and therefore he is certain to get an opportunity of presenting to the House the issue of the administration of the Act. I think the Amendment will commend itself to Members in all parts of the House, and I do not imagine that the Government will resist it.
    Sir S. Hoare: I am very reluctant to oppose a proposal of this kind, but I do not very much like it. I will not go as far as to say that it is harmful or dangerous, but it is almost a new precedent. I do not much like introducing these new forms of procedure into our Parliamentary practice. As far as I am concerned, I do not mind the conduct of the Secretary of State in the administration of this Measure being called into account at any time, but I should like the views of one or two other hon. Members before adopting a practice that is practically new in our Parliamentary annals.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I think this is one of the most inhuman proposals one could conceive. There is already plenty of exempted business in this House. One of the curses of Parliamentary life is that one never gets enough sleep, and that there should be more exempted business is a terrible prospect. Seriously, exempted business is one of the banes of Parliamentary life, and I hope the House will reject the proposal.
    10.15 p. m
    Mr. Bellenger: The Home Secretary has asked us for expressions of opinion. He did not ask. I think, for such an expression of flippant opinion as has just been given by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Nicholson: It was serious.
    Mr. Bellenger: My right hon. Friend who put forward this proposal did it in all seriousness, and he did it, I should imagine, in response to suggestions made by the Home Secretary himself that he was quite prepared to accept any proposal to make this Measure as workable and as amenable to all opinions in the House as possible. He has told us that he takes full responsibility for this Bill. Many of us do not like some of the provisions embodied in it, although we realise the purpose of it, and therefore when my right hon. Friend, in explaining this new Clause, says it is drawn up expressly for the purpose of calling upon the Home Secretary to give an account of his stewardship, surely that is sufficient to commend it to the Committee. Unless there are much more substantial objections than that of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) I think there is no argument against it.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: I think that one thing we ought to guard against is redundant legislation, and if the Home Secretary gives a promise that he will make a report every three months it will be quite possible for hon. Members to put down a Motion condemning the Home Secretary for any shortcomings which they felt there had been in the working of the Measure.
    10.17 p.m.
    Sir R. Acland: The Government, who have been extraordinarily reasonable to us in the last hour or so, have frequently asked us to accept the fact that they are going to administer this Measure as reasonable men, and on the whole I think that they cannot complain that we have refused to accept their assurances. Then, I would ask, cannot they accept our assurances that we, desiring sleep as much as any hon. Member opposite, will also avail ourselves of the opportunities given under this proposed new Clause as reasonable beings, and if nothing is happening except that the Home Secretary is administering this Measure against criminals with all
    1602
    due diligence, make no use of this power? Cannot they accept our assurance that use will only be made of it when there may be very real grounds for doing it when a great number of people are questioning whether the law is being properly administered or not? In such circumstances I should have thought the Government would have welcomed as much as we would welcome an opportunity of having what would be only a brief discussion, perhaps between half-post Eleven and Twelve o'clock at night. I submit to the Home Secretary that he could do himself no harm and a great deal of good by accepting this new Clause and by trusting us as he has asked us to trust him.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Sir Percy Harris: On a point of Order. I must protest about that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I quite appreciate that the matter is urgent and I am not objecting to the Report stage being taken, on the understanding that we can put in our Amendments. We have them already drafted ready to hand in. They are not obstructive Amendments but are of a constructive kind, and before the Third Reading is taken I suggest that these Amendments be considered on the Report stage.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Baronet is putting the Chair in a somewhat difficult position because the Amendments could not be considered and selected at such short notice.
    Sir R. Acland: We appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you are in a very difficult position. We realise that we have put in two manuscript Amendments and that we are thus putting the Chair in a difficulty, but the House itself is put in a difficulty by the speed of the procedure. In order to do my best to obviate the difficulties of the Chair I took the precaution of putting in these two Amendments and of taking a copy of them informally to your office so that there

    1603
    would be an opportunity for you to consider whether they were Amendments that should be selected or not.
    10.22 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: Further to the point of Order. I have had an opportunity, which I gather that you, Mr. Speaker, have not had, of seeing the two Amendments that are proposed. They deal with points which were fully discussed on the Committee stage, and it seems to me that one of the objections to them was the same as to the Amendments which were put down on the Committee stage. The Amendments really seek a new discussion of matters which were discussed on the Committee stage.
    Sir R. Acland: As I submitted in my informal note to you, Sir, the Amendments obviate and get rid of the two principal objections which the Government raised to two Amendments to which all Members on this side of the House attach very great importance. Therefore the Amendment which I would move could not be a re-discussion of matters already discussed. They are drafted so as to make it impossible for the Government to raise again those matters of principle and of objection which they raised on the Committee stage.
    10.23 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: Surely this is a matter of general and considerable importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not think there is any question of obstruction on either side. We have had a very long discussion which has gone through very well, but the Report stage is a vital stage. The Bill has been extensively amended. The actual number of Amendments has been very large. There are outstanding matters which the Government have undertaken to consider, and probably they will have to deal with them in another place rather than here. The proposal now is that the Report stage should be purely nominal and that no one who wants to put down an Amendment on the Report stage can do so. He is merely to be told that he cannot do so. I suggest that that is hardly the right way to preserve the liberties of Members of this House. Even if it is only for the purpose of marking that those rights do exist, and without spending much time upon it to-night, could you not, Mr.
    1604
    Speaker, suspend the sitting for a quarter of an hour, so that any necessary examination of the hon. Baronet's Amendment could be made and we could then have a real Report stage?
    Sir P. Harris: Last week I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I attach a very great importance to having a separate day for the Report stage so that Amendments could be put down. The Prime Minister in his statement to-day said that if necessary he would postpone the Report stage till to-morrow and take it after Eleven O'Clock. We accepted that proposal in principle. We realise, however, the great urgency of the Bill, and for that reason we acquiesce in the Report stage being taken now, but we suggest that in the circumstances we should have a chance to discuss these Amendments on Report, which would not cause unnecessary delay.
    10.25 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): As the hon. Baronet will realise, it is not for me to say what is or is not in order on the Report stage. At Question Time to-day the Prime Minister made a statement as to the urgency of the Bill, but said that, if the proceedings were very protracted, it would not be reasonable to ask the House to take the remaining stages of the Bill at a very late hour. I do not think, however, that it can be said that we have reached such a very late hour that we are not in a position to complete our consideration of the Bill to-night. It is a very urgent and important Bill.
    Sir P. Harris: The reason for its having gone through so quickly is that we have all been so helpful, and, therefore, I would suggest, if it is in order and if you, Mr. Speaker, have no objection, we might be allowed to discuss these Amendments, which would not take very long.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet was kind enough to send me a copy of the Amendments which it was proposed to put down on Report, and I understand that they were very fully discussed during the Committee stage. We are working in rather urgent circumstances in passing this Bill, and, that being the case, I have no doubt that the House will assist me. I think that as a matter of fact my predecessor in the Chair had already put the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," and I do not see how

    1605
    we can go back on it. I do not know whether the Home Secretary would be prepared to give an undertaking that the points in question will be considered in another place.
    Sir S. Hoare: Certainly, I will give that undertaking at once. Indeed, I gave a similar undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman opposite earlier in the discussion. Perhaps I might be allowed to say, further, that, so far as I was concerned, I was ready to deal with any Amendments that might be called, but that was a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Maxton: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make the same offer to the hon. Members responsible for these Amendments as he made to the right hon. Gentleman, that is to say, to discuss the matter with them in preparing the Amendments for another place?
    Sir S. Hoare: I am not sure whether that is a point of Order or not, but, if I may be allowed to say so, the difference between the two cases seems to me to be that in the case of these two Amendments we had already discussed and had voted against Amendments to a similar effect, whereas in the case raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite there had been no decision, but the Amendments had been withdrawn on the understanding that they would be considered.
    10.29 p.m.
    Sir R. Acland: We voted against other Amendments and defeated them because the Government gave reasons why the Amendments which we were then discussing were unacceptable to them. These Amendments which I am asking leave to discuss are specially drawn so as to meet and concede the very points which the Government are raising, and I submit that they could be disposed of in a quarter of an hour's, or perhaps half an hour's discussion. In answer to the point on which I think you based your final Ruling against us. may I say that it was my ignorance of the Procedure of the House that placed me at a disadvantage? At the moment when the Deputy-Chairman was calling the Report stage, I was doing what I understood to be the right thing, namely, handing in the Amendments at the Table, instead of moving them in manuscript form.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On that point of Order. Your predecessor, Sir, distinctly called the Third Reading, not the Report stage. Therefore, I cannot see that this discussion can have any effect.
    Mr. Harvey: Would you have allowed this discussion, Sir, had it not been possible to consider these Amendments? Surely the fact that you have allowed the discussion shows that it is possible.
    Mr. Benn: We certainly agree that the Report stage and Third Reading should be taken to-night, but I should be very sorry if advantage were taken of that to establish a precedent for having a Report stage which is no Report stage, and for the hon. Baronet not to be allowed to move his Amendments because of some arrangement which has been made. I heard you say, Sir, that you regard this as an exceptional case, because of some emergency. If no precedent has been created, I would accept the position that there is no infringement of the rights of the House.
    Mr. Foot: The second of the Amendments which we proposed to move dealt with a matter which has not been fully discussed: the question of the 20 years. We wanted to draw a distinction between issues which the Home Secretary will have to decide generally under the Bill and the issue of 20 years' residence, which we believe is a matter capable of exact proof. Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider that, and to consider allowing that question—and that question alone—to be decided by a judge?
    Mr. Speaker: We had better get on with the Third Reading. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    10.33 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: We have lived through a tragic day. There is something to be said for this House when it is able to consider reasonably the question of the rights of the individual at a time when we are preparing to give the Government these powers. We do not propose to Divide on the Third Reading; we do not wish to prevent the Government having this Bill, but let them not forget that these powers have been given to them at the risk, as we believe, of the infringement of liberties which are very dear to us all
    Sir S. Hoare: I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about the proceedings this afternoon. I think the House of Commons has shown up very well. If we compare our proceedings with the kind of action which would have taken place in some parts of the world, when we consider what has taken place this afternoon, we can still say that the Mother of Parliaments is indeed one of the greatest institutions of the world. Credit for that is due not so much to the Government as to the whole House, and I take the opportunity to thank both the Oppositions for the way these proceedings have been conducted. They have had their doubts about the action that the Government are taking, they have expressed them. I have tried to meet them as best I can, but I am afraid that some of those doubts still exist. I will do my best, so long as I am responsible for the administration of this Act, to show that their doubts are unjustified and to see that innocent people are not unjustly treated under the provisions of this Measure. So far as specific points raised by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are concerned, I did nothing to prevent them having whatever discussions they wished. It is a matter of Order for the Chair, but I will look into the points which they have raised, and will treat them exactly as I promised to treat other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I will see if there is any way in which their views can be met. I am not giving any pledge that I can do it, but I will look into it again, and, if possible, will see that steps are taken in another place. With these few words let me once again thank the House for having so carefully expedited the proceedings on this Bill and congratulate Members on all sides upon the way in which they have dealt with it.
    10.36 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance that he has just given to us. He will appreciate that we in this part of the House are bound to regard with the very greatest suspicion any Bill of this kind proposing to confer emergency powers and setting aside the ordinary safeguards for the rights and liberties of the citizen. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use these powers, as he
    1608
    has said, with the greatest care, that he will take every possible step to see that innocent men are not exiled, or prevented from entering this country under the Act, and also that he will discontinue the use of these powers as soon as circumstances allow. Having said that, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way and the spirit in which he has met some of the Amendments which have been put forward this afternoon.

  BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS BILL.
  As amended(in the Select Committee and on re-committal) considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: We do not know what has been happening, as it has been quite impossible to hear during the last few minutes what stage we have reached. There are a few words that I desire to say on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill, if that is the position which we have now reached.
  Mr. Speaker: I have put the Question, but the hon. Member can raise his point.
  Mr. Mander: At the end of the Debate last night on the Third Schedule dealing with compensation to employés who may be discharged, the Secretary of State for Air was good enough to say that he would give careful consideration to certain representations which I had made arising out of the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee. I can quite appreciate that it may well be that he has not yet had time to do that in the very short period which has elapsed since yesterday. But if he has, I shall be glad if he can give the House the result of his consideration, and, if not, perhaps he will indicate that it will be done in another place, or that when the Bill comes back from another place he will do so. I should be quite satisfied, and I think that all reasonable views could be met, if he were able to make a statement that in the event of any of these persons being,

  1609
  contrary to expectations, discharged, he will use all his influence and power with the directors of the new corporation to see that sympathetic treatment is given to these people, and that they will be given, in fact, more in the way of compensation than that to which they might be strictly entitled on a legal basis. Unless he is able to do that, he is not making any concession. I hoped that he would be able to say something upon the matter now.
  10.40 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I do not think I can add anything to what I said to my hon. Friend last night, but if between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place he will consult me and supply me with any further information, I will have it considered and see what can be done. I think he will agree that I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of the Select Committee and the desires of the House on this Bill. I think the hon. Member is the only one with whom I had any difference in regard to this particular problem.
  Mr. Mander: No. It was raised by another hon. Member.
  Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will consult with me between now and the next stage. He knows that I shall be only too glad to confer with him.

  SUPPLY [25TH JULY].
  Resolutions reported:

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1939.
  ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
  1. "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 clay of March, 1940 beyond the number already provided in the Army Estimates for the year."

  ARMY SERVICES.
  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not ex ceding 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.

  £'

  £

  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 ex-ceding 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,

  9. Warlike stores -

  Cr.5,906,000

  14.,394,000

  10. Works, buildings and lands -

  Cr.2,593,900

  31,777,900

  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

  AIR SUPPLIMENTRY ESTIMATE 1939
  ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF AIR FORCES.
  3" 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 aboard, excluding those on the Indian establishment during the year ending on the 31st day of march, 1940 beyond the number already provide in the air Estimates for the year."

  1611
  4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ioo, 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.

  £

  £

  (1) Pay, c., 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 -

  Cr4,500,000

  23,500,000

  (4) Works, buildings and repairs-

  —

  16,000,000

  (7) Reserve and Auxiliary Forces

  900,100

  —

  (9) Meteorological and miscellaneous effective services -

  500,000

  —

  Total, Air (Supplementary), 1939 £

  100

  40,000,000

  Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Clifton Brown in the Chair.]

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.

  ADDITIONAL NUMBER FOR THE NAVY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an additional number, not exceeding 12,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines, be employed for the Sea Service, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940,beyond the number already provided in the Navy Estimates for the year"
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Ammon: One finds it rather difficult to return to routine business after the discussion we have had in the House during the day. I want to raise a point which was referred to at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. J. H. Hall) concerning a very estimable body of men, naval
  1612
  pensioners, who are concerned about their position in the recent calling up. It is in order to get a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary, more than anything else to reassure these men, that I raise the point now. I am referring to people who have done their naval service. They have put in 22 years service, entitling them to full pension, which often means that they have done 25 years service, three years of which did not count for pension. They complain of being called up with the Reserve just now because they feel that having reached a certain time of life, nearly middle age, having done their full naval service and received their pensions, they are in positions which it would be very difficult for them to get back again if they should lose them by being called up.
  They complain that they have had no option to join the Reserve, that they have not got any retaining fee or clothing allowance. Some of them have written to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asking whether they are to be penalised because they have done 10 years more service than others. I know that these men in addition to receiving their pensions will receive full pay, and it will comfort them a bit if they can be assured that their services are fully appreciated. These men have given good service to the Navy, they are men of the highest character, and indeed, have been the backbone of our Navy. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why they have been called up and whether there is any real necessity considering that they already have done their full service. They are men well on in years, most of them in good positions, and they will be under a very great disadvantage if they lose their present positions by being re-called to the Navy.
  10.47 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): I must apologise to the hon. Member and to the Committee that unfortunately I was not in my place last night when the Navy Vote was reached, but I was engaged on official business outside, and could not get back in time. The hon. Member has raised a question of the inconvenience and perhaps hardship which will be suffered by a certain section of the men who are being called up, and

  1613
  who have done their full service. The hon. Member will realise that every officer and every naval rating joins under the full understanding that at the end of his term of service he is liable to be called up in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, we have tried to make the calling up as free from inconvenience as possible. They are to get their full pensions and full rate on active service and also an outfit allowance. The hon. Member has referred to the good spirit of these men. I should like to endorse what he has said. I am sure that the Board of Admiralty recognises, as does every Member who has served in the Board of Admiralty, how much this country owes to the reservists, who do suffer a great deal of inconvenience by being called up at a moment's notice. Many of them, have to make arrangements suddenly in connection with their families and businesses, their civil and social obligations, and when many of them have fixed their holidays. Then comes along this urgent summons requiring them to report on the 31st July. I am sure that the House and the nation will desire to express how much they appreciate the spirit of these men, their devotion to duty and their loyal service, and to say what added confidence the nation enjoys by reason of the fact that this Reserve Fleet is being put into commission. The confidence inspired by the mobilisation of this fleet of 130 vessels must show the pensioners and reservists what the country thinks of them.
  We will try to deal with cases of severe hardship, and we have instructed the commodores, in their own discretion, to deal with such cases. When these men report to their depots they can represent their cases through the usual channels, and the commodores have been given instructions to deal with exceptional cases by liberating these men. These men who are doing duty in August and September will feel that they are performing as great a service to their country as ever they have performed during their naval service.
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: I appreciate the opportunity which has occurred for the House to pay a tribute to the Reserve men who have been mobilised for the purpose of showing what is our Reserve strength. It is important that at this stage we should make it plain to our own countrymen,
  1614
  and to Europe, that the Reserve Fleet is there and is capable of action. It is from that point of view that we ought to recognise what amounts very often to a sacrifice by these men. I have received a number of communications from men in the Reserve, some of whom seem a little doubtful about their position. It is necessary to make clear to our naval pensioners that their contract for pensions in respect of long-term service connotes that they have a liability to be mobilised for a limited period in a time of national emergency. Until that is made clear perhaps there will be some continuing misunderstanding in the matter.
  I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has paid a tribute to these men, for the stiffening of our naval resources in time of emergency by these men is essential. I hope these men who have written to me, and whose names obviously cannot be revealed, will gather from these proceedings that their services are really appreciated. I hope there will be an opportunity on another occasion to say a word about the Fleet Supplementary Reserve. I understand that the Board of Admiralty have given attention to some of the grievances of the Supplementary Reserve, and I hope that the men will understand that their grievances are being attended to and that we want to get as large an amount of unity as we can in this service.
  I hope the publicity which the Press will give to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement will have that effect. In regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement on the acquisition of a considerable number of trawlers, which must be an auxiliary addition to the Fleet strength at the present time, I hope that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) and other hon. Members, that those men might possibly be faced with unemployment as a result of this acquisition, will be considered as far as possible in regard to their being absorbed into work for the Royal Navy. It would be very comforting if the Parliamentary Secretary could give an assurance that this will be considered.
  10.56 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I should like to say how anxious the people in Grimsby feel that these men should not be unem-

  1615
  ployed. I had an opportunity in a supplementary question this afternoon of pressing this point. I hope very much to hear that the question of their employment has been satisfactorily settled. There is one point I should like to raise with regard to the reservists. A good many of the reservists are small farmers and smallholders, and I hope that it may be possible to allow them to take their service a little later in the year, so that they can do their harvest.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to the points that have been raised, I should like to say a word or two with regard to the acquisition of 80 of the beat trawlers of our fishing fleets. Several hon. Members, I among them, have been pressing upon the Admiralty during the whole of this Parliament that they should take some measures with regard to preserving the strength of our auxiliary fishing vessels, and with regard to those who man them. I do not propose to give any figures, but I am certain that hon. Members would be shocked if I were to give a comparison of the number of patrol and auxiliary vessels available to the Navy at the present time and the number available during the last War. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that, by the acquisition of 80 trawlers, he has solved the problem of patrol and auxiliary vessels.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that we are now discussing Vote A and not the number of vessels.
  Mr. Garro Jones: With great respect to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, it is impossible to deal with patrol vessels without dealing with the men, or to deal with the men without dealing with the patrol vessels. If by merely switching from the number of vessels to the number of men, I shall thereby bring myself in order, I will do so immediately. I contend that it is impossible to get the men to man these vessels unless they are trained seamen, and they cannot be trained adequately on the type of vessels which are fishing round the ports at the present time. These 80 vessels represent the cream of the fishing fleets, and even so, they do not compare favourably with similar and
  1616
  corresponding vessels which are being built at the present time by Germany. I ask that, instead of purchasing the cream of our fishing fleet, the Admiralty should endeavour to promote some scheme of scrapping the worst and most inefficient vessels and building higher class vessels to take their place, thereby doing a splendid service both to the fishing industry and to the Navy.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. Shakespeare: I should like to give a brief assurance, and to thank the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) for adding his tribute to mine as regards the Reserve generally. It is our intention to take up these trawlers with as little inconvenience as possible to the fishing industry. We are not going to purchase the trawlers from one port or two ports; we are going to do it in such a way that it will have the least effect on the fishing fleet. We shall take the trawlers from all over the country. Our own view is that it will not diminish employment in the fishing community. In so far as we limit the number of trawlers there will be equivalent employment for the fishermen. I hope before the House rises to have an opportunity, perhaps at Question Time, of stating the terms of service which it is proposed to offer to the fishermen. We shall really be providing a new source of employment for fishermen who might otherwise be unemployed during the slack period. I assure hon. Members we have these matters very much in mind and I will bear in mind particularly the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones).
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock

  MILITARY POWERS (EXPENDITURE).
  MILITARY POWERS (EXPENDITURE).
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  HEALTH INSURANCE CARDS, ALFRETON.
  HEALTH INSURANCE CARDS, ALFRETON.
  ANTHRACOSIS.
  ANTHRACOSIS.
AVIATION.
  AIRSHIP TRIALS (PARACHUTES).
  AIRSHIP TRIALS (PARACHUTES).
  "CITY OF OTTAWA" (COURT OF INQUIRY).
  "CITY OF OTTAWA" (COURT OF INQUIRY).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYÉS (LEAVE).
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYÉS (LEAVE).
  PENSIONS.
  PENSIONS.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  RUM RATION.
  RUM RATION.
  OFFICERS.
  OFFICERS.
  AEROPLANES (CATAPULTS).
  AEROPLANES (CATAPULTS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  PEMBROKE AIE BASE.
  PEMBROKE AIE BASE.
  NEW ROAD SCHEME, ISLE OF SHEPPEY.
  NEW ROAD SCHEME, ISLE OF SHEPPEY.
  LOGIE-LETTEES ROAD, ROSS-SHIRE.
  LOGIE-LETTEES ROAD, ROSS-SHIRE.
  ROADS AND BRIDGES.
  ROADS AND BRIDGES.
  CIVIL AIE PORTS.
  CIVIL AIE PORTS.
  TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
  TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  COURTS OF REFEREES (PENSIONED CIVIL SERVANTS).
  COURTS OF REFEREES (PENSIONED CIVIL SERVANTS).
  JUVENILE ADVISORY COMMITTEES, SCOTLAND.
  JUVENILE ADVISORY COMMITTEES, SCOTLAND.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  AMERICAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS.
  AMERICAN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS.
  LAMPITS TRAINING CENTRE (HOSTEL STAFF).
  LAMPITS TRAINING CENTRE (HOSTEL STAFF).
  TRAFFIC, SOUTHWARK (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  TRAFFIC, SOUTHWARK (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DISPLAY, HENDON).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DISPLAY, HENDON).
  DAIRY CATTLE (INFECTION).
  DAIRY CATTLE (INFECTION).
  POOR LAW (TEST WORK, TREDEGAR).
  POOR LAW (TEST WORK, TREDEGAR).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COPPER GOODS (PRICE).
  COPPER GOODS (PRICE).
  RUSSIA (COPYRIGHT RECIPROCITY).
  RUSSIA (COPYRIGHT RECIPROCITY).
  RAW COTTON (IMPORT).
  RAW COTTON (IMPORT).
  TUNG-OIL TREES.
  TUNG-OIL TREES.
  FOREIGN SCISSORS (DUTY).
  FOREIGN SCISSORS (DUTY).
  COASTGUARD SERVICE (HOUSING).
  COASTGUARD SERVICE (HOUSING).
  TALKING FILMS.
  TALKING FILMS.
  FOREIGN SHIPPING SUBSIDIES.
  FOREIGN SHIPPING SUBSIDIES.
AGRICULTURE.
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  IMPORTED EGGS (MARKING).
  IMPORTED EGGS (MARKING).
  INTERNATIONAL VETERINARY BUREAU.
  INTERNATIONAL VETERINARY BUREAU.
FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FOREIGN VESSELS' OPERATIONS.
  FOREIGN VESSELS' OPERATIONS.
  LOCAL COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  LOCAL COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  PRIME MINISTER (AMERICAN VISIT).
  PRIME MINISTER (AMERICAN VISIT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  NAVAL POLICY (DOMINION GOVERNMENTS).
  NAVAL POLICY (DOMINION GOVERNMENTS).
  PETITIONER'S MEMORIAL.
  PETITIONER'S MEMORIAL.
SCOTLAND.
  LICENSING LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  LICENSING LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  PRIMARY SCHOOLS (ADVANCED DIVISIONS).
  PRIMARY SCHOOLS (ADVANCED DIVISIONS).
  IRISH LIGHTS SERVICE (SUPERANNUATED OFFICERS).
  IRISH LIGHTS SERVICE (SUPERANNUATED OFFICERS).
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WIDOW'S PENSION.
  WIDOW'S PENSION.
  NEED PENSIONS.
  NEED PENSIONS.
OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MEANS LIMIT.
  MEANS LIMIT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  TRUSTEE ACTS (RAILWAY STOCKS).
  TRUSTEE ACTS (RAILWAY STOCKS).
CHINA AND RUSSIA.
  RAILWAY CONTROL, MANCHURIA.
  RAILWAY CONTROL, MANCHURIA.
  SITUATION.
  SITUATION.
  RENT LEGISLATION, FRANCE (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  RENT LEGISLATION, FRANCE (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
POST OFFICE.
  LETTER DELIVERY, LLANDOVERY DISTRICT.
  LETTER DELIVERY, LLANDOVERY DISTRICT.
  RURAL TELEPHONES.
  RURAL TELEPHONES.
  FACILITIES, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  FACILITIES, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  PRINTED PAPER RATE.
  PRINTED PAPER RATE.
  ASSISTANT INSPECTORSHIPS OF POSTMEN, PLYMOUTH.
  ASSISTANT INSPECTORSHIPS OF POSTMEN, PLYMOUTH.
  BRITISH MUSEUM (CHIEF FIREMAN, APPOINTMENT).
  BRITISH MUSEUM (CHIEF FIREMAN, APPOINTMENT).
  KING'S ROLL.
  KING'S ROLL.
  CHILDREN IN INDUSTRY (EARNINGS).
  CHILDREN IN INDUSTRY (EARNINGS).
  FACTORY REGULATIONS (PREMISES, SHEFFIELD).
  FACTORY REGULATIONS (PREMISES, SHEFFIELD).
  PRISONERS.
  PRISONERS.
  RUSSIAN FILMS.
  RUSSIAN FILMS.
  SHOP HOURS.
  SHOP HOURS.
  HYDE PARK (POLICE PROSECUTIONS).
  HYDE PARK (POLICE PROSECUTIONS).
  COLONIAL OFFICE STAFF.
  COLONIAL OFFICE STAFF.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORT CREDITS (STATISTICS).
  EXPORT CREDITS (STATISTICS).
  CEYLON
  CEYLON
  GREAT BRITAIN, DOMINIONS AND JAPAN (TRADE AGREEMENTS).
  GREAT BRITAIN, DOMINIONS AND JAPAN (TRADE AGREEMENTS).
  ESTONIA (BRITISH TEXTILES).
  ESTONIA (BRITISH TEXTILES).
  HOGSKIN TANNING INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND.
  HOGSKIN TANNING INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND.
SCOTLAND.
  NEW INDUSTRIES, SPECIAL AREAS.
  NEW INDUSTRIES, SPECIAL AREAS.
  SCOTCRAFT FURNITURE, LIMITED, HLLLINGTON.
  SCOTCRAFT FURNITURE, LIMITED, HLLLINGTON.
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND AUSTRIA (BRITISH LOANS).
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND AUSTRIA (BRITISH LOANS).
  GRETNA GREEN SMITHY MUSEUM.
  GRETNA GREEN SMITHY MUSEUM.
TRANSPORT.
  EGHAM—SUNNINGDALE ROAD (ACCIDENTS).
  EGHAM—SUNNINGDALE ROAD (ACCIDENTS).
  LIGHTING OF VEHICLES.
  LIGHTING OF VEHICLES.
  BRENTFORD—KEW FERRY.
  BRENTFORD—KEW FERRY.
  LIME STREET RAILWAY STATION, LIVERPOOL.
  LIME STREET RAILWAY STATION, LIVERPOOL.
  TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
  TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
  CANALS (EMERGENCY CONTROL).
  CANALS (EMERGENCY CONTROL).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  BALLOON BARRAGE UNITS, LIVERPOOL.
  BALLOON BARRAGE UNITS, LIVERPOOL.
  AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ASSISTANCE (H. CLEAR, LEWISHAM).
  ASSISTANCE (H. CLEAR, LEWISHAM).
  INSURED WORKERS.
  INSURED WORKERS.
  BOYS.
  BOYS.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, CRICKLEWOOD.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, CRICKLEWOOD.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  VENTILATION.
  VENTILATION.
  REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF.
  REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  AMBULANCE DRIVERS.
  AMBULANCE DRIVERS.
  AUXILIARY NURSES.
  AUXILIARY NURSES.
  VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (WOMEN).
  VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (WOMEN).
  ROYAL NAVY (RETIRED OFFICERS AND RESERVISTS).
  ROYAL NAVY (RETIRED OFFICERS AND RESERVISTS).
  PALESTINE (REFUGEES).
  PALESTINE (REFUGEES).
  EMPIRE NEWS SERVICES.
  EMPIRE NEWS SERVICES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  DISCHARGE PURCHASES (STATISTICS).
  DISCHARGE PURCHASES (STATISTICS).
  MILITIA CAMPS.
  MILITIA CAMPS.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY RESERVE OF OFFICERS (BADGES).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY RESERVE OF OFFICERS (BADGES).
  ROYAL ARMY PAY CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY PAY CORPS.
  MILITIAMEN AND ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  MILITIAMEN AND ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  MEAT SUPPLIES.
  MEAT SUPPLIES.
  JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WITNESSES.
  JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WITNESSES.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD WOOLTON.
Sir Frederick James Marquis, Knight, having been created Baron Woolton of Liverpool in the County Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD GLENTORAN.
The Right Honourable Herbert Dixon, O.B.E., having been created Baron Glentoran of Ballyalloly in the County of Down—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
WAR RISKS INSURANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
HOUSE TO HOUSE COLLECTIONS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MINING INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Provisions as to negligent cultivation]:
3.24 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I would like if I may to address the Committee for a moment on the subject of Clause 4, not that I have any Amendment on the Paper, as your Lordships are aware, but in answer to a number of inquiries my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of the Second Reading debate, made one most interesting answer arising out of the criticisms which were made in the Second Reading debate upon Clause 4. He gave an assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that in certain circumstances the persons appointed by the Minister to exercise a general supervision over fertility could be approached by any landowner, agent or other person with an interest in the particular holding, requiring an inspection to be made. There was no opportunity, of course, on the occasion of the Second Reading, to speak again after the Parliamentary Secretary had finished, but I feel that the matter ought not to be left quite as it is.
My noble friend will, I think, realise at once that it would be very peculiar for a landowner, agent or other person interested in the holding, to make a complaint of this particular nature. In the first place, I think that the landowner would regard it as very undignified. In the second place there would be certain risks attaching to such a complaint being made if a landowner were to complain of his own tenant to a third party. The tenant might, not unnaturally, turn round after he had been refused the subsidy and express to the landowner his grave doubt as to whether he would in these circumstances be able to pay his rent. I fancy that that particular safeguard which was adumbrated by my noble friend is not likely to add very much to the safeguards which are essential in this Bill. No Amendment is on the Paper, and it would not be the intention, I think, of anyone interested in this particular subject to press the matter at the present juncture; but I feel that members of all parties—because this is a wholly

525
non-political matter—are so much impressed with the risks which are now being run, particularly in arable England, in respect of the entire and complete lack of control of bad farming, that they think something will shortly have to be done of an effective character by somebody to remedy what is so apparent to all concerned.
I imagine that the only effective way of doing that will be, sooner or later; and sooner I hope rather than later, to introduce a measure to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923. That is the only effective way of doing it, because at the present time and under this Bill which is before your Lordships' House, it is evident to all that the best that the Minister can do, however dissatisfied he may be of the strength of the reports that are made to him in regard to any particular individual claiming a subsidy, is to withhold the subsidy. That does not meet the case in the least. In all probability it only makes it more difficult for the individual from whom the subsidy is withheld to continue farming at all. Agriculture requires to-day that the man who is farming his land badly should be got rid of in order that he may be replaced by somebody both able and willing to farm the land better. Consequently, something far more comprehensive than that which is contained in this Bill will be required. I wish to ask for the indulgence of the Committee only for a moment to express my feelings upon this particular subject, because if no one had expressed what I have ventured to express it might perhaps be accepted within the industry that the reply of my noble friend was considered by the agricultural industry to be adequate to the occasion, whereas in point of fact, although it was the best that he could possibly say and the best, I think, that could be done under the framework of this Bill, it is not adequate, and something infinitely more drastic will be required quite soon.
3.29 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: I should like to intervene for a moment in support of the general case that the noble Lord has presented to the Committee. I confess I was exceedingly disappointed the other day when the noble Earl told us that the reports to the Minister would be made by
526
the staff crop reporters, and that apparently it was the intention of the Ministry to rely, so far as this particular clause is concerned, upon that type of report. While these gentlemen do their work very well as far as it goes, and have a great deal of work to do, really that machine is not appropriate for use for this purpose. We are now going to give considerable subsidies for the three main cereal crops and the wholesale deterioration of land that is going on has not been a bit exaggerated by the noble Lord. In fact I think he has understated the case. When we are spending these vast sums of public money I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to take some more effective powers to see that the money is being properly spent and that the land is being well used.
The Party with which I am associated take the view that it would be possible in every county or district—perhaps a district is better than a county—to set up an appropriate committee of knowledgeable, trustworthy, experienced men who would give advice and guidance on matters of this kind, which are essentially technical and which no mere outside person or reporter can possibly appreciate. We had county committees at the end of the War. Some of them operated better than others, I agree, but on the whole they did, I think, raise the general standard of husbandry. The noble Lord said that under existing Acts a landlord is practically helpless and we see in almost every arable county wholesale bleeding of the land and deterioration on a scale which I think is quite unappreciated by the mass of the people. I hope that the noble Earl will tell us, although it may not be possible in this Bill to propose anything more effective—it does not look as if it is possible—that the Government are proposing to set up some effective machinery to see that we get an improved standard of husbandry alongside this vast expenditure of public money.
3.33 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): When replying to the Second Reading debate on this Bill I indicated, in answer to a question by my

527
noble friend the Earl of Radnor, that the Government would give a definite assurance that in the case of any farmer who was to receive a subsidy under either the barley or oat subsidy proposals, a landlord or his representative, or an agricultural organisation could make representations either centrally to the headquarters of the Ministry or to the local officer of the Ministry, expressing a desire that an inspection should be made. My noble friend Lord Hastings has raised to-day a doubt as to the feasibility of a landowner in many instances being able to resort to that provision on account of the difficult relations that might ensue between landlord and tenant. I do not think there is real ground for apprehension on that account. It would be possible for any given landlord, first to make representations, as he at present does, with regard to the cultivation of any one of his tenants which he considered to be of a negligent character. If such a personal approach failed—many landlords know instances where it does fail—then, either with or without the knowledge and consent of the tenant concerned, he can write to the Ministry centrally or to the land commissioner for the district.
My noble friend Lord Addison, if I may call him such, has said that he is in doubt whether the three hundred crop reporters who are part-time officers of the Ministry can efficiently conduct these investigations and effect the remedy that is the underlying intention of Clause 4. As I endeavoured to point out in my reply to the Second Reading debate, if the report of a crop reporter is contested either by the farmer concerned or in certain instances I expect by the landowner, it will be for a full-time officer of the Ministry to go and make a second inspection. I believe that in such instances there would be ample safeguard for this work being done effectively and efficiently. I also stated briefly in the Second Reading debate that if it was found necessary in the future to appoint more crop reporters, or indeed more full-time officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture would take such steps as he thought necessary to see that the intention underlying Clause 4 was properly implemented.
With that specific assurance that I gave to your Lordships, which I now repeat, I
528
hope that the desire on all sides of your Lordships' House to see better cultivation of the land will in fact be realised. If not, if there are further instances on a large scale of cross-cropping, of white-straw crops being grown season after season, thus destroying the fertility of the land, then that will be a most fundamental and proper subject on which agriculturists, either within Parliament or outside, can raise the issue and see that further steps are adopted. I think that my noble friends Lord Hastings and Lord Radnor, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Addison, will agree that Clause 4 goes much further than the provision of inspection in the Agriculture Act, 1937. As subsidy payment can be withheld in the case of a farmer who grows oats or barley if it is proved that the land previously has lost its fertility on account of the growing of wheat, much of the harm that has previously existed will now be removed.
3.39 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I am very grateful to my noble friend for having given the further explanation and assurance he has given, but I am compelled to repeat that really this provision is inadequate to meet our point of view. It is inadequate by reason of the limitations of the Bill itself. The only penalty which can be inflicted is the withholding of subsidy payment upon oats or barley. If I may, I would like to draw attention to what was said by my noble friend Lord Cranworth on Monday. He said that if a man who was not farming well, who was over-cropping his land with oats and barley, got into trouble with the Ministry's officials on that account, all he had to do was to switch over to wheat farming when he would be perfectly clear from any kind of interference. That is an extraordinarily undesirable loophole to permit to any man already farming badly, and I am sure that, however well these inspectors do their duty, the limitations within which they are compelled to work will make it absolutely essential sooner or later for an Amending Bill to be introduced in respect of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, when the whole matter can be properly ventilated and dealt with.
The entire farming principle could be brought under the aegis of such a Bill. Anyone approaching the subject would be

529
very careful in the first place to be extremely cautious as to how the measure treated the freedom enjoyed by the Competent cultivator of the soil. That would naturally be the first desideratum. But, always bearing that in mind, there must sooner or later be statutory provision for dealing with the appalling wastage which is going on up and down the country and which will, I fear, cause in large measure the expenditure of the taxpayer to be brought to naught. I do not propose to pursue the subject any further except to wish the Ministry the very best of luck under the present Bill. I hope it will be as effective as the Parliamentary Secretary expects. I do not share his beliefs, but I do share his hopes.
3.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I appreciate the good wishes extended to me and His Majesty's Government by my noble friend. I would merely point this out to my noble friend as he has mentioned the eloquent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, in the Second Reading debate when he referred to the case of a farmer growing wheat upon wheat so as to avoid the cultivation provisions of this Bill and of the Agriculture Act, 1937. I would remind the Committee that wheat deficiency payments depend on the quantity of mill-able wheat which is sold. If wheat is grown too frequently on the same land, the yield will normally be reduced and so consequently will the amount of deficiency payments. Therefore I would submit to your Lordships that there is a definite limit of capacity to switch over the cultivation of wheat, and beyond a certain point it is far from remunerative to the farmer who does not observe the proper methods of good husbandry. That is to some extent a safeguard against the danger that has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Cranworth.
3.43 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: I must say in reply that although that is, I quite admit, some safeguard, nevertheless it is a very small safeguard, because wheat growing can go on till just such time as the fertility in the particular field is destroyed, which is rather like shutting the gate after the horse has gone out.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
Payments to Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.
32. The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, make, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the company formed for the purposes of Part I of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, in the year beginning on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and in each or any of the nineteen next succeeding years, a payment not exceeding sixty thousand pounds either by way of grant or by way of loan and on such terms as may be agreed between the Minister and the said company with the approval of the Treasury.
3.44 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"But no such agreement shall have effect unless it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: Clause 32 is the clause which deals with the proposed payment to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, the matter I raised in the speech I ventured to make on the Second Reading. The terms of this Amendment follow the usual lines which are embodied in this Bill in other cases. We have not very much information as to how it is proposed to utilise this grant, which is not to exceed £60,000, but we have a certain amount of information. I have been anxious to ascertain exactly how that money is to be used, because there exists in agricultural circles a very grave anxiety on the part of earlier borrowers from this Corporation, who at the present time hold £6,000,000 worth of loans, in respect of the very high rate of interest which they are called upon to pay, a rate of interest, of course, which they agreed to pay at the time of accepting the loan but which has become high by reason of the fact that money rates have been very much easier since those loans were raised.
I did not think the Second Reading, nor do I think that this stage of the Bill, would be an appropriate time, quite apart from questions of Privilege which would arise, for the insertion into the Bill of specific directions as to how the Minister and the Corporation should between them agree on the allocation of this money. I do not think that would be appropriate. What I do think would be appropriate is that, when agreement has been reached between the two authorities, Parliament should have an opportunity of examining

531
the agreement and of expressing its opinion upon it. It is very evident that this sum, which is not to exceed £60,000, will not be sufficient to meet the very difficult case which confronts the borrowers of the sum of £6,000,000. It is to be assumed that this money is to be devoted in future to making it possible for the Corporation to offer loans at a lower rate than those terms which had to be offered to the earlier borrowers. That is as may be, but that very fact makes it desirable that the opportunity should be given to Parliament for a debate upon the whole great subject of agricultural credit. That is really the purpose that I had in mind in putting down this Amendment.
I have no desire to delay the passage of this Bill, and, as I have already said, I have no desire to impose upon the Minister any particular directions as to how this money should be allocated; but I do want to have the opportunity of debating these arrangements later on, and far more do I want a proper and constitutional opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House the extreme urgency of the whole question of agricultural credit. While the country is now seised of the necessity of re-establishing agriculture on a better, more stable and more confident basis than has been current for several years past, it is not going to be able to do that, and still less is it going to be able to draw back into agriculture that flow of new money without which agriculture cannot survive, unless at the same time it concentrates its vision upon the problem of agricultural credit. I cannot conceive of any more important subject than that in relation to the whole question of agricultural prosperity. That is the purpose of my putting this Amendment upon the Paper. I do not want for a moment to delay the Bill, but I want to have the opportunity eventually of discussing that question of agricultural credit based upon the particular manner in which the Minister is going to dispose of this relatively small subsidy which is being given to the Corporation that is mentioned in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 34, at end insert ("But no such agreement shall have effect unless it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD ADDISON: On behalf of my noble friends I should like to give support
532
to this Amendment, and for other reasons. First, I think it is right—it is surely essential—that Parliament should have an opportunity of reviewing the conditions upon which this additional assistance is proposed to be given. For my part, also, I should think it would be very useful if we had that opportunity. I have been profoundly disappointed at the trivial extent to which the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation has succeeded in helping agriculture—far short of the anticipations which some people entertained—and it is very important, I think, that Parliament on that account, if for no other reason, should have before it whatever proposals the Minister may have to make for giving this further assistance. I hope that the Minister will accept this entirely reasonable suggestion, which is quite in accordance with constitutional practice, and I see no reason why it should be departed from in this particular case.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I may first say that the Government are in sympathy with the motives that have been expressed by Lord Hastings, and just now by Lord Addison, upon this Amendment, but for reasons of which I think my noble friend may be aware, the Government are unable to accept it in its present form. It will be remembered that the Agricultural Credits Act of 1928 empowered the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, to make advances to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation for the purpose of establishing a guarantee fund. None of the arrangements made under the 1928 Act were subject to the procedure of receiving an affirmative Resolution by Parliament, and it was therefore thought not necessary to make such provision covering the terms and provisions of payments made under Clause 32 of this Bill. But the Government are prepared to do as the noble Lord opposite desires—to undertake that the terms on which payments are made under Clause 32 shall be communicated to Parliament, and I hope that, having received such an assurance, my noble friend Lord Hastings will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
At the present stage it is not possible for me to describe exactly the way in which this communication may be made, but it may, for example, be by a White Paper, or some other suitable means of laying a Paper on the Table. This procedure

533
would enable your Lordships to raise any points on agricultural credit which you might wish to bring before the attention of His Majesty's Government, and in so far as the terms of this Bill will be subject to periodic review the procedure which I now propose will itself provide sufficient safeguards to meet, the point raised by the noble Lord, that when arrangements have been made by the Treasury and my right honourable friend, such alterations or arrangements can be investigated and discussed by Parliament. I hope that after this explanation my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: As I understand the reply of my noble friend, he proposes, and he speaks of course with the authority of the Government in so proposing, to make arrangements to lay upon the Table a White Paper, or to adopt some equally suitable means of informing the House of the arrangements which are to be made under this clause between the Minister and the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. That I understand to be what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I must confess that the actual allocation of a sum so small as £60,000 maximum per annum is hardly worth either the risk of holding up this Bill in the course of its passage through Parliament, or really of a full-dress debate by the House upon a matter of such relative triviality, because I recognise that that sum is not going to be sufficient, or nearly sufficient, to deal with the very much wider issues which are at the back of my mind, and probably also of the mind of Lord Addison. But as I understand the proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary it is that, by reason of the lodging or laying of this information, your Lordships' House will be given an additional opportunity of basing your discussion upon agricultural credits upon that particular Paper which it is proposed to lay in due course. If I am quite right in assuming that that is the intention, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment. We shall lose nothing thereby.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I should just say that, as is customary in this House, if a matter of this description, which has only one aspect of agricultural credit, is to be submitted to the House by laying a Paper on the Table, it would
534
be reasonable to expect that your Lordships would debate the fuller subject of which the actual proposals contained in the Paper formed a part.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Provisions as to amount of fat sheep subsidy payments]:
3.57 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: On the question whether this Schedule shall stand part of the Bill, may I say that it had been the intention of myself and some of my friends to move an Amendment to that figure of 27,000,000, which restricts the insurance to be given to sheep. I have been advised, however, that since this might cost some additional amount from the Treasury it would not be within the purview of your Lordships' House, and further that it would be an Amendment of such substance that unless the Government accepted it to move it would be merely a waste of time. I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity of making an appeal to the Government, through the noble Earl, that even at this eleventh hour they should once more reconsider this figure of 27,000,000. On the Second Reading I gave two reasons which seemed to me to be sufficient for reconsideration, and I only now wish to add this further one, that it does seem a pity that for the sake of what I may call a ha'p'orth of tar they should do something to destroy the value of this most admirable Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: As I believe I indicated to my noble friend on the Second Reading, the 27,000,000 ceiling level that has been fixed under this Part of the Bill is not an arbitrary figure, and I said that if the sheep population of this country exceeds the 27,000,000, the average annual standard price of 10d. will only be reduced to the extent of one-eighth of a penny for each complete quarter of a million up to 28,000,000, and by ¼d. for every quarter of a million thereafter. Therefore, if the sheep population should be 27,500,000—

535
a figure which has not been reached during the course of the last quarter of a century—the average standard price would be reduced by only ¼d., bringing it to 9¾d. So I do not think it can be anticipated that the producers of sheep in this country will materially suffer or have great sacrifices imposed upon them by a reduction of that description.
LORD CRANWORTH: I beg to thank the noble Earl for his reply.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

MILK PRODUCTS MARKETING SCHEME, 1939.
4.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is a scheme prepared and submitted in accordance with the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. It seeks powers for the regulation of the marketing of certain milk products by a board elected by producers of those products. The products are butter, cheese, condensed milk, condensed skimmed milk, dried milk, dried skimmed milk, cream and sterilised cream. The promoters of the scheme are representative of practically all the more important manufacturers of these products in Great Britain. The scheme follows the usual lines of agricultural marketing schemes. It would set up a Board elected by the producers of the various milk products, and the Board would possess the main powers authorised by the Acts for inclusion in such a scheme. They would be able to regulate the prices at which the products may be sold by registered producers, the persons to whom, or through whom, they may be sold, the terms and conditions of sale, and so on. The Board would also have power to buy or sell any regulated product.
The main objective will be to secure stability in the market for milk products, and the scheme seems to fit in well with the regulating of imports of processed milks and the plan for an International Council for processed milks. The need for such a marketing scheme has been stressed by those who have inquired into the problems of the industry, and I think that it will be generally agreed that the establishment of a Milk Products Marketing Scheme is a logical development in
536
the organisation of the industry. I will not say much about the provisions of the scheme itself unless any members of the House wish to raise any questions, but I should mention that this is a scheme for controlling the marketing of the factory product, and accordingly the farm producer of these products is exempted, and also the small dairyman producer who makes only a small quantity of these products. I think that the scheme is generally acceptable to those who require to register under it, and it should bring substantial benefit both to them directly, and through them, to milk producers in general. I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
4.5 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on a subject about which I really know nothing, but I do so for this reason. Only yesterday there appeared in a London evening paper a report of proceedings before the Brighton Town Council which showed that a certain company, apparently in Brighton, which makes ice cream, had applied to the Brighton Town Council for permission to pour 1,500 gallons of milk down the drain. I do not know whether ice cream is one of the products dealt with under this Order, or whether it is as the result of legislation passed by this Government that a state of affairs like this can exist. I am quite sure that there are a great many people living in small back streets who would give a good deal to obtain a lot of this milk, and one wonders whether we are doing right in passing all these Orders and schemes.
4.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I also saw the report in the Press in regard to a large gallonage of milk which, by permission of the local borough council, was to be thrown away. I understand that the milk in question was skimmed milk and therefore it was unfit for human consumption.
LORD HASTINGS: Not "therefore."
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: It was skimmed milk, and it was consequently

537
not milk which would receive the approval of the medical officer of health under the cheap milk scheme. I agree with the noble Earl that every avenue should be approached for the absorption of such milk, but unless such milk is going to be dried, or used in a condensed form, by a manufacturer, it would not come within the provisions of this marketing scheme. This is a marketing scheme solely for processed milks, which term under the provisions of the scheme, includes butter and cheese. I do not think that the noble Earl need have any apprehension that by the inauguration of a scheme of this character the sort of instance that he has quoted to your Lordships will be encouraged in other parts of the country.
4.7 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should be glad if the noble Earl could give us a little more information on one aspect of this matter. I cordially agree that a scheme generally on these lines is required, and should be very advantageous, but not, I hope, directed on the lines of limiting the supply. There are ever so many ways in which the utilisation of milk products may be encouraged under an organised scheme. The incident to which the noble Earl has called our attention is only one of many, and such things occur frequently. If there had been a proper scheme for the utilisation of milk byproducts, that scandalous waste would never have occurred. As we all know, though it was skimmed milk, it had exceedingly good food value in it, utilisable for many purposes.
May I ask the noble Earl about another point? Will this scheme be accompanied by any standardisation of the products? I am told, for example, that a good deal of what is sold as ice cream has never seen a cow, and I believe it is possible to manipulate milk fat and other things with suitable adjuncts so that it tastes not unlike the sort of thing that we see retailed as ice cream, and passes muster as ice cream. This business is a very large business in these days, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to assure us that there will be powers exercisable under this Order that will secure that products which are sold as milk products shall really be as described. If that is so, it
538
would be an exceedingly valuable extension of our present powers.
4.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The products that come under this scheme have naturally to be sold in competition with imported products, and it is therefore very important that they should compete in quality and in their presentation with the imported product. I hope that wise exercise by the proposed Board of their powers in regard to grading, marking, and packing of these regulated products will be of great service to the home industry in improving the quality and standards of its products, particularly in the case of products such as butter which, as your Lordships know, is imported into this country in great quantities in standardised form, suitably marked. As the noble Lord has indicated, there is great room for development in standardising and marking such products as come under the terms of this scheme, and I can assure him there will now be greater incentive for the production of the standardised commodity which he desires to see.
4.11 p.m.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, may I emphasize the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in regard to cream? Representations have repeatedly been made to the Ministry of Agriculture as to the need for standardising cream. I came across a case myself quite recently where cream was supplied containing 23 per cent. butter fat. Suddenly, without any intimation to the public, it was altered to 16 or 17 per cent., and the purchasers still believed they were getting the same quality of cream, although that great change had taken place. Although this is a matter on which it is probably impossible ever to obtain general agreement, particularly on the part of the ice cream gentlemen who use no cream at all in the production of their product, if some notice could be taken of these representations we might have a standardised 30 per cent. cream and probably also a 23 per cent. butter fat cream. If the figure was definitely marked on the container it would be a great advantage to the agricultural producer and also a considerable benefit to the consumer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENT OF THE POTATO MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
4.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, when this Order was put down on the Order Paper it was hoped that necessary and adequate consideration could be given to it by both Houses before the Recess. Certain questions have since arisen concerning it which prove that this will not be possible. It would therefore be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if the Motion standing in my name, approving of the Special Order, were deferred until a later date.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I am afraid I shall be guilty of asking your Lordships' attention for a certain time while I endeavour to explain the measure now before you in moving its Second Reading. I am afraid also the subject is not so interesting as that mentioned in the Motion which is to follow. I must tell your Lordships at the outset, however, that the matter is one of first-rate importance and relates to an enormous number of people and an enormous amount of money. Perhaps I might tell your Lordships how vastly the business of building societies has increased since the War. In 1918 their assets were £68,000,000, in 1928 they had grown to £268,000,000, and the last figures are those for 1937, when the assets of building societies amounted to no less than £710,000,000. The borrowers were 1,400,000 in number, and they had borrowed sums amounting to £137,000,000. In these circumstances your Lordships will appreciate that the stability of these societies, the way in which they carry on their business, and the fairness and justice of their relations with those who borrow and those who lend are matters of first-rate importance.
My attention had already been called to certain aspects of the business of building societies before a case came on which is commonly known as the Borders case, which brought into prominence the relationship between particular building societies and one of the borrowers—
540
namely, Mrs. Borders. As soon as that action had progressed some little time, it became apparent that the building societies were faced with a contention of really first-rate importance with regard to their business which suggested that practically the whole of the building societies in this country were acting ultra vices in lending moneys beyond those they had legal power to do, by getting not only security of the freehold and leasehold property which their members desired to use by way of security for the loan, but by taking in addition to that collateral security either from the builder or from some other person. It was suggested that they had no legal power to do so. It is still claimed, I understand, by Mrs. Borders that that is so.
Judgment in the action was not given until February 13 last, but in the meantime it had become apparent that this was a matter that could not be left to be decided with the possibility of its being ultimately decided adversely to the building societies, because as a consequence the people who had entered into transactions with building societies would have been placed in the utmost jeopardy. Accordingly it was thought right by the Government to set up—and they did set up—a Committee of the Cabinet, assisted by an official committee of civil servants, who have continuously from that time considered the way in which building societies have been carrying on business for some time past. They have had many conferences with the joint committee representative of the whole building society movement, and in the course of the discussions other points, some of them of considerable magnitude, have received consideration besides those affected by the legal issues arising in the Borders case. The Government have also taken steps, or are endeavouring by this measure to take steps, to improve the general standard in respect of title which, in the main, comes into the question, and which would afford borrowers and intending householders a greater degree of security than it is possible for them by individual efforts to obtain.
The judgment, as I have already said, was given on February 13 last. That judgment, in fact, did not uphold the view that the actions of the building societies as between them and their members were ultra vires, but it did throw

541
out other doubts, including a doubt as to whether building societies were acting within their powers in entering into arrangements with the builders of the houses—that is to say, the builders who were engaged in developing and putting up houses on an estate with the object of the houses being taken over by members of building societies with the assistance of loans from the building societies. Further than that, I think some twenty other actions have been started with a view again, if possible, to succeed in establishing that the building societies are acting beyond their statutory powers. I think, therefore, your Lordships will agree that it is of the utmost importance that those matters should be set at rest, and that the enormous number of people who are interested in these transactions should know where they stand. Accordingly, this Bill was introduced into the House of Commons after a private member had first sought to deal with the matter. Perhaps I might tell your Lordships at once that this Bill was debated in the other place for ten days in Grand Committee. It was debated in an atmosphere in which all the differences of opinion were explored, and the Bill was, I think, improved. In the end it was passed without any Division in an atmosphere of general good will.
I am mentioning these facts partly in order that your Lordships should see the importance of the matter, and also because I want to say this. I have imposed upon me the task of speaking on or introducing certain Bills which in the present state of the world's affairs have not received that consideration which I, occupying the position I hold, could have wished; but this Bill has received a very great amount of consideration, and has been the subject of most careful thought and preparation. I need hardly say that the consideration which has been given to it has been entirely free from any notion of Party advantage and with a desire to deal impartially and wisely with the problem which the Bill solves. The Bill has emerged from the other place with certain improvements as a result of the very great consideration which it received in the course of passing through that place. There is one clause in particular to which I shall call attention, because I think it will tend to improve the standard of building of houses of the
542
character with which this industry is concerned without at the same time imposing a financial burden upon the industry. I think I may say that the Bill is in substance an agreed measure in the form in which it now comes before your Lordships, though there are certain persons who have their own views as to what building societies should do, which views are not shared by those who are well acquainted with the industry.
I have one other fact of which to remind your Lordships. It may be that some of your Lordships are not fully acquainted with the way in which building societies carry on their business in reference to what are called builders' pools. In the early days of building societies, when I was a very young struggling junior at the Bar, those societies used to advance up to 75 per cent. of the value of the property on mortgage to the member who was seeking an advance. It is an easy mathematical sum. Suppose the house was being sold for £1,000, it would be sold on terms of deferred payments ranging over a number of years. The purchaser had to find £250 himself, and the building society advanced the other £750 which the purchaser repaid with interest over a period, say, of twenty years. But in recent times the normal average transaction of the building society has been one of a somewhat different character, because many building societies advance not 75 per cent., but 90 per cent., or even 95 per cent., of the value of the house on terms of deferred payment.
For instance, if a house is being sold for £1,000 on terms of deferred payments the builder will guarantee the building society to the extent of a big proportion of the £250 which the person buying the house would otherwise have to find himself. Therefore the transaction takes this form. The building society advances to the purchaser £950 out of the £1,000 at which the house is being sold, leaving the purchaser with only £50 to find, but the builder of the house has arranged to guarantee the building society against loss so long as his guarantee is in force, and for this purpose the builder deposits in cash an amount which in normal cases would be about one-third of the extra sum advanced by the society. That system, I may say, extends probably to 60 per cent. of all modern cases. The purchaser

543
only finds about 5 per cent. of the amount of the purchase price, and he covenants with the building society to repay the whole of the mortgage by instalments to cover principal and interest, the instalments being sufficient to provide a proper return on the capital outstanding and to discharge the debt within a specified number of years. When that transaction is extended to a number of houses there comes into existence a species of builders' pool.
Under this arrangement the builder does not withdraw the amount of cash which he has deposited in the pool in respect of a particular house, but deposits a further sum of cash in respect of the next house that he builds, which is sold in the same way, and so on. The sum in the pool becomes an amount which is available for the building society to draw from in the event of any loss on any house which remains the subject of the builders' guarantee if a builder fails to comply with or fulfil his guarantee. The pool in the ordinary case covers a considerable number of houses, and in that way an estate is covered with houses. By this means large numbers of houses have been built for workingmen earning a fairly decent wage. Your Lordships can well understand that the Government are desirous of supporting any scheme by which workingmen can become owners of the houses which they occupy, and when this matter came before the Committees which have been dealing with the subject, the Government came to the conclusion, having regard to certain grievances here and there, and malpractices which they feared were being employed by some of the builders and building societies, that they should introduce this measure with five broad objectives in view. I shall mention them presently, but I want to say at once quite clearly that the great majority of building societies conduct their business admirably. I do not believe there is any substantial complaint to be made with regard to their dealings with the various persons who buy houses. But there are some which are not so good, and there is a growing competition between them.
When I go through, I hope shortly, the various things which this Bill is seeking to do, your Lordships will be able to appreciate the kind of practices as regards
544
which the Government are very anxious to safeguard the societies and the purchasers of houses and the persons—mostly working men—who entrust money to building societies out of which advances are made to those who are purchasers of houses. Building societies take additional security when they lend more than 75 per cent. of what I should call the value of the house. Consequently the first thing necessary to be done was to define the types of additional security which might be accepted by a building society, because there are some who take what we may call problematical security for the extra 20 per cent. they advance. It was also necessary to ensure that in the case of a builders' pool guarantee the guarantee should be a sound and adequate security. The next thing was this. The role of the builder who has a house to sell and that of the building society, which is mainly a lending institution, should be kept distinct. The person who is borrowing the money should not imagine that the builder is the same person as the building society or that his interest is the same.
Thirdly, as far as possible, it should be provided that building societies must take such pains as are conveniently possible to have the value of the security adequately assessed for the purpose of their loan, because your Lordships can understand that a building society which is in a bad way and wants to get business will perhaps make very rash advances on houses which are very unworthy of the advance in question. In the fourth place, the purchaser should be protected as far as possible from the misconception which the Government have found to exist in certain cases as to the nature of the transaction, and that in particular he should not be led to believe that the building society has given a warranty with reference to the nature of the house and the way in which it was built, which it is not in a position to give. The building society does not build the house. Although it is called a building society, it is not a builder of houses; it is a lender of money. The house is built, it may be, by a speculative builder, and the matter does not come before the building society until the house is largely erected, and accordingly the building society has not the opportunity of watching the erection of the house from the beginning to the end.

545
Lastly, if the borrower falls into arrears with his payments, and the building society decide to realise the security and to sell the property, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the mortgage, it must be made to do so for the best price that can reasonably be obtained in the circumstances. The reason of that is that it has come to the knowledge of the Government that there were cases in which certain societies—by no means the good ones—when they found a borrower in arrears, were apt to accept a price for the house just sufficient to repay them the amount of the advance. That, of course, to a person trained like myself in an equity school is a perfectly dreadful thing to do. The fair thing to do is to get the best price you can for the unfortunate mortgagor. Accordingly they thought that a special provision to that effect ought to be put into the Bill.
Those are the things which it is sought to accomplish by the Bill, but there is one other thing which I should like to mention at once, and that is the provision which is to be found in Clauses 5 and 6, which attempts—I hope it will be found successful; of course it is only an attempt at present—to diminish the risk of jerry-built houses being erected in this country to the detriment of purchasers from the working-and from other classes. The way in which that has been done is this. The Bill contains provisions enabling the Minister of Health to approve a body which will issue certificates in respect of houses erected by those builders who accept its standards. It will be required that those houses should be independently inspected on several occasions—I think it is suggested not less than five—and the builder who obtains certificates from the body in question will be required to guarantee that he will make good defects which become manifest within a reasonable period of time. This arrangement is to be backed by the private body itself, so that if the builder should unfortunately default, the person who has bought a house will have a remedy. Where societies enter into a pool agreement with a builder who is erecting houses thus certified, the Bill permits those societies to give the builder substantially better terms than those which are laid down in respect of similar transactions with other builders—namely, those builders who do not obtain certificates from the body in
546
question. The result is that in substance the better builder is going to get better treatment under this Bill, and there is hope that as soon as that body gets going and people know the advantages of certificates, the people who require houses and who are purchasers under the mechanism supplied by building societies will take advantage of that device.
That is the general view of the Bill which I am asking your Lordships to consider, and I shall deal very shortly with some of the clauses, because I am bound to say that some of them are a little difficult for the layman to understand, though the meaning and effect of them are really, with few exceptions, exceedingly simple. Clause 1 validates what has been done in the past and, so to speak, puts an end to the difficulties which were raised in the Chancery action to which I have referred. Clause 2 deals with the future in cases where the building society wishes to advance sums largely in excess of the proper sum which would be advanced on the security of the freehold and leasehold property alone. That is done by providing in Part I of the Schedule a list of the types of additional securities which the building society may accept as the basis for a larger advance than what the Bill describes as the basic advance. The selection of the classes of additional security was based upon the view that the additional security must be of a safe type and that the inclusion of a security in the list can be shown to be necessary to avoid disturbances in the current and the really quite healthy business that most respectable building societies now carry on.
I may mention that Clause 2 contemplates advances to members only. Building societies also make advances to people who are not members, but with regard to those advances Clause 4 prohibits the taking of additional securities, so that they must only be advances of the basic type. In the case of a pool agreement there are complexities and the Bill goes further into detail. It prescribes the minimum requirements which such an agreement must fulfil in order that additional advances may be lawful. These requirements appear in subsection (4) of Clause 2 and in Part II of the Schedule, and are in fact in fairly close accord with what I may describe as the best practice of the best and most prudently-managed societies. Set out in

547
the wording of a Parliamentary Bill they seem unpleasantly complicated, but as a matter of fact they are not really anything but simple provisions, and for the moment I do not think I need trouble your Lordships by going through them.
Then there are cases where building societies have been in the habit of entering into arrangements for large advances with big public security companies, such as, for instance, a railway company which has desired to facilitate the provision of houses for its employees. We do not want to interfere with that type of transaction. Certain housing associations are promoted to facilitate the acquisition of houses by certain professional classes, such as teachers and civil servants, and those associations have been in the habit of giving guarantees. The Bill deals with that matter in Part II of the Schedule by enabling, largely, agreements to continue to be made upon the Chief Registrar's approval being forthcoming. I may say that I anticipate no difficulty at all in such cases. There are also cases where the excess advance is given upon an insurance company's guarantee. That, again, is a matter with which we do not want to interfere, and the Bill enables the Registrar to permit it to continue provided that he is satisfied that it is in accordance with the main provisions of the Bill.
Then there is the important question of the amount of time which is to be given to the borrower to repay the loan. Of course it is an inherent feature of this type of mortgage that the early payments are largely payments of interest and the reduction of the capital debt in the early stages is slow. If the mortgage period is too long, it may be that after a certain number of years the house will depreciate in value more quickly than the capital debt will be reduced. Accordingly it is very greatly to the interest of everybody concerned that the time for repayment should not be too long. Some years ago, and in particular when I dealt with matters of this sort, a fifteen-year period was the general rule. During the last twenty years, however, there has been an increased tendency to lengthen the period, and it is not uncommon in these days for the term of repayment to be twenty-five or even thirty years. The better opinion, I think, among all those
548
concerned, except some who are willing to do what I cannot help thinking is speculative business, is that thirty years is much too long. The Bill provides in Clause 6 that in ordinary pool agreement cases the period of repayment shall be not more than twenty years, except—now comes in one of the advantages of having a certified house, which, as I mentioned to your Lordships, you may get under the machinery of Clause 5—that if you get a certified house the period of repayment may be twenty-three years. There seems to be no objection to extending the period a little in the case of houses in respect of which the certificate has been obtained.
There are also certain other advantages, which I need not enumerate, in cases where the provisions of Clauses 5 and 6 have been brought into play and the house is a certified house. I should mention further that there is a provision in the Bill under which it becomes the duty of the building society to take care with regard to obtaining the valuation of the house before an advance can be made. There are also provisions which make it impossible for the directors of a building society, by the provisions of the Building Societies Rules, to contract out of the obligation to use their best endeavours to obtain the best advice that can reasonably be obtained in respect of valuing transactions. There are also provisions as to notice under Clause 8, and certain provisions as to warranties and representations, and the latter have been carefully designed so as to prevent the borrower being led to regard the society as making or being deemed to make a warranty to the purchaser that the purchase price is reasonable, or that the amount advanced is an indication of the fact that the house is fully worth the 100 per cent. on which the loan is made, unless the society so intends. No statement of that kind, made by a builder or other interested person, should in any case be given. Clause 9 deals with that matter.
Clause 11 of the Bill restricts the giving of commission to a builder by the society. It has been found that it is the practice of building societies to give commissions to builders for introducing business and that has been found not to be a very desirable practice. Accordingly in future no such commission can be given or claimed. I think I have now given your Lordships a fair account of the

549
Bill and I have referred to the more important at any rate of the provisions which it contains. I need not say that I shall be very glad to give any further information should it be desired, but with the statement I have made, I hope your Lordships will be satisfied that the Bill is worthy of your consideration and one which may properly be read a second time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.53 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the noble and learned Lord has explained a very complicated and long overdue measure so as to make a great deal of it clearer than it otherwise would have been. I must say, having been concerned in the early days of the development of housing after the War, that one wishes that it had been possible to do something more in Clause 1 than what is, in effect, a whitewashing arrangement for a good many things which never ought to have occurred. I suppose it is unavoidable, but it must be regretted. We have seen, in a good many parts of the Metropolitan area, the worst features of speculative building of poor-class property that this country exhibits. I think, myself, that a good many of the houses which have been built under these combined arrangements promoted by building societies and builders in some parts outside London will be little better than slums in twenty years, if not earlier.
We have heard of cases of shocking materials being put into these houses, and I am only surprised that the legal actions, which really provided the spur for the introduction of this Bill, did not occur before. Tens of thousands of poor people have suffered in silence, or have grumbled to their neighbours, not being able to do anything. By these operations they have been induced to buy houses at considerably enhanced prices, and have let themselves in for weekly payments spread over many years, and long before the expiration of those years the expense of repairs will be a very substantial addition to the rent which they have been called upon to pay. There are one or two points which go to the foundation of the case which perhaps later on the noble and learned Lord will explain more at
550
length. So far as I understand, it is now proposed, under Clause 12, that in regard to the value of a house which is to provide the basis of the advance, or of the amount of the mortgage which the mortgagor will incur, it shall be the duty of every director or member of the committee of management of any society to satisfy himself that the arrangements made for assessing the adequacy of the security to be taken in respect of advances to be made, are such as to ensure that the security shall be assessed by a competent and prudent person. It seems very shocking that after these hundreds of thousands of houses have been built we should have to wait as long as this before it became necessary, by Statute, for a society to have a valuation made by what is described as "a competent and prudent person."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will understand that that is the usual practice, but it has not been obligatory before.
LORD ADDISON: It is the practice, of course, of all decently conducted firms, but it has not been the universal practice. Otherwise we should not have had the scandals with which this Bill is called upon to deal. And we do know that in fact in many districts the values given have not been assessed by a competent and prudent person, but have been fixed much higher than they ought to have been. People have paid a great deal more than the houses are worth, and by this combination of operations between the building societies and the speculative builders people have been called upon to pay a debt amounting to 95 per cent. of a value which has been fixed at a much higher figure than it ought to have been fixed at and, as the noble and learned Lord explained, it has often happened that in many districts outside London these repayments have had to be extended over twenty-three, twenty-four, and even twenty-five years. Yet one sees advertisements of places where anyone who has any sound knowledge of building knows that the houses will be in a dilapidated condition long before the twenty-five years are up, unless the unfortunate persons who have been persuaded by this combination of interests to buy these houses have been

551
able to spend a lot of money on repairs. The same applies, I think, to all the provisions of the Bill, particularly those which restrict the payment of commission, which is a form of mutual understanding which has crept into this scheme of house purchase, by which tens of thousands of poor people are being perpetually cripped by the inflated prices that they are called upon to pay and the long periods over which the payments are spread.
I am sure every one of us is glad to do what he can to facilitate the passage of this Bill. It has long been overdue, and as a former Minister of Health I feel a share of responsibility for not foreseeing the extent to which this scandal has developed—because it is a scandal, and it is no good pretending it is not. It has been very widespread. I am only too glad that at long last it is being dealt with. I hope that the Minister of Health will do all he can to make Clause 5 (I think it is) effective so that it may be widely used, and will place every possible premium upon builders coming within the class of good builders, which it is designed to promote.
I am afraid that just now, under the present conditions of the world, this kind of speculative building is under a cloud, partly because the market has, I think, been over-satisfied in some districts, but mainly because so many people, in different parts of the Metropolitan area especially, have begun to find that the weekly payments to which they are committed, plus repairs to keep their places in anything like a decent state of repair, have imposed upon them a burden which is becoming widely known among their friends and neighbours, and people are becoming more shy than they were of entering into these transactions. Well, it is all to the good that the brake should be put on. I sincerely hope that this Bill will be effective in preventing the further spread of this type of improper building, but I am quite sure that some future Minister of Health will find himself saddled with serious responsibilities in either replacing or restoring slums which have been re-created in our extra-Metropolitan areas, and which, if we had all been as wideawake as we ought to have been, should never have been built. For our part, we welcome the Bill, and
552
will do all we can to hasten its passage into law.
5.3 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is a useful, although very complicated Bill, and I wish to welcome and support it. I shall make no criticism at all of any of its clauses. I suppose that many noble Lords, like myself, have followed word by word the discussions which took place on this Bill on the floor of the other House and while it was being moulded and improved there in Committee. I must express my admiration for the way in which the Bill has been examined there by all Parties, so that it is now in the improved condition in which we have had it handed to us. I am sorry it has not come here at an earlier date, but that cannot be helped.
I should like to offer some observations. In order to protect myself against its being said that I have offered hostile criticism about the great building societies, I will say this, that those of your Lordships who have had the privilege, as I have had, of doing municipal work in their own native districts, will know, as I do from experience, the beneficial results of these societies helping working people to obtain their own dwelling houses, to find for themselves what is the finest form of investment, that is to say the roof above their own heads, and at the same time to find for small investors a safe investment for savings. Further house building, especially in an old city such as that with I which I am connected, means further health, and that is a public benefit. For the most part, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has said, these building societies have been managed by honourable men, who have tried to do a public duty, and have done it, to the benefit of their fellow citizens.
But I am bound to say that I myself was very surprised to find, during the discussions in another place, that there were unworthy practices by what were described as "sharks," and that a type of building society work was going on of which I had no suspicion, and of which the general public have never been aware. This Bill seeks to put an end to those practices and it will strengthen the good societies. I may say, however, that I do not think the great majority of building societies need give one single thought

553
to this Bill; their normal conduct is so straightforward and so proper that they need not consider the provisions of this Bill. They practise the spirit of those provisions of their own accord in the normal course of their transactions.
I ask your Lordships to forgive me for talking about what may be a tiresome and uninteresting subject. But one must never forget that, as my noble and learned triend on the Woolsack has pointed out, a sum in the neighbourhood of £700,000,000, representing in most cases the savings of working people, is at stake in these societies. It is of the utmost importance therefore that all of us should endeavour to see that this money is protected, that the houses are good and of honest value and that the general principles of the building society movement are carried out in a wholesome and useful way. I do not wish to delay the passage of this Bill; on the contrary I wish to do all I can to hasten it forward. I wish however to make an observation or two in the hope that what I say may perhaps contain the germ of something useful to any Government which may be deciding to deal with building society problems, and at the same time will perhaps convey a hint to the building societies, so that they may of their own accord put their house in order.
The Bill will certainly put a check upon the mushroom type of building which certain new "shark" societies—dare I call them wolves masquerading in sheep's clothing?—have imposed on the public Jericho-built houses sold at too high a price. This Bill will help to strengthen the honest societies and check the sale of badly constructed houses, as the noble Lord opposite has said. I hope this will be so because in old cities where there are, already unfortunately, too many slums, Jericho-built houses, within a not very long period will develop into more slums. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has drawn attention to one clause, Clause 11, which will check the operations of builders' touts, and stop collusion, and prevent badly-built houses being passed on to inexperienced purchasers. I was recently surprised to hear that there is a type of concern which this Bill will certainly check, and which ought to have been checked years ago. Here you have a concern formed of congeries of not very straightforward people who, however, are
554
within the law, operating a property investment trust, a so-called building society (it is a building society in law but it was not established primarily for the purpose of promoting thrift), a land company, and an estate management business, all run under the same auspices. These are not concerns which help the people whom we want to help. These are concerns for fleecing people, by selling badly constructed houses at unjustifiable prices, and financing the transactions by loans which may possibly entangle the purchaser besides depriving him of some of his savings.
The noble Lord, Lord Addison, spoke of his anxiety for those concerned in providing money to the building societies so that the building societies may finance working-men's houses at good value. I do not put much weight on the advantages of the valuations to which the noble Lord referred in his speech in that connection a moment ago. He spoke about—it is the usual formula—competent and prudent persons who make valuations. I do not pay much attention to people who call themselves prudent and competent valuers. It was my duty in the other House to take part in debates where we had to write off from public funds large losses under one of the Acts, I think the Agricultural Loans Act, which arose annually out of valuations made by "competent and prudent persons." When these properties were foreclosed by officials of His Majesty's Government much loss was often made. The value of a perishable thing to-day is no sure guide as to what its value may be many years hence. For that reason I do not pay too much attention to the accuracy of valuations of working-class dwellings by "competent and prudent persons" as to realisation ten years hence.
Of the suggestions I have to make, the first one is this. I am not criticising the Bill at all. I am trying to bring to the notice of your Lordships points which I believe will improve the general legislation relating to, and guide and strengthen the operations of, building societies. The system under which two or more building societies of equal or comparable size can amalgamate is faulty. At the present moment, as far as I can read the Acts of 1874 and 1894, there must be a majority of three-fourths of the shareholders, holding two-thirds of the shares, before amalgamation can take

555
place. That is too restrictive. I am not lawyer enough to say, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack can say, whether a matter of that kind comes within the scope of this Bill. I do not think so, but some sort of legislation should be forecast in the future to allow small or medium-sized building societies to come together and amalgamate more easily than the two Acts of 1874 and 1894 will permit. And for this reason: I would ask your Lordships to look for example at the cotton trade. A small building society restricted to a cotton district might find itself in difficulty if there was distress among the persons who owe it money—that is, people who have loans on their houses. If the eggs of that particular society were not all in the one basket in the cotton area, if the loans of that society were spread out more widely and ramifications extended into, say, a prosperous wool or shoe industry in an adjacent district, the society would be on a broader basis and less likely to get into trouble if there were distress in the single area for its loans.
Then again, quite apart from the reduction in overhead charges because of the administration of larger total loans, you would do away in some measure with unwholesome competition, underbidding, bad risks, bad business. Further, if you gave the societies power and opportunity to amalgamate more easily, you would give them a bigger area in which to collect funds, and in districts where they are well known. Such a proposal has another repercussion. The more funds you can attract into a sound building society, the less chance there is that the inexpert people who have put funds in it will lose their savings in some wild-cat or unsound scheme. That is in the general interest of public thrift. The public cannot put savings into a better or sounder organisation or investment that a building society, therefore amalgamation is an advantage to the public. You obtain a larger area over which to collect and lend funds.
The next point I would like to make is this. As a man who has been connected with trade all his life, I do not like a practice by which building societies, small and large, may allow themselves to be financed, if such is really the case, by means of hank overdrafts. I know the societies must disclose to their depositors that they have ovedrafts. But is it their
556
habit to disclose and explain clearly enough to the inexpert person who deposits with them what they have in bank overdrafts? It is an undesirable practice. Banks ought not to lend their customers' money for long or fixed periods, so they retain the right to call the money in. I ask myself what would happen if a building society had a considerable overdraft with a bank when a national crisis occurred, and the bank needed to recall, and did recall, its loan to the building society. One must never forget that building society investments—that is, house property—are mostly long-term investments. A society might have great difficulty in realising quickly these investments in house-loans in order to pay the bank overdrafts; and besides it must also be remembered that in some cases the depositors' money has been obtained on the promise to repay it at short notice and even on demand. Although there is nothing at all reprehensible in this bank overdraft practice, it is one of these things with which building societies might find themselves faced and with evil consequences in time of national calamity or even in time of monetary stringency and in peace time.
Further elaborating that point as one of my suggestions, I maintain that every society should of its own accord hold not less than 10 per cent. of its assets in liquid form. I would go further and say that the proportion of liquid assets to the total deposit liability should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent. and kept in a separate trust fund. That would be an improvement. I know quite well that if the building societies had to put so large a portion of their assets into trustee securities, the earning power of these securities would be very little—the return would be very much less than if they were invested elsewhere. That must be taken into account, and a just balance must be made in the rate at which interest is obtainable from the borrower or even reduced to the lender. On the other hand, whatever extra cost the societies or the borrowers on houses may suffer, there is additional security given to the lender—to the people who find the money for the benefit of those who wish to buy their houses and extra stability to the societies. Let me say that one must never forget that lending long and borrowing short is a sure way to disaster. Here von have a possible case

557
where the societies may have to pay money back quickly which they borrowed at short notice and have lent on long term on the security of mortgages on houses which are difficult to realise quickly.
My next point is this. The Ministry of Health have to my knowledge set up a model series of by-laws to guide local authorities in their supervision of the building of houses in their neighbourhoods. These model by-laws are good; but I am under the impression that many local authorities do not operate them. They should be used by local authorities to avoid Jericho-built houses at every operation, from the foundations to the windows, from the gutters to the roofs. There is no reason why they should not be used. Probably the explanation is laziness. The Ministry of Health has gone to the trouble to produce these model by-laws, and one of the points that might be taken into consideration at some future time is that no houses should be allowed to be built and financed under this measure or any amendment of it unless they conform to model by-laws provided for the use of local authorities by the Ministry of Health. Indeed local authorities should be compelled under penalty to operate the model by-laws.
The last point I have to make is this. Most of these building societies were originally conceived and brought to fruition in religious buildings. They were primarily constituted as organizations of thrift, good feeling and self-help. But they are not merely philanthropic institutions to-day. There is an element, a justifiable element, of profit in them, which has stimulated their development and usefulness. That profit element of the building societies system has been quite justifiably pushed along by an element of self interest on the part of the managements. Those who manage the societies receive quite properly an income, and earn their living from making a successful organisation out of the building society with which they are connected. I looked through the last Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies some weeks ago, and I think that the total annual amount which the management takes—I do not find any fault with it—is as much as £4,000,000 for running the societies.
558
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Addison, realises that £4,000,000 is taken in fees and salaries for directors, managers, staffs, auditors, plus, perhaps, some further types of remuneration of which I have no knowledge. There is no provision in this or in any earlier Act as to the way the accounts of these societies should be given to the members of the society. They have to be sent in to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and they are sent in in a lump sum, and you cannot tell who is getting this money or in what detailed division. The returns refer to directors' remuneration, and fees of staff and auditors, but they do not tell in detail what the directors are getting. Directors are quite entitled to get fees for their work, but the returns do not tell what the fees are. They do not tell either what a director or a manager may be getting other than fees, if anything, they do not tell what is paid for management salary or for valuation fees if payable to a director. I cannot specify other possible payments because I do not know what they are. There are other legitimate ways of obtaining legitimate payments which would not be called directorial fees. These are often not disclosed in annual reports, in detail, given to members of a society. There is no provision for insisting that these details should be given to members or depositors; unless the society itself makes rules to that effect. There is in Building Society Acts no provision as to the election or re-election of directors.
I think my noble friend Lord Stamp will have some sympathy with me on this following point. There is no legislative control as to who should be elected a director or by what means, or what age he should be. The proceedings are governed by rules of the relative society. One of the resultant facts about building societies is that they may if they please have men of even 75 years of age as directors and there is nothing to stop them except the self-made rules. I am nearly 70 myself; I think men of that age are not of much use upon management or directorial boards of trading companies. Matters alter very quickly in this world to-day, economically and financially, and the boasted experiences of a man of 75 are to-day worthless. The man of that age has experiences which he ought to forget and learn new experiences—but he

559
is usually too rigid mentally. You do not want experience that was gained 35 years ago. There should be every inducement and opportunity of electing a man whose views are up-to-date. Old men stand in many organisations in the way of the election of men with up-to-date experiences, because methods of election do not facilitate the election of younger men with up-to-date knowledge on the building society and most other boards.
I think that some compulsion—I do not like to use the word "compulsion," but some arrangement should be made in any future Act to provide that the rules of any building society should contain provisions to show the members and depositors what the directors, the auditors and the management staffs are getting in detail, and showing also what the directors are getting other than by way of directorial fees or salaries. Under Section 148, I think, of the Companies' Act, 1929, we now know there is a gap or loophole whereby a director who receives fees can avoid showing the total that he really gets by having himself also made a managing director. That will have to be dealt with in any amendment of the Companies Act. In the same way it will be necessary in years to come to put some provision in legislation connected with building societies to provide that there shall be a full disclosure of the fees or salaries the directors and managers are getting, and that the rules of each society should, of themselves, provide that frank and candid disclosure should be made. My noble friend the Lord Chancellor will remember that earlier in this year I took some action, which he was good enough to support, about publication and circulation of the management accounts of unit trusts; and he carried out a suggestion that I ventured to make to your Lordships by which we have let some light into what a trust management did or could get and how.
I ask your Lordships' pardon for trespassing on your patience, but I venture to make these observations in order to draw your attention, and the attention of departmental officials, to points that I think would help even to improve a system which is of great value to the country. In the hope that these suggestions
560
may be considered for future action I beg leave to support the Bill now before the House.
5.28 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, when we remember that there has been a development of the building society movement from domestic and parochial concerns to a national force of social and financial importance, it is a matter of surprise that so long a period as forty-five years should have elapsed since Parliament was last called upon to legislate for building societies. This in itself may be regarded as a tribute to the satisfactory manner in which on the whole the societies have been operated during this interval. Now this Bill tends to bring the practice of the societies in certain important respects up to the standards of the best administered institutions, and for that reason it may be considered to merit the approval, though that approval I think needs to be qualified in certain minor respects, of your Lordships.
There has been a publicity in connection with certain particulars and certain aspects which has tended to put matters rather out of focus. As we have learned this afternoon, the chief inspiration of the Bill was a certain law case which mainly turned upon the question of the validity of collateral securities. Now it has never been seriously suggested that the societies, any more than any other lending institutions, were economically ill-advised or morally indefensible in fortifying their loans by means of collateral security. What doubts there may have been regarding legal admissibility were due to the rather unimaginative and ambiguous phraseology of the legislation of 1874. But even so, Government precedent of recent years has seemed quite effectively to set any doubts of that kind aside, for various Governments in successive Housing Acts have recognised the principle of loans in which the property was not the only security and which were in part subject to some external guarantee. The societies' practice in accepting collaterals is merely extending this recognised principle with, I think, adequate protective safeguards in the case of the best managed institutions. This method of fortifying by collateral has been a most essential condition of the societies' post-War expansion. It would have been quite impossible without

561
it and the social service that they have rendered in connection with postwar housing achievements has to some extent—indeed to a considerable extent—turned upon it.
The Minister of Health recently applauded the erection of the four millionth house since the Armistice. The reaching of this notable milestone—and the improvement in housing standards which, I think, on the whole it signifies—has been largely due to the building societies. Their resources have made it possible, at any rate to the extent of at least one half. They have advanced £1,500,000,000 over the post-War years, and these loans have been mostly to the owner-occupier class, so that in doing this they have made an important contribution to social and political stability. And they have done this without recourse to any form of State assistance or subvention. Thousands of the new owner-occupiers would have been deprived of the opportunity of sharing this improved housing standard, and the benefits of eventual unencumbered ownership, if the societies had only been able to make advances unsupported by collateral, because very many of these people, although they have settled incomes, have little capital resources. It was to help cases like that that the practice of advancing with collateral was evolved.
It was a technique, and I think a helpful technique, which smoothed the field to ownership. It is, therefore, the reverse of an instrument of exploitation which, to judge by some of the comments made, one might infer it to be. It has been the means of encouraging the decent, hard working and thrifty to be still more decent, hard working and thrifty. So far from being an object of censure, I think as practised by responsible institutions it has been an entirely satisfactory device. There is no legal pronouncement against it, and, as I have endeavoured to show, when properly managed—as it has been in the majority of cases—it has been of great social value. This Bill now universalises the procedure in this matter, and in that regard it is to be heartily welcomed. If the building societies have not, to use the word, exploited a particular technique, it is because as they are mainly constituted any form of exploitation is essentially foreign to their tradition, to their whole character and purpose. They mostly owe their origin,
562
as has been said already, to little groups of working men and women who created them for service and not for profit. It is merely the scale of their operation which has changed and in most cases not their character or their tradition or the fundamentals of their method. Most of them have the characteristics of public utility undertakings and their aim is simply to bring a reasonable income into proper relationship with reasonable outgoings and so preserve a financial stability. They are just the channel by which the small saver is enabled to lend to the small borrower and they have been on the whole both well and efficiently served.
The Registrar of Friendly Societies has again and again commended the societies upon the economical basis on which they conduct their operations. On that point I would like to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. I think the best societies do give very considerable details about their outgoings—the various fees to directors and other officers and so on. At any rate they are very closely watched in regard to the percentage they bear to the whole operations of the particular society concerned. Should they be outrunning any proper proportion, the fact would stick out quite clearly to all, and would prompt questions which can always be asked, and are asked, quite freely in the annual meetings. What I do think we are entitled to say is that any question relating to the ages of directors and their remuneration or the requiring of any kind of publicity should be general and apply equally to all kinds of industries concerned. There is no reason for selecting this particular class of concern for that kind of legislation. A long experience—and these people have a very historical background which goes back to the latter part of the eighteenth century—has given them an ingrained tradition of public service, and the more you know of the worthy directors of these societies the more you realise that it is this tradition of public service which is a safeguard to the investor and the borrower alike.
In the main the Bill tacitly recognises these facts, but there are several respects in which it reflects traces of harsher and less well-informed criticism. These are chiefly evident in the restrictions proposed, notably in the prohibition of the payment of commission in certain con-

563
ditions, the limit placed on the amount to be loaned, and the imposition of a maximum number of years for which the loan may run. These place a movement which has been happily free from any kind of restraint under specific control. I am not objecting for a moment to the principle of the restrictions. The principle may be perfectly right. The question is that of selection—whether it is right that legislation should confine itself exclusively to one type of mortgage institution, whether in so doing it may not open the possibility of intensified competition from other institutions that are not similarly restrained. If you have these restraints upon commission and restraints of various kinds applicable to only one type of mortgage institution, and there are other institutions which are operating solely for profit in this field of mortgage advance which are not similarly restrained, it may be that these provisions, being selective, may nullify the object of the Bill.
Those institutions are free to wage competitive warfare without any effective Parliamentary or departmental control. There are obvious dangers in any one-sided discrimination of this kind. I am advised that there are already signs that some of the less reputable companies in other fields of finance are seeking to deflect some of the business hitherto satisfactorily handled by building societies through the exploitation, to use that word, of the differential advantages which they will now enjoy. We had occasion to refer on another Bill to the difficulties that arise from selective legislation, and the only qualification I would make to approval of this Bill is that the provisions are not wide enough, that while they may be advantageous and justified in bringing the standard of the slower, less efficient and less scrupulous up to the standard of the best managed society, that alone is not enough. It is necessary that any investigations and any restrictions should be applied to all.
5.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken for the approval which they have given to the Bill after, it is quite plain, very careful consideration of this measure. I would also say that the matters to which the noble Lords, Lord
564
Mancroft and Lord Stamp, have drawn attention will be very carefully borne in mind by His Majesty's Government. With reference to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, mentioned, that there may be competitive bodies who will jump into the possible breach caused by this Bill, I can tell him—what he probably knows—that again and again that has been found to be the fate of precautionary legislation of this character. You stop the possibly dishonest person from doing something which is greatly to the detriment of the public by a particular measure, and he and his adherents at once discover some other way in which they can achieve their object. All the time the Government have to the best of their power to watch anything of that kind, and they have to stop the other cracks which have become evident in the precautions which ought to be taken to prevent fraud and unfair dealing.
I do not think it would have been possible in this Bill to deal with all the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, has referred. I think it would require a measure of a very different character, and probably one which would have been much more difficult to draw, difficult as this measure has proved to draw, because in a wide measure which would prevent all forms of improper dealings by persons who lend money for the purposes of housing or building it would be difficult to prevent interference with legitimate enterprise. However, it can be done, and if it is found that these dishonest persons mentioned by the noble Lord are taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill and introducing fraud and improper and disloyal competition, then I can assure him that the Government will intervene and endeavour without delay to produce another Bill which will prevent the consequences which he rightly pointed out are possible consequences of this Bill.
The Government are well aware of the importance of this matter, as I hope my introductory remarks this evening proved, and the dangers and risks which noble Lords have pointed out will be watched. There are a number of people who are closely in touch with the building of houses in this country and the methods under which they are being built. These things cannot be done in a corner; the facts will be available and remedial

565
measures will be taken. I thank noble Lords for the speeches which they have made on this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FUEL SUPPLIES IN WAR TIME.
5.43 p.m.
LORD AILWYN LORD AILWYN rose to draw attention to the matter of our fuel supplies in time of war, and to urge upon His Majesty's Government the necessity for instituting without delay a national fuel policy based upon the use of British coal, afloat—both in His Majesty's Fleet and in the Mercantile Marine—and upon the use of alternative fuels derived from British coal ashore—both in our heavy road transport and in industry as a whole—thus releasing this country from its present position of highly dangerous dependence on foreign imported oil; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my motive in placing this Motion on the Order Paper is, first, to place the issue of our fuel supplies in time of war clearly, unemotionally and without adornment before your Lordships; secondly, to try to persuade your Lordships of the real danger of the existing position; and thirdly, if I am fortunate enough to carry the House thus far with me, to suggest the remedy for combating this danger. I may remind the House that this is not the first, nor yet the second occasion upon which I have troubled your Lordships with this matter, and lest it be thought that mine is a lone voice crying in the wilderness—in other words, if I may be forgiven the expression in your Lordships' House, that I have a bee in my bonnet—I should perhaps preface my remarks on this occasion by saying that I speak for an ever-increasing body of opinion in the country, and particularly for those with whom I am associated in what is known as the British Coal Campaign, consisting of a number of independent persons having no connection of any sort or kind with coal or oil, and no interests to serve other than the good of the country and the better attainment of national security. It may well be that greater weight will be attached by your Lordships to the view, which I shall expound for this knowledge that they are shared by a body of men, many of them
566
eminent in their several spheres, who have studied this question in all its ramifications ceaselessly, tirelessly, with an open and unprejudiced mind. With these opening remarks I will, with your Lordships' permission, turn to the Motion.
The world of industry and transport to-day operates to such a preponderant extent on oil that if it is withheld the national life is paralysed. In this country not a propeller of a single ship of His Majesty's Fleet, and less than half the propellers of the Mercantile Marine, can revolve; not an aeroplane can rise from land or sea; our mechanised Army, our road transport, many of our factories—all are silent, motionless and ineffectual, without the motive power of oil which gives them life. Whence comes this vital commodity? Have we oil in this country? Are there any supplies in the Empire? I will not weary your Lordships with figures or statistics; I have given them before; I have them here, if anyone should care to see them. Suffice it to say that in the year 1938 no less than 92 per cent. of our oil supplies came from foreign countries, the remaining 8 per cent. from British sources. In spite of long, costly and sustained efforts to find virgin oil in this country, only an insignificant quantity has been discovered.
When I use the term "insignificant" I am naturally using it in a relative sense—in relation, that is, to our immense requirements. What are those requirements? In 1938 we imported into this country no less than 13,450,000 tons of oil, an increase of 700,000 tons on 1937. Year by year our consumption steadily increases, and I would remind your Lordships that these figures relate to peacetime requirements. When we come to consider what our requirements are likely to be in time of war, we are faced with the obvious difficulty that we have no real experience of a major war being waged tinder modern conditions upon which to draw, so that any estimate of our oil requirements in war time must be largely a matter of conjecture. But it is generally agreed that those requirements cannot be less than double the quantity that we require in peace time, even with the strictest rationing of consumption by non-essential users.
When one considers, for example, that a modern large high-speed bomber uses approximately a gallon of petrol a mile,

567
which mens that one of these aircraft in one journey of 300 miles consumes no less than one ton of fuel; when one considers further that it takes approximately three tons of crude oil to produce that one ton of petrol; when one considers, in short, that a bomber uses a gallon of petrol a mile, more than three gallons per minute, and that one ton of crude oil produces only sufficient petrol for one of these aircraft to go fifty miles and back, it will be seen that we very soon arrive at staggering figures. One of our leading technical journals, in discussing this matter a few weeks ago, gave a rough estimate of 4,000,000 gallons of petrol as our possible daily consumption in war time, an equivalent of over 4,000,000 tons a year. That is petrol requirements alone. Be that as it may, it is clearly a fact which nobody will be found to dispute, that without vast quantities of oil arriving in this country secure from interruption we shall be unable to wage war so long as we have no alternative to exclusive dependence on imported oil. That, I submit to your Lordships, is a plain statement of fact of the position in which we stand to-day.
I turn to the dangers of that situation in war time. First and foremost it has to be admitted that we have no control of any sort over the sources of supply of over 90 per cent. of the oil that we import. We have to depend upon the good will of the foreigner, who may or may not be sufficiently friendly disposed towards us to release the oil. Over 40 per cent. of our 1938 supplies came from South and Central America, the great bulk from Venezuela. When we recall the history of our experience with the Mexican Government a little over a year ago, involving the expropriation of our oil supplies in that country, and when we reflect upon such things as the prevalence of strikes, unrest, and so forth, in the various oil fields, I venture to think that he would be a brave man who would characterise this source of supply—our major source—as an assured one.
Over 17 per cent. of our 1938 supplies came from the United States of America. What is America going to do if a major war breaks out in Europe? I suggest that she is going perhaps to mobilise her own forces. At least she is going to speed up her own rearmament, resulting in an increased demand for U.S.A. oil for her
568
own purposes. This will almost certainly tend to reduce the amount which will be available for export. Add to this the complete uncertainty as to future Neutrality Bill legislation, and I think we can fairly say that there can be no cast-iron certainty about our supplies from the United States of America. Nearly 20 per cent. of our 1938 supplies emanated from Persia—Iran. Whatever the extent of our financial control in this field we certainly have not got the physical control, which is the thing that really matters, and a stroke of the pen by the head of that State would be more than sufficient to end our concession there. I will not take your Lordships any further along this particular aspect of the dangers that beset us so far as the sources of supply are concerned. Over 75 per cent. of our oil supplies emanate from those three major sources which I have named.
Let us turn, secondly, to the question of safeguarding these vast supplies in transit to this country, assuming that the oil has been released at the source. Every gallon of oil has to be transported over thousands of miles of sea, in tankers, requiring convoy and escort protection against enemy action by aircraft, submarine, and surface raider. The tanker, moreover, requires convoy, I should have added, in ballast as well as when loaded. The tanker moreover suffers from the disability of being only a half-time ship. She brings oil to these shores, and then has to return empty to the source of supply for more. The collier, on the other hand, carries a full cargo of coal on her outward journey and brings back a full cargo of foodstuffs or raw materials, on her homeward journey. I need not stress the uneconomic process of such a limitation, nor the serious implications involved at a time like the present, when we are short by something like 2,000 vessels of the number which we had available in 1914. Then with regard to our oil from Iraq, it has to flow through hundreds of miles of pipe line, easily cut in a hundred places by a mere handful of marauding Arabs, or other ill-disposed persons, and controlled by pumping stations highly vulnerable to hostile action from the air or from the ground. Protection, therefore, will be essential in war time for this very important source of supply, involving dispersion of our military effort and so a weakening in theatres of war

569
where maximum strength should be concentrated. So much for the aspect of transportation.
Thirdly, there is the question of finance. At first sight it might appear that at times like these, when we find ourselves spending, during so-called peace, well over £1,000,000 a day on rearmament, the matter of payment for our oil supplies is a very minor and unimportant matter. I must remind your Lordships, however, that even during the Great War, when the demand for oil was infinitesimal compared with the world's requirements to-day, the price of oil soared. It rose to £20 per ton, and as I have stated in this House before, there was a case of one of His Majesty's ships that had to pay no less than £32 a ton for replenishing her tanks with oil, which costs £3 a ton in normal times of peace. When one considers the immensity of the demands which will be made by all countries engaged in another world war, will anyone challenge the possibility that the price of oil may well be forced up to say £40 or even £50 per ton? Even in these days of astronomical figures I suggest to your Lordships that an expenditure of something in the nature of £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 a day on our oil supplies alone, is a consideration not to be lightly ignored. I would also venture further to remind your Lordships of the Johnson Act in the United States, which prohibits the granting of loans to nations defaulting on loans floated during 1914–18. In other words, our oil has to be not only fetched but paid for.
Fourthly, and lastly, of the dangers which I am asking your Lordship's to consider in this matter of our oil supplies is the possiblity of oil exhaustion in the world. Let me say that I recognise that this is a debatable point. On the one hand we are told by the spokesmen of the oil authorities themselves that, on the basis of present-day world consumption, the proved oil reserves of the world will be exhausted in another twelve or fifteen years from now. On the other hand, when we venture to quote this presumably authoritative source we are told by those who deprecate any allusion to such a possibility as oil exhaustion, or difficulty of supplies, that the expression "proved oil reserves" does not mean anything at all to do with what such a definition would appear to mean—that it
570
in fact means something completely different. Far be it from me to attempt to unravel such a highly technical tangle. One knows that oil, unlike coal, is a very elusive substance, and that fields dry up unexpectedly and new fields are discovered. There can clearly be no certainty of unlimited fresh fields appearing, and as I shall in a moment or two be asking your Lordships to consider the greater use of British coal in our national life, it would be well to state here, as a fact and not as a debatable point, that the stocks of coal embedded beneath our feet in this country are known to be sufficient to last something in the nature of 500 years.
To sum up the points which I have endeavoured to put thus far before your Lordships: Our capacity for waging war, should such a catastrophe be forced upon us, is dependent upon an assured supply of vast quantities of oil emanating from foreign countries, which firstly may not be released for our benefit at the source; which, secondly, has to be transported in half-time ships across thousands of miles of ocean, requiring convoy and escort protection against enemy action; for which, thirdly, we may have to pay ransom prices; with the possibility, fourthly, of oil exhaustion supervening and paralysing our national life. I submit to your Lordships that such a situation—and I have endeavoured to give your Lordships a true appreciation of the position—is fraught with the gravest dangers, and I ask you to say that immediate steps should be taken by His Majesty's Government to minimise these risks, which manifestly imperil the very existence of this country and of the British Empire. The remedies which I propose are outlined in the words of the Motion, and I respectfully ask for your Lordships' patience and indulgence while I do my best in the fewest possible words to develop them.
In these days of air power and mechanised Armies vast quantities of petrol are essential in order that these services may function, for, as is well known, these arms of our Defence Forces stand alone in their inherent incapability at the present time of using any alternative fuel. For every ton of petrol there are two tons of residuals to be disposed of, for, as I stated a few moments ago, it takes three tons of

571
crude oil to produce one ton of petrol. The only feasible solution therefore, is to burn the fuel oil and Diesel oil under boilers or in engines both afloat and ashore. Not only will this ensure useful disposal, but it will guarantee the solvency of the oil trade. I ask your Lordships' particular attention to this: the existence of air power and of mechanised Armies definitely entails oil power, not only in the air and on land, but on the sea as well. Or, to put it in a different way, a great and expanding demand for petrol requires a reciprocal oil fuel policy at sea. Hence we have a 100 per cent. oil burning fleet and a 50 per cent. oil burning merchant fleet.
Oil shortage in the event of war would be unlikely to occur in the opening weeks of hostilities. The reserves which we are told are being steadily built up in this country and in the Dominions will be sufficient for a time, presumably, to offset reduction of imports caused by enemy or other foreign action. But what will happen in the event of a protracted war? So far as the Air Force is concerned the probabilities are, I submit, that the reserves of petrol in the country, plus the amount made available by the drastic rationing of all private and commercial supplies, will be sufficient to see the initial intensive air war through to its inevitable conclusion, which, in the opinion of many people, will be air exhaustion. The war will then settle down to the long, grim struggle of the last War, and indeed of all wars, in which, as ever, sea power will be unquestionably the deciding factor. Now if we are to exploit to the full this factor of sea power it is imperative that our Fleet and Mercantile Marine shall have complete and unfettered mobility and freedom of movement.
How is this to be achieved beyond any possibility of doubt when the motive power of our ships is controlled by the foreigner? The only certain means is to be independent of imported supplies of fuel, or, in other words, to rely on our own inexhaustible stocks of coal in this country. The day has, unfortunately, not yet arrived when we can produce all the oil that we require from our own indigenous coal. Nevertheless—this is perhaps a slight digression, but I venture to repeat the conviction to which I was bold
572
enough to give expression in this House fifteen months ago, that, in spite of the Falmouth Report, the accomplishment of that much-to-be-desired result will be achieved in due course. But it is the present, and not the future, with which we are vitally concerned, and it is surely clear that we must therefore lose no further valuable time in safeguarding our ships against a shortage of oil by enabling them to burn coal as an alternative should the emergency arise.
So far as the Navy is concerned, we hold that this safeguarding capacity can be achieved by dual-firing all ships of new construction. We say that it is possible to build an efficient dual-fired warship equal in speed, armament, and protection to the exclusively oil-fired ship, involving little, if any, addition to personnel, and only a slight increase in displacement and cost. There is no intention that this dual-fired ship should be capable of steaming at full speed on both fuels. Any such condition would at once entail prohibitive increase in size and personnel, and would be quite impracticable. The proposal is very simple—to build into all new ships sufficient bunker space to contain the necessary coal to enable the ship to develop on coal the horse-power requisite for steaming at moderate speed. It would not even be necessary to carry the coal at all, so long as oil was available, or until its supply was threatened.
Our approaches to the Admiralty regarding this question have been unfruitful, their attitude being merely a resolute non possumus. The replies which I have rereived from the Government Bench on each occasion when I have raised this issue in your Lordships' House have been, if I may say so, unimpressive and unimaginative. They have consisted largely of reeling off a list of technical objections in the course of which certain figures were given purporting to show the impracticability of incorporating any such measure as that advocated—figures which bore no relation whatever to realities or to the modest proposal put forward, and conveniently ignoring the main issue, which is not a technical one, but a strategic, economic and political one. Considerable prominence was given in the Press to the Admiralty announcement in the statement accompanying the Navy Estimates for 1939 that after "detailed investigations of the claims put forward

573
in favour of a return to coal-burning in warships" they found that such a measure "would impose such a handicap on our ships as to be definitely unacceptable."
On that statement I would simply say this, that no "detailed investigations" applied to a ship designed to burn oil could possibly prove conclusively that a return to coal is definitely unacceptable, and there is a widespread and disquieting belief that the Admiralty "investigations" were, in fact, confined to a ship designed for exclusive oil burning. Our contacts with the Admiralty have only served to confirm this impression. If this belief is unfounded, the Admiralty should refute it, because the conviction is growing that the slight additional displacement and cost inherent in the use of coal as an alternative is being used as a pretext to confirm a predetermined policy of exclusive reliance upon imported oil. The Admiralty have admitted that coal-firing might be an advantage in the case of war near home. Farther afield, on the other hand, in the Far East for example, they have maintained that oil is an advantage, on the score that it can be obtained from local sources, whereas coal would have to be transported from South Wales. Modern methods of coal burning however have completely undermined this Admiralty contention, for the reason that Australian coals, and indeed all Empire coals can now be used efficiently. Furthermore, the present position of affairs in the Far East would scarcely seem to justify the Admiralty's former optimism with regard to the continuing availability of oil supplies in that part of the world.
We are forced reluctantly to the conclusion that the Admiralty have set their face ruthlessly against the use of coal in any shape or form, and this conviction is strengthened by the decision that even the new Royal Yacht is to be oil-fired. This decision has been received with incredulity and dismay; for, whatever objections the Admiralty may see fit to maintain against coal burning in warships, none of them can possibly apply to the Royal Yacht; and surely it would be a happy gesture, and more in accordance with the fitness of things, if His Majesty's Yacht were to sail the seas fired, as heretofore, by British coal. It is very much to be hoped that reconsideration may be given to that entirely deplorable decision.
A further indication of the Admiralty's unwillingness to consider the use of any fuel other than foreign oil is to be found in the case of the convoy escort warships. These vessels would appear to be eminently suited to burn British coal, their function lying far from the front line where high speed is regarded as essential, their duties being to remain with a slow moving convoy and protect their charges from enemy action, by surface, undersea, or over-sea raider. It is surely a completely wrong conception and rank heresy to suppose that such craft must be capable of extreme speed when such capacity involves the use of that invaluable fuel oil, every gallon of which is required for other essential services.
And so I would ask your Lordships' most earnest consideration of this vital matter of the safety of the Fleet in war time. Let it not be forgotten that in the last War, when our oil requirements were a tiny fraction of what they are to-day, and when our means of conveying and defending that oil were far greater than exist at the present time, so grave became the shortage of oil in 1917 that over 400 liners and cargo ships had to be fitted to carry oil in their double bottoms, to the exclusion of large quantities of food. The dual-firing of all new ships destined to join the Fleet proper, and the coal-firing of all ships whose function will not bring them into the front line, are measures that are surely dictated by the urgency of the times. As one of our leading ship-owners writes:
"Since it would be a high point of strategy on the part of our enemies to withhold oil from us, it would be inexcusable not to provide against such a contingency. To have the facility to burn our own fuel in such an extremity would represent a safeguard altogether beyond computation. To be without it might mean irreparable disaster."
Before leaving the matter of the Fleet I should like to take this opportunity of tendering my thanks to the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, for kindly offering me at the end of last week facilities to meet two of the technical heads of Admiralty Departments. The time was too short for me to avail myself of this offer, for clearly, without technical experts present on both sides, I might have resembled the fly walking into the spider's parlour and getting quickly enmeshed in a highly technical web. I am none the less grateful for the offer. I must remind the First Lord, however,

575
that I am approaching this matter from a far broader aspect that the merely technical one. May I also say that in reply to a recent question in another place the Admiralty admitted for the first time—this is important—that it was possible to build a dual-fired warship having the same military characteristics as the exclusive oil-firer if the extra tonnage and cost were accepted? This answer shows clearly that, as a result of a frontal attack, the Admiralty have been driven from their front-line trenches which they have held for so long with great tenacity—for their contention until then had always been that no dual-fired warship could possibly match the exclusively oil-fired enemy ship. They are now hanging on by their eyelids to their second line of defence, and trying desperately to consolidate what is clearly an untenable position, for how can a little additional weight and cost possibly be held in the balance against the complete safeguarding of the Fleet?
I turn to the almost equally vital case of our Mercantile Marine, and when we talk of sea power it is well to remember that it is cargoes which really matter, the main function of the Royal Navy being to protect our own cargoes and to deprive the enemy of theirs. While it would be incorrect to say that the decrease of one thousand tramp steamers of 2,000 tons gross and over under the British flag as compared with 1914 is due to the abandonment of coal in favour of oil, it would be true to say that it is a contributory cause. In the days of coal-burning, when coal was exported from this country for the use of our ships, employment was found for large numbers of tramp steamers which, by earning an outward freight on their coal cargoes, successfully competed with foreign ships for homeward bound cargoes, thereby enabling our Mercantile Marine to more than hold its own even against tramp shipping heavily subsidised by foreign Powers.
What are the forces militating against a return to coal-firing in the 50 per cent. of our merchant ships which to-day burn oil? Firstly, I suggest, that political measures such as quotas, restrictions, and central selling schemes, instead of promoting an extended use of British coal, have, like many another unsound remedy, produced a reverse result. The price of bunker coal has risen to uneconomic figures, and
576
many shipowners have been forced to draw their supplies from the Continent. What a situation to have to contemplate! The richest country in the world with our incomparable coal supplies, a country whose prosperity has been built up on our coalfields—and our own shipowners being forced to go to the Continent for their coal supplies! It is a Gilbertian situation if it were not so utterly tragic. Government action is clearly necessary here, and should be taken at once if our shipowners are to be induced and encouraged to burn British coal.
Secondly, it is not known nearly as widely as it should be that, with modern methods, coal can be burnt as economically and with the same consistency as oil. A collier's holds can now be emptied into a ship's bunkers by machinery without dust. Conveying machinery can feed coal from any bunker to the machine-fed furnaces, and the ashes can be extracted by machinery and ejected into the sea. Stokeholds are painted white, and in them a few skilled men watch gauges and occasionally touch a switch or turn a wheel. They are cool and clean, and no coal or dust is to be seen. Coal in itself, though black, is cleaner and healthier than oil, which is also black, for there is no reek of oil, and engineers working in modern coal-fired boiler rooms have said that they prefer them to oil. Coal-burning ships can now be as smokeless as oil burners, for the reason that the coal is mechanically forced in underneath the fires and the draught forces the smoke upwards through the fire, thus converting it into a smokeless gas.
Again, in modern closed furnaces, both air draught and coal feed—and so boiler furnace heat and power—are all under complete control, which was not the case when furnace doors had to be opened for shovelling in coal by hand. With furnace doors never opened, and control complete, furnace heat regulation is as easy as turning a gas flame up or down, the gas in this case being the air supply. That old curse of coal firing—the frequent cleaning of boilers—is a thing of the past, for with mechanical firing the coal is always moving, and ashes and clinker are pushed away and drop into a trough for mechanical removal. Consequently coal fires can now be as clean as oil fires. Finally, coal furnaces can now be of any desired length, and machine-fed coal

577
furnaces 22 feet and even longer are in daily use. It is true, in fact, to say that coal has emerged from the dirty, smoky, muzzle-loading stage of stokers, shovels, and fatigue into the clean and smokeless machine-gun stage of mechanical firing. These remarkable developments in coal combustion are peculiarly adaptable to the faster cargo ships and liners, but it is probable that in the slow tramp steamer of 9–10 knots the extra cost of a mechanical stoking plant would be unjustified and hand-firing would still be the most economical method of propelling such ships.
I apologise for troubling your Lordships with these technical details, but I have thought it expedient to do so in anticipation of the many technical objections which were put forward by certain noble Lords on former occasions, and with which perhaps they may have been preparing to assail me to-day. I have informed myself of these facts, not only in conversation with engineers in daily touch with these matters but by personal visits both ashore and afloat—ashore, at the Battersea Power Station, a few minutes walk from your Lordships' House, where no less than 10,000 tons of coal a week are mechanically fed to the furnaces—afloat, on board one of the Southern Railway's train-ferry steamers operating between Dover and Dunkirk, an ideal testing ground for mechanical stokers due to the exacting conditions obtaining in cross-Channel work, involving quick accelerations and retardations and thus requiring maximum flexibility.
What progress, if any, is being made in the restoration of coal-burning in our merchant fleet? It may interest your Lordships to know that an order has recently been given for a new 22-knot coal-burning cross-Channel steamer, her boilers to be fitted for this mechanical firing. Two new passenger liners of 6,000 tons, with this same modern system of coal-burning, will shortly be running between Calcutta and Rangoon. This is satisfactory as far as it goes, but your Lordships will agree that this is only a start, and far more encouragement is necessary if things are really to be got going in this direction. One gladly welcomes the recent action of the Government in giving some slight preference to coal-burning ships when framing British shipping subsidies. This should certainly be some incentive to our shipowners, but the greatest encourage-
578
ment of all, of course, would be for the Admiralty to give a real lead in the matter, to abandon their exclusive oil-mindedness, and their uncompromising veto on the use of coal in men-of-war, and to call for designs forthwith of dual-fired first-line warships and coal-fired second- and third-line ships. Is it too much to hope that while there is yet time the Admiralty will make this move so urgently required and so set the example to the Mercantile Marine—that great service with which the Royal Navy is so proud to be so closely associated?
Finally, the question of our land transport and industry as a whole. If the restoration of coal-burning in ships is of paramount importance for the restoration of national security, and for recovered prosperity, the substitution of coal derivatives for petrol and oil on land is only second in importance. Your Lordships will be aware of the rapid strides which have been made in France, Germany, Italy and many other countries in the use of producer gas as a substitute for petrol and Diesel oil, with the active encouragement of the Governments concerned. I saw a few days ago a report showing that Russia also is now producing no less than 32,000 producer-gas vehicles. According to the Bulletin of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce, the experiments which have been carried out in Russia with vehicles equipped with producer-gas plants have proved so successful that the Soviet authorities have decided to go ahead with construction on a large scale. While it is true that in this country there has recently been a considerable awakening to the economic and technical advantages of this fuel, derived from our own coal, the melancholy fact remains that so far as achievement is concerned, we are a long way astern of other countries. This is in no way due to our inferior technical knowledge. On the contrary, the results obtained in this country and the excellence of British plants, no less than the unique suitability of our coals, have been universally acknowledged.
When I raised this matter in your Lordships' House in April of last year, I was informed that the Government had this question under very serious consideration, and your Lordships were assured that "the Government are actually taking action at the present moment." That was in April, 1938. I

579
certainly have no wish to embarrass His Majesty's Government, but I should be grateful for any information that the Minister can give as to what this action was, or has been in these last fifteen months, in regard to this matter, for the results of this serious consideration and action taken have been deplorably unfruitful. We have the mortification of seeing, for example, a big City Corporation replacing their worn-out tramways, not with trolleybuses dependent for their functioning on British coal but with motor 'buses burning foreign oil. In what other country in the world could we see such short-sighted fecklessness, to use no stronger term?
And yet it is difficult to blame local authorities who may be ignorant of the pressing need for a greater and more extended use of our own coal in the interests of defence. It is the Government's duty to educate the public on this point, and to insist that the time has arrived when the needs of national security positively demand the introduction of British and Empire fuels wherever their use provide an economic and efficient performance. That they do fulfil these conditions has long been demonstrated, and producer-gas is an eminently suitable fuel for heavy long distance road transport such as 'bus and lorry, for tractors, barges, fishing craft, coastal vessels and stationary plant. I may be told that the Government have already done their part in that they levy no tax in respect of such fuels, and that the heavier producer-gas vehicle pays a lower rate of vehicle tax. While acknowledging these benefits, it must be said that they are not far-reaching enough.
In the case of compressed town gas, an excellent fuel, the gas bottles, like the producer in the producer-gas vehicle, should not be included for taxation in the unladen weight of the vehicle, because existing regulations force the slightly heavier gas vehicle from the 30 mile per hour to the 20 mile per hour class. The accumulator in the electric vehicle is not counted as part of the weight, and surely the same concession should be granted to compressed-gas and producer-gas vehicles. When it is remembered that private and commercial supplies of petrol and oil will be drastically curtailed in the event of war or emergency, and when it is realised what added employment will be given in the coal fields through the extended use
580
of coal and its derivatives, it is surely the duty of the Government to assist to the utmost in the development and use of these British alternative fuels, now, and not wait for an emergency to arise.
One final word. I desire to stress, as I have done before in your Lordships' House, the great unwisdom and the grave danger of storing our vital oil supplies in these great tanks above ground. Many of your Lordships must have seen them and their extreme vulnerability must have occurred to all observers. Our policy of reliance on foreign imported oil entails the building up of immense reserves in this country and other parts of the Empire, and it is clearly essential that these precious stocks should be housed in such a way as to reduce to a minimum the risk of destruction by enemy action. They should, of course, be placed underground. Other commodities can be dumped in a hundred different places—in sheds, in sidings, on wharves, in open fields, if necessary. Oil alone, our most vital requirement, must have a container for its reception. Hundreds of thousands of tons of oil will be required to arrive in this country every week in time of war in tankers from overseas, and must be unloaded without delay in order that the tankers may turn round and go out for more. Where are you going to put this life-blood of the nation if the containers for its reception have been bombed out of existence? May I urgently beg His Majesty's Government to give your Lordships the assurance that no further time will be lost in building underground storage, whatever its cost, and so safeguard these vital reserves and whatever supplies manage to reach this country in time of war? May I also beg for an assurance that the Government are satisfied that the necessary tanker tonnage is available, and that port facilities exist for handling the vast quantities of additional oil which will be required in war time, observing that some of the ports used in peace time may not be safe for the work of discharging in war?
I have done. I have to ask your Lordships' pardon for keeping you so long, but I have endeavoured to put before your Lordships as concisely as possible the plain unvarnished facts of a situation which in the opinion of many of us who have closely studied the whole question bears the germs of desperate peril for this country and the British

581
Empire. The sands are running low. Once before, within the memory of most of us here, the country was saved at the eleventh hour by the Government steping in and over-riding the objections obstinately sustained by technical experts. I refer, of course, to the institution of the convoy system in 1917 by which measure this country was saved from starvation and the Allied Powers from capitulation. There may yet be time to ward off still greater disaster if the Government will show vision and courage and resolute determination to take immediate steps to deal with this Achilles heel of our national defences. I beg to move.
6.32 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for a few minutes only, but I must congratulate the noble Lord on the very closely reasoned case he has presented to your Lordships. That gives me the greater pleasure because I always approve of a Conservativé Peer attacking the present Government, and I am glad to see so many Peers with naval experience here ready to assail the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty. I have had experience of this question for many years, because the mining members of my own Party very naturally have pursued it with great vigour. I want to say immediately that of the three parts into which the noble Lord's Motion may be divided I desire to support him on two, but with regard to the third, that of coal firing in the Navy, I feel bound to support the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty in resisting it. I do not want to go into details on that point. The military objections are to my mind overwhelming, and I will mention only one in particular. That is, that a warship taking in oil fuel in a harbour if attacked by aircraft could immediately get her guns into action. If she was taking in coal she would be helpless for some considerable time. That is one of the many military considerations of which one must not lose sight.
On the other hand, I quite agree with the suggestion that it is the Government's duty to encourage, possibly through the subsidy, the building of merchant ships to burn coal. That, I think, is a thoroughly sound policy. I do not know whether the noble Earl has the figures, but I think it would be interesting to hear
582
how far we have gone in the production of oil fuel in our own country. The noble Lord spoke of our marvellous reserves of coal, but all that coal, of course, can be turned into heavy oil and petrol and lubricating oil, and it would be interesting to know how much is being produced now after all the money and all the efforts spent on hydrogenation and high temperature and low temperature carbonisation. I do not know if the Government are watching the latest developments in the synthetic treatment of coal. The leading method, of course, and the one that is best known, is the German Fischer-Tropsch process. There are disadvantages in adopting that, because we have to pay royalties, but the British process, I am told, is making considerable progress and sounds most promising. I hope the Government are going to look into it and encourage it if it is at all possible to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, spoke of storage and of the vulnerability of oil tanks. That depends largely on where they are placed, but I am advised that oil tanks are not only difficult targets to hit, as was shown in Spain in recent months, but also that they are not so vulnerable as might be supposed. It is very difficult, I am told, to set them on fire. But they ought to be placed geographically where they are not so exposed to air attack. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, in being a little worried about the tanker position. I know it has been engaging the attention of the Government for a long time, and I do hope they have made long-term arrangements with the American tanker companies. If they have American tanker ships on long-term charter, then I do not think the American Neutrality Act will matter so much. I do not want the First Lord of the Admiralty to say anything which would give away secrets—one of the difficulties of debates such as this is that so much information which the Government ought to have would be rather mischievous to give to the House—but at the same time I agree that we must not let the First Lord of the Admiralty hide completely behind the plea of public interest. We have a right to know that the country is safe in this matter.
Now I come to the third part of the Motion, and I do support what the noble Lord said about encouraging the use of

583
road vehicles which are not dependent on petrol, both those which are electrically driven and those which use producer gas. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I believe will speak, and he has great knowledge of this matter, but I would like to support what has been said about the necessity of greater relief from taxation of such vehicles because of the added weight which they require. May I make this further suggestion? I think myself, from such study as I have been able to give to the subject, that there is a case for the building up of reserves of producer gas plant of the type which can be adjusted to existing motor vehicles. The Government are storing tractors for agricultural purposes, and I should have thought that the same argument would have justified the encouragement of a shadow scheme or the actual storage of producer gas plant.
I can imagine that the First Lord of the Admiralty will produce the usual argument, which is perfectly sound, that we have to keep the trade routes open in time of war, and that if they are kept open we can bring in oil; but I think there is a reservation needed there. I think a case can be made out for doing all we can to relieve the Navy of responsibility for trade routes so that it may be left free for other duties. The more we can store in this country while we have time to do it, and the more we can produce in the way of home fuel, and the more we can economise in fuel in the way suggested, the better it will be from a naval point of view. The Fleet has very wide responsibilities to-day—wider than ever before—and if we can relieve the Navy of responsibility for the trade routes as far as possible I think that would be sound strategy. The Government, we are told in the Press, are taking advantage of the phenomenally low price of wheat to buy wheat and store it in Canada. That should be extended in all directions, particularly with regard to oil.
With regard to what the noble Lord said about the ability to last out a war, the information I have about the German oil situation throws a ray of light into his rather gloomy picture. I am told that the German oil situation is most critical and far worse than ours, and that it would be difficult for the Germans
584
to last in any way more than three months if they were so foolish as to plunge into a war. But we must not take comfort from that only. Their only chance is a lightning war. We, as always, have to be prepared for a long war, almost of exhaustion and attrition—we hope it will not be too long—under modern conditions. It is the longish campaign that rather alarms me. I cannot help feeling that the Government's broad plans are rather based on the medium campaign. We may have to be prepared for a very long campaign, and the long-range remedies to which the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, has referred in two thirds of his Motion I should respectfully like to support. I know the First Lord is very much of the same mind in these matters, and I hope he will give your Lordships some comfort.
6.42 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I do not wish to go into the merits of the case except to make an appeal to my noble friend opposite, for the purpose of this debate, to realise that if he would slightly amend his Motion he would probably have on his side, notably the noble Lord who has just addressed us, and also a great many other noble Lords who have supported me in my campaign for having home-made fuel for the Fleet—and, indeed, the whole Board of Admiralty. As he will see, he asks that we should institute without delay
"a national fuel policy based upon the use of British coal, afloat both in His Majesty's Fleet and in the Mercantile Marine—"
And then he goes on:
"and upon the use of alternative fuels derived from British coal."
That is, home produced fuel, ashore, and all the other matters. If it were to read:
"The necessity for instituting without delay a national fuel policy based upon the use of British coal"
it would leave the First Lord of the Admiralty free to say, "Well, of course, for most of our ships, and indeed for all our newest ships, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that we must have a liquid fuel"; but he would be bound to say—I know he would—that if he, speaking for the Board of Admiralty, could have home-produced fuel to burn in our ships, whether it were liquid or solid, he would be compelled to support this Motion, for the reasons that the noble Lord has just given.

585
It is obvious that the Navy would rejoice if they could have home-produced fuel. It is a pity to try to pin them down to using our coal in a solid form. All the men I have spoken to say that some of the ships, or most of them, would prefer to use it in a liquid form. As we all now know, it is all the same thing, it is all carbon, and you can turn the solid into the liquid; but the process is expensive. There are three methods, and the last of them, to which the noble Lord has referred, is a very satisfactory one—the new synthetic method. But there can be no doubt that if the proposal that I made three years ago, that the Government should spend £40,000,000 on making the Navy independent of foreign fuel, had been carried out—and my noble friend on my right here will, I think, not quarrel with me when I say that with that £40,000,000 that could have been done—the Navy would now be independent of foreign imported fuel. Now I appeal to the noble Lord to get us all on one side by making the Motion read in that way, and then I cannot think that there is more than perhaps one man in this House who will not accept it with both hands.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, if I may answer that suggestion for one moment, if what the noble Lord proposed had been done, then clearly my Motion would never have been put forward. It is because it has not been clone, and because we cannot produce at present anything like our requirements of oil at home, that I have brought forward my Motion.
LORD MOTTISTONE: But should the noble Lord not make his Motion read in that way, so that he would not condemn one part of our ships—namely, our warships—to the use of coal, while, if he uses the words "alternative fuels," he has it in his power now to prevent the Government from wriggling out of the very awkward position in which they have been placed by their refusal adequately to encourage the use of home-produced liquid fuel?
6.45 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I must apologise for rising to address you on two consecutive days on the subject of coal, but I feel so strongly on this Motion that I feel bound to enter the lists again. I must support what has been said by Lord
586
Mottistone on this matter; but I believe that the noble Lord's Motion is primarily that the Navy should go back to coal and use coal firing. There are a very large number of objections against it. I think he is prepared to allow the Navy the use of oil produced from coal, but I doubt very much whether the £40,000,000 suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would produce anything like the oil we require to run even half His Majesty's Fleet. This section of the Motion, dealing with His Majesty's Navy, has been debated in your Lordships' House on many occasions, and I fully realise that the noble Lord refers to the design of new warships. He suggests, however, that technical reasons should not enter into any argument against his proposed policy, because they do not exist. Technical objections, I am well aware, may not be of any moment as regards the Merchant Navy, but when it comes to His Majesty's Navy those technical objections certainly exist and are of great importance. I hope I shall not weary your Lordships if I give you a few of the technical objections all over again which have been given in your Lordships' House before.
Oil has a much greater heating value than coal and is much more uniform in heating quality; therefore it must follow that a ship has a greater steaming radius from the use of oil. Another point is that oil does not deteriorate in storage; in hot climates coal deteriorates quite a lot. Moreover, with oil there is no ash; with coal there is a good deal of ash. Oil takes up less space in storage than coal, and an important point to notice is that the oil bunkers can be completed to within 95 per cent. of fuel stowage; whereas with coal bunkers that is not possible, as you must leave room for men to get inside and trim the bunkers down so that the stokers can fire the coal. Therefore it must mean that you must provide a much larger space in a ship. Also I think there is bound to be a great difficulty of hatches for reserve bunkers, and if you have a dual-fired ship you must have reserve bunkers for the coal. If you have these reserve bunkers for the coal, it must entail additional hatches through the protective deck, which again weakens the structure of the ship, especially against aerial bombardment, because you are going through the protective deck. In addition, a number of

587
holes in the bulkhead are necessary when coal is used, in order to extract it and get it down to the stokeholds. This again means a further weakening of the ship's structure and of course a danger of leakage.
Many arguments have been brought forward in favour of the protective effect of coal in bunkers in His Majesty's ships in the event of war. This is a very doubtful protection; it is only protective in the event of bunkers being completely full. If they are half full and have been trimmed, then there is very little protection left. Refuelling of oil-burning ships is about three times as quick as with coal, and in emergency can take place at sea; this is an absolute impossibility with coal. When a warship is coaling, as was pointed out by my noble friend on the opposite Benches, it is very difficult for that ship to protect herself against an aerial bombardment; whereas with oil she can shut off the valves and be ready for action at a moment's notice. Another point to note is that when a warship is coaling practically the entire ship's company have to be employed on the work, and if they have to go into action almost immediately afterwards they are hound to be not so fit to fight the ship as they would have been if only oil storage had taken place. Dual firing by means of mechanical stokers, or otherwise, for coal, must mean increased weight and, therefore, less speed and armament for any particular size of ship, and smaller steaming radius. Also, what is perhaps more important, a very large increase in personnel would be required, with all the attendant increases in accommodation, victualling, etc. I think it is the general view of most naval officers that technical arguments in favour of oil are so strong that they outweigh any strategical advantages that might be obtained from the use of coal.
I will now turn to the proposed policy as a whole. Apart from technical objections, I think it is true to say that every country that has a large fleet is in the same position as ourselves as regards oil supplies, except perhaps Russia and the United States of America. Again, the only coal really suitable for the Navy is found in Wales, whereas oil can be obtained in various parts of the world where our fleet may be stationed, and colliers taking coal out to these various
588
stations would be just as vulnerable to the enemy as oil tankers bringing supplies of oil to this country. The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, has referred in his speech to the proposed new Royal Yacht for His Majesty, and said that it would be desirable that she should be constructed to be coal-fired. Surely the noble Lord would be satisfied if this vessel were to use oil produced from British coal. The noble Lord also referred in his Motion to alternative fuel derived from British coal that might be used in our heavy road transport. I have made a very careful study of this matter, and as President of the Transport Producer Gas Association, I can assure him that very great strides have been made in industry in the design of suitable gas producers for road vehicles.
I had hoped, to-day, to be in a position to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the help they are proposing to give to this new industry, in order to produce a well designed gas producer plant. I understand that the Government Fuel Research Station at Greenwich has been working on the design and performance of such a plant for many months. So has industry, and surely it would be well for the country that the knowledge gained by the Government research station at Greenwich and that of industry should be pooled. The Department of Industrial and Scientific Research was formed specially to co-operate with industry and make grants, with Treasury sanction, for experimental purposes in co-operation with industry. To have industry working in one direction, and the Government in another direction, is surely uneconomic. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider this point carefully, and bring the two parties together at the earliest possible moment. The conservation of our oil fuel in time of war is of paramount importance, and anything that can help in this direction, I would suggest, should be given the very fullest support possible under the circumstances.
6.54 p.m.
LORD CADMAN: My Lords, in the old days, when wooden ships gave way to iron ships, a similar controversy to that now under discussion about oil and coal took place, but scientific development and progress could not be checked, nor will they be now. The policy which the noble

589
Lord, Lord Ailwyn, has adopted in his endeavours to persuade the Government to change their attitude on the subject of coal appears to be founded on the old adage that constant dripping wears away a stone. Ever since the last War, successive Governments have considered the merits and demerits of coal and oil for use as fuel for the Navy. Each consideration—whatever the political hoe of the Government in power, and whatever the constitution of the Board of Admiralty—resulted in a definite decision that the Navy should continue to be oil-fired. More recently, the present Government submitted the whole problem of fuel policy to a Sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which, I believe, investigated it with great thoroughness. The conclusions of the Committee have in large part been made public, and they do nothing to support the contentions of the noble Lord who introduced this subject for debate. Nevertheless, the noble Lord and his like-minded friends persist, in season and out, in drawing the attention of His Majesty's Government to the necessity of reversing a policy which definitely has the support of the most experienced advisers on whom the Government can call.
The reason for this insistence is that the noble Lord and his friends detect, in the Government's present policy, a state of "highly dangerous dependence." It is remarkable, however, that they perceive that dependence only in one of its many facets. It is invariably dependence on imported oil which alarms them. The fact that the national life is also dependent on imported wheat, on a whole range of other imported foodstuffs, on imported rubber, and so on, does not apparently disturb them in the least. Nor are they able to detect that a similar dependence is shared by all other European Powers. France has virtually no indigenous production of oil; Italy also is almost wholly dependent on imported liquid fuels; Germany, in its progress towards autarchy, is now, at great expense, able to produce some 35 per cent. of its peace-time requirements of oil from home sources. Nevertheless, such are the advantages of oil firing for naval purposes, and so essential are the products of petroleum to all modern military operations, that these and other countries, dependent though they are on imported oil, use liquid fuel,
590
with few exceptions, in their naval vessels, and must rely in every military operation upon continued supplies of imported liquid fuels.
The essential fact is that every great Power is dependent on imported supplies for some of the vital requisites of war. Attempts are made, as we are well aware, to evolve national substitutes for these imports or, more frequently, to accumulate reserves of vital imported substances. It is common knowledge, for instance, that the Governments of all the great Powers, including ourselves, have recently accumulated large stocks of liquid fuels and have thereby assured that the dependence of which the noble Lord is so fearful shall be mitigated, at least in the opening phases of hostilities.
I thought it remarkable that, in drawing the attention of His Majesty's Government to this matter, the noble Lord should have restricted himself as he did to fuel for the Navy, the Mercantile Marine, heavy road transport and industry as a whole. These categories suggest that the noble Lord is at present concentrating his attention on the heavier oils alone. The Navy and Mercantile Marine consume fuel oils and Diesel oil. Heavy road transport operates on types known as road fuel oils. "Industry as a whole" may consume any type of oil, but industry as a whole in this country is even now mainly a consumer of coal or of power derived from coal. What, I should like to know, does the noble Lord suggest should be done about the fuel for aeroplanes, for the lighter forms of road transport, and for all the mechanically operated tanks and vehicles used by the Army? Presumably, these are not to be produced from British coal, or the noble Lord would surely have included them to strengthen his case and to draw the attention of the Government to his case still more forcibly. If, however, they are not to be produced at home, are they still to be imported? I suspect that the noble Lord was covering himself, that he realises fully the fabulous expense and the virtual impossibility of rendering this country independent of imported oil. I have no doubt also that he realises that the plant which would be needed to produce all the oil he wants from coal would be so vulnerable a target, and so strong an incentive to bombing, that it would probably become inoperable from the moment hostilities began. The

591
noble Lord referred to the great tanks for storage and the necessity for putting them underground. He did not mention that very large plants would have to be erected to carry out the policy which he suggests.
The outstanding fact is that, if war broke out, we and every other belligerent country would be in a state of highly dangerous dependence on many things. We, for example, would be dependent on the Navy—but I refuse to believe that we should be highly dangerously so. The Navy, in all its activities, is dependent upon speed. And to attain the speed comparable to that of the ships of other oil-fuelled navies, we can only rely upon the use of oil. The coal-fired ships of the noble Lord's happy imaginings would be as well equipped for modern war as would the tortoise in a race against the hare. Unfortunately, we cannot carry the parallel further and expect other naval Powers to fall asleep.
I have often wondered what motive inspires the noble Lord in raising the issue around which the present debate is centred. It cannot, I think, be an anxiety for the efficiency and the welfare of the Navy. His experience as a serving officer must surely have taught him that, in matters of operating efficiency on naval vessels, coal cannot compare with oil. The only possible motive which I can detect is a desire for increased prosperity in the coal industry. If that is so I suggest, with all respect, that the noble Lord is embarking on an unhealthy and dangerous cruise. Greater prosperity for the coal industry will never be attained by attempts to force coal as a fuel upon unwilling users, or by endeavouring to cause its re-adoption for purposes in which it has been supplanted by a more efficient fuel. I suggest therefore that the noble Lord should try another line of investigation for the betterment of the coal industry. No industry has ever progressed which has set its mind and its heart upon a return to days which have gone for ever. Progress depends on aspirations towards an ideal. Even if the ideal is not immediately attainable, it acts nevertheless as a stimulus to initiative. In endeavouring to attain it, something will be accomplished; and in the fulness of time the accumulation of even small accomplishments results in an entire
592
change of use, in a greater adaptation to existing conditions, and in enhanced prosperity for the industry concerned.
There were two points made by the noble Lord at the opening of his speech to which I should like to refer. He said that the volume of oil in the world was very limited. I think he mentioned a figure of twelve years. That figure is totally incorrect; the amount of oil in view to-day far exceeds that. The other point was when he spoke of oil being brought over in the late War to the exclusion of food. I happened to be the responsible officer for dealing with the use of double bottoms in tankers, working under the Minister, Mr. Walter Long, and I may tell the noble Lord that not a gallon of oil was brought to this country in replacement of a pound of food. The orders were given that when a ship was departing from the other side of the Atlantic it was to come laden with other products than oil unless it could not be fully laden with them, and then only the double bottoms were to be used and to be filled with oil.
7.6 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, my excuse for intervening is that on a former occasion when this matter was raised in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, I took part in the debate and dealt with the question of road transport from the point of view of economy of fuel consumption. Since that time I am bound to say that I have been greatly discouraged to find that more has not been done by the Government. I hope that the noble Earl in replying to-night will devote some part of his speech to that particular aspect of the question. It was raised in a relatively limited form by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, because, very naturally, he devoted the bulk of his speech to developing the marine side of the question. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, also referred to it, and spoke with the authority of the position which he holds in this particular field. I am sure that we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, for raising this matter again, and your Lordships will agree that for care in the preparation of his speech and the brilliance of its presentation he deserves our thanks.
I was, to say the least, surprised that the noble Lord who has just sat down,

593
who at least cannot escape the suspicion of having definite leanings on this subject, should have insinuated that my noble friend Lord Ailwyn in raising this question spoke for the coal industry. I imagine that what led him to raise it was his intimate knowledge as a serving officer, and the enthusiasm which, on patriotic grounds, he devotes to the examination of a case which he is particularly competent to follow. I should have thought that: in your Lordships' House a matter of this importance would have attracted a larger attendance, especially of noble Lords who are interested in oil—and there are many—and in coal. I am surprised that we do not see here to-day more noble Lords who are interested in coal, because when it is a matter of their own particular interest in coal I notice there is a very large attendance in your Lordships' House.
In developing the question of oil for road transport I do so from the wider point of view of the protection of sterling. That has not yet been mentioned in this debate. Surely if it be true that 92 per cent. of our total imports of oil are from other than Empire sources, the strain on sterling of the importation of oil must be an appreciable one. For that reason it is difficult to understand the reluctance of those Departments concerned, particularly the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury, who control the registration and taxation of vehicles, such as battery vehicles, vehicles running on gas, steam vehicles or producer gas vehicles. In all these cases it is a matter of regulation to allow such vehicles to carry the same pay load at the same speed and with the same tax as other types of vehicles. It is obvious that that must depend on agreement between the Departments. There cannot be in that matter the same technical controversy as there very naturally is between marine experts on the question of oil or coal at sea. My two terms on the Central Electricity Board enabled me to see at close quarters the astonishing changes which have taken place in the thermal efficiency of coal combustion and the relative cost of current under the thermal and hydroelectric systems. I wish to support my noble friend who initiated this debate in the emphasis he placed on how the conditions for the use of coal at sea have been entirely changed.
594
I finish on this note, that surely there cannot be grounds for this disinclination on the part of the Departments concerned to give more sympathy, if not to give actual encouragement—and it is in their power in many directions to give ample encouragement—to the development in this country of a supplementary means which may be available on a big scale in case of war for road haulage by a propelling medium other than oil. The controversy is a technical one as to matters of cost. I do not propose to enter into that. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with any figures, but it is incontrovertible that we are spending immense sums of money and putting a tremendous burden on the taxpayers of the country for varied purposes, while other countries—France, Italy, Germany, Russia, japan—have all taken strong Government action to encourage a supplementary means for the protection of their mobility in possible time of war, apart from the consolation of the exchange in time of peace. The encouragement of road transport is a means of security in time of war. I do not need to remind your Lordships of the vulnerability of the railways and the flexibility of the roads; but I finish on the key that if, as we are assured, the consumption of oil on land, at sea, and in the air is a vital test of our staying power in war, surely then ecenomy in the use of that fuel for road transport internally is vital. That is the appeal that I make to the noble Earl. If he is not able to give us much in detail at this late hour, I hope he will at least urge the Government Departments concerned to give greater sympathy to the representations made to them from various angles of this important subject.
7.15 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships a few moments only. I have heard the noble Lord who introduced this subject raise it before in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord is a naval officer, and speaks no doubt with the idea of giving us the benefit of his experience as a naval officer. The ground was very well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who dealt with most of his arguments, but I would really ask the noble Lord, as a naval officer, to tell us how a destroyer flotilla of the British Navy could possibly operate on coal and carry out its work. It can only be done by providing completely double crews for

595
all the duties concerned. You could not possibly expect your crews, having been out on patrol or some special duty like that, to come in and re-coal the ship and go out and carry on with thorough efficiency. I always think the case of destroyers is perhaps the best test to apply to arguments on the subject of oil versus coal.
I hope I may say a word on the subject of producer gas. I have not an oil share, and I am not directly or indirectly connected with oil, but I am interested in the production of vehicles to run on producer gas or on oil, or even trolley-buses. The firm to which I belong makes all of them, and it is a matter of complete indifference which we make. With regard to producer gas, there is a system now which is capable of running road vehicles on producer gas. In fact the firm to which I belong has made several vehicles already, and one is being tried out extensively in this country. The conclusion we have come to is that it is impossible to operate the producer-gas vehicle in peace time on the existing basis of taxation. I am afraid the Government will have to go into the matter from the point of view of taxation generally, and see how taxation is distributed over heavy commercial vehicles before it is really a commercial proposition to run a vehicle on producer gas. The Government might go into it, and I hope the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will be able to give us some little assurance on this subject. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, in what he said and also what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. I do think the Government could do a good deal to encourage the use of producer gas, and perhaps something might be done to encourage the use of steam vehicles in the heavy commercial vehicle industry. At this late hour I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I trust the Government will be able to offer us some encouragement.
7.18 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, as several noble Lords have said, this is far from being the first debate on this subject we have had in your Lordships' House. I am afraid nothing I am likely to say is going to convince my noble and gallant friend Lord Ailwyn. I observe, however, that he remarked that we had
596
been driven from our front-line trench. May I suggest that he has been driven from his front-line system, because the claim he put forward to-day is very much less than he put forward in the past? I may say, to begin with, that of course the whole question of fuel supply is constantly in the mind of His Majesty's Government. We recognise to the full the difficulties of exchange, and we realise that in time of war that situation is going to be much more difficult. Therefore, if it were possible with equal efficiency to run the whole of our services on home-produced fuel, no one would be more anxious to do it than members of His Majesty's Government. May I remind my noble friend that, as has been said by, at any rate, one other Peer, every single country in the world is running its Navy on oil fuel, and with the exception of the United States and Russia every one of them is dependent on imported supplies?
My noble friend stressed the great danger in which this country is placed by being dependent on foreign sources for its oil supply, but, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Cadman, oil is only one of the things which we have to import into this country. Food, raw materials of all kinds, all sorts of objects, some of them of great bulk, have got to be imported into this country, and if we fail to import them into this country we lose the war. Of that there can be no question. That is why the Navy counts as the Senior Service, and not only as the Senior Service but as the one on which the whole country depends for its security. We might lose battles in the air, or we might lose battles on land, but if we lose the battle at sea we are finished, because starvation then stares us in the face. Therefore when we realise the vital importance of our imports into this country, let us realise also that oil is only one of those imports and therefore the duty of protecting it is but one of the duties which is laid upon the Fleet. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he stated that the more we could lighten the burden that lies upon the Fleet in regard to the escort which is necessary for materials to be brought to this country, the more will the Admiralty be pleased. The burden is so heavy that the more we can reduce it the better and the greater is the safety of this country.

597
But let us realise the practical side of the question. If you are going to limit your ships by compelling them to burn coal, you are going to put them in a position in which they are likely to find themselves inferior to the ships of the enemy. Therefore you will be placed in the position that you will very possibly lose your battle at sea, and although you have your alternative supply of fuel close at hand, nevertheless you are not in a position to defend your material as it comes into this country. I thought my noble and gallant friend had given up his front-line system. My recollection of what he said on the last occasion is that we should revert to solely coal-burning ships. I may be wrong, but I did happen to look at part of the debate, and that is the impression, going through the speeches, which came to my mind. Now he does not even ask for dual-firing. What he does ask for is one or two boilers in which coal will be used while the remainder of the boilers in the ship will be oil-fired. That is, of course, a very different matter, but it still raises the most tremendous practical difficulties.
In the first place you cannot burn oil and coal under the same boiler unless you have an entirely different system of boilers from what we have now. The oil-fired boiler is anything up to twenty or more feet in length, and if you have coal-fired boilers they cannot be more than 7 ft. 6 in. for the reason that the stoker cannot shovel coal further than that. I believe that if any of your Lordships were to try to feed coal to a distance of 7 ft. 6 in. you would feel it was full long enough. If the boiler is mechanically fired you can have the long boiler that is required, but you must also have the machinery and equipment which have to be put in for mechanical firing. You have to have first of all your hoist to carry the coal up to a height well above the boiler, because even though you may fire your boiler at the bottom and push your coal in by the mechanical stoker at the bottom of the fire, none the less your coal has to be delivered at the top of the hopper. There has to be a hopper going down to feed the mechanical stoker which is at the bottom of the boiler, and therefore your coal has to be conveyed from bunkers near the bottom of the ship up to the high level where it can be fed down into hoppers and conveyors. I think my noble friend
598
Lord Teynham pointed out that that means holes in decks and holes in watertight compartments. If your Lordships will examine the plan of modern ships, particularly those that are being built now, you will see that in order to increase the safety of the ship and to protect her both from air and underwater attacks, the sub-divisions are very considerable. Therefore the moment you put in these conveyors and these hoists you very seriously reduce the safety of the ship, and make her much more vulnerable.
There is a further point. These conveyors and hoists go almost inevitably into parts of the ship where otherwise you would have your ammunition hoists. I was examining plans only last week. The noble Lord says that the Admiralty are hidebound about this, but to examine the problem I invited him, as he told the House, to come and see for himself. I hope he and some of his expert friends will do so. We have had some so-called experts. One, I think, had never seen the inside of a warship, but he knew about mechanical coal stoking, and when he saw what a ship was in plan he realised that it was quite impossible to adapt that system to a ship. I hope my noble friend and some of his experts will come and see these things on paper, because it is much more easy to explain from a plan than I can hope to do to your Lordships' House. He will find that the experts of the Admiralty have gone into these matters with extreme thoroughness, and they are fully prepared to discuss the question, to point out their side and to listen to the other side; but I can assure my noble friend that, having approached the subject with an open mind, I myself was absolutely convinced, and there can be no question whatever about it, that as regards His Majesty's Fleet, it is essential that we should continue to rely on oil firing.
Let me give one or two figures only. A dual-fired ship, such as the noble Lord suggests, of course increases the tonnage of that ship by some 20 per cent. That means that either she has to have largely increased horse power or she has great loss of speed. It is difficult to give exact figures, because it depends on the number of coal-fired boilers put in and also whether you have mechanical stoking appliances or hand appliances. It makes an immense difference. Taking hand appliances, this is what happens. In a

599
10,000 ton cruiser, dual-fired as the noble Lord suggests but by hand, we should lose 12½ per cent. in maximum speed, and have 25 per cent. reduction in maximum endurance, and a 50 per cent. increase in the engineer complement. My noble friend does not believe it, but he is not an engineer, and the engineer officers after all are experts on this matter. Let me tell him that he is not entirely correct in saying that there are now no coal-fired ships in His Majesty's Navy. There are a few small ones, and it happens that I have had to go into the case of two of them, the reason being this. With coal-fired boilers—of course they are very old ships—the number of the crew is far higher than it is for an oil-fired ship, and the result is that the living conditions in these coal-fired ships are infinitely inferior to those in the oil-fired ships. I found that those conditions are nowhere near up to the standard which is required in His Majesty's ships now for the amenity of the crews who live in them and who in an emergency will have to fight them.
The noble Lord suggested that as regards escort vessels they had no need for speed. I wonder whether, if I appointed him to an escort vessel and the convoy was attacked by a submarine, he would not then think that he needed extreme speed forthwith. After all, the duty of the escort vessel is not only to protect the ships in the convoy but to destroy the attacking ship, and then what we require, if there is an attack, is that the escort vessel should go at whatever speed is necessary—probably extreme speed—to attack the submarine or whatever ship it may be which is attacking. He suggested also that it required no increase in personnel. But if you are going from cruising speed to a higher speed you cannot do that with your coal boilers and so your oil-fired boilers must be kept at sufficient heat to develop full speed. Both types of boilers have to have their crews there. Those who take the risk of low speed often endanger their ships.
As regards the statement made in another place that it is now possible to build a dual-fired warship that is equal to an oil-fired warship, that is true if you are prepared to increase the size, increase the horse-power and generally to make a very much larger vessel. But, of
600
course, you then get an entirely different type of vessel with characteristic disadvantages in many other ways. For instance, very large cruisers for many kinds of fleet action have great disadvantages. There are many advantages in having small cruisers, for instance, in night action. I do not want to go into more technical detail, because I may be revealing things which everyone would agree should not be stated in public, but I may say that, although it is technically possible to produce a dual-fired warship, at any rate it has very many disadvantages. If the noble Lord comes and talks to my experts, I think he will see that those disadvantages are so material that we have no alternative but to come to the decision we have.
He referred to the use of coal in the Mercantile Marine. I wonder whether he is aware that the Secretary for Mines summoned a conference in February, 1937, to consider the extended use of coal in merchant ships. As a result of that a Committee was set up which reported in July, 1938. They reported that for certain types of ships oil had considerable advantages, but that in regard to ships of 1,500 to 8,000 steam horse-power coal undoubtedly could hold its own. The Committee said, and the Government agreed, that many shipowners are entirely unaware of the modern methods of coal firing or of the greatly improved boilers that are now in use, and of the advantages to be derived from that type of fuel. We are doing our best to assist the use of coal in ships by giving a preference in the building subsidy of 1s. per ton in the case of tramp steamers and 1s. 6d. in the case of cargo liners. But, as the noble Lord said, one of the disadvantages of using coal is the very high price of bunker fuel. The matter has been brought to the notice both of the coal-owners and of the shipowners, with a suggestion that they should get into conference together and see if lower prices cannot be arranged. In several cases that has been successful and the price has been brought down materially, to the great advantage both of coalowners and of the shipping community. There is, however, one point which has not been mentioned. Some mechanical stokers require a very special type of fuel. It is entirely incorrect to say that they can use Australian or Welsh or any other fuel that is available. They can only use one type and a

601
certain size of fuel. The subject is one of great difficulty. The noble Lord may be interested to know that as a result of the policy which I have just mentioned, of giving a preference to coal-burning ships, 63 per cent. of the vessels so far notified to the Board of Trade as having been ordered under the recent subsidy are coal-using ships.
I turn for a few moments to the use of coal in industry generally. There are some sections of industry in which oil fuel has marked advantages, and we must remember that many of our industries have to be in competition with those in other countries which often pay lower wages and possibly lower taxation. I think it will be agreed that the Government would be entirely unjustified in bringing strong pressure on such people to use coal when they find it better to use oil. But the idea that oil is being very widely used in industry is, I think, one that is entirely incorrect. People have an exaggerated idea of the respective amounts of oil and coal in use. The estimated annual value of coal used in industry on shore is £80,000,000 against £3,000,000 for oil. The balance is a very large one indeed, and when I remind your Lordships that the Fuel Research Station is constantly endeavouring to encourage the production of suitable fuels and to bring their advantages to the notice of consumers, I think it will be seen that there is hope that the preponderance of coal will at any rate at least be maintained.
Now I turn to the subject of heavy road transport. Several noble Lords have mentioned the question of the turnover from tramways to other kinds of mechanically - propelled vehicles. Of course in a great many cases tramways have turned over to trolleybuses. It is rather interesting to notice that tramways in the past ten years have consumed only 721,000,000 electrical units in 1937–38 as compared with 794,000,000 units ten years earlier. That deficit, however, has been more than replaced by the greater number of electrical units consumed by trolleybuses. That figure has risen from 12,000,000 units to 203,000,000 units. The result is that tramways and trolley-buses together have increased their consumption of electrical units from 806,000,000 in 1927–8 to 924,000,000 units in 1937–8. That is the last complete year for which figures are available.
602
It is, of course, true that a very large number of large towns have preferred the ordinary petrol motor 'bus, chiefly because of its flexibility. We have seen in London how the population has moved out from the centre to the suburbs. You have to adapt your transport to where your population lives. Therefore it is natural, where there are old cities not quite certain where their populations in the next ten or twenty years are going to live, that they should have a system of transport which could be switched over from one route to another without the difficulty of having to alter wires and the other arrangements required for the trolleybus. But we do endeavour to encourage all those local authorities to go for trolleybuses and electrically-driven vehicles in preference to petrol, pointing out, as no doubt my noble friend Lord Ailwyn would warmly approve of, the danger that there may be shortage of petrol in time of war and therefore severe rationing.
LORD BARNBY: Can the noble Earl give any indication of the proportion of power units required for the propulsion of 'buses within the municipal areas, in comparison with the power required for road haulage in the country as a whole which has taken the place of rail transport? The proportion to which he has just referred, which is illuminating and extremely encouraging, must be a very small proportion of the total problem.
EARL STANHOPE: I am not an expert on transport matters, but I imagine that the trolleybuses are almost entirely in urban areas and not in country areas, for the obvious reason that in country districts the wires are tremendously expensive to put up. I imagine that in country districts the ordinary motor bus would naturally be able altogether to undercut the trolleybus in the cost of installation. I do not know that I have put it quite clearly; what I want to say is that the cost of installation of the trolleybus, when you run it in a country district, would be so high that I cannot imagine that it would be preferred to the ordinary motor 'bus run on petrol.
Low BARNBY: I appreciate the noble Earl's explanation, but I do not want to run the risk of this matter failing to reach the Departments concerned, principally the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury. The problem should be met by

603
concentration on road haulage, and therefore on concessions which would come from the present taxation to encourage road haulage and the replacement in it of imported fuel by other agencies for propulsion. My remarks were based on that proposal, which has the object of diminishing the drain on sterling.
EARL STANHOPE: Knowing my noble friend, I thought at first he was going to go for horse transport! He did not know that my noble friend Lord Cadman had started life as a great authority on coal power and had come to oil later. I do not know whether he likes his first or his last love better; I would not be so indiscreet as to inquire; but he knows a great deal about both. As regards the heavy motor vehicles, as I said, I am not an expert on these matters and therefore there is not very much that I can say to the House, but I can assure your Lordships that the Fuel Research Department has been investigating that subject very closely. As my noble friend Lord Teynham knows, all sorts of experiments have been made; we are very closely in touch with the producer gas experts, and I understand that very considerable progress is being made in that direction.
I am not at liberty to say more than that at this moment, but I would point out to your Lordships that, while several noble Lords suggested that the electrically-driven vehicle should have its batteries included in the weight, the Ministry of Transport say that the electrically-driven vehicle—I refer to the battery-driven vehicle, not the one supplied by overhead wires—really does not compete with the ordinary petrol-driven vehicle. I believe its speed is very much less, and certainly its radius of action is very much less, and therefore it is not really a competitor of the petrol engine, so you cannot very well compare it with the producer gas plant. On the other hand, the producer gas plant has the great advantage that it runs on a non-taxed fuel, and the petrol vehicle is, of course, extremely heavily taxed. The noble Lord suggested that we should do even more for the producer gas vehicle. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Howe would suggest that the tax on petrol should be increased, so that a greater preference should be given to the producer gas vehicle, but I should be rather surprised if he would!
604
I do not think I can say more on that side. I should just like to say one or two words on the question of reserves. I can assure the House that this matter of fuel supply in time of war is constantly before His Majesty's Government and is under constant examination. My noble friend Lord Mottistone suggested that if we had only followed his advice we should be over-produced with the fuel we required from the coal of this country. May I remind him of the findings of the Falmouth Committee, which investigated this subject with great care, as he knows? They came to this opinion, and it is an opinion which His Majesty's Government have accepted:
"In general a policy of depending on imported supplies with adequate storage is the most reliable and economic means of providing for an emergency, and they cannot recommend the reliance of the country in war time on supplies of oil from indigenous sources established for this purpose unless any particular aspect of the case can be shown to be exceptional."
The reason for that decision was, I understand, the one given by my noble friend Lord Howe: that these big establishments required to convert coal into oil are themselves a very great mark, a far bigger mark than the actual oil tanks required to carry the oil to this country. Therefore from the point of view of safety from air attack the oil tank is to be preferred to the factory which converts coal into oil.
As regards the protection of those reserves, I am afraid that is a matter which, as your Lordships will fully appreciate, although perhaps I might be prepared to inform your Lordships privately, I am certainly not going to state in public to this House. It is one of the matters that no doubt those who bear us no love would very much like to know, and they are certainly not going to get it from me. But that point, I may say, has not escaped the notice of His Majesty's Government, and if ever those oil reserves were attacked, I think that people would find that it was not a particularly healthy performance, or one that was particularly successful.
I have answered or tried to deal with most of the points that were raised by my noble friends in this debate, and I can only say that it is a matter of great importance and one that we are constantly considering. I should have liked very much to win over my noble friend Lord

605
Ailwyn, who with such great ability has brought this Motion before your Lordships' House, and if he would only come and visit us at the Admiralty I should hope that he might be converted to our side.
LORD AILWYN: Could the noble Earl tell me about the port facilities for taking the increased quantity of oil in war time?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes, I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I understand that he asked whether it would be possible to land in the ports of this country the increased quantity of oil that would be required in war time. Yes, that has been under investigation constantly, and we are thoroughly satisfied from that point of view.
7.49 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, at this late hour you will not expect me to deal with many of these points that have been raised. I should like first of all to thank the noble Earl for his usual courtesy and for the very full way in which he has answered my points. Certainly with the greater part of what he has told me I am reasonably well satisfied. I am, however, extremely disappointed over the question of the Fleet. I am sure that what the noble Earl has said he genuinely believes to be the fact, but I can only repeat in two words that, so far as the Fleet is concerned, the dual-fired ship retains her full steaming and endurance qualities as an oil burner. There is no question of not wanting the ship to burn oil; the only point is, if the oil is not there, have a safeguard.
606
However, I will not keep your Lordships any longer. I am a little sorry that the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross Benches, Lord Cadman, should have thought it necessary or helpful to impute certain motives to me in moving this Motion. I think if he had listened to my speech he might have realised that I was raising this Motion on one ground only—namely, national security. Those who have spoken against my proposals have attributed to me statements and arguments which I have never used, and have then proceeded to demolish them to their complete satisfaction. I thank noble Lords for having taken part in the debate, and clearly I have no alternative but to ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

BASTARDY (BLOOD TESTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. Minutes of Evidence, with Appendices, laid upon the Table and to be delivered out: Bill reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eight o'clock.