Sitting of 12 June 1939

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

DEATH OF A MEMBER.
Mr. Speaker made the following communication to the House:
I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the Right Honourable Sir Francis Dyke Acland, Baronet, late Member for the County of Cornwall (North Division). and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bognor Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Oswestry Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Milford Haven and Tenby Water Bill [Lords],
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Saint Peter's Chapel Stockport Bill [Lords],
Stroud District Water Board &. Bill[Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Newhaven and Seaford Water) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Corsham Water) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    UNITED PROVINCES (MINISTER'S PASSPORT FOR RUSSIA).
    Mr. Jaggerasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the application for a passport to enable Mr. Jain, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in the United Provinces, to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, has been granted?
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I understand that Mr. Jain's passport has been endorsed for Russia.

    ASSAM (SHOOTING INCIDENT).
    Mr. Jaggerasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement about the use of troops against strikers in the oilfields of Assam; in particular, whether they opened fire on the strikers without previous warning; whether any civil officials were present when the firing took place; whether they gave advice or instructions; and whether the troops were asked for by the Provincial Government?
    Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadIn answer to the first part of the question, no troops have been employed in connection with the strike at Digboi. The subsequent parts of the question do not, therefore, arise. A patrol of the Assam Rifles, however, was involved on 18th April in a shooting incident in which three persons were killed and five injured, apart from injuries to members of the patrol. The Assam Rifles are police, and their actions are within the responsibility for law and order of the Provincial Government.

    RUSSIA (BRITISH SUBJECT'S CLAIM).
    Sir Cooper Rawsonasked the Prime Minister whether he will personally consider the case of Mr. Joseph Martin, of 18, St. George's Terrace, Brighton, formerly a teacher of English in Moscow, who, on refusing to join the anti-British section of the Communist International and work for a revolution in the British Empire, was arrested without being

    871
    charged with any offence and, without trial, imprisoned in a filthy cell amongst corpses, where he contracted typhus and blindness, and was not repatriated for two years; why a claim, as promised by the then Foreign Secretaries in 1923 and 1926 was not put forward by the British Government to the Soviet Government in 1923 at the same as claims on behalf of Mr. C. J. Davison and Mrs. Stan Harding, both of whom received compensation; and will he take steps to see that compensation is now granted to Mr. Martin, who is now unemployable?
    The Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I am aware of the sad circumstances of this case. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to press for a measure of satisfaction for Mr. Martin's claim, as well as other claims for compensation for personal injury, as part of a general settlement of the claims of British subjects against the Soviet Government.
    Sir C. Rawson: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the question as to why, the late Government not the present Government at that time, did not deal with this case at the same time as the claims of Mr. Davison and Mrs. Stan Harding, when Mr. Davison got £10,000 and Mrs. Stan Harding, who did not suffer half as much as Mr. Martin, received £3,000?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware that these two claims were settled in 1923, but Mr. Martin's claim is one of some 260, in all of which there are very sad circumstances, and I am afraid that we cannot treat his case any differently from the other cases that occurred.
    Sir C. Rawson: When are they to be raised?
    Mr. Butler: At the first suitable opportunity.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of what the anti-British section of the Communist International is?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can help me to elucidate it.
    Sir C. Rawson: Is it fair that a patriotic British citizen, who has refused to join—
    Mr. Speaker rose—

    CHINA AND JAPAN.
    Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister whether he will say, from the latest reports received, the number of British subjects at present residing either in the Amoy or Kulangsu Islands, China; and whether any British subjects have been recently evacuated from these islands?
    Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is calling for a report of the exact numbers of British subjects residing at Amoy or Kulangsu. There are believed to be approximately 30 in both islands together. No evacuations have recently taken place.
    Mr. Day: Has any claim been made by His Majesty's Government on behalf of any of those British subjects in this district?
    Mr. Butler: Not so far as I am aware.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House concerning the death of Mr. R. M. Tinkler at Shanghai.
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandemanasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the attempts of the Japanese press to inflame Japanese public opinion against Great Britain by distorting the Japanese attack upon and murder of Mr. Tinkler at Shanghai and the detention of the British military attaché at Kalgan into lawful actions in defence of Japanese rights; and what action he has taken to cause the true facts of the case to be published in Japan?
    Mr. Robert Morganasked the Prime Minister for what reasons the military guard of British marines has recently been withdrawn from the British- owned mill in Pootung, Shanghai, in defence of which Mr. Tinkler was assaulted by the Japanese and eventually fatally injured; and whether the Japanese gave any undertaking in writing to the Shanghai Municipal Council or British authorities in Shanghai that upon such withdrawal they would preserve order and protect British subjects from violence?
    Mr. Butler: Strikes broke out on 20thMay and following days at the China Printing and Finishing Company's mill at Pootung and their works at Nantao, both of which are situated outside the

    873
    settlement. His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai requested the Japanese authorities to afford adequate protection without delay, and pending receipt of a reply British armed parties were sent to assist in maintaining order. Satisfactory and full assurances in writing were received by His Majesty's Consul-General from his Japanese colleague and the British parties at both places were then withdrawn. At the time of their withdrawal the situation was reported to be quiet. On 6th June a clash occurred between Chinese employés of the company and strike agitators at the entrance to the Pootung mill and Japanese marines were called in to restore order. The actual facts are not yet established but it would appear that a fracas ensued during which Mr. Tinkler fired a revolver shot. In the struggle which followed Mr. Tinkler received several bayonet wounds. He was first removed to the hospital attached to the Japanese naval landing party headquarters at Pootung and in the evening was brought to Hong-kew General Hospital for an emergency operation, but I regret to state that he died the following morning.
    His Majesty's Consul-General has protested to his Japanese colleague against the action of the marines in bayoneting Mr. Tinkler and against the refusal of the Japanese authorities to hand Mr. Tinkler over at once when requested to do so, or to allow a British doctor to see him at an earlier stage. Representations are also being made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo. Such information as it has been possible to give to the press as regards the treatment of British subjects has been made available to the British and international news agencies.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware how perturbed public opinion is becoming in this country at these repeated anti-British actions by Japanese in the Far East by the interception and detention of British ships, the trespass upon British property and so forth; and is no action possible except protests?
    Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Is anything actually being done to get the true facts of the case made known abroad?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; that is the reason why the information in our possession
    874
    on these subjects has been given to the British and international news agencies.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are His Majesty's Government contemplating any action except by way of protest; and is not retaliatory action considered possible in regard to these Japanese outrages?
    Mr. Butler: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware, protests and representations are being made to the authorities on the spot, and at Tokyo, and I think we had better await their result.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a more serious case than that of the Russian engineers, when the Government stopped trade with Russia?
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement with regard to the extent of the occupation by the Japanese of Hainan Island and the Spratley islands and whether any joint discussions with the French authorities have taken place with regard to it; and, if not, whether such discussions will be considered in view of the threat to the interests of these two countries in the Far East?
    Mr. Butler: According to my noble Friend's information the Island of Hainan has been only partially occupied, while it appears that there has been no actual military occupation of the Spratley group by the Japanese. His Majesty's Government are keeping in close and constant touch with the French Government in this matter.
    Mr. Hannahasked the Prime Minister whether he has conferred with the American and French Governments on the subject of the latest pronouncement of the Japanese Government to the effect that they propose to disregard extra-territorial rights in the International Settlement in Shanghai when, in their opinion, the safety of their forces is endangered?
    Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo is in close contact with his French and United States colleagues in this matter as in all matters of common concern to the three countries.
    Commander Marsdenasked the Prime Minister on what grounds the recent arrangement with the Japanese authorities at Canton for an occasional steamer service between Hong Kong and Canton has been interrupted by the Japanese?
    Mr. Butler: The Japanese allege that the agreement has been broken on the British side by a refusal to consider permission for a visit to Hong Kong of the"Shirogane Maru," on the ground that she was not a vessel genuinely chartered to the Japanese Government.

    ALBANIA.
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of a new constitution having been given to Albania by the Italian Government, he will state what action His Majesty's Government propose to take to define the international position of Albania; and whether His Majesty's Government have been invited by the Italian Government to withdraw the British Minister and to close the British Legation?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The full text of the new constitution for Albania is not yet available, but an agreement has been signed by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Italy and Albania under which the international relations of Italy and Albania are to be unified and centred in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Rome. In consequence of this agreement, the Albanian Minister for Foreign Affairs has addressed a circular to the heads of foreign missions in Albania, informing them that the Albanian Ministry for Foreign Affairs is to be closed and that it will therefore no longer be possible to accord to foreign representatives the privileges and immunities previously granted to them. In the circumstances His Majesty's Representative will cease to have the title of Minister, but will continue as Consul-General—a rank which he already holds. No question of any new appointment, therefore, arises at present.
    Mr. Henderson: May the House take it that the granting of this constitution will in no way affect the decision of His Majesty's Government not to recognise the annexation of Albania by the Italian Government?
    The Prime Minister: We have reached no conclusion on that.
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether the occupation of Albania represents an alteration in the status quo in the Mediterranean which is contrary to the terms of the Anglo-Italian Agreement?
    Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement in the House on 13th April.
    Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is that equivalent to a reply in the affirmative?
    Mr. Butler: Perhaps the right hon. Member will read the Prime Minister's statement.

    SPAIN.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Prime Minister whether he has been made aware of the speech made by Herr Hitler in Berlin on Tuesday, 6th June, to the 18,000 German troops returned from Spain when he stated that he sent German war vessels and war material in July, 1936, to take an active part in the Spanish war; and whether this information was known to the members of the Non-intervention Committee?
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent declaration of Signor Mussolini that the Italian Government gave all their assistance openly to the Spanish Nationalist authorities from the first day until the end of the Spanish civil war; and whether the Italian representative on the Non-intervention Committee at any time informed his colleagues that such assistance was being given?
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government were aware of the considerable help rendered to General Franco by the Italian navy from the beginning of the Spanish war?
    Mr. Butler: I have seen these declarations. His Majesty's Government are well aware and have often stated that from the beginning of the civil war in Spain intervention on both sides was taking place on a considerable scale. Neither the German nor the Italian representative ever communicated to the Non-intervention Committee the information now divulged.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it not the fact that on 9th July, 1936, and again on 9th August, 1936, statements were made to the Non- intervention Committee that they were not doing this kind of business, and were they not perversion of the truth?
    Mr. Butler: I would not say that they were perversions of the truth. I am sure

    877
    that the Non-intervention Committee, as well as His Majesty's Government, at that time, and since, regretted the intervention in Spain.
    Mr. Henderson: Is it not evident, as far as the Italian Government were concerned, that from the beginning to the end of the Spanish war, they regarded the policy of non-intervention as being a pure farce?
    Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot answer for the Italian Government.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the constant assurances given to this House that these facts were not so?
    Mr. Butler: Every fact that was presented to His Majesty's Government was investigated. In every case in which we had information to rebut it, we did so, and in every case in which we did not have it, we said we did not have it.
    Sir Percy Harris: Would His Majesty's Government consider publishing the minutes of the Non-intervention Committee, so that we can know what statements were made by the representatives of Germany and of Italy?
    Mr. Butler: The Non-intervention Committee was an international body and it would have been necessary to obtain their permission to do that.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is it not the case, as now revealed, that very large-scale operations were being conducted against the Spanish Government by Italy at a time when it must have been known to His Majesty's Government, owing to the scale of the operations, and His Majesty's Government were denying that they had any knowledge of them?
    Mr. Butler: I deny that statement at once. His Majesty's Government always said that there had been intervention in the Spanish war on both sides.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister on what date or at what stage of the negotiations for the Anglo-Italian Agreement the Italian Foreign Minister informed His Majesty's Government that some Italian war material might be left in Spain after the conclusion of the war?
    The Prime Minister: At the end of March last year His Majesty's Ambassa-
    878
    dor was informed by the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs that Signor Mussolini would give an assurance that as soon as the Spanish civil war had terminated all Italian volunteers would leave Spanish territory. This assurance applied also to Italian war material, but Count Ciano made it clear at the time to His Majesty's Ambassador that some war material might, when the war was over, be sold or given to the Spanish Government.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that His Majesty's Government had a warning from the Italian Government that Italian troops might remain in Spain until the end of the war, although the Prime Minister was telling us they were being withdrawn and he was encouraging the Non-intervention Committee in making agreements for their evacuation?
    The Prime Minister: I have not made any statement which is new. I have only repeated what I have said before.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The Government had then been informed by the Italian Government that the Italian troops might remain until the end of the war?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, if they had not gone before.
    Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Is it not the case, arising out of what the Prime Minister has said, that before he informed the House of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, and before he had told the House that men and materials were to be withdrawn, His Majesty's Government knew that in certain circles material would not be withdrawn?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that is quite clear from what I have said but, as I explained the other day, His Majesty's Government did not attach very great importance to that matter. The point to which they did attach importance was that war material should not be left in control of Italian troops in Spain.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is it not the case that repeatedly from these benches the question was asked whether when men were withdrawn material would be withdrawn, and was it not well known to the Government that we had grave doubts on this side of the House as to the use to which such material would be put, and is it not the case that in this matter the House has been misled?
    The Prime Minister: I must point out that, whatever was in the Anglo-Italian Agreement, it would always have been possible when the civil war was over and the Non-intervention Committee had come to an end, for other Governments to supply the Spanish Government with war material. If the Italians had taken away all the war material there would have been nothing to prevent them sending it back, either by way of sale to the Spanish Government or by gift.
    Mr. Greenwood: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman not tell the House of that?
    The Prime Minister: I have explained, or tried to explain—the right hon. Gentleman does not accept my explanation—that this was not a matter to which the British Government attached any particular importance, for the reason which I have given.
    Sir A. Sinclair: May I put a personal question to the Under-Secretary? When he told us on 3rd April that the Italian Government had given us an undertaking that they would withdraw all their troops and war material from Spain, and he told us that he had no reason to doubt that they would honour their undertaking, did he realise that there was some understanding by which they were going to be allowed to sell or give their war material to General Franco?
    Mr. Butler: I have always had the same knowledge of what passed as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I was always under the impression that the Italian Government would withdraw Italian troops and war material in Italian hands, and that is exactly what the Italian Government have done.
    Commander Marsdenasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the evacuation of the Italian troops from Spain, His Majesty's Government will send a communication to the Italian Government expressing their appreciation of the manner in which the Italian Government are carrying out the spirit of the Anglo-Italian Treaty?
    Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend does not consider that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is necessary as no doubt the Italian Government are quite aware of the feelings of His Majesty's Government in this matter.
    Commander Marsden: In view of the completely wrong conception of the situation which is held by the party opposite, may I ask the Under-Secretary if he does not think it would be an opportune moment to express the real feelings of the vast majority of the people of this country?

    ROAD ACCIDENT, GERMANY.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Prime Minister whether he will ask His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin for a report about John Scott, of Clarence Road, Canning Town, who was killed, and James Frederick Cole, of Addington Road, West Ham, who was injured, in a motor-cycle accident, on Tuesday night, between Baden-Baden and Baden-Oos, when they crashed into a column of German soldiers and one of the German soldiers was killed and two were injured?
    Mr. Butler: A report has been received from His Majesty's Consul-General at Frankfort, which confirms the main facts of this accident, in which I much regret to say that Mr. Scott and a German soldier were killed. The matter is being investigated by the German police, whose report will no doubt be communicated in due course. Meantime, the wishes of Mr. Scott's family regarding the disposal of the body have been communicated to His Majesty's Consul-General at Frankfort, who is endeavouring with the co-operation of the German authorities to give effect to them. I understand that Mr. Cole's injuries are not dangerous, but that he may have to remain in hospital at Baden-Baden for another week or two.
    Mr. Thorne: May I take it for granted that as soon as definite information is available, the right hon. Gentleman will send me the information?
    Mr. Butler: Certainly.

    CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (ASSETS).
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will consult the Government of Switzerland with a view to ensuring that no assets of the Czecho-Slovakian Government shall be transferred to Germany until de jure recognition has been given to the German conquest of Czecho-Slovakia?
    Mr. Butler: I presume the hon. Member refers to assets held by the Bank of International Settlements, and I would refer him to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the House on 5th June. This statement explained why the Governments parties to the agreement under which the Bank was set up are unable to interfere in the disposal of funds held by the Bank. It follows that no useful purpose would be served by consultation with the Swiss Government in the matter.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does that mean that the statutes of the Bank override the fundamental rule of International law that no assets shall be given to a State until de jure recognition of a conquest has been granted?
    Mr. Butler: I mean what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it is impossible for a Government which is party to the agreement under which the Bank was set up, to interfere in the disposal of funds held by the Bank.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the international rule to which I have referred part of the municipal law of every country which agrees to it, and that it is bound to apply it? Are we not, therefore, entitled to ask for the co-operation of the Swiss Government, to see that funds are not transferred?
    Mr. Butler: I have given the hon. Member the terms of the convention to which the Swiss Government is a party, and I have given the interpretation which we place upon the question.
    Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the votes which were given by the British representatives?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot add to previous statements.
    Mr. Benn: Why cannot we know?

    GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.
    Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make on our relations with Russia?
    Mr. Daltonasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a further statement regarding the progress of the negotiations between His Majesty's
    882
    Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my statement of 7th June, except to say that Mr. Strang, Head of the Central Department of the Foreign Office, left for Moscow to-day.
    Mr. Dalton: Does the Prime Minister not realise that these very long delays in reaching an agreement with the Soviet Government are causing disquiet in the country and causing doubt as to whether His Majesty's Government really mean business in this matter at all? Are they not spinning out time until they can wriggle back again to the Munich policy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is very offensive in his suggestion. I see no reason why the delay should be attributed to His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. V. Adams: In order to dispel these disquieting reports, can my right hon. Friend assure us that the completion of the general alliance against aggression is not being subordinated to any other purpose?

    WORLD CONFERENCE.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister the conditions which, in the view of His Majesty's Government are essential to justify confidence that a world conference would secure a real settlement of all outstanding international problems; and what action His Majesty's Government are willing to take to prepare the ground for holding such a conference?
    The Prime Minister: In the opinion of His Majesty's Government such a conference could only succeed if accompanied by a general feeling of confidence that all the participating Governments sincerely desired a just settlement, and intended to keep both in the spirit and the letter any pledge or undertaking given as a result of the conference. His Majesty's Government will always do their best to promote such a spirit of confidence but can only succeed if other Governments make a like effort.

    EIRE CITIZENS ABROAD.
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to continue the arrangement by which British diplo-

    883
    matic and consular officials abroad look after the interests of Eire and her citizens in those countries in which Eire has no separate representation, in view of the fact that by issuing passports in the name of the President of Eire that country has dissociated itself from the other countries of the British Commonwealth?
    Mr. Butler: Notwithstanding the fact that Eire passports will in future be issued by the Minister for External Affairs in his own name alone, and not in the name of the King, it is not at present proposed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to make any alteration in the arrangement under which United Kingdom diplomatic and consular officers look after the interests of Eire and citizens of Eire in those countries in which Eire has no separate diplomatic or consular representation.
    Sir R. Ross: Have there been any protests from the Government of Eire that her citizens are being treated as though they were British citizens, or whether there have been any protests against their receiving benefits as if they were British citizens?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. They seem to have been gratefully received.

    LIBYA (ITALIAN TROOPS).
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister the total number of Italian troops in Libya at the present time; and whether the British Government have made recent representations to the Italian Government to reduce the number of such troops?
    Mr. Butler: In reply to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on 8th March. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Does that mean that there has been no reduction in the number of troops since 8th March?
    Mr. Butler: There has been no reduction.

    NEW YORK WORLD'S FAIR (BRITISH PAVILION).
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether
    884
    he can make any statement with regard to the results obtained at the British Pavilion at the New York World's Fair?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I understand that the British Pavilion at the New York World's Fair continues to attract increasingly large crowds, and I am confident that it will prove to be of lasting value to the prestige of this country and to the friendship between the peoples of our two countries.

  AGRICULTURE.

    WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with the provision of training facilities for women on the land?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): It is hoped that the first courses of training in tractor driving provided by the Ministry will commence early next month. On 2nd June my Department communicated with the local authorities for agricultural education as regards schemes of training in general agricultural subjects. Women's Land Army county committees have been set up and are arranging to interview women volunteers with a view to ascertaining their suitability and willingness to take advantage of training facilities, including short periods of training on farms during the summer holiday period. I should like to take this opportunity of appealing for the co-operation of farmers in the matter of training members of the Women's Land Army.
    Sir P. Hurd: Is any age limit being set in regard to these women?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Sir P. Hurd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an age limit is being set in some counties?
    Mr. T. Williams: Are these ladies being trained to drive tractors in peace time or in a time of emergency?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: In a time of emergency.

    FARMERS UNION (MINISTER'S CONVERSATIONS).
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make some

    885
    statements as a result of his discussions with the Farmers Union on agricultural credits, the supply of electricity to farms, and rural housing and amenities?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir. I am not in a position to make any further statement at the present time.
    Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether these discussions are still going on and whether we can feel sure that something concrete and crystallised will mature from them?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir. The conversations have in fact finished. Other Departments are concerned in the matter, but we will do what we can.
    Mr. De la Bère: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell us who is responsible for this inexplicable and inexcusable delay?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I do not admit that there has been any delay.

    PRICES.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the proposals embodying the principle of price insurance, he will consider setting up an authoritative body to determine whether the prices which farmers have been receiving have fallen so far as to involve them in a substantial loss in the working of their enterprise?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir, I do not propose to adopt the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's question. I would remind him that investigations into costs of production are at present carried out by the universities and agricultural colleges.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that unless an authoritative body is set up the whole of this principle of price insurance is meaningless; and will he take some action?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I think that this question is really too complex to deal with by way of question and answer. The hon. Member will have a chance on the Agricultural Development Bill of developing this particular question.
    Mr. De la Bère: Yes, but will my right hon. Friend see that I really have a chance to develop the question?
    Mr. T. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that someone must have fixed what is called a fair price for sheep? Can he say who it was, inasmuch as farmers say that they will not get a penny out of it?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot agree with the last statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly clear that if the scheme had been in operation last year they would have got over £2,000,000.
    Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Farmers Union have turned down the scheme completely, saying that they cannot work it?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that the National Farmers Union of Scotland were under a misapprehension as to the scheme.

    REFUGEES (TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the serious and increasing shortage of agricultural labour, he will take steps to enable suitable refugees to be employed on the land?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Following on recommendations of the Agricultural Sub-Committee of the Co-ordinating Committee for Refugees, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has agreed to raise no objection to the admission of 1,500 refugees for training or employment or both in agriculture in this country pending eventual re-emigration. The question of the temporary admission of a further number of refugees for agricultural employment to meet the present shortage of agricultural labour is at present under consideration by the Agricultural Sub-Committee of the Co-ordinating Committee, and any recommendations they make will receive considertaion.
    Mr. Lipson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him, in view of the great urgency for agricultural labourers, whether he will see that the negotiations are speeded up?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is not a matter for me. There are two sides to this question.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what steps are being taken to provide the existing skilled rural labourers with decent houses?

    FEEDING STUFFS (RESERVE).
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the principle of the accumulation by householders in peace time of small reserves of suitable foodstuffs, advocated by the President of the Board of Trade, is equally applicable in the case of feeding-stuffs for livestock; and, if so, whether fanners will accordingly be encouraged to accumulate a reserve of feeding-stuffs for use in an emergency period?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There are, of course, considerable supplies of feeding- stuffs in the country and in the event of a grave emergency arising the Government would take steps to control supply and distribution. It will be appreciated, however, that there might be difficulties in distribution in the initial period and farmers would therefore be serving not only their own but also the national interest, if, with due regard to the nature and extent of their normal requirements they created and maintained a small reserve of feeding-stuffs to supplement available supplies over the first few weeks of an emergency period. Since it is probable that all wheat will be required for human consumption, any stocks of wheat held by farmers should not be regarded as available for feeding purposes, but temporary provision for the early stages of an emergency period could with advantage be made by keeping larger stocks of, say, barley, oats and maize, whether as grain or as meal, oilseed cakes and manufactured concentrates, according to individual needs. Such a reserve would not only form a useful addition to the total stocks of feeding-stuffs held in the country, but would obviate any immediate shortage in individual cases as the result of undue strain on distribution in the early days of a war. I should emphasise, however, that if farmers decide to create reserves, they should do so while conditions are normal and not wait until a serious crisis develops. Hurried purchases of feeding-stuffs in time of crisis would embarrass and not assist the authorities.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister take steps to secure that the farmers know of this announcement by giving it publicity?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. John Morgan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is a considered reply, related to the communication of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to me that joint consultation with the Minister of Agriculture would take place, and whether the farmers are to be given any kind of financial assistance, such as the bakers are to receive, in storing such feeding-stuffs?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is another question. On this matter, my answer was a considered reply.
    Mr. Morgan: In consultation with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is another question.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister ask the British Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast his reply?

    MILK.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) in view of the fact that the cost of milk distribution is lower in towns of high density, what is the reason for the minimum retail price of milk being higher in London than in any other part of the country;
    (2) what are the limits of the London area for the purpose of fixing minimum retail prices by the Milk Marketing Board; and whether he is aware that there are complaints from a number of the inhabitants of Essex that they have to pay winter prices, as in London, throughout the year?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am sending the hon. Member a statement of the minimum retail prices prescribed in the contract for the sale of milk by wholesale, from which he will see that the minimum price of 2s. 4d. per gallon applies to all urban districts, boroughs or county boroughs in the South-Eastern region (which includes Essex) having a population exceeding 25,000 and to the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture what were the circumstances in which milk supplies were cut off from Mr. J. A. Thomas, of Wisbech; and

    889
    whether he will have an inquiry as there is a wide feeling in that district that great hardship has been caused unnecessarily?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 15th May to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Procter).
    Mr. A. V. Alexanderasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to introduce a Bill this Session to deal with the milk industry; what will be its scope, and on what date the Bill will be submitted?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As I stated in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) on 1st May, I appreciate that existing legislative provision in regard to the milk industry expires on 30th September next, and I hope to introduce a further measure of milk legislation this summer. I cannot yet say, however, what will be the scope of the Bill or when it will be introduced.
    Mr. Alexander: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date on which it will be introduced?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am afraid I cannot give the exact date.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the Bill likely to contain any provisions apart from merely recouping the Milk Marketing Board?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am not in a position to make a statement on that.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that farmers in Gloucestershire are receiving, since 1st May, a lower price for their milk; and why has there been no corresponding reduction in the price of milk to the consumers in the borough of Cheltenham?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The wholesale price for the sale of milk by registered producers during May was Is. 1½d. per gallon compared with Is. 4d. per gallon for April. The minimum retail price applicable in Cheltenham during May was 2S. per gallon compared with 2s. 4d. per gallon in April.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware whether the reduction has been
    890
    made, since the information I have is that no reduction has taken place?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is outside my sphere.

  POST OFFICE.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS (HOLIDAYS).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that postmasters of sub-post offices, paid by commission, get no allowance of any kind for holidays as do their salaried colleagues; and will he take steps to remedy this in-justice?
    The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The conditions of appointment of scale payment sub-postmasters require them to make provision for the Post Office work throughout the year and their remuneration is assessed on this basis. A scale payment sub-post-master is not required to give personal service and is free to absent himself at any time, provided that he makes satisfactory arrangements for the conduct of his office during his absence. His position is thus in many respects not unlike that of a contractor, and there would not, in my opinion, be any justification for the provision of paid annual leave.
    Mr. Hannah: Are not many of these sub-postmasters far too poor to make the necessary provision as things are at the present time?
    Major Tryon: I do not think that the arrangement which very naturally my hon. Friend would welcome would be compatible with the conditions under which they conduct their business.

    EMPLOYÉS (MILITARY TRAINING).
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Post-master-General how many Post Office employés will be called up for military service; and whether they will receive any payment from the Post Office during their period of training?
    Major Tryon: There are about 2,300 Post Office servants now between 20 and 21 years of age who will be called up for training under the Military Training Act. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the information about the position of civil servants called up for training under this Act, which the Financial Secretary to the

    891
    Treasury gave on 25th May in answer to a question by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee).

    TELEPHONE SERVICE, ALDERNEY.
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the Post-master-General whether he can give any indication as to when the contract which has been placed with Messrs. Siemens Brothers and Company, Limited, for the laying of a telephone line to the island of Alderney is likely to be carried out; and whether, in view of the desire of the residents on the island for some telephonic communication to be established with the mainland at the earliest possible moment, he will see whether anything can be done to expedite this work?
    Major Tryon: The hon. Member has been misinformed. No contract has been placed for the laying of a telephone line to Alderney. Plans have been drawn up to connect the island with Guernsey by means of a radio-telephone link. In view of the work involved, I am unable at this stage to say when the service is likely to be available.

    TELEPHONE MANUFACTURERS (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. Montagueasked the Postmaster- General when the present arrangements for block contracts with the ring of telephone manufacturers expire?
    Major Tryon: There are a number of contracts for the supply of telephone equipment. These contracts expire at various dates up to 1942. The principal contracts, which relate to the supply of exchange equipment, subscribers apparatus, and telephone cables, expire on 31st March, 1940, 31st October, 1941, and 30th June, 1941, respectively.

    TELEPHONE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. Montagueasked the Postmaster-General whether he will supply a complete list of the members of the Telephone Development Association and state what their individual profits were for each year since 1933 including the latest published figures?
    Major Tryon: The Telephone Development Association is a company limited by guarantee whose object, as stated in its memorandum of association is
    "to promote and encourage the use of the telephone in Great Britain and other parts of the Empire."
    892
    The association co-operates with the Post Office in telephone publicity and educative measures. The membership is composed, I understand, of some 150 firms covering all sections of the telephone manufacturing industry. I have no knowledge of the individual profits of the firms in question other than that made available to the public by the registrar of joint stock companies.
    Mr. Montague: Are we to take it that the Government were responsible for the initiation of this association?
    Major Tryon: The Government certainly arrange contracts, but this body about which the hon. Gentleman is asking is not a body which makes contracts.

    BROADCAST PROGRAMMES (RECEPTION, EGYPT).
    Sir William Davisonasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has beeen called to the fact that the reception in Egypt of the British Broadcasting Corporation's programmes in Arabic and English on short waves is much inferior to the reception of programmes from Italy and Germany; and whether steps will be taken to improve the reception of British programmes?
    Major Tryon: I am informed by the British Broadcasting Corporation that according to their information reception in Egypt of the programmes in Arabic and in English transmitted from this country on short waves has generally been quite satisfactory. Recent reports indicate, however, that while the reception of the British programmes in Arabic continues to be satisfactory, the programmes in English are at times not so well received in Egypt as are the German and Italian transmissions. The position is being carefully examined by the Corporation with a view to providing the best possible service to this area.
    Sir W. Davison: Do the Government recognise the great importance of all English programmes of all kinds being transmitted in the best possible way, in view of the present situation, and further, what arrangements are made to report to the Government and the British Broad casting Corporation any defects which may arise in any foreign country?
    Major Tryon: I think that if my hon. Friend reads the answer, he will see that the British Broadcasting Corporation realise that there have been difficulties in the matter, which shows that they are keeping in touch, and he will also see that they are taking up the matter, which is of great importance.

    ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (EMERGENCY CONTROL).
    Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister what preparations the Government are making to meet the contingency that may occur in the event of national emergency to prevent profiteering in national necessities; and whether arrangements have been made which are capable of immediate application?
    The Prime Minister: Plans are in active preparation for the control of the prices and distribution of essential foodstuffs, and it is contemplated that these plans would be put into immediate operation at the outset of an emergency. The plans that arc being prepared for the control of the main materials required by industry include provision to ensure that, from the outset, manufacturers using these materials do not increase the prices of necessities unjustifiably.
    Mr. Day: Will those plans also control commodities outside armaments, such as foodstuffs?
    The Prime Minister: I have said that.
    Mr. Leach: Does the reply mean that during peace time profiteering is quite all right and that any hampering of it must be left until war breaks out?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the question was designed to deal with the situation which might arise in what is called an emergency, when it might be expected that prices would tend to rise.

    COLONIAL AFFAIRS (PARLIAMENTARY CONTACT).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of Lord Hailey that a Standing Parliamentary Committee for Colonial Affairs should be set up, and whether he will constitute such a Committee?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the reference to a Standing Parliamentary Committee in Lord Hailey's survey. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been for some time engaged on a comprehensive examination of the whole machinery for framing and carrying out Colonial policy, as it now exists, in order to determine what alterations and developments are necessary or advisable. The possibility of bringing Parliament into closer and more regular contact with the affairs of the Colonial Empire is not being lost sight of in this examination, but I am not in a position to make a statement about it until the Government have completed their consideration of the problem as a whole.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken into consideration the expressions of opinion favourable to such a committee which were given vent to, in the Debate on the Colonies last week, from all quarters of the House, when, in fact, the Secretary of State for the Colonies showed himself not averse from such a course?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have taken notice of that.
    Mr, Petherick: If such a committee were set up on Colonial affairs, would it not be impossible reasonably to refuse it in the case of other Departments of State, and if this became general, would it not undermine the principles of Cabinet responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That aspect has been taken into account also.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE"THETIS."
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make concerning the salvage of the"Thetis"?
    The Prime Minister: As I informed the House in reply to a question by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) on Thursday, 8th June, the salvage of His Majesty's Submarine"Thetis" has been temporarily suspended pending the provision of additional appliances. Since then a conference, which the Controller of the Navy attended, has been held at Liverpool to discuss the methods of salvage and it was decided that as

    895
    the work might seriously interfere with the other responsibilities of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Liverpool and Glasgow Salvage Association should take control of future operations. Naval assistance, including naval divers, will continue to be available. Salvage operations will recommence as soon as possible, but it may be some two or three weeks before the necessary gear for another attempt has been obtained.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether the"Thetis" had been commissioned for these trials, and, also, in the event of Messrs. Cammell Laird and the underwriters deciding to abandon the salvage of the vessel, will the Admiralty take over the work and raise the vessel?
    The Prime Minister: I should like to have notice of those questions.
    Mr. Alexander: In view of the delay which it is always possible might happen in the salvage, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that the public inquiry should be opened forthwith?
    The Prime Minister: I shall be making a statement on that later.
    Mr. Logan: Are we to understand in regard to this question of hawsers that salvage work of this description was undertaken without apparatus which was absolutely necessary in order to raise such a vessel; and are we still waiting for the requisite hawsers?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure what the position is about that. It is clear that the apparatus which was first used was inadequate for the purpose in view of the conditions which now exist.
    Mr. Logan: Is the Prime Minister able to say whether the special firm which has now got the job has the complement of material necessary, or have we to wait another length of time?
    The Prime Minister: I could not say.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that public opinion expects this vessel to be raised and would be extremely uneasy if there were any failure to do so, especially in view of the success which attended the raising of the German vessels at Scapa Flow?
    The Prime Minister: The Government also expect the vessel to be raised.

    PROPOSED BUILDING, WESTMINSTER.
    Mr. Keelingasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will submit to the Royal Fine Art Commission the elevations for the proposed new office block on the site of the old Westminster hospital facing the Abbey; and whether he will exhibit them in the Tea Room?
    The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): The elevations have been submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission, who are at present considering them. I hope in due course to be able to arrange for the elevations to be exhibited in the Tea Room.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AERODROME SITE INQUIRIES, STOURHEAD.
    Mr. J. Morganasked the Secretary of State for Air on what grounds he proposes to establish a military aerodrome on part of an historic estate at Stour-head, Wilts, which has been offered as a conditional bequest to the nation; and whether he intends to proceed with this scheme?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): In order to meet urgent defence requirements it is necessary for my Department to acquire a number of aerodrome sites in this part of the country, and the number of suitable sites is of necessity limited. While preliminary inquiries have been made in regard to a portion of the Stourhead estate, no decision has been arrived at.
    Mr. Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into full account the conditions attached to this bequest; and will he have regard to the wider interests of the nation, in coming to a final decision?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that I must have regard to national Defence in the first place.
    Mr. Morgan: All other factors being equal, will the right hon. Gentleman take those considerations which I have mentioned into account?
    Sir P. Hurd: Has the right hon. Gentleman received earnest protests from the National Trust, and from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England?
    Sir K. Wood: I understand that a number of communications have been made. In fact, I expect such communications in regard to nearly every site which it is proposed to take.
    Sir P. Hurd: But is not this site National Trust property?
    Mr. H. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public has enjoyed the amenities of this estate for two centuries and that it is being left to the National Trust; and that, if my right hon. Friend finds it possible to avoid acquiring this property, the public will enjoy it for ever?
    Sir K. Wood: I will have regard to these facts, but I must point out to my hon. Friend the necessity that we are under to obtain suitable sites. I have to obtain a very large number of sites during the next few months, and, as I have said, I must put national Defence first.

    BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION.
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueterasked the Secretary of State for Air when copies of the Bill to set up a corporation for overseas air services will be available to Members?
    Sir K. Wood: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, I am presenting the Bill this afternoon, and arrangements have been made for copies to be available in the Vote office early this evening.

    OLD-AGE PENSIONERS (NORTH-EAST AREA).
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in the administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields, respectively, who are in receipt of old-age pensions up to the latest available date?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I regret that the information asked for is not available, as the records of old-age pensioners are not kept on a territorial basis.

    MILITARY TRAINING.
    Mr. Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended
    898
    to bring under the Military Training Act young alien men who have been either born in the United Kingdom or brought here as young children and who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom?
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The Military Training Act applies only to British subjects. In the case of a British subject who also has another nationality and who notifies his intention to make a declaration of alienage on reaching the age of 21, he will be permitted to postpone his liability for military training until he reaches the age of 22 in order to give him an opportunity of making the declaration
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the views expressed by the Committee of the Headmasters Conference with regard to the antedating of militia training in the case of boys who intend to proceed to the universities after October, 1939; and whether he will make a statement upon the subject?
    Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has arranged to receive a deputation from the Headmasters Conference on this subject to-morrow.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now reached a decision regarding the position of under-graduates at Scottish universities and colleges affected by the Military Training Act; and whether he can give an assurance that there will be no interruption of degree examinations or the students preparatory work?
    Mr. Morrison: Undergraduates now at universities or university colleges in Scotland as well as in England and Wales and those who will be entering universities as full time students this autumn will be permitted, if they so desire, to postpone their liability to be called up for military training until the conclusion of their course of study as approved by the university.
    Mr. Thorne: Will the same principle apply to apprentices working in ship-yards and other places?
    Mr. Morrison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question down to my right hon. Friend who is unable to be present to-day.
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now reached a decision on the point relative to postponement in the case of under-graduates who have signed the register of conscientious objectors so as to put such undergraduates on the same footing as those who have signed the military training register; and whether he will make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. Morrison: The Military Training Regulations, 1939, provide that an application to a local tribunal by a person who has been provisionally registered in the register of conscientious objectors shall be made within 14 days of the date on which he was so provisionally registered, or within such other period as the Minister may in any particular case for special reasons allow. My right hon. Friend proposes under the power given by these regulations to allow a university under-graduate who has provisionally registered as a conscientious objector to make his application to the local tribunal within a period ending not later than one month after the conclusion of his course of study as approved by the university. Any such undergraduate will be required to obtain annually from the proper university authority a statement that he is a full-time member of the university, and giving the date on which his approved course of study is due to terminate. This will place an undergraduate who is a conscientious objector in the same position in this respect as an undergraduate on the military training register.

    HOURS OF LABOUR.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the increasing productive power of the world market and the displacement of manual labour by machinery causing increasing volumes of unemployment, he will now initiate conversation with, and consideration by, industrial and other organisations, in order to secure a measure of protection for British producers by means of a general reduction of the hours of labour by legal enactment?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The International Labour Office has advised the Inter-
    900
    national Labour Conference to defer discussion on the generalisation of the reduction of hours of work until the prospects of success are better. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not think any useful purpose would be served by adopting the hon. Member's suggestion which, as he understands it, is directed to obtaining international agreement for a general reduction of hours of labour in the various countries as a measure of protection for British producers.

    BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFER TO FOREIGN FLAGS).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many, and what tonnage of British ships were transferred to foreign flags during 1938; how many, and what tonnage of these are still in commission; how many, and what tonnage have been or are being broken up; and what are the corresponding figures for 1937 and 1936, respectively?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): As regards the number and tonnage of ships transferred to foreign flags, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the replies given to him on 18th April and 27th March. As regards the remainder of the question, according to reports received by the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, 30 of the ships sold in 1938, with a gross tonnage of 76,000 tons, were purchased by foreign buyers for breaking up. The corresponding figures for the years 1937 and 1936 were 65 ships of 132,000 tons gross and 33 ships of 143,000 tons gross, respectively. My right hon. Friend has no information whether the ships sold for trading purposes are still in commission.

    FELLMONGERIES (IMPORTED SKINS).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many fell-mongeries using sheepskins imported from the Colonies there are in operation in Scotland and England, respectively; what were the corresponding figures for 1929 and 1919, respectively; and what is the explanation of the trend shown by the figures?
    Mr. Cross: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in possession of the desired information.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these skins imported from the Colonies are being sent to France to be worked there; that factories in this country, including factories in Greenock, are on the point of closing down as a result; and will he look into the matter to see whether something cannot be done to safeguard this industry?
    Mr. Cross: I would ask the hon. and learned Member to communicate with me.

    BRITISH GUIANA (REFUGEES).
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, in view of the anxiety felt by existing interests in the interior of British Guiana, he will give an undertaking that the exclusive permissions and other rights and concessions already granted to them will be continued;
    (2) whether the granting of agricultural rights in the interior of British Guiana to the Jewish Refugee Committee precludes the granting of further mineral rights to British subjects prepared to undertake prospecting and development;
    (3) whether the granting of rights to the Jewish Refugee Committee over the area south of a line five degrees north latitude in British Guiana definitely precludes any further settlement and development of that area by British people and British capital?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As regards minerals, there is no question whatever of the cancellation of existing rights. The continuation of those rights on the expiry of the periods for which they were granted and the grant of new rights will be considered on the receipt of applications, but in considering such applications regard will be had to the offer which has been made to the refugee organisations of full facilities for the settlement of refugees in that area of the Colony, and to the response which they make to that offer. As regards Question No. 66, I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 7th June.
    Mr. Robinson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Jewish Refugee Committee have accepted or rejected the Government's offer, and if they have not
    902
    done either, can he say whether he will urge them to expedite their decision?
    Mr. MacDonald: The appropriate refugee organisations are now consulting about the matter, and we have not received their comments on the proposals of His Majesty's Government, but I am quite certain that they are losing no time in giving them active consideration, though I cannot say when we expect their reply to come in.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not the case that the interior of British Guiana is virgin jungle, and, if that is so, whose are the interests which are referred to in this question?
    Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice before giving a list of rights of this nature which have been alienated, but certain rights do exist, and the interior of the Colony is by no means answerable to the kind of description in all places which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives.
    Mr. Hannah: Does not the report of the commission itself mention certain Brazilian settlements?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    FOREIGN TINNED FRUIT.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War the amount of foreign tinned fruit supplied to His Majesty's Army during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Requirements of tinned fruits for troops messing are normally purchased by messing officers out of a messing cash allowance, and no information is available as to the amount of tinned fruit of foreign origin included in such purchases. Of the purchases to meet reserve requirements made during the 12 months ended 7th June, 1939, some 8 per cent, were foreign.
    Mr. Day: Can we be assured that the tinned fruit that is purchased for the Army will be obtained within the Empire?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes. The small percentage of foreign fruit bought for this purpose was due to the fact that there was an insufficient supply of suitable Empire fruit.
    Mr. Day: The question asked particularly how much was supplied.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Evesham fruit growers, who produce the best fruit, shall be considered?

    MILITIA CAMPS.
    Mr. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that all camps under construction for the accommodation of militiamen will be completed before they are occupied?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir. Where the accommodation which is being constructed is not ready in time, militiamen will be placed under canvas until it is ready.

    ELECTORAL REGISTER (REVISION).
    Mr. Silkinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the exceptionally low polls in recent by-elections, particularly in London; and, as one of the contributory factors is the large number of removals since the compiling of the last register of electors, amounting in one case to some 15,000, he will, with a view to making democracy function more effectively, reintroduce the half-yearly revision of the electoral list instead of yearly as at present?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend is not in a position to estimate the extent to which the size of the poll at by-elections is related to the number of removals since the compiling of the last register; as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, removal does not disqualify an elector or necessarily place any material difficulty in his way, unless he has removed to a distance. After careful examination, there does not appear to be any sufficient justification for incurring the heavy expenditure which would be involved in the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. H. Morrison: In that case, would the hon. Gentleman cause it to be conveyed to the Government's supporters in the Press, when they complain of those polls, that the fault rests with His Majesty's Government and not with a large number of the electors?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid I cannot agree with that.
    Mr. Macquisten: Is it not possible that the electors are not satisfied with either of the candidates?

    POLICE (SUMMER UNIFORM).
    Mr. Leachasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability during the summer months of providing more suitable uniforms for the body of police serving within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster; and will he also consider issuing regulations on this matter to watch committees throughout the country so that the more suitable uniforms now used in the police forces in many Colonies may be adopted in this country?
    Mr. Peake: As explained in previous replies, the present police uniform has been carefully designed to suit our changeable climate. The question of providing an alternative uniform for use in hot weather has been considered on several occasions but no such ararngements have been considered necessary. It would clearly be impracticable to distinguish between the police serving within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster and elsewhere.
    Mr. Leach: I do not want you to distinguish. What I asked is whether he is aware that this new kind of uniform that I asked him to adopt, which would be so much more comfortable for the police in hot weather, would actually cheapen the cost of uniforms generally in the police force?
    Mr. Peake: The present practice is that a jacket of lighter material, to be worn without a belt, is worn by the Metropolitan Police Force during the summer months.
    Mr. Leach: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that uniforms in the Colonies are much handsomer and more suitable than those we have here?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid we have to do the best we can with our changeable climate.
    Mr. Macquisten: Will my hon. Friend examine a policeman's trousers and he will find that they are double the thickness of ordinary trousers?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister what is the purpose for which it is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night?
The Prime Minister: The first item of business to-day is the Resolution under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, with regard to His Majesty's Submarine"Thetis." The Civil Defence Bill will then be considered. The Bill is being recommitted in certain respects, and it is anticipated that the proceedings in Committee will occupy most of to-day's Sitting. It is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule for the Civil Defence Bill. I hope that there will be no need to ask the House to sit unduly late, but
we desire to make good progress to-day, so that we may be sure of concluding the Bill on Wednesday. We also propose to take the Report stage of the Ministry of Supply Money Resolution, which is exempted business.
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the list of Amendments, would it not have been better for the Minister to have prepared a new Bill?
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, 234; Noes, 101.

Division No. 164.]

AYES.

[3.48 p.m.

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

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Jarvis, Sir J.J.

Albery, Sir Irving

Duggan, H. J.

Keeling, E. H.

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

Duncan, J. A. L.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

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

Dunglass, Lord

Karr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Lamb, Sir J. O.

Assheton, R.

Ellis, Sir G.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Emmett, C. E. G. C

Leash, Sir J. W.

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Levy, T.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

Lewis, O.

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

Fleming, E. L.

Lipson, D. L.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Llewellin, Colonel J. i.

Bernays, R, H.

Fremantle), Sir F. E.

Lloyd, G. W.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S.

Blair, Sir R.

Gaorge, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Lyons, A. M.

Bossom, A. C.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Boulton, W. W.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wlrral)

MacDonald, Rl. Hon. M. (Ross)

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R,

Macdonald, Capt. P.(isle of Wight)

Brooklebank, Sir Edmund

Granville, E. L.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

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

Gretton, Col. Rl. Han. J

Maoquisten, F. A.

Bull, B. B.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Bullock, Capt. M.

Grimston, R. V.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Burghley, Lord

Guest, Hon. I, (Breton and Radnor)

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

Burton, Col. H. W.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Marsden, Commander A.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

Gunston, Capt Sir D. W.

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

Cartland, J. R. H.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir O. H.

Medlicott, F.

Cary, R. A.

Hambro, A. V.

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

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

Hammersley, S. S.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hannah, I. C.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

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

Channon, H.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Moreing, A. C.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, s.)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Morris-Jones, Sir- Henry

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

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

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Mulrhead, Lt.-Cot. A. J.

Count, Captain R. J. E.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

Nail, Sir J.

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

Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

Neven-spence, Major B. H. H.

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

Heare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

Holdsworth, H.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Holmes, J. S.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

Hopkinson, A.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Cross, R. H.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Patrick, C. M.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Peake, O.

Davison. Sir W. H.

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

Petherick, M.

De la Bert, R.

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

Pilkington, R.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Denville, Alfred

Huntoke, H. P.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Deland, G. F.

Hunter, T.

Procter, Major H. A.

Donner, P. W.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

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

Hutchinson, C. C.

Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

Drewe, C.

James, Wing-commander A. W. H.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Simmonds, O. E.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonal Sir W. D.

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

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Smith, Braoewell (Dulwich)

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Remer, J. R.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Warrender, Sir V.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Smithers, Sir W.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S Harvie

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

Webbe, Sir W. Harold

Ropner, Colonel L.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R.J

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Spans. W. P.

Wells, Sir Sydney

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Russell, Sir Alexander

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Salmon, Sir I.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Samuel, M. R. A.

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

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Sandys, E. D.

Touche, G. C.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Scott, Lord William

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Selley, H. R.

Tufnell, Liaut.-Commander R, L.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Turton, R. H.

TELLER FOR THE ATES—.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Wakefield, W. W.

Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

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

Groves, T. E.

Paling, W.

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

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

Parker, J.

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

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Pearson, A.

Ammon, C. G.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hardie, Agnes

Ridley, G.

Banfield, J. W.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Ritson, J.

Barnes, A. J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Sanders, W. S.

Barr, J.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Sexton, T. M.

Batty, J.

Jagger, J.

Shinwell, E.

Beaumont, H. (Bailey)

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Silkin, L.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Johnston, Rt- Hon. T.

Silverman, S. S.

Benson, G.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Simpson, F. B.

Burke, W. A,

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Charleton, H. C.

Lansbury. Rt. Hon. Q.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cluse, W. S.

Lathan, G.

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

Cocks, F. S.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, T. (Normantcn)

Collindridge, F.

Leach, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Cove, W. G.

Lee, F.

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

Daggar, G.

Leslie, J. R.

Strauss, G. Ft- (Lambeth, N.)

Dalton, H.

Logan, D. G.

Thorne, W.

Davies, R.J. (Westhoughton)

Limn, W.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Tinker, J. J.

Day, H.

McEntee, V. La T.

Viant, S. P.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

MoGhee, H. G.

Walkden, A. G.

Ede, J. C.

MacLaren, A.

Walker, J.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Watkins, F. C.

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

Mathers, G.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gallacher, W.

Messer, F,

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Gardner, B. W.

Montague, F.

Williams, J.

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, D. R.

Muff, G.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Naylor, T. E.

Question put, and agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED.

  BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS BILL,
  "to provide for the establishment of a corporation to be known as the British Overseas Airways Corporation; to facilitate the acquisition by that corporation of certain air transport undertakings; to make further and better provision for the operation of air transport services, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Major Tryon, the Attorney-General, and Captain Balfour;
  to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921.
3.58 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain):I beg to move,
"That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to investigate and report upon all the circumstances surrounding the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis," and the sub-sequent attempts to save the lives of those in the ship."
In a statement which I made in the House a few days ago I indicated the procedure which the Government would follow in the setting up of an inquiry into the disaster to His Majesty's Submarine"Thetis." I hope that the statement which I made then will have commended itself to hon. Members, and, if so, it is not necessary for me to say very much in support of this Motion, but there are one or two additional items of information which I think the House would like to have, and which I shall be glad to give on this occasion. I stated then that the inquiry would be conducted by Mr. Justice Bucknill, and I said that he would probably have with him certain assessors to assist him in the inquiry. The judge has expressed a desire to have three assessors, one of whom should be a naval officer with experience in the submarine service, another one of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, and the third a person skilled in the science of naval architecture. Accordingly, it is proposed to appoint as assessors the following gentlemen: Captain George Cunningham Paton Menzies, R.N., a submarine specialist in the Royal Navy, Captain Archibald Hamilton Ryley, one of the Elder Brethren, and Professor Thomas Bertrand Abell, professor of naval architecture in the University of Liverpool. The appointment of these gentlemen meets with the full approval of Mr. Justice Bucknill. Of course, I need not remind the House that while the technical knowledge and experience of the assessors will be of the utmost value in carrying out a full inquiry, their function is merely to assist Mr. Justice Bucknill, and they will have no responsibility for the findings of the Tribunal.
The purpose of the Motion is to apply the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. Under that Act a tribunal appointed by His Majesty or a Secretary of State
934
in pursuance of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament is invested with the powers of the High Court to take evidence on oath, to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of documents. Of course the Government will give the Tribunal all the assistance in its power, and as a considerable amount of preliminary work will be necessary before the inquiry can be opened, the Treasury Solicitor has been instructed to place his services at the disposal of the Tribunal for the purpose of collecting all the evidence and other material which the Tribunal may require to have submitted to them.
The next point on which, I think, information will be desired is as to when the inquiry will take place. It is not proposed to postpone the inquiry until the salvage of the"Thetis" has been completed, because it is impossible to say how long that will now take. Therefore, I may tell hon. Members that every effort will be made to open the inquiry as soon as possible; that is, of course, as soon as the necessary preparations have been completed. There is one other point and that is, where the inquiry should be held? With regard to that, the Tribunal will endeavour to meet the convenience of the parties who have to attend the inquiry, and accordingly it will be opened in London, but some part of it will be held in Liverpool, where I think a great deal of evidence is available, and it will be found much more convenient if sessions of the Tribunal are held there.
4.3 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: This happens to be one of the few occasions when I do not find myself in direct conflict with the Prime Minister. It was the desire of all hon. Members on this side that there should be a public inquiry into this very dreadful disaster on the lines which the Prime Minister has recorded. The com- position of the inquiry will, I think, meet with general approval. It is wise, in my view, that the inquiry should be opened here in London, but there may be good reason why some of its sittings should be held nearer the scene of the disaster. That will make it possible, perhaps, for evidence to be taken more easily from the relatives of those who are deceased—they might have something to contribute as to what happened before the accident—than would be the case if the inquiry were held in London.

935
I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to questions to-day by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) and a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that it is the intention of the Government to see that His Majesty's submarine"Thetis" is salved. In the Press last week there appeared certain statements of a purely sentimental character which, I think, we can all appreciate, but in any disaster of this magnitude we regard it as the foremost duty of His Majesty's Government to produce, after the human material is available, what is the primary evidence in this case, and even if there be delay because of tide and weather, we regard it as essential that the inquiry should not be completed, at whatever cost it may be to those concerned, before the "Thetis" itself has been examined by Mr. Justice Bucknill and the assessors. I raise no controversial note to-day, because this is a tragedy which all of us deplore, and I am sure it is the wish of Members on all sides of the House that the truth should be ascertained, and as far as may be methods found which will avoid an unfortunate occurrence of this kind.
Commander Marsden: There is one question which has not so far been raised. Will the committee have power to make recommendations in addition to finding what were the actual facts of the present case?
The Prime Minister: It is not properly described as a committee but rather as a Tribunal. I have already given the terms of reference to the Tribunal, and from these my hon. and gallant Friend will see exactly what it is they are desired to do.
4.7 p.m.
Sir Archibald Sinclair: In supporting the Motion I would express the satisfaction of my hon. Friends and myself at the course which the Government are taking in this matter of the Tribunal and the appointment of Mr. Justice Bucknill and the assessors whose names the Prime Minister has announced. I would further express our satisfaction with the Prime Minister's announcement that the inquiry is to start at once and not to wait for the salvage of the "Thetis." At the same time, if the Prime Minister is to reply at the end to any short discussion on the
936
Motion, I would ask him to give a very definite promise that the Government are determined to see that the "Thetis" is salved. I understand that the responsibility is now being left to Messrs. Cammell Laird to salve the ship. I hope the Prime Minister will make it absolutely clear that, if necessary, the Admiralty will assume the responsibility for the salving. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut- Commander Fletcher) who mentioned—
Mr. Speaker: I do not think a question of that kind arises upon this Motion, which deals only with the setting up of a Tribunal of inquiry.
Sir A. Sinclair: My point was that if this inquiry is to yield the results we all hope, it is very necessary that the "Thetis" should be brought to the surface and that the Government and the Admiralty should, if necessary, assume responsibility for bringing the submarine to the surface. In my own constituency we have seen many of the former German fleet brought to the surface in the Pent-land Firth, and we find it difficult to believe that there can be any excuse for depriving the Tribunal of the evidence which the salvage of the "Thetis," and only the salvage of the "Thetis," could provide, of the causes of this terrible accident. I also ask the Prime Minister to tell us whether the opportunity of giving evidence at the inquiry will be open to members of the public. I refer to persons, many of them retired officers of the Navy, some of them officers who have been employed in the submarine service, who have written to me and to other hon. Members about this accident. Will it be open to such members of the public to submit memoranda to the chairman of the Tribunal and to give evidence before it? In that way I think a great deal of evidence would be forthcoming from people who have every qualification to speak on these matters. If the Prime Minister could give us an assurance on these points it would fortify us in the support that we propose to give to the Motion.
4.11 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I would ask the Prime Minister to give an assurance that the Admiralty will consider taking over the salving of the "Thetis" in the event of Messrs. Cammell Laird

937
abandoning it. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to statements in the Press made by the managing director of Messrs. Cammell Laird, giving his opinion as to the causes of the accident. Without any wish to criticise the managing director, may I ask whether it is not very desirable that no such statements should be made concerning the cause of the accident pending the holding of the inquiry?
Mr. Tinker: When it was announced in the Press last week that there was some idea of not salving the "Thetis" a feeling of consternation went through everyone. I trust the Prime Minister will see to it that, whatever happens, the salvage work is not abandoned. If the work is abandoned that fact will lend itself to the feeling that there is fear of what would be disclosed. It will be a sad reflection on our engineering skill if we cannot raise a vessel at that depth. There would be only one inference to be drawn from it, and that is that there was something to hide. Whatever else happens, I hope that the submarine will be brought to the surface so that a full examination can take place.
Mr. Logan: With regard to the Merseyside there is a feeling expressed, not by way of criticism, that the "Thetis" should be brought to the surface. It would ease the mind of many of those who have lost their dearly beloved ones in the accident. In the words of the Prime Minister, I think every effort should be made to see that the ship is raised.
Mr. Greenwood: With regard to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), would the Prime Minister say, in accord with the feelings of everyone in the House, that he is against declarations being made at the present time either by responsible people in Messrs. Cammell Laird's or by newspapers, which can only and unnecessarily harrow the feelings of the bereaved people or arouse suspicions which may not be well founded at all? It would be in the interests of the bereaved and in the public service if this kind of propaganda were damped down on all sides.
Mr. Silverman: I want to raise a question as to the right of dependants and relatives of the men who went down to be considered to be a party before the Tri-
938
bunal, to have representatives thereat and to give evidence if they so desire. I am certain that as the Tribunal is to have all the powers of a High Court, these things will be well within their contemplation, but it would be satisfactory to be assured now that that is the case and that people who have interest in the matter will be received by the Tribunal as parties to the inquiry, will have a right to be heard and a right to call evidence.
4.14 p.m.
The Prime Minister: In reply to the questions that have been put, first of all let me say that no one is more anxious than the Government to see this vessel raised, for the reasons that have been put forward. While the vessel is at the bottom of the sea there may still always be doubts as to what happened, and those doubts might be cleared away if the vessel were raised. Therefore, for that reason alone we are extremely anxious to see the vessel brought to the surface and properly examined. The matter is at present in the hands of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, who are employing the Liver-pool and Glasgow Salvage Association, and I have no reason to think that they will fail to bring the vessel up. I do not think we ought to contemplate that hypothesis at the present time. If such a thing did occur one would have to consider the circumstances and the reasons why it was thought necessary by them to abandon the attempt. Therefore, at this stage I cannot go any further than to express the hope and the expectation that success will be achieved. Secondly, I do most sincerely and earnestly deprecate publication in any form or in any conditions, of any speculation as to what happened, now that a court has been set up to investigate the circumstances. It clearly will be impossible to obtain any indication of the real causes of this terrible disaster until the evidence has been given and considered by the Tribunal. I hope, therefore, whatever people may have thought or said in the past, that they will now say no more about it until the Tribunal reports. With regard to the evidence before the Tribunal, of course I imagine that it is open to anybody to communicate with the Tribunal and say that they have something which they desire to put before it. I think it will be for the Tribunal itself to decide what evidence it should call and what should be relevant to the inquiry.
Mr. Naylor: Will the Tribunal have power to make a recommendation?
The Prime Minister: The Tribunal is asked to report, and that report may contain a recommendation or not. There is nothing to prevent the Tribunal making recommendations.
Question put, and agreed to. ,
Resolved,
"That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to investigate and report upon all the circumstances surrounding the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis," and the subsequent attempts to save the lives of those in the ship."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I beg to move.
  "That the Bill be recommitted' to a Committee of the whole House—

  (a) in respect of Clauses 7 and 8; and

  (b) in respect of the Amendment in Clause 6, the Amendments in Clause 11, the second Amendment in Clause 12,page 11, line 6, the Amendments in Clause 21, page 22, line 36, Clause 21, page 23, line 5, Clause 21, page 23, line 36, Clause 54, page 51, line 19, Clause 59, page 54, line 36, and the new Clause (Power of local authorities to construct air-raid shelters in streets) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir John Anderson; and

  (c) in respect of the Amendment in Clause 83 and the new Clause (Provisions as to Northern Ireland) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare."

  4.18 p.m.
  Mr, Greenwood: We cannot allow very important and substantial Clauses of the Bill to go undiscussed. I am attaching no special blame to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been given an almost impossible burden to bear. There has been inordinate delay and enormous pressure, resulting in the Bill having to be introduced when it was impossible in the circumstances that it could have been properly considered. It was found, on the Bill coming to the House,' that certain very important Clauses had to be recommitted, Clauses 7 and 8 in particular.
  940
  They raise questions of important public policy on which there is quite honest division of opinion as to the wisdom of the length to which the right hon. Gentleman has gone. There is this somewhat awkward recommittal Motion on the Paper, affecting the extension of Clause 83 which relates to provisions as to Northern Ireland. It might have been a little more convenient had the Lord Privy Seal assisted those of us who are not as familiar with the Bill as he ought to be himself, as to the substance of this recommittal Motion. It would help the House during the remainder of the discussion on the Report stage, and on the Third Reading, if the right hon. Gentleman would elucidate the extent and the purpose of the Clauses and parts of Clauses in respect of which the Bill is being recommitted, so that when we resume the Report stage the House will know quite where it stands.
  4.20 p.m.
  Sir J. Anderson: I feel myself in somewhat of a difficulty because I understood, perhaps quite wrongly, that the decision as to recommittal and the matter coming up in this way did not rest entirely with His Majesty's Government, and that one of the purposes of the recommittal was to facilitate discussion and to get rid of restrictions upon the discussion which might otherwise apply.
  Mr. Greenwood: I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman. I am only saying that for the convenience of the House it would be as well if the right hon. Gentleman explained the situation.
  Sir J. Anderson: The situation, as I understand it, is that it was agreed on the Committee stage that Clauses 7 and 8, which are new, should be formally moved into the Bill, but should be recommitted before the Report stage so that there could be a full discussion, which could not take place in the ordinary course of the Report stage. In regard to section (bs) of the Motion, I understand that the purpose of recommittal relates to the point that there may be charges involved upon local authorities and if that were the case Amendments on the Report stage would be out of order. For the purpose of ensuring that there should be freedom to raise these questions this procedure is resorted to. These provisions are being recommitted and any Amendment which it is desired to raise can then be taken without prejudice to the

  941
  further stages of the proceedings. In regard to (c), affecting Northern Ireland, this is a new Clause which is to be introduced following the terms of the Financial Resolution which has already been passed. I understood with regard to that Clause that it was agreed that it should be recommitted. I trust that with that explanation we can agree to the Motion.
  4.22 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I notice that Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Clause relating to Northern Ireland seems to be declaratory, although it certainly seems to amend the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that the Clause is in order.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The object of the Sub-section is not to amend or to alter in any way the Government of Ireland Act to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, but simply to make the law clear in exactly the same way as we did in Section 14 of the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937.
  Mr. Benn: Do we understand, then, that in conferring upon Northern Ireland power for purposes "similar"—a very curious word to use in an Act of Parliament—
  "to the purposes of the provisions of this Act,"
  there is no amendment of the law and that words of that kind are just declaratory?
  Mr. Peake: We can have a very full discussion on the point when we come to the Clause.
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Compensation where works are executed.)
    4.25 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, to leave out from"but," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
    "it shall be the duty of the local authority'—

    (a) to restore, as far as they think practicable, the premises, building or land to the condition in which they would be but for the execution of the works; and`

    942

    (b) if, after the restoration is completed the premises, building, or land are less in value than they would be if the works had not been executed to pay to each of the persons having any estate or interest in the premises, building, or land such compensation, if any, in respect of the difference in value as may be reasonable:

    Provided that the local authority may include in their notice withdrawing the designation of the premises a statement that to such extent as may be specified in the notice they do not intend to carry out any such restoration as aforesaid, and if such a statement is so included, their obligation to restore shall be correspondingly diminished and their obligations as to compensation shall, as respects the matters specified in the statement, be determined by reference to the state of affairs existing at the date of the withdrawing of the designation."
    Hon. Members were informed when Clause 6 was being debated in its original form that it had been criticised on several grounds, and I undertook on behalf of the Government that further consideration would be given before the Report stage to matters that had been raised. This Amendment is the result of that further consideration. Three criticisms were directed against the proposals originally contained in the Clause. The first was that it would be very difficult after the lapse of a considerable time to restore premises which had been designated for the purposes of air-raid shelters or for civil defence purposes to their original state, or rather, and this was the intention of the Clause, to the state which they would have been in at the time in question if works had never been executed upon them for civil defence purposes. The second criticism was that the Clause as it stood left it with the occupier to take action if, after a local authority had decided that the designation of premises was no longer necessary, the occupier wished the premises to be restored as far as practicable to their original state. Thirdly, there was the criticism that under the Clause as it originally stood the whole matter might stand over practically indefinitely until long after everything that had been done had been forgotten, and then someone who came into possession as occupier of the premises might take it into his head that the premises should be restored under the Clause.
    The Amendment which is now proposed adopts an entirely new line of approach. The effect is that, as soon as a local authority has decided to cancel the designation of premises, they serve a

    943
    notice on all parties concerned. All compensation payable in respect of interference and the execution of the works should immediately cease, when the notice is served; and the local authority is then under an obligation to restore the premises as far as practicable, not necessarily completely but as far as it considers it practicable to do so. As an alternative, the authority may give notice that it prefers not to undertake restoration but will pay compensation in respect of any injury that anyone having an interest in the premises may suffer, and so dispose of the whole matter. I suggest that the provisions now suggested make, on the whole, a cleaner job. They make the rights and duties of the various parties concerned clearer and more precise than they were, and I hope that the Amendment can be accepted as a definite improvement on the original proposal.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I think the Committee will agree that the Amendment is very much better than the original Clause. I have only one criticism to make: Under Sub-section (1) of the Clause there is an obligation on the local authority to pay compensation to the occupier for interference with his use of the premises while the original works are being carried out, but under the Amendment, if it is determined to restore the premises, work would have to be done upon them again, and, for some reason which I do not understand, there is no corresponding provision for payment of compensation to the occupier for interference with his use of the premises while they are being restored. There seems to be no good reason why the consideration which is shown to the occupier in the first instance should not also be shown to him in the second instance when the work of restoration has to be done, and I would suggest that between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place this matter might be given consideration.
    4.32 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: As far as we on this side of the Committee are concerned, we think that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment meets the points that were raised. He has now placed the initiative with the local authority, and the occupier cannot
    944
    hold the payment of compensation as a debt hanging over the local authority for years. We think that the Amendment is a great improvement on the original Clause, and we accept it.
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: There is a further point to which I should like to call attention. It would seem, from the wording now proposed, that no time limit is suggested, nor any obligation on the part of the local authority to act quickly in the matter. As I read the Amendment, the local authority will now be under an obligation to restore the premises if they so think fit, and to the extent that they so think fit, but nothing is said about their having to exercise reasonable despatch in the matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has pointed out that any claims for compensation because the premises were designated will cease from the moment at which the premises cease to be designated, and it would seem that some provision should be made for the local authority carrying out with reason- able despatch the duties laid upon them by the Clause. Otherwise, when premises ceased to be designated, and the payment which was being made to the occupier as compensation for the alteration of the premises also ceased, he would have no means of bringing pressure to bear on the local authority to carry out the necessary alterations for the restoration of the premises. They might delay the matter for years before carrying out the alterations, and I can see nothing in the wording now proposed which would enable the occupier to bring any pressure to bear upon them. Therefore I would suggest that my right hon. Friend might consider putting in some words at a later stage of the Bill which would ensure that the local authorities should act with reasonable despatch.
    4.35 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: With regard to the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), I will certainly undertake that the point shall be considered between now and the sending of the Bill to another place. I am inclined to think that the Clause as it originally stood was open to the same criticism, and it may be that, in our eagerness to deal with those matters which were raised on the previous

    945
    occasion in Committee, we failed to take note of all that it might be necessary to do to the Clause as a whole. The point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) was considered, and the Government were advised, as soon as the local authorities had given notice to persons having an interest in the premises that they were going to restore the premises, the duty would rest upon the local authority, and that under the ordinary law a procedure would be available, varying according to the circumstances of the case, by which the local authority, if they were dilatory in carrying out their obligations, might be compelled to take action. I will certainly have that point looked at again.
    Mr. Lewis: My right hon. Friend says that, if the local authority have given notice of their intention to restore, the duty will rest upon them, but what happens if the local authority do not give notice of their intention to restore?
    Sir J. Anderson: The notice which the local authority have to give is a notice that the premises are no longer to be designated. Until that notice is given, nothing happens, but compensation continues to be payable by the local authority. When they give their notice that the premises are no longer to be designated, they are compelled at that stage to intimate to those concerned whether or not they intend to restore the premises.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Powers of local authorities to construct underground shelters and other premises required for civil defence purposes.)
    4.38 p.m.
    Or. Haden Guest: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out"twenty- eight," and to insert "fourteen."
    This Amendment refers to the length of the notice which the local authority must give of their intention to enter upon land for the purpose of constructing an underground air-raid shelter. It is felt by the metropolitan borough authorities that the period of 28 days, in a matter which may be one of great urgency, is too long. They think, not as a matter of theory, but as a matter of experience and practice, that a period of 14 days is quite long
    946
    enough, and this is borne out by the fact that, in a subsequent Clause which is to be moved by the Government with regard to the construction of air-raid shelters in streets, the period of notice required is 14 days. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment.
    4.39 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I hope the Government will do nothing of the kind. There is a vast difference between a local authority, which often is not very clear in its meaning when it sends out notices, and the Government. There can be no possible reason for the Amendment as far as I can see, for, in the event of a national emergency, the whole of these powers would obviously be accelerated in a tremendous way. We are now told that the metropolitan authorities, which are by no means the sharpest of all the local authorities, but rather the reverse, think that this change ought to be made, but I hope that the Government will not be persuaded to cut down the period. If a local authority is efficient and up to date and well served, it would be possible to do with far less time, but where you have a less efficient local authority I do not see why the persons concerned should be penalised in this way.
    4.40 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): There is always bound to be difference of opinion as to what is the appropriate period for notices of any kind, but, although I appreciate the desire for speed that is at the back of this Amendment, I hope that, on reconsideration, the hon. Member will not press us to accept it. After all, the provisions of Clause 7 are very drastic, and may involve considerable interference with the property concerned, and in our view it is reasonable to give a period of 28 days in order that those affected may make such dispositions as are reasonably necessary to minimise any inconvenience or loss. There is one aspect of the case on which I would ask the hon. Member to reflect. I do not think that, even if we accepted the Amendment, it would result in any great increase in expedition. When a local authority is contemplating making use of the powers of the Clause, it has a great deal of preparatory work to do before it can start operations. There is a certain

    947
    amount of surveying to be done, certain tenders for necessary work may have to be got in and considered, and so on, and I hope that on reflection the hon. Member will agree with me that this period of 28 days can be usefully employed by the local authority in completing their preparations for the work, and that on the whole it is reasonable to give this notice, which will not result in practice in any delay.
    4.42 p.m.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: I will say nothing about the observations of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who has thought fit to be exceedingly offensive at the expense of 28 metropolitan boroughs, many of whom have Conservative majorities.
    Mr. C. Williams: I had no intention whatever of being offensive. If I said anything offensive at all, I will certainly withdraw it. I said that they are not as up-to-date as some other authorities, and more particularly I was referring to the London County Council.
    Mr. Morrison: Apparently the hon. Member is so ill-informed about London government that he has not the least idea that the London County Council has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment. My hon. Friend was speaking for the metropolitan boroughs, 11 of whom have Conservative majorities, and even those, I should say, would compare not unfavourably with either the hon. Member himself or the Corporation of Torquay.
    I am sorry that the Minister has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. Recently the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the local authorities throughout the country and asked them, particularly during the current three months, to hurry up, to exercise speed, and to accelerate their activities even to the extent of setting aside or postponing for the moment other local authority work which was occupying the attention of the technical officers concerned. Now, my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, is asking that the procedure under this Clause may be accelerated, and I think it is unfortunate that that proposal should be resisted by the Chancellor of the Duchy.
    It must be remembered that this period of 28 days is not for the purpose of giving
    948
    the local authorities time in which to make their plans, but is a period within which the owner of the property may require the matter to be referred to the Minister. I cannot see that 28 days is necessarily the irreducible minimum period for the owner who has received a notice to make up his mind or not make up his mind to appeal to the Minister concerned. I should have thought that 14 days was not an unreasonable time for the making of a decision by the owner or occupier to require the local authority to take the matter higher up. That is the only purpose of this period of 28 days, and it must also be remembered that, when the owner has decided to require that the matter should be taken to a higher authority, the Minister can then either give a decision or order a public inquiry.
    I only want to say that if local authorities are to get ready for a national emergency that might come at any time —and there are all sorts of people walking about Whitehall and Fleet Street giving a particular month, not far off, when the emergency may arise—the Government are handling the matter in a very casual way. It is time that they began to move. I think the period that my hon. Friend has asked for is reasonable. I would ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he could not accept the 14 days; and if he could not, I would ask him to meet us half way by making the period 21 days.
    4.46 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I would do anything I could to meet him on a point of this sort. But 20 or 21 days is not a period during which the owner may appeal to the Minister. We have been much more drastic and much more expeditious than the right hon. Gentleman has given us credit for. There is no appeal in the ordinary way. Notice has to be given to the owner and other persons interested in the property for the purpose of enabling them to make any adjustments before the local authority, under the powers given by this Bill—which are very drastic —enters upon the land. It is only in the very limited case of the protected areas, such as protected squares and open spaces, that there is any provision for appeal to the Minister at all. I hope that, after that intervention, the right hon. Gentleman may somewhat modify his view.
    Mr. H. Morrison:I agree that the right of appeal does apply to a somewhat restricted class of cases. Nevertheless, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to compromise on the period.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am always willing to compromise wherever possible. But the powers proposed here are very drastic. The Government have proposed them because they are impressed by the importance and urgency of Civil Defence, but one wants to be reasonable. The matter rests entirely, apart from the case of the protected areas, with the local authorities. The local authority has to serve notice on the people having an in-
    terest in the property. Those people may not be available. Within 14 days it might not be possible to communicate with all those concerned. The notice can be given as soon as the local authorities have made up their minds that they are going to execute the work. They can make their arrangements at once. The period required for that will come very near to the whole of the 28 days. Therefore, I suggest that it would be best to leave the period as it stands.
    Question put,"That the word ' twenty-eight ' stand part of the Clause.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 106.

    Division No. 165.]

    AYES.

    [4.50 p.m.

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

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Lyons, A. HI.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

    Emmett, C. E. G. C.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Assheton, R.

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

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

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. till* of Thanel)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

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

    Furness, S. N.

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

    Bail, Sir A. L.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Bernays, R. H.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

    Bird, Sir R. B.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

    Bossom, A. C.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Brooklebank, Sir Edmund

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

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

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

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

    Grigg, Sir E. W, M.

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

    Bull, B. B.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H, (Drake)

    Munro, P.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Br n and Radnor)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Butlar, Rt. Hon. R. A.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Patrick, C. M.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Peake, O.

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Petherick, M.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Harris. Sir P. A.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

    Haslam, Henry (Horneastle)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Channon, H.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Remer, J. R.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Holdsworth, H.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Conant, Captain R. J. E,

    Holmes, J. S.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

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

    Hopkinson, A.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

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

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

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

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

    Huntoke, H. P.

    Royds, Admiral Sir J. M. R.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Hunter, T.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwan)

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

    Hutehinson, G, C.

    Salmon, Sir 1.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Do la Baré, R.

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Danville, Alfred

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Donner, P. W.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Scott, Lord William

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Drawn, C.

    Levy, T.

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Lewis, O.

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

    Duggan, H. J.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Elliot, RL Hon. W. E.

    Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O S.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

    Touche, G. C.

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

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R.J.

    Tryon, Major Rl. Hon. O. C

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Turton, R. H.

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

    Spens. W. P.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

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

    Walker, J.

    Wise, A. R.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

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

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

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Sueter, Rear-Admlral Sit M. F.

    Ward, Iran. M. B. (Wallsend)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Suteliffe, H.

    Waterhouse, Captain G.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

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

    Young, A. S. L. (Partiok)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

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

    Webbe, Sir W. Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Grimston.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (consett)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

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

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Adamson, Jennie L, (Dartford)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Paling, W.

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

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Parker, J.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Groves, T. E.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Banfield, J. W.

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

    Pearson, A.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

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

    Ban, J.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Ridley, G.

    Bartlett, C. V. O.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Ritson, J.

    Batty, J.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Benn, HI. Hon. W. W.

    Hills, A. (Pontefraot)

    Shin well, E.

    Benson, G.

    Jagger, J.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Smith, Ban (Rotherhithe)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Chater, D.

    Kennedy, Rt. Han. T.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lathan, G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Collindridge, F.

    Leach, W.

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, F.

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

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Leslie, J. R.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Daggar, G.

    Logan, D. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Dalton, H.

    Lunn, W.

    Thorne, W.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, C. (Ince)

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Day, H.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    MacLaren, A.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Ede, J. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, Sir G. (Bedwellty)

    Marshall, F.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

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

    Messer, F.

    Wilkinson, Bleat

    Frankel, O.

    Montague, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Og)

    Gallacher, W.

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

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gardner, B. W.

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

    Wilmot, J.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

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

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Mull, G.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Naylor, T. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    4.59 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, to leave out "every person," and to insert:
    "if and in so far as it is reasonably practicable so to do, to the persons."
    This Amendment has been put down to meet a very real difficulty which has been expressed to the Government by the local authorities in this matter. The Committee will see that it refers to the persons to whom notice is to be given before local authorities enter on the land. As the Bill is now drafted, it requires notice to be given to every person with the fee simple or any interest in the land. It has been represented by local authorities that it is often very difficult to make certain that all the persons who have such an interest have been eliminated. Consequently, there is a danger that, if some quite in-
    952
    significant interest could not be communicated with, the whole entry would be bad. What the Amendment proposes is that the local authority should be held to have done their duty when they give notice, if and in so far as reasonably practicable to do so, to the persons who own the fee simple.
    5.1 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I recognise that the Government have endeavoured to meet us in this matter, but I am bound to say that their efforts do not give us any great satisfaction because we are advised that, if these words are put in, it will be open for occupiers or persons having an interest in the land in any case where notice has not been served, to go to the court and ask the court to say that it was reasonably practicable for the notice to have been

    953
    served. This serving of notices on persons having an estate in property is one of the great difficulties of local government. Time and again I have come across cases where one cannot find who is the owner of a particular piece of land or a building. The land has been bought, the person buying it has disappeared and apparently no one having a title to it is available. In certain cases the local authority, to meet the charges that it may have had to place against the land, will actually seize it, hold it, or dispose of it in some way and invest any balance for the benefit of the person if he should eventually turn up.
    Occasionally when buying a site for a school one comes across some little piece included in the site of which one cannot trace the owner, and special provision has to be made to deal with those cases. No local authority really goes about looking for trouble and, if it cannot find the owner, it seems to me that there ought to be some alternative other than this, which would give recourse to the courts to persons if they choose to disclose themselves during the 28 days or shortly after, and to say,"If these persons had sought more diligently they would have found us." I should have preferred some such Amendment as that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) and myself, to insert:
    "Provided that where it is not practicable to give such notice in writing the local authority may post a notice on the land."
    This is the ordinary way in local government of dealing with this matter. If you cannot find the owner, you nail a notice on to the building, if it is a building, or, if it is a piece of land, erect a stake with a board and put your notice on that, and that is held by several Acts of Parliament to be a good and sufficient notice. In fact there is one Clause in the Bill in which the Government employ that method. When it comes to designating premises, they do not worry about serving a notice on the owner or occupier. They say the premises shall be sufficiently designated if someone nails a notice on. If a small boy comes along and pulls it down five minutes later, that does not matter. The notice was affixed to the premises and the premises are designated. Some such form of words as those that I have put down would meet the purpose we all have better than this. I do not share the view that we have plenty of time in this matter.
    954
    We are not dealing with the kind of things that are going usefully to be done after the emergency has been declared.
    If these underground shelters are not ready when the time comes in places like London and the great industrial towns, there may be very considerable havoc wreaked on the civil population owing to the delay. We are now just three months after the last crisis. They seem to occur at six-monthly intervals. March and September appear to be the favourite months for the totalitarian States to get aggressive. About half way between, everyone is quite certain that nothing is going to happen again. I understand in fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are hoping to cash in on a General Election somewhere about the time that other people think the next crisis is coming along. This is not a Clause the administration of which can be leisurely. The local authorities in London and in the big boroughs have to get on with this job very quickly. If they are going to be held up owing to difficulties of serving notices, making quite sure they have included everyone who has the tiniest interest in the land, or find themselves possibly held up in the courts, it will not give them that confidence in going forward which is essential. For the limited number of exceptional cases in which notice cannot be effectively given in writing, it is far better to adopt the form that my hon. Friend and I suggest rather than that suggested by the Government. They are alternative ways of doing the same thing, but we prefer, and I am sure local authorities prefer, the form that we have placed on the Paper.
    5.8 p.m.
    Dr. Guest: I want to support the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend because I think in practice the Government Amendment might be found not to cover the situation it is designed to cover. Of course it is a matter of practice, not a matter of theory, and it might interest the Committee if I gave a few examples of actual difficulties which have arisen in precisely analogous cases. At the end of 1935 the Islington Borough Council decided to negotiate the acquisition of Highbury Park Enclosure, pursuant to the provisions of the Open Spaces Act, 1906. It was necessary to ascertain who were the persons interested in it. It transpired that numerous tenants of the adjoining tenements enjoyed rights over the land,

    955
    and the number of persons interested was as large as 38. The principal difficulties that the council had to contend with were the following. It frequently happened that a considerable length of time elapsed before any reply was received to the communications of the council. Secondly, in a number of cases the properties had changed hands before the reply was received. Thirdly, in two or three cases it was found impossible to ascertain the whereabouts of the freeholder, and several letters came back through the Dead Letter Office.
    It is clear that there you have a large field for interpretation, or misinterpretation, of the phrase "reasonably practicable so to do." You might have a large amount of argument about that. There was another case of a similar character with regard to Arundel Square, Islington. It sometimes happens that there is a piece of land on which no claim of any kind is made. Not very long ago, in connection with the Islington Council Housing Estate, there was behind a certain number in Essex Road a piece of land of which no owner could be found at all. You have there a large number of difficulties which might lead to very serious delay and put the local authorities into a serious difficulty, whereas if our form of words was used the same object would be achieved with no disadvantage to anyone and with greater certainty of it being achieved without any difficulty being raised.
    5.11 p.m.
    Sir Stafford Cripps: I have had some experience in this kind of matter. The vital importance is that where you have a condition precedent to entry by a local authority there should be a means of finalising that condition precedent before any active steps are taken. The proposed words do not give any such opportunity. I remember very well a case in Paddington under one of the Housing Acts where there was a house which the local authority required to enter upon in order to do repairs which the owner had neglected to do. A question arose as to the service that had to be effected on the owners. After three months inquiry we discovered that there were eight people who had to be served. We had to go to the court in order to get directions as to service on some of them. By the time we had effected service we had
    956
    occupied six or nine months in trying to trace out the various people. We were not safe then, because, if someone else had turned up, we should have been responsible for not having served them and given them due notice, and that is why subsequently in the Housing Acts provision was made by issuing an effective service on whoever was collecting the rents, and that was good enough to cover the whole ownership of the houses.
    To leave these words, and for anyone who has not been served to be able to come forward afterwards and say it was reasonably practicable to be served if a little more trouble had been taken, and for the court to hold that it was reasonably practicable, would mean that the whole basis of the local authority entry would be taken away. They would be trespassers and they would have to withdraw and pay compensation for everything they had done. That is a ridiculous situation. There must be some means of letting the local authority know that we have finalised the thing, and that can be done by the method that has been suggested by my hon. Friend. I agree that it would be better if the words were included in the opinion of the local authority before"reasonably practicable so to do," either in the Government Amendment or in my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not think it matters which you do, provided you give the local authority certainty. That is the essential matter, especially as regards properties in and around London, where you have head leases, under leases, sub-leases of sub-leases and all the rest of it. It is an extremely complicated task which takes time, and we cannot afford time in such an urgent matter as this.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said, and I did not expect at first that there would be this difference of opinion in the Committee. The main argument against the words now proposed by the Government is that someone might turn up and say,"It was reasonably practicable to serve me, and you should not have gone on until you had taken some steps to that end." I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that it is very desirable to find words to put an end to the duty of a preliminary character which the local authority has to do, but we have

    957
    to make sure that the words are fair to both sides—to the local authority on the one hand, and to the interests that might be involved on the other. Why I did not expect that there would be difficulty about this matter was because I had studied the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Gentlemen the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), which provides that, where it is not practicable to give notice in writing, the local authority shall put a notice up on the land. That again raises precisely the same difficulty. If the local authority decides that it is not practicable to take any further steps to find out and puts a notice on the land, it is not out of the wood even then. Some- one can come and say that it was practicable to warn him. It is exactly the same point as the hon. Member has urged against us.
    The Government are alive to the necessity to secure, on the one hand, that reasonable steps are taken that the rights of those interested in property may be safeguarded, and, on the other, if I may adopt the words of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, to"finalise the proceedings which the local authority has to take." The words here proposed are an improvement on what is in the Bill, but we will look at the matter again and see whether we cannot find a better form of words than that to which objection has been raised. I should like to make it clear that we think it necessary that those who have interests in the land should, as far as is reasonable and practicable, be warned of what is going to happen. We should make it as easy as we can for local authorities, and I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.
    5.19 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for going so far to meet us, but will he go as far as to say that he will adopt some form of words similar to the words used by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in putting the case before the Committee. I desire that local authorities shall be able to act in this matter with confidence when they desire to go forward. I am bound to say that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol pointed out to me that my Amendment was open to the same objection, but having got as far as moving it, and desiring to make a certain suggestion, I did not at that stage desire to disclose the weakness of my Amendment.
    958
    At the moment I prefer my own Amendment to that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, because it is the kind of thing that local authorities do. If you are handing over a piece of administration to local authorities, it is desirable as far as possible that it should follow more or less a common form of administration. This fixing of a notice to a building or to a stake driven into the ground is the common form of dealing with this particular difficulty in English local government service. There is an advantage, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, in not multiplying the forms that local government officials have to use in matters of this kind, and while I accept the offer which he has made, I hope that he will understand the preference of my hon. Friends and myself for the provision of posting a notice, which the Government themselves have adopted with regard to the designation of the premises.
    5.21 p.m.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: I usually find myself in agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) but I hope that on this occasion the Government will not adopt the suggestion which he has made. His suggestion, whether it be inserted in the form of words proposed by the Government or in the form of words proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), would amount to this. The local authority would in these matters be made judge in its own cause because it would judge as to whether it was"reasonably practicable." That would be a way of ousting the jurisdiction of the court to decide whether the terms of an Act of Parliament had been properly carried out. That is something which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee ought to be very reluctant to do. Every hon. Member will appreciate that when we are dealing with these emergency measures it is necessary that we should have finality, and that we should have it fairly soon. I would respectfully suggest that the difficulty might be got round in this way. The words should be left as they are now proposed by the Lord Privy Seal, or by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, and it should be open for the person who had interest in the land to object in the courts within a certain comparatively short time, and after an interval of a few months there

    959
    should be a specific time limit after which he could not object. There ought to be a reasonable time in which a person interested could say that the local authority had not carried out the plain intentions of Parliament, and that therefore he was entitled to be heard.
    Mr. Ede: Can the hon. Member assure us that certain possible enemies would wait while he does this?
    Mr. Foot: We are not concerned here with possible enemies, but with people who have rights and who are entitled to have their rights considered.
    5.24 p.m.
    Mr. C. Williams: When I heard the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) propose something of an extremely drastic character I thought of some of his speeches in the past. It caused me to think that on an occasion of this kind it is absolutely essential that we should see that the rights of the individual are protected. I do not want anybody to think that I am stating the case for the landowner. I am prepared to see land taken, if necessary, and for proper compensation to be paid afterwards. But if there is time for notice, it ought to be made perfectly clear.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of these agreements and disagreements, may I say that I do not agree with anyone? As the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench explained, the question of practicability must come up, but what the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) objects to is the putting of further responsibility on the local authority. If the Amendment operates, and it is not practicable to give notice in writing to the particular individuals affected and the local authority puts up a notice of the land, that will be an extra piece of work on the part of the local authority which does not absolve the local authority from an action which might be taken, when the local authority has not taken the necessary practicable steps to send a letter of complaint. The hon. Member for Dundee is all wrong in his argument. This Amendment is not lessening the chances that the Bill gives to those who have rights; it is only putting the possibility of an extra task upon the local authority. I cannot see why the Minister objects to the Amend-
    960
    ment. He is not giving away any of the rights of those whom he wants to defend.
    The Chairman: I would call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he appears to be under the impression that the Amendment before the Committee at the present time is the next Amendment on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). That Amendment is not before the Committee at the moment. It is true that it has been discussed to a great extent, but it is just as well for the hon. Member to have an idea where we are.
    Mr. Gallacher: That is the Amendment we are discussing.
    The Chairman: That is not the Amendment which is now before the Committee. The Amendment now before the Committee is that in the name of the Lord Privy Seal.
    Mr. Gallacher: I understood that it was being discussed in conjunction with this other Amendment. At any rate, the Amendment has been referred to and discussed in relation to the present Amendment, and the Minister has discussed both Amendments together, and I cannot see why, in presenting his own Amendment, he does not accept the other Amendment.
    The Chairman: At present the right hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to do that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) now move the next Amendment?
    5.28 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that where in the opinion of the local authority it is not practicable to give such notice in writing the local authority may post a notice on the land."
    I still think, even if we had the other words put in, it is desirable to indicate what steps the authority should take if they determine that it is not reasonably practicable to serve the notice. It is desirable, if there is a person having an interest, that he should get to know as soon as possible, and the effect of posting a notice on the land or of fixing it to

    961
    a building may be to bring it to the attention of some person who has an interest in the land. The last thing that any of us wishes to do is to find that some person who could have been reached has not been reached. The posting of the notice sometimes leads to the tenant or occupier, who will not disclose to the local authority who the actual owner is, sending notice to the owner that a notice has been posted on the building with regard to some matter or other. This Amendment is desirable as a practicable step in bringing the information to the notice of persons interested, and I did not know whether I should be allowed to move it in the form suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I prefer to have it in that form, if possible.
    5.30 p.m.
    Dr. Guest: It is obvious that both sides have the same object in view, to make certain that matters are expeditiously carried out; but the Amendment of the Government is negative. It does not give anything definite for the local authority to do. It simply absolves the local authority from the duty of doing some thing which it finds itself impossible to do. Our proposal, the posting of the notice on the land, attached to a stake driven into the land, is a practical, definite and active thing to be done, which, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), will finalise the position and make it definite that that has been done. I see no reason why that Amendment should not be accepted and the two Amendments joined together to make one.
    5.31 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Amendment now carries an implication which was not present when it first appeared on the Order Paper. The effect of the Amendment is that the local authority shall in all cases be the sole judge whether or not steps to warn persons have been taken so far as they are practicable. I am afraid that we could not accept that with out a great deal more inquiry and discussion, because our object in this House is to hold the balance fairly between the local authorities on the one hand and the rights of citizens on the other. Although it might be an extremely remote and rare occasion, one might get a local authority which, in order to save itself the trouble of trying to find out who were
    962
    the persons affected, might simply pass a resolution saying that it was not practicable to serve the notice on anybody beyond the occupier, and you might get injustice arising from that. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will not be pressed.
    As I said before, the object which the hon. Member has in view is one that must command approval in order that the local authorities shall know where they are and can get ahead with their work. We shall look at this matter again to see whether there is some way in which we can get round it, but in getting round it we must be careful not to abandon all efforts to protect the rights of the citizens at the same time. To do other wise would not be satisfactory. There fore, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, which in some cases would have the effect of making the local authority, as it were, judge in its own cause.
    Mr. Ede: In view of the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that he will look into the matter and try to meet the point that we are anxious to cover, before the Bill becomes law, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.33 p.m.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, after"space," to insert:
    "or in any land held inalienably by the National Trust."
    I desire to make one alteration in the Amendment which appears on the Order Paper, by leaving out the words"or the National Trust for Scotland." I am not under the erroneous impression that I am likely to appear more conciliatory by omitting these words, having regard to the fact that the two right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill are both distinguished Scotsmen. I shall explain how it happens that these words were originally put in but should now be left out. As a member of the executive of the National Trust I knew the urgency of putting down this Amendment as far as our properties were concerned, and by way of precaution I also put in the Amendment the words"or the National Trust for Scotland", but on inquiry I find that they do not ask to be included, perhaps because they take the view that none of their properties is at all likely to

    963
    be affected. The Amendment which I am moving is therefore restricted to our own National Trust.
    I shall be brief in moving the Amendment because the case is very strong for including the properties of the National Trust in the provision which protects commons and open spaces. This will not necessarily prevent the properties of the National Trust being entered upon in a proper case, but, if such entry is intended, it will enable them to object, if they wish to do so, and, if objection is taken, the matter must come before the Minister. I believe that hon. Members in every quarter of the Committee will agree that the case is at least as strong for giving protection to the properties of the National Trust as for commons and open spaces, strictly so called. Many of the properties of the National Trust are what in popular speech would be called commons and open spaces. Some of these properties are in the immediate neighbourhood of built-up areas in Bristol, Birmingham, London and elsewhere. In the London area there is the Selsdon Wood at Croydon, and the Wandle River properties, an area of 15 acres at Mitcham and Merton, and I could mention many other properties belonging to the National Trust, which Members in all parts of the Committee would desire to have this protection. The Amendment is supported by Members of all parties in addition to the short list of names which appear on the Order Paper.
    5.36 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I think I can advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. The National Trust is a body discharging public functions of great importance to the community. The lands are held inalienably by the Trust, and I believe they are all strictly limited in character and are specified in the local Acts under which the Trust holds them. I cannot see any harm in accepting the Amendment; indeed I think its acceptance would be consistent with the general lines of the Clause.
    Mr. H. Morrison: We concur in the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. The lands of the National Trust are really in essence on all fours with the lands of public authorities.
    5.37 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) is proposing to
    964
    leave out the words"or the National Trust for Scotland" on the ground that the National Trust for Scotland do not think that any of their land is likely to be affected. I should have thought that it would have been better, as a matter of precaution, if we are legislating for the National Trust in one case, that we should legislate for it in another.
    Mr. Strauss: I was speculating on the reasons. The information which I have from the Secretary of the National Trust is that he has heard from the Secretary of the National Trust for Scotland that they do not desire to be included in the Amendment. When I inserted the words in the Amendment I was speculating on their desire to be included, and I have now no alternative but to leave them out. If they alter their minds, the matter can be dealt with later in another place.
    Mr. Foot: It is a little strange that we should make this statutory provision in the case of one part of the Kingdom and not in regard to the other. I do not know whether the Lord Privy Seal can give us any reason why the National Trust for Scotland are anxious to be omitted from this Amendment. I should not have thought that it would have done them any harm to include them. It would be interesting to know what are the reasons why they do not wish to come in.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member any enlightenment on the point.
    5.39 p.m.
    Mr. C. Williams: This Act may go on for a considerable time and there may be other properties coming into the hands of the National Trust for Scotland. If we do not put in the National Trust for Scotland. it is possible that the Act will not be operative in their case and circumstances may arise in which they might find them- selves aggrieved if they are not covered. I think it would be better to put Scotland in.
    Mr. Strauss: The National Trust for Scotland have not, I think, called together their perhaps scattered officers and committee to deal with the point, but they have expressed a view which makes it essential for me to move the Amendment in the modified form in which I have moved it, and to leave the National Trust for Scotland out. If the National Trust for

    965
    Scotland, in view of this discussion, find that there is any reason why they ought to be in, I assume that steps will be taken to move a suitable Amendment in another place. I must, however, move the Amendment in this limited form, leaving them out, because I have no alternative.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Cannot we solve the matter now? If the National Trust for Scotland have expressed the view that they do not want to be included, it would be wrong on the part of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) to include them, but perhaps the point of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) could be met if the Lord Privy Seal would give an undertaking that if the National Trust for Scotland inform him that they wish to be protected, he will undertake to promote an Amendment in another place. That would perhaps meet the hon. Member for Dundee and it would not embarrass the hon. Member for Norwich.
    Mr. Foot: I was about to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he would give an undertaking of that kind. Would he be good enough to communicate with the National Trust for Scotland to ascertain what their wishes are and if necessary when they have considered the matter insert an Amendment in another place?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes. I will give an undertaking to do that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.42 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page.7, line 19, after "shall," to insert
    "be exercisable notwithstanding anything in any Act (including a local or private Act) but shall."
    This Amendment is brought forward as a result of representations made to me by certain town clerks of London, who have pointed out that there are a number of special Acts which govern some of the London public gardens, and in order to carry out the purpose of the Clause this provision is required as a matter of precaution.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.43 p.m.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, at the end, to insert:
    "and. as respects any other land, shall be exercisable subject to the following conditions:
    966

    (a) that the local authority shall not interfere with any mains, pipes, apparatus, or works belonging to such undertakers unless they have given to those undertakers not less than fourteen days' notice of their intention so to do nor in any case in which those undertakers intimate in writing to the local authority within fourteen days after the receipt of such notice their intention themselves to carry out and thereafter proceed with reasonable despatch to carry out any reasonably necessary removal, diversion, or alteration of their mains, pipes, apparatus, or works;

    (b) that the local authority shall repay to the undertakers the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by them in connection with any such removal, diversion, or alteration; and

    (c) that if the local authority cause any damage to any such mains, pipes, apparatus, or works, they shall repay to the undertakers the amount of the expenses reasonably incurred by them in making good the damage."

    I understand that the Amendment may be more acceptable to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in a slightly modified form from that on the Amendment Paper. I have, therefore, altered the Amendment as it is printed by inserting in line 7, after the words"themselves to carry out," the words:
    "and thereafter proceed with reasonable despatch to carry out."
    It is provided in Clause 7 (6) that:
    "The powers conferred on local authorities by this Section shall not be exercisable with respect to any land occupied by public utility undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking."
    That protection extends only to the land actually used by public undertakers for their business. It does not include land in which mains and cables and other subsurface works may be placed. In erecting shelters local authorities may have to interfere with mains and cables, and the Amendment is brought forward for the purpose of ensuring, first of all, that the undertakers concerned shall have notice of the fact that such interference is to take place; in the second place, for the purpose of enabling them to carry out themselves the work which a local authority regard as necessary; in the third place, to entitle them, that is the undertakings, in those circumstances to recover the cost incurred in making the alterations necessary; and, in the fourth place, if a local authority itself carries out the work then it should be obliged to make good any damage caused to the undertakings in the course of carry-

    967
    ing out that work. I do not think that the Amendment requires any further explanation, and I notice that in a subsequent new Clause which is being moved by my right hon. Friend most of the principle of the Amendment which I am moving now is already conceded.
    The Chairman: I understand that the Amendment is being moved in this altered form, and perhaps the hon. Member will keep a check on the words he proposes to insert as I read them, because I think there is a little difference of opinion. I understand that he proposes to insert after the words "within fourteen days after the receipt of such notice their intention themselves to carry out," the words:
    "and thereafter with reasonable despatch proceed to carry out,"
    and otherwise in the words of the Amendment as on the Order Paper.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Should it not be:
    "and thereafter proceed with reasonable despatch to carry out."
    Sir J. Anderson: I think some such words are necessary.
    The Chairman: I take it that the intention is to insert the words as set out on the Order Paper except that in paragraph (a) line 7, after "carry out" there are added the words:
    "and thereafter proceed with reasonable despatch to carry out."
    5.47 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Can we know where we are? Hon. Members of the Conservative party have an extraordinary way of legislating. They move an Amendment about a yard long say nothing about it, but say that the Amendment speaks for itself. They have now moved an Amendment which brings in important changes in the printed draft which has given great difficulty to the Chairman. Hon. Members have remained silent whilst the Chairman was reading it and the Minister simply says that something like it is needed. This is not the way to carry on Parliamentary business and important legislation. The hon. Member ought to have given the Chair a copy of his manuscript Amendment to his Amendment, and also a copy to the Minister as well.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: I did give to the Chairman a copy of the alteration which I propose to make, and 1 have no doubt
    968
    that the mistake has arisen owing to my bad handwriting, for which I apologise.
    Mr. Morrison: I only ask the Lord Privy Seal to tell us with precision where we are and what we are doing. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has suggested to me that we ought to add the words "and to complete with reasonable despatch." I put that point to the Lord Privy Seal for his consideration.
    5.49 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I had no idea that any words were going to be inserted in the Amendment, and obviously I have no responsibility for those words. When I first saw them in manuscript I endeavoured to make sense of them. My observation was not a comment on the fact that the words of the Amendment are required, but that if those words were included some alteration would be necessary to make sense of the words inserted. I am most anxious to help myself and the Committee in this matter. It seems to me that the effect of the proposal is this. A local authority is to be prevented from interfering with mains, apparatus, and so on, of a public utility company unless they have given notice of their intention. That is the first part of the proposal in the Amendment. But it goes on that where undertakers intimate in writing within a specified time, 14 days, that they intend themselves to carry out the work, then the local authority, as the Amendment stands, are finally debarred from carrying out the work themselves. As I understand the position, the purpose of the manuscript Amendment to the Amendment is to put on a public utility undertaking the obligation, if they wish to reserve effectively to themselves the privilege of carrying out the work, not merely to give notice to the local authority that they are going to do so but must proceed to do so with reasonable despatch. That is what I understand to be the intention, and I do not think the words suggested to the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol quite carry out that intention. I think I have given the intention of the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: I confirm fully the remarks of the Lord Privy Seal. That is the intention.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am sure the Committee will appreciate my difficulty. We have to amend the Amendment on the Order Paper so as to restore effectively to a local authority the right which a local authority should have in the event of a public utility undertaking, after having given notice that they intend to carry out the work, failing to proceed with the work with reasonable despatch.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: What does it all mean?
    Sir J. Anderson: The Amendment I understand will read in this way:
    "in any case in which those undertakers intimate in writing to the local authority within fourteen days after the receipt of such notice their intention themselves to carry out and thereafter proceed with reasonable despatch to carry out."
    Sir S. Cripps: I would suggest that if the Lord Privy Seal wants to achieve what he desires, he will have to add such words as
    "and proceed forthwith to complete such works with reasonable despatch."
    Sir J. Anderson: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. I think the addition of those words are necessary to carry out the intention.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether he is advising the Committee to accept or reject the Amendment
    Sir J. Anderson: I have abstained from tendering any definite advice to the Committee until I had been made aware as to whether any hon. Member wished to offer any comment on the substance of the proposal. Prima facie it seems to me to be reasonable. Provision is required to guard against the possibility of a public utility undertaking giving notice that they are going to carry out the work, and then doing nothing more.
    The Chairman: I think I must ask the Committee to let me have a say. I have already put to the Committee the Amendment in the form appearing on the Order Paper with the insertion of certain words which appear to be generally objected to:
    "and thereafter proceed with reasonable despatch to carry out."
    If the suggestion made by the hon. and learned member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is to be carried out, it will be
    970
    necessary for the Committee first to accept the Amendment as it is now before them, then to amend the Amendment by leaving out the manuscript words which have been inserted, and then add whatever other words are regarded as the best words to be put in. The question is now for the Committee to come to a decision on the principle of the Amendment as a whole.
    5.56 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I suggest that we are really in a muddle. We are having rather a battle of wits, not altogether of a level order, between the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who is a famous lawyer, and the Lord Privy Seal, who is doing his best to live up to the legal reputation of my hon. and learned Friend. The Law Officers are not here. These words are being bandied about and the Committee does not know what it is doing. This is not the way legislation should be done. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has been deserted by his friends of the public utility companies who are not here to help him. They are not exactly clear as to what he has moved. He has altered his Amendment as he has gone along and the result is that the Committee is in a great muddle. The Lord Privy Seal tries to tidy the matter up, and when I ask him what is his attitude on the Amendment he says that he does not know until he knows the attitude of the Opposition.
    The Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman at this point because I have sufficient confidence in being able to carry the matter through in the way I have suggested.
    Mr. Morrison: Can you advise me what I can do to get the Law Officers of the Crown present? I am in deadly earnest on this matter. The Committee has been put into great difficulty, it is in a muddle, and we really ought not to be asked to proceed with the consideration of this Amendment until the Law Officers are here. The Amendment should be withdrawn. If ever there were an occasion when it was reasonable to submit this Motion this is such an occasion.
    The Chairman: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any advice as to how he could get the Law Officers here except by saying what he has already said on the subject.
    Mr. Morrison: Could I move the Adjournment of the Debate? Surely there is some remedy?
    The Chairman: The Committee can deal with the Amendment by passing it as amended, or by passing it without the suggested Amendment, and then amending it.
    Mr. Greenwood: The Committee is in very considerable difficulty as regards proceeding to accept the Amendment, for nobody knows whether the Government propose to accept it or not.
    The Chairman: I am afraid I am partly the cause of the trouble. I used the wrong phrase, and said"accept the Amendment as amended," whereas I should have said"consider the Amendment as amended."
    Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Member's Amendment to the Amendment is to be considered, surely the Minister should pronounce for or against it, and not leave the matter in this nebulous state. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and that, if that should not completely fill the bill, the provision should be amended in another place.
    Sir J. Anderson: If the Amendment were accepted in the form in which it would be if modified by the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), should we not then have an opportunity of putting the matter right, if necessary, on the Report stage, before the Bill leaves this House? I confess that I would like to see the whole thing on paper in a tidy form. I think this would also give us an opportunity of making up our minds as to the course we wish to pursue.
    The Chairman: It has just been suggested to me that possibly there might be difficulty in dealing with this on the Report stage if it affected the rates. I am not sure it would
    Mr. H. Morrison: It would.
    The Chairman: I ask the Committee to bear in mind that there is an Amendment
    972
    before it at the present time. That Amendment does not incorporate the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps); it incorporates the words suggested by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. Possibly the Committee might regard it as sufficient to pass the Amendment in that form, and then, if necessary, it might be reconsidered in another place, if it could not be done on the Report stage.
    Sir S. Cripps: Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Amendment, as to whether it is right or wrong, but in order to tidy it up, I would therefore move, in line 7, to leave out "and thereafter proceed at reasonable despatch to carry out," and in line 9, at the end, to insert "and proceed forthwith to complete such works with reasonable despatch."
    Amendments made to the proposed Amendment: In line 7, leave out:
    "and thereafter proceed at reasonable despatch to carry out."
    In line 9, at the end, insert:"and proceed forthwith to complete such works with reasonable dispatch."—[Sir S. Cripps.]
    The Chairman: The question now before the Committee is the Amendment appearing on the Order Paper, as amended by the insertion of those words.
    Mr. Greenwood: I wish to refer to a point which you, Sir Dennis, raised earlier, as to the possibility of the Amendment as amended being raised on the Report stage. I submit for your consideration that there would be no additional charge on the public funds, and that there might be a diminution of the charge.
    The Chairman: That is entirely a matter for the hon. Member. It is not a matter for me to decide in Committee. If the hon. Member is right he will no doubt be able so to persuade Mr. Speaker on Report.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    6.7 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, after the words last inserted, to insert:
    "(7) Approval of an air-raid precautions scheme submitted by a local authority under the provisions of the Act of 1937. shall not be withheld on the ground that it provides for any deep or heavily protected shelter."

    973
    Clause 7 deals with provision as to shelters, and as the Committee knows, although the Lord Privy Seal, on behalf of the Government has made a series of declarations about shelter provision of one sort and another and has now made certain legal provision in this Bill with regard to various types of shelters, generally there remains considerable doubt as to any comprehensive or unified views held by the Government on the provision of shelters for protection against enemy air attack in time of war. I move this Amendment partly for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Government have any comprehensive and unified views on the matter. So far all that they have done is to bring along separate ad hoc proposals which we are inclined to think do not entirely stand together. There is a steel shelter that is being supplied to large numbers of households and will, at some time, be available for purchase by the better-off sections of the community. The most this shelter is expected to do is to resist blast and shock, but not to resist anything in the nature of a direct hit not only upon the shelter itself, but some little distance away.
    Even with this admittedly imperfect utensil, it is agreed that there will be very large numbers of working-class houses and other buildings where, for reasons of space and other reasons, it will not be possible to affix the steel shelter. Consequently, the first point to which I wish to direct attention is that there will be a considerable number of properties for which the steel shelter will be inappropriate and in connection with which it cannot be used. It is true that the Government, in respect of municipal housing estates, have collaborated with the local authorities and have agreed upon a policy whereby some sort of shelter will be provided which, from the point of view of its efficacy, I suppose will be roughly equivalent to the steel shelter. Sometimes it will be by way, not of deep shelters, but sunken shelters, and sometimes by way of shelters on the surface. Here again, admittedly, the shelter will not do more than protect the inhabitants from blast and shock, provided it emanates from some distance away from the shelter.
    With regard to middle-class flats, proposals will be made to the Committee today to cover such cases, and what is being provided is that in cases where 50 per cent, or more of the occupiers express
    974
    a desire that a collective shelter shall be provided, the owner may— he is not required to do so, but he may— provide that shelter, and if he does so, he is entitled to recover the cost from the occupiers. I will not develop any argument with regard to that provision, which we shall deal with in a new Clause. I am dealing now with the incompleteness of the shelter provisions. In the case of middle-class flats, the owner merely has to say, under the Clause with which we shall deal later, "I know that 50 per cent. and more wish to have a shelter and are willing to pay for it, but I am not going to provide it." In such a case, the occupier will have no remedy. Moreover, there are many different categories. I have mentioned a large number of residences of one type and another inhabited by various classes of the population in respect of which there are admitted to be gaps in the shelter policy of the Government. For example, I am not altogether clear whether the new Clause will apply to the case— mentioned previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) — of numerous houses of three or four floors, many of them in central London, but some in other parts, which are let as flats or tenements, where the garden is the perquisite of goodness knows whom. It is a matter of some doubt as to who would have the right of entering the garden and providing a shelter for the whole of the floors. That is a matter of great uncertainty, and the situation is a muddled one.
    There is then another case. The Lord Privy Seal admitted to me, that there is a provision somewhere in the Bill that the local authority, in the case of a basement, can strut up the basement with the consent of the occupier. I asked the Lord Privy Seal what would happen if the occupier would not give his consent, and the answer was that the strutting up could not be proceeded with. I then asked whether, if the occupier would not share the protection with the people above, there was any power to make him do so, and the answer was "No" Therefore, the people on the first, second, third and fourth floors above the basement would have no effective means of providing or sharing in the basement shelter in any way. From what I have said— and I have not dealt exhaustively with the subject— I think it will be clear that there

    975
    is a number of gaps and unsatisfactory provisions even in respect of providing any kind of shelter, quite apart from the question whether the shelter that is provided is adequate for the needs.
    There remains fundamentally the point as to whether the Government should contemplate what are known as deep bomb-proof shelters. In that connection, I wish to put one or two points which I think are worthy of consideration by the Committee. This British people will not needlessly lose its nerve. It will keep its nerve as much as any other people in Europe or any other part of the world, but if and when a serious attack from the air takes place, there will inevitably be some degree of panic, a good deal of anxiety, and a good deal of worry. I should have thought that, from the point of view of the Government, of public authorities in all parts of the country and of the military authorities themselves, it would assist them in the cool and quiet discharge of their duties as far as that is practicable under conditions of war, and would be a much more satisfactory state of affairs if they knew that the population was secure and effectively provided for, in what are known as bombproof shelters, deep in the ground. I should have thought that it would be better for the cool and well-ordered prosecution of the proper methods for dealing with the situation to have that knowledge. Even apart from the question of war actually breaking out, it would be an enormous factor in diplomacy if our Ministers had not that horrible fear of widespread damage being done to the civil population. I should have thought too, that it would have a modifying effect upon the attitude of possible aggressors with whom we might be negotiating, to know that the danger to the civil population had been enormously reduced as the result of measures such as I have suggested.
    These points have never I think been fully met or fully discussed by the representatives of the Government, and we think that they are worthy of consideration. We move this Amendment in order that there shall be no doubt that local authorities have full right to consider and elaborate plans of bomb-proof shelters if they wish to do so, and that Ministers will give those plans fair and proper con-
    976
    sideration. The Finsbury Metropolitan Borough Council went to great pains to elaborate a scheme of bomb-proof shelters. Nobody here, as far as I know, is committed to any of the details of the scheme. Certainly I am not. I opened the exhibition which was held at the town hall in connection with this and related activities of the borough of Finsbury, and what I said then is what I say now — that a great deal of painstaking thought went into the elaboration of that scheme and that it was worthy of serious consideration by His Majesty's Government and by all who are interested in air-raid precautions. I still think that to be the case. The scheme nevertheless has been turned down by His Majesty's Government for reasons which they have, in part, published in the engineer's report. But they have left local authorities in doubt as to whether they will consider deep shelters in any case and on the basis of any scheme, whatever the local authority who promotes it may be.
    For example, it has never been made clear whether, if the Finsbury Council were to make such modifications in their scheme as were calculated to meet the engineer's criticisms, His Majesty's Government would then consider it favourably, or whether they are opposed fundamentally to the whole idea of the deep or bomb-proof shelter. I cannot but feel that the Finsbury Council, who took an enormous amount of tumble in this matter, have been dealt with at rather long distance by His Majesty's Government. This engineer's report has been published and the scheme has been turned down, while the Government have not informed either the Finsbury Council or the country whether they are prepared to consider modified proposals. 1 understand that the Finsbury Council is now proceeding with part of the scheme, but there appears to be uncertainty indeed unlikelihood, of the Government making any grant towards what will inevitably be an expensive scheme.
    Then there is the question of making provision for the dock areas. It may be the view of the Government that suburban areas such as Streatham and Hampstead, and parts of South-East London, do not run sufficient danger of continuous air raids with high explosive bombs to warrant the admittedly large expense of providing deep or bomb-proof shelters. I do not accept that argument,

    977
    but that may possibly be the consideration in the minds of the Government. In highly vulnerable areas, however, areas which would, for military reasons, be attractive to enemy bombers, other considerations arise, and I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman the case of dock areas, not only in London but in other parts of the country, notably on the East and North-East coasts and in Scotland. For that matter we must not exclude places on the western coast, such as Liverpool, from the category of areas which may be in danger from enemy aircraft. [HON. MEMBERS:"Or Cardiff."] Or Cardiff, or Bristol. In fact it would be unwise to assume— and I had better cover myself with regard to all my hon. Friends, and I am perfectly honest about it— it would be unwise to assume that any first-class military objective anywhere in Great Britain, will, necessarily, be safe from enemy bombardment. I have instanced the dock areas, but there are many other places which have munition factories, aerodromes and other establishments and which an enemy might regard as appropriate subjects for bombardment. In fact there will not be many places in the country which will not be of military importance in time of war.
    I mention the dock areas in particular, because not alone are they important, but they are, probably, relatively easy targets owing to the existence of stretches of water in their neighbourhood. There is usually in the immediate vicinity of docks a very large and very poor population. Why the poor should be crowded round the docks in every city I do not know, but it is so. That is how the social order works out. Moreover, it is necessary for the carrying on of the work of the docks that large numbers of workmen attached to the industry should live in the vicinity, in order to be available when required. I say with great earnestness to the right hon. Gentleman that he has a duty to provide effective shelter for these people and for their families, if those families remain, in the event of war. It may be said that the children will all go away and I think in the main the school children will go away but I am not sure about the mothers, in view of the result of the recent effort at the registration of mothers of young children in London, in connection with evacuation. I was not too much surprised at the relatively small percentage who registered, and I believe the funda-
    978
    mental reason for it is that the working-class housewife regards herself as the pivot of the household, and in time of danger is not going to leave her post.
    I may disagree with that view. I may regret the fact that so many women have taken it, but that is an explanation and if it be the main explanation, then it is not one with which we can quarrel. If a woman feels like that, I am not going to be rude to her about it, because she is taking up a perfectly honourable position and one which must command our respect. If it be the case that many of these women will be left behind, because they are unwilling to leave their husbands and their households, because they consider that it is necessary that they should remain in order to maintain the family structure, then it is really necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the provision of effective bomb-proof shelters in these highly vulnerable areas for these dock workers who stay at their work for the sake of the country, and for those who remain with them. They will be maintaining essential transport communications of vital moment to the military, of vital moment in relation to food supplies, and of vital moment to the country generally. Without prejudice to the generality of cases, there is a particular example of the kind of thing on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to state his views this afternoon.
    We are meeting with many legal and administrative problems as to the provision of detached shelters on the basis of the policy which is favoured by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not using the word"detached" in any abusive sense. The right hon. Gentleman has gone in for a policy of trying to make each unit of residence, or each group of residences, or each industrial undertaking carry its own provision for shelter of some kind. But it is the case that many people are not yet provided for in this respect. I have often felt that, taking the country as a whole, it might well have been just as economic and just as effective to have had shelters of a communal character. Undoubtedly, the cost of all these separate provisions will amount to a very big bill indeed, partly carried by the State, partly by local authorities, partly by business and industrial undertakings and partly by individuals. I am inclined to think that it would have been more effective and more economical, if communal shelter, assum-

    979
    ing it to be practicable, had been provided.
    I have, I think, indicated the views and the apprehensions of my hon. Friends concerning this matter. We would like to have from the right hon. Gentleman an adequate and comprehensive statement upon it. We would like to know whether the Government reject entirely the idea of the bomb-proof shelter and if so why? If the Government admit the necessity for bomb-proof shelters in highly vulnerable areas such as dock areas, what kind of shelter is it to be and, how is the scheme to be administered? We should also like to know whether the Government will consider specific proposals for bomb-proof shelters from local authorities, as contemplated in the Amendment. We would like, generally, to know the attitude of the Government on this question. We would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he thinks and if so what are his grounds for thinking, that the Government are now pursuing a policy, to be applied under this Bill, whereby the generality of the civil population will have all that effective protection against hostile action from the air, which is reasonably practicable within the powers of government, both national and local.
    6.30 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am glad to have the opportunity of dealing in a more comprehensive manner than has hitherto been possible with the question of air-raid shelter, and I hope to be able in the course of what I have to say to remove some misapprehensions, I think some fundamental misapprehensions, which are still prevalent on this subject. I realise that the greatest need in civil defence to-day is the need for the development of a sound and comprehensive shelter policy, and that, so long as there is misapprehension or misgiving in any quarter as to the effectiveness of the policy which the Government are pursuing, there is a grave danger that people who should be active in providing shelter or in contributing to the provision of shelter may find excuse for delay or inaction. I venture to hope — I trust I am not unduly optimistic— that the result of this Debate may be to show that the policy which the Government are pursuing, and which the right hon. Gentleman truly said has been announced piecemeal to the House of Commons and to the country, is a policy
    980
    which commands a very wide and full measure of support in all quarters. I think it is of great importance in the public interest that there should, if possible, be a united public opinion behind the policy that is being pursued in this very vital matter.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the statement which he made, implied that there are still substantial gaps in the policy of the Government as hitherto made known. I hope to be able to make clear to the Committee that that is not in fact the case, that a policy has now been enunciated which, in one way or another—and it is necessary in this matter to employ a variety of expedients to meet the different circumstances— has covered the ground. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the desirability of providing on a large scale shelters of a certain type, if they were practicable, and there, I suggest, he put his finger on what is in fact the crux of the whole matter. What is practicable? We have to look at this matter, not from a theoretical, nor from a sentimental, standpoint, but from a sternly practical one. We have to face the realities of modern warfare; we have to recognise that if we are ever, unhappily, engaged in war, the efficiency of our war effort must come before personal safety; we have to take account of the fact that our industrial resources are distributed, it may be unfortunately, as they are very largely in congested and vulnerable areas; we. have to take account of the probable conditions of air attack in the future, the length of warning that one may expect to receive; finally, we have to take account of the international situation as we find it, a situation which renders it important in the highest degree that we should provide for the people of this country the greatest measure of safety that it is practicable to provide in a reasonably short space of time.
    I very much doubt whether I shall find it possible to deal exhaustively this afternoon with what is a very large, a very difficult, and a very novel problem, or, rather, collection of problems, but I shall do my best to bring out what seem to me to be the salient points, to bring out those considerations that are relevant to the policy which the Government have decided to adopt. I must go back some way to the time when I first became responsible for Civil Defence. I found

    981
    then that the advisers of my Department were engaged in examining various aspects of the problem, and I came to the conclusion that it would be wise to call in the best available outside advice. I did so. I got the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers to nominate three engineers of distinction, who undertook, on my behalf, an examination of what I put to them as the immediate problem, the problem of providing protection against what, after all, constitutes the major part of the risk to which the civil population would be exposed in the event of war, the risk of injury and death from splinters, blast, the fall of debris and spent material from anti-aircraft guns. As a result of a report made to me by those outside engineers, I announced in the House of Commons in December what I then described as a complete scheme of splinter and blast-proof protection for the population at large. I did that on 21st December of last year. In the course of the statement that I then made, I pointed out that I was dealing only with the kind of provision that could be made under what might be described as a short-term policy, and I referred in that connection to the problem of bomb-proof shelters. I said:
    "We must recognise the fact that against high explosive there can be no 1oo per cent. protection. Shelters proof against a direct hit are not practicable, at any rate as part of a short-term policy. Apart from the difficulties and delays involved in any extensive scheme for deep bomb-proof shelters, I do not think we are prepared to adapt our whole civilisation so as to compel a large proportion of our own people to live, and maintain their productive capacity, in a troglodyte existence deep underground."
    —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1938; col. 2881, Vol. 342.]
    I did at the same time say that my mind was by no means closed on the subject of bomb-proof shelters. It was a matter which, I recognised, merited further and fuller consideration. But I said then that I had already launched a policy of splinter and blast-proof protection which covered the case of people at their homes, people at work, and people caught in an air raid neither at home nor at work, but in the street; and before I sit down I hope to outline again to hon. Members the main features of that splinter and blast-proof protection policy so as to make it clear that, as I said at the beginning, there are no notable gaps still remaining to be filled in that policy.
    982
    But I would like to come at once to the main subject which I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks he desired to bring before the Committee, the question of more heavily protected shelter, of bomb-proof shelter. I proceeded, as soon as I found it possible to do so, to examine that problem in all its aspects. It was quite clear to me that it was necessary to obtain further technical guidance, and I took steps to obtain that guidance. As soon as it became clear that there were strong arguments tending prima facie against the view that bomb-proof shelter or heavily protected shelter on any very wide scale would be found practicable, I realised the gravity of the issues that were involved, issues on which the right hon. Gentleman very properly laid stress this evening. I felt that no expedient could be lightly rejected which would promise to provide a higher degree of protection than could be provided by the splinter and blast-proof shelter policy already adopted. I realised that the matter was one that must necessarily cause widespread concern to those whose minds dwelt upon these problems. I felt that it would be of material assistance to me, to my colleagues in the Government, and to Parliament, if I could check any opinion that I might form, in the light of the advice available to me on the subject, by reference to the views of a body of people carefully selected as representing a wide range of practical experience. I, therefore, decided to convene what has come to be known as the Hailey Conference. I was able to convene that con-fence and put to them the problems with which I and my Department were confronted, without incurring the reproach that I was thereby introducing further delay into the consideration of what was not only a very vital but a very urgent matter, because, as I had previously explained in this House, the technical investigations which were necessary before a final decision could be arrived at with confidence were still in progress and likely to occupy some time.
    I need hardly express to the Committee the fact that the members of the Hailey Conference were selected with very great care and that they were people of wide and varied experience, to whose views on a matter of this kind— into which, when all is said and done, common sense must very largely enter— the very gravest weight would naturally and properly be given. I am very grateful, and I wish

    983
    to express the acknowledgements of His Majesty's Government to the members of that Conference for the time and attention that they gave to this problem. They had access to all the material available to me, and they were entirely free to send for persons whom they might consider to be in a position to afford them useful guidance. They made a unanimous report towards the end of April, and I based upon that report the statement which I made in the House of Commons on the 20th of that month. The report of the conference was laid on the table the same day.
    I hope that hon. Members have given to that report the attention which I feel that it fully deserves. If they have read the report, they may have been struck by one feature, and that is that it contains no summary of recommendations. I am given to understand that the omission of a summary of recommendations was deliberate on the part of the Conference, that they came to the conclusion that the subject-matter was such that the arguments and the conclusions must be taken together as part and parcel of one complete whole. I suggest that the report is a most valuable document which deserves to be read and re-read. Its significance from the point of view of the present Debate consists in the fact that the conference found that the provision of heavily-protected shelters on any general scale would be, in fact, impracticable.
    Miss Wilkinson: Why?
    Sir J. Anderson: Without attempting to do what the Conference thought impossible, to give a synopsis of the report as a whole, I will endeavour, in order to satisfy the hon. Lady, to indicate how the Conference arrived at their decision. They first enunciated certain general principles, the most important being these. They said in the first instance that the Government, in determining its shelter policy, should not contemplate a measure of protection for any group, section or class if it could not ensure that corresponding protection would be fully extended to all other groups, sections or classes similarly circumstanced. I am not quoting textually; that is the substance of what they said. Again, they said, it is necessary to aim at an equal degree of protection by one method or another for all cases of equal liability
    984
    or risk. Those are fundamental propositions, and I suggest that it is necessary that anyone who wishes to form his conclusions for himself on the question what is practicable or not practicable in the matter of shelter provision should consider whether he accepts those principles The hon. Lady says those principles are not accepted. They are accepted by His Majesty's Government, and I think I should be right in saying that they are accepted by the authors of another report which was published about the same time as, or perhaps a little earlier than, the Hailey Report. I refer to the first Bulletin of the Air Raid Defence League, a very interesting document obviously the result of much careful study, by competent people, of the various aspects of the problem. I think I should be right in saying that the principles laid down by the Hailey Conference, which I have stated in my own words, on the whole commend themselves to the authors of this report.
    Miss Wilkinson: The Air Raid Defence League is a purely voluntary body. Life membership involves payment of £ 21. They are a lot of fairly well-to-do people.
    Sir J. Anderson: I think it is of some interest and importance that such a body should have come independently to similar conclusions. [An Hon. Member:"Lord Hailey was chairman of both bodies."] Lord Hailey was quite independent. While he was acting on my behalf as chairman of the conference which I convened, I understand that he took no part in the proceedings of the Air Raid Defence League. In any event, I put it to the Committee that this is something quite fundamental in the consideration of the problem of shelter provision— is it, or is it not, of vital importance that whatever shelter is provided should be provided equally for all people exposed to the same degree of risk? I submit to the Committee, and I submit with confidence, that that is a thoroughly sound proposition which should not be departed from.
    Mr. Gallacher: Excuse me, this is a very important point and
    Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me develop this rather difficult and complicated argument. The proposition rests upon this consideration, that from the point of view of the security

    985
    of the country as a whole, which after all should be the main aim of any shelter policy, the provision of shelter in a few localities, arbitrarily chosen, giving a specially high degree of safety, cannot enhance the security of the country as a whole.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Do you apply that to evacuation?
    Sir J. Anderson: If hon. Members quietly and calmly consider this matter, and it ought not to be a matter of party controversy—
    Miss Wilkinson: It is a matter of saving human life, it is not a party matter.
    Sir J. Anderson: If hon. Members consider this matter calmly and dispassionately, I think they will see that it is essential that the principles laid down initially by the Hailey Conference should be observed. Having laid down those principles, the conference went on to examine various aspects of the shelter problem. They first considered exhaustively the possibilities of two main types of heavily-protected shelter, what they call the focal type of shelter and the ramified type of shelter, the focal type being a central shelter designed to accommodate a substantial number of people, and the ramified shelter being in the nature of a series of galleries, which to some extent would satisfy the requirements of dispersal. The conference marshalled the arguments against large shelters for use by the general public, and the arguments as set out by the conference in this document are, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, conclusive against the use of such shelters for the general public. In regard to the ramified shelter, the conference stated that in their opinion that type of shelter was to be preferred, other things being equal, to the focal shelter for the general public, but they found, for reasons which they set out quite clearly in the report, that the provision of such ramified shelter on any considerable scale would be quite impracticable. They took the best advice available, and they were advised by an engineer of unrivalled experience in that type of construction that to construct 16 miles of tube in London would take two years and the 16 miles, when constructed, would provide shelter for only 160,000 persons, a relatively insignificant number.
    986
    The conference then proceeded to consider the separate cases of shelter for people at their homes, shelter for people at their work, and general communal shelter for people neither at home nor at work. In regard to people at their homes, they recommended very strongly the use of dispersed shelters, steel shelters of the type the Committee are familiar with, strutted basements, the pill box device such as have been recommended in a document recently produced by my technical advisers and other methods of providing dispersed shelter. In the case of people to be protected at their places of work, they recommended that the general standard of shelter to be provided should be splinter and blast-proof shelter, but they pointed out that among places of work there are some which are particularly likely to be the object of heavy attack precisely because of the importance of their continued functioning during war. For those cases they recommended the provision of stronger protection, more heavily-protected shelters, and His Majesty's Government accepted that recommendation and I announced it in the House of Commons on 20th April. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to be under the impression that that recommendation was rejected.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Earlier in your speech you said something about protection being equal for all, and I cannot quite follow the argument.
    Sir J. Anderson: I said equal for all exposed to the same degree of risk. That is the point. If the right hon. Gentleman has difficulty in following the argument I had better quote from the report of the conference. I will read the whole of paragraph 4, on page 6:
    "When the country is at war, the main considerations which must be borne in mind appear to be the following. The first, and indeed an overriding consideration, is the necessity of safeguarding activities essential for the successful prosecution of the war. Secondly, the maintenance of the nation's industries and services must be ensured to the utmost possible extent. This does not mean only the carrying on of such vital public services as water, lighting and transport, the production and distribution of food and other necessaries of life, and the maintenance of the economic life of our own population. It involves also the maintenance of production and manufacture for export, since this country requires imports in order to live, and they will still have to be paid for, in war time as in peace, by exports. Thirdly, though it is obvious that, if the country is

    987
    attacked by air, then civilian casualties on some scale cannot be avoided, yet there is clearly some stage at which casualties will cause demoralisation and impairment of effort. This result would be particularly prone to follow should it emerge that heavy casualties had occurred in an area which had been afforded a standard of. protection inferior to that afforded to other areas exposed to a similar degree of danger. It is of the first importance therefore that the Government, in determining its shelter policy should not contemplate a measure of protection for any one area if it cannot ensure that it will be fully extended to all other areas similarly circumstanced."
    Miss Wilkinson: How do you know the degree of danger beforehand? You would have to know the German plans.
    Sir J. Anderson:I suggest that the hon. Lady is not applying her mind to the problem as it really presents itself to those who look at it in a practical way. You have to determine, within limits, what are the most vulnerable areas. We can make no progress at all unless we can proceed on a basis of priorities. We have to do the best we can. Having determined which are the most vulnerable areas, we know where the likely special targets are, we know what the congestion of the population is, and we know the nature of the housing conditions, and in that way we can compare one area with another. At any rate, the conference found no difficulty in laying down that principle. Those who have doubts as to its validity really ought to study this document. [Interruption.] The conference was a highly competent body of people who approached the problem objectively, studied it with great care, heard the opinions of a number of people and gave special study to the question, and their conclusions ought not to be rejected lightly. The Government have accepted the report and, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman who did not quite see how the recommendation for the provision of more heavily protected shelters for certain classes of work could be reconciled with what I have said previously about shelter for the general public, let me point out that the conference recognised that a process of selection would be involved, that the Government would have to pick out, it might be perhaps somewhat arbitrarily at first, those cases of greatest risk where in their opinion it was necessary to provide shelter of a very special character in order to ensure the minimum of interference
    988
    with the vital productive power of the nation in time of war. By starting with those cases of greatest risk the Government would be giving full effect to the principle enunciated by the conference at the outset of their recommendations that, wherever shelter of a particular standard is decided upon, shelter must be provided for all similarly circumstanced. We must proceed according to the degree of risk, taking the most urgent cases first. That, I suggest, is a perfectly clear principle.
    Mr. Ede: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is now enunciating this proposition— equal risk, equal protection. I understand that part of the difficulty of the deep shelter is the nature of the soil. In an earlier Debate we were told that deep shelter was provided at Barcelona because of the exceptional nature of the soil there, which could not be found in any other part, almost, of the world. May there not very well be some place were a particular form of shelter can be provided which cannot easily be provided elsewhere? Is it not appropriate that that shelter should be provided in such a case?
    Sir J. Anderson: I quite agree that, where nature has provided shelter, it would be folly not to make use of it. If there are natural features, they ought to be used. But in regard to the shelter that is to be provided by the Government, the principle that I have sought to enunciate stands. May I say further, in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite, that heavily protected shelter does not necessarily mean deep shelter? Heavily protected shelter can be provided just under the surface, or partly, or wholly, above the surface. It is a question of adapting one's arrangements to the particular circumstances of the case.
    Finally, the Conference recommended, in the case of persons caught during air raids away from their homes or places of work, that dispersed lightly protected shelters were the best solution, but pointed out that in certain cases conditions might necessitate the provision to some extent of larger shelters suitably protected. I informed the House on 20th April that the Government had decided to accept the recommendations of the Conference, and acceptance of those recommendations completed the shelter policy of the Government. The splinter and blast proof policy previously

    989
    announced was thus supplemented by a limited decision in regard to the provision of heavy or, as some people call them, bomb-proof shelters. The Government are concerned now to proceed as rapidly as possible with what can be carried out quickly. It is clear that, in order to provide splinter and blast proof protection on the necessary scale, we shall have to draw upon all the resources that are available— resources in skilled supervision and professional advice, and resources in labour and materials. That is another reason why it would be entirely wrong here and there to divert skilled service and material to provide specially strong shelters for a limited section of the community not so circumstanced as to justify the provision of such shelter according to a well-thought-out and balanced plan. The Government have arranged to afford all the help possible to local authorities and to industrial lists through organisations representative of the professional institutions and of the constructional industry, the building trades and the civil engineering contractors. Special committees have been set up all over the country in order to give this assistance. The cases in which protection of a special kind is thought to be justified will be taken up as fast as they can be without interfering with the progress of the general policy, which is designed to give a maximum of protection in the shortest possible time.
    I would appeal to hon. Members not to treat this in any way as a party matter. I believe there has been some little degree of suspicion that, because shelter of a certain kind was advocated by people who had visited Republican Spain, or were thought to be in sympathy with the Government of Republican Spain, His Majesty's Government, or my Department, were on that account prejudiced against shelter of that kind. It has also been suggested that His Majesty's Government have failed to give proper consideration on its merits to the policy of bomb-proof shelters solely on account of considerations of expense. There is absolutely no truth in that.
    Mr. James Hall: Your predecessor in office made that statement.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am not responsible for what my predecessor said. — [An HON. MEMBER: '' Was there no truth in it when
    990
    he said it?"] I was not then a Member of the Government, I have said that, in the framing of the policy for which I take responsibility, considerations of expense have not been allowed to prejudice consideration of the question of heavily protected shelters, or bomb-proof shelters, on the merits of the case. This is a very important matter and it ought to be dealt with fairly fully. In paragraph 15 of the report of the Hailey Conference there is this passage:
    "In an issue of such vital concern to the existence of the nation the programme of cost is of relative rather than of absolute importance. The measure of justification for shelter expenditure lies in the extent to which it can contribute to the successful conclusion of the war and the preservation of the life of the nation. It must therefore be assessed in the light of the other commitments of the country for the provision of defence. We ourselves, in formulating our conclusions, have given less weight to cost as such than to other factors such as, for instance, the period within which any given scheme of defence could be completed, or the availability of the labour and materials required."
    That is entirely in accordance with what I said to the Members of the Hailey Committee when I met them on the occasion of their first meeting. I told them then that cost in my opinion, however important it might ultimately be, was not a thing to be taken into account at the first consideration of these problems.
    Mr. Silverman: Unless I misheard the right hon. Gentleman, the Hailey Conference did take it into account. They paid more attention to other matters, but they did pay attention to cost. That is quite clear.
    Sir J. Anderson: What I said was that considerations of cost had not been allowed to prejudice the consideration on merits of heavily protective shelter.
    Mr. Silverman: I am dealing with the passage that the right hon. Gentleman read.
    Sir J. Anderson: We ourselves have given less weight to cost as such than to other factors.
    Mr. Silverman: But some weight.
    Sir J. Anderson: I did not say that no weight had been given. I said it had not been allowed to prejudice other considerations, and that is true. Anyone who reads the report impartially will certainly come to that conclusion.
    Mr. Hicks: May I be allowed to inform the Committee as a member of the Conference that when the right hon. Gentleman invited the Conference to examine this problem he deliberately stated that cost was not to enter into any consideration? The Hailey Committee did not allow cost to be a deciding factor in any recommendation nor have they mentioned that cost was to be predominant. It was evident that any such group of men must not, however, ignore cost, but it was never taken into consideration in any recommendation.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His statement is perfectly in line with what I had already said.
    The right hon. Gentleman who spoke on this Amendment dealt with a number of points to which I have not yet made reference. He suggested that the proposals of His Majesty's Government represented a number of separate ad hoc measures which, he said, did not stand together. He meant that they did not form a coherent whole. I suggest that that is no longer the case. It might have been so at one time but, because of certain devices which have now been put forward for adoption, the situation is altered. For example, the types of suitable concrete shelter and brick shelter which are recommended in cases where the steel shelter is not suitable, and the recommendations for the strutting and strengthening of basements, have been further elaborated. In the employer's code which has recently been drafted, various alternative methods are set out of providing shelter in factory and commercial premises. Finally, in regard to the different types of shelter, there has been in preparation for some considerable time a handbook called"A.R.P. 5." which seeks to bring together all the technical data which have been made available as a result of practical experience and research. That will be issued in its revised form this week, and it will be followed very shortly by a series of designs that have been worked out by the professional institutions showing how effect can be given to the recommendations and how they may be applied in practice.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to workers' dwellings and flats. The Committee will be aware that it has been officially stated on behalf of my Depart-
    992
    ment that local authorities are at liberty to proceed with the provision of shelter for the occupants of such flats, treating it as if it were a provision of public shelter which would attract grant at the full rate under the Act of 1937. As regards the Jarrow case where several families occupy the same building without any one of them having the right to use a little plot of ground which may be available, the answer is, I think, that it is open to the local authority, if it thinks fit, to construct on that plot of ground a shelter which would be available to all the people occupying the building and to treat that as provision of public shelter which would attract grant. In the case of basements, where the owners are not willing that shelters should be provided, it is open to the local authority to designate such basements as public shelters; and to such public shelters the people living in the building can be admitted. By these methods gaps which might have been thought to exist in the scheme of provision of splinter and blast proof shelters have been filled.
    Reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Finsbury scheme and he said it was obvious that much painstaking thought had been devoted to the working out of the shelter proposals of the Finsbury Borough Council. I said very much the same thing myself when I referred on a previous occasion to the scheme put forward by that council. The right hon. Gentleman says that the shelter proposals of the Finsbury Borough Council have been turned down. That is perfectly true. They were rejected primarily on the technical grounds that the shelter would not, in fact, have provided satisfactory protection for the people for whom it was designed, but if it had not been rejected on those grounds it certainly would have been rejected on the general ground that I have already stated to the Committee this afternoon, that it is not right, in the view of His Majesty's Government, that shelters should be provided for particular sections of the community on a standard far beyond what could be provided generally for people exposed to the same degree of risk. Apart from the arguments which I have put before the Committee there is the argument, which is, I think, conclusive, that where the urgent necessity is to provide shelter to the greatest extent

    993
    practicable for the largest number of people it must be entirely wrong that resources which are limited should be diverted to provide special shelter for one favoured section—
    Mr. Silverman: It does not cost them anything.
    Sir J. Anderson: I was not speaking of financial resources, but of resources in skilled supervision, in technical skill, in labour, and in material. I quite unwittingly used the expression"resources" without remembering that it might connote to hon. Members opposite"financial resources," whereas in my mind it did not in this connection mean financial at all.
    I fully recognise that the Government have a duty to provide effective shelter, so far as is practicable, and I suppose that is the most urgent and greatest responsibility that rests at the present time upon those who are concerned with Civil Defence. His Majesty's Government are taking what they consider to be the best practicable steps to discharge that responsibility, and they hope that they may have the support of hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee in the measures that they are taking.
    7.24 p.m.
    Mr. W. Roberts: I found it very difficult to perceive exactly what was the right hon. Gentleman's real objection to bomb-proof shelters. He told us that it was impracticable to provide the whole of the population with such shelters but surely that is not what this Amendment asks. The Amendment seeks only that the provision of such shelters should not be ruled out altogether. My greatest difficulty is to understand what exactly the Minister means by equality of treatment of everybody concerned. The conditions are not equal and the danger is not equal. The danger varies with the position in which one happens to be living. It is obvious that living in the country one may be hit, but that the chance of a bomb dropping and hitting your house will be very much smaller than if one were living in the towns. The danger increases as the density of the population increases. In the first place, the risk against which one is providing varies and is not the same for everybody.
    There is the geographical position of the town and the district to be considered.
    994
    With the increased efficiency of our active defence forces the risk to those living on the West side of England, in Wales, for instance, must be less than for those who live actually on the East or South-East coast, where the warning can but be a very short one. For that reason, surely there are added risks on account of varied geographical situation and density of population, calling for different forms of protection, which would be perfectly well recognised by the population of this country. The fact was that in Spain bombardments upon the ports were the most dangerous, and without very considerable protection in the ports there would have been vastly greater casualties. There may be a very strong case for having deep shelters, or really effective shelters if not deep. Shelters can be made equally effective by strengthening the structure if the shelters are near the surface. There cannot be equality of danger, and therefore the needs necessarily cannot be equal.
    Surely the Minister is thinking in terms of gas drill, and air-raid precautions such as the organisation of the population. That certainly should be equal everywhere because all districts may suffer similarly, but the intensity of an air raid will vary according to the district. The danger of an air raid will vary in accordance with the density of the population and the type of house in which the population is living. Unfortunately, as the precautions have so far gone, persons living in the least dangerous type of circumstance are getting the best protection. What is generally known among the public as the Anderson type of shelter, the steel shelter, provides some protection for those living in suburban areas. They are, however, the type of population which cannot suffer as heavily as the population living in densely crowded areas like those around docks or industrial parts which may be of great importance as a military objective during war. Therefore, the suburban areas are getting the greatest protection, and the proposals for meeting the case of those who live in densely crowded areas seem to be much less satisfactory. I take it that, if the Minister is to apply his principle of equality, he must give to those living in densely crowded areas as much protection as the Anderson shelter— the steel shelter— gives to the suburban dweller.

    995
    I very much question whether to give them as much protection by means of basements or reinforced sculleries is not going to be exceedingly costly, perhaps as costly as the group shelter— the communal shelter— provided that the strengthening of basements or downstairs rooms is carried out really effectively. If it is to be carried out really effectively and equally over the whole country, are the resources— and here again I use the word used by the Minister; I am not referring to finance— are the resources as regards technical supervision of labour and as regards materials available for reinforcing such basements? I question that very greatly. I believe that communal shelters can be well planned with far less supervision and made far more effective, and that the objection about people having to travel distances at night is really not a substantial objection compared with the lack of security which the reinforced basement will in fact be proved to give. Therefore I would ask the Minister whether his Department has looked at this problem from the point of view of where the greatest danger lies— of deciding which areas are most likely to suffer repeated bombing, which are the most dangerous by reason of their geographical position and of the objectives which are to be found in them, and the probable casualties owing to the density of population.
    Surely it ought to be possible, with the knowledge that exists as to the effects of bombing and the range of explosives, to work out what are the chances of being hit by a bomb in the case of people living in one district or another, and to what extent, taking the average, those chances could be reduced by different degrees of shelter. Supposing it were assumed that 100,000 tons of bombs are going to be dropped, presumably it would be possible to work out where it is most likely that they will be dropped, and it should be possible to work out what the anticipated casualties will be. I have seen unofficial estimates which give very alarming figures indeed of what those casualties may be in the first year of a war with no shelter at all, and what percentage of decrease will be obtained by the various proposals which have been made. I believe that, if the problem is approached from that point of view, other objections to deep shelters— communal shelters— will
    996
    pale into insignificance as compared with the possibility of what may occur unless effective protection is given.
    Finally, as regards the issue of cost, it comes to many of us as a great surprise that the question of cost has not entered into the calculations of the Lord Privy Seal. We are well aware that what we are asking for is exceedingly expensive, and that there are great demands on the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time. Whether the Hailey Committee was instructed in one way or another, of course the question of cost must come in. If I may use a strong word, it is absurd to say that it does not come in, because to provide completely adequate shelter, which could be done, would cost an immense sum, and no doubt that is a measure which can never be adopted. But the Mover of the Amendment is not asking so much as that, and, therefore, I hope the Minister will give it further consideration, and will, if he has not already done so, approach the problem from the point of view of the number of casualties. The Hailey Report, I think, said that the first consideration must be that of safeguarding the activities essential for the prosecution of the war; that the second consideration must be the maintenance of the nation's industrial services; and only third came the consideration of the safety of the civilian population generally. I believe that that is a very short-sighted policy, and a very unambitious policy. It is possible to give very considerable protection to the civilian population as a whole, and that that is what will count effectively in a war, because the moral effect of a million or more of casualties in the first year of a war is bound to be very considerable, and one has to approach, and can approach the problem from the point of view that all the resources available should be mobilised to reduce these ghastly possibilities.
    7.38 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: I would ask the Committee to consider whether, in looking at this problem of the safety of the nation as a whole in time of air attack, we are not in reality facing exactly the same problem which affected civilians and soldiers during the Great War when they were subjected to artillery or air attack. Was not the supreme lesson that we learned, especially those who tried to specialise on the

    997
    question of preserving man-power, that the most important thing was to secure the most complete dispersal of the fighting troops and of the civilians who were under our care? It has always occurred to me, in considering these problems, that you would invite a terrible calamity if there were any kind of psychology in the great cities of this country which felt that here and there, perhaps at a distance of one or two miles, there were great deep shelters of the kind which the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) has just described as communal. I can conceive of no greater source of danger than that, at the first moment of an air raid, people should be swarming towards some magnet of, as they believe, safety. The very thing we must try to avoid is the bringing of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people into the streets. All the lessons of the Great War, as far as one can apply them now, taught us to try to keep our people dispersed.
    That was even true in the trenches, where we never allowed more than four in one firing bay, or six at the most; and it was true also in all the towns immediately behind the lines. If I may give one illustration, in the town of Bethune, where probably many hon. Members served during the War, for two years the population were subjected continuously to artillery bombardment, and latterly to air bombardment, and they knew that by far the best thing to do was to remain in their own houses, realising that there was a risk, but that to congregate together anywhere and attempt to get any kind of mutual protection was fatal. Unless there were deep shelters every half-mile or so throughout the great cities— which is almost inconceivable— nothing could be more disastrous than to have, in the quarter of an hour which would constitute the period of warning, a great stream of people seeking succour in the manner suggested, however attractive the idea may be. All military knowledge indicates that you want to avoid congregating great processions of people in the streets going towards a shelter of that kind, and that they would suffer disastrous casualties. That is my honest opinion, and I beg my colleagues to consider the matter from that point of view before pressing for a policy which, however well intentioned, might prove to be absolutely disastrous. Dispersal from start to finish is the sound policy. Of course, workmen in a factory away from
    998
    home should be given shelter on the spot, but that is a very different thing; and dispersal trenches near to working-class dwellings are well worth spending money on; but not a policy of congregating people together where possibly they might be massacred.
    7.44 p.m.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Reference has been made to public opinion. Public opinion to-day, as far as I can gather, desires underground shelters. I do not know where the Lord Privy Seal is getting his advice from, but apparently he has definitely made up his mind that he is not going to have underground shelters. When someone suggested just now that his difficulty was finance, he said that it was not. I want to cite to the Lord Privy Seal a case where underground shelters would not cost him anything at all. We have 118,000 trained men going to the Employment Exchanges to-day, drawing anything from 26s. to 39s. a week, and doing nothing for it. They could do the work better than anybody else. Why cannot they be put to do the work that some of them have been doing for 40 years? They would be delighted to know that they were doing something for the nation, instead of being left to eat their hearts out doing nothing.
    I am a member of an A.R.P. committee in an urban district of Yorkshire. In that district there is a quarry face of rock as high as this House. Through the county council, we have made applications right down to London to be allowed to make an underground shelter there. In that area there are 240 men who have been stopped at the pit and who cannot get work. They have been out of work for 16 weeks. We could make an underground shelter straight from the highway, which could shelter 5,000 people, and it would run from the centre of the town. We have been told,"Make it if you like; but it will be at your own cost." Our rates are already 19s. 2d. in the £ so that cannot be done. A lot is said about London. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) spoke for somewhere outside London. There are people who live outside London, and there are vital areas outside London. Fifty per cent. of your chemicals come from Yorkshire; your steel comes from Sheffield; there is Leeds, a most impor-

    999
    tant city as far as war material is concerned; there are collieries in Yorkshire producing 1,000,000 tons of coal every week; and there is not an underground shelter anywhere in that county. The enemy— I do not want to say who is the enemy— may strike London. Where will he go next? He will seek to cripple industry. He will make for Sheffield and the coalfields.
    While on this matter, I would like to put this point. We cannot get on with anything in the urban areas of South Yorkshire. During the Debate on the Second Reading, I spoke for a few moments. The urban areas are tied to the county councils. The West Riding County Council have 16 sub-areas. The sub-areas have to send their scheme to the county council.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): This is getting rather far from the Amendment. We cannot have a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. Griffiths: The point I want to make is that if the Lord Privy Seal was prepared to sanction these shelters— he is not yet prepared to do so, but I am hoping to convert him— we should be faced with the fact that the machinery is too cumbersome. The local bodies have to push through this barbed wire and to get over that trench, and when we get to Whitehall we get the answer, after six months,"We cannot do it." We want to get on with some work, and we cannot. I ask the Lord Privy Seal to consult with the Minister of Labour, and when he is consulting with the Minister of Labour, I want him to keep this in his head. The Minister of Labour can manipulate figures marvellously. He can make 1,500,000unemployed seem like 250,000 unemployed. There are 118,000—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment deals with deep air-raid shelters. The hon. Member is straying very wide of that.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry, but surely the question of miners digging the deep air-raid shelters is linked up with that. The Lord Privy Seal indicated that it was not a question of finance, but of shortage of labour. There is no shortage of labour. Perhaps he meant that it was a question of shortage of trained labour. But the finest trained labour in the world are the
    1000
    men of whom I am speaking. I ask the Lord Privy Seal to reconsider his decision and to make this underground shelter at Roystone. If he will agree to that I will send a wire to them to-night, they will start work in the morning and when it is finished we can go and have a look at it.
    7.52 p.m.
    Sir Robert Tasker: The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate charged the Lord Privy Seal with leaving gaps in the scheme. The Lord Privy Seal showed pretty conclusively that there were very few gaps, but in a democratic assembly it is only right and proper for any hon. Member to call attention to imperfections in the scheme. I am not optimistic enough to suppose that a rapidly-produced Measure of this magnitude is going to be perfect in every detail, but one of the gaps to which I w6uld like to call attention concerns the difference in treatment between housing authorities, whether municipal or private. The words employed by my right hon. Friend were that the Lord Privy Seal had collaborated with housing authorities in housing schemes in connection with the provision of shelters. Admirable as that may be, if it is justified I submit that it would be equally justifiable to collaborate with large housing schemes— and there are many such in London. I desire to call attention to the fact that large housing schemes and small housing schemes have, apparently, been ignored.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Housing questions are definitely not in order on this Amendment. We are discussing deep air-raid shelters.
    Sir R. Tasker: I was merely taking up the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. He went on to say that contributions may be made by the Exchequer for these housing scheme shelters. His next point was that bomb-proof shelters should be provided. He might well have been asked what he considered to be a bomb-proof shelter, for anyone who knows anything about these matters knows that there is no scheme which can adumbrate what constitutes a bomb-proof shelter. The right hon. Gentleman went on to expatiate upon the virtues of the Finsbury scheme, but it does not follow that any technical man would approve of that scheme. I have looked at the plan of that shelter and examined that model. I

    1001
    am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) is not present. I would point out that he, as leader of the London County Council, would require, if a similar scheme was presented to that council, that, under the rules and regulations, it should possess not one entrance and one exit for 7,500 people, but an exit for every 250 people. Therefore, the Finsbury shelter would require under the council's regulations no fewer than 30 exits or entrances. There were no sanitary arrangements provided in that shelter, and it was on inclined planes. What the roof is to be made of, whether it is bomb-proof, I do not know; and I suggest that neither did the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke. Weight multiplied by velocity equals impact, and it would be easy to ascertain what that impact would be if one knew the weight of the bomb and the distance that it had to fall. I do not believe that there is one technical man, one civil engineer, one mechanical engineer, anyone who knows anything about building construction, who will not support the decision come to by His Majesty's Government in refusing to approve these so-called bomb-proof shelters.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the hon. Member's reason for not referring to mining engineers that his argument is so weak that a mining engineer would disagree with him?
    Sir R. Tasker: No, Sir.
    Mr. Davies: This is a question for the mining engineer.
    Sir R. Tasker: The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) rather condemned the Lord Privy Seal's point of view, but without justification. He seemed to assume that the Lord Privy Seal's Department were opposed to underground shelters. As I understood the argument, my right hon. Friend said nothing of the kind. I understand the Government have said that while they are opposed to congregating large numbers of people in these underground shelters in places like London there is no objection to boring into the face of the earth, forming or using caves. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) did enunciate a truth when he said,"In case of an air raid people will rush to what they imagine is shelter." I am
    1002
    informed that people in London went in large numbers, resulting in a good deal of confusion and congestion to the tube railways.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: But there were no casualties.
    Sir R. Tasker: There were casualties and there always will be casualties. One of the greatest casualties is the casual way a lot of our fellow countrymen are talking. They talk as though we had no backbone. I deprecate the assumption that only one side is concerned about the safety of the people. We are all concerned and we will all run equal risks. There must be the same degree of protection to all. No Member of the House will quarrel with that. If there is any special protection provided it will be for those engaged in vulnerable places. There are certain things which would be a target to the enemy and if any differentiation is made it is essential that shelter should be provided for those people engaged in particular industries. I think on the whole the Lord Privy Seal was well advised to accept the advice of his Department.
    Mr. Davies: What about the backbone now?
    Sir R. Tasker: I suppose the hon. Member has as much backbone as myself and vice versa. I do not think we need bother about the backbone of this House or of the British Tommy. It is there. I am sure that the civil population will show an equal amount of courage.
    8.5 p.m.
    Mr. J. Hall: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said that the safest course would be to bring about the dispersal of the population. I think he was right, but I am not sure that the method adopted by the Lord Privy Seal's Department will have that result. In some working-class districts where steel shelters are supplied, they are almost touching in long lines and you are, in fact, bringing crowds of people together under a little earth and a bit of steel when the trouble comes. In the dock area there are districts of intense density of population. In the constituency I represent the people are living 237 to the acre. When one realises that the average over the whole of London is 59 to the acre one gets some impression

    1003
    of the density. The houses are in such close proximity to one another that there is no room for the erection of steel shelters. None of the houses in that district have basements, and it would be impossible to strut the basements even if that were considered to be a correct policy. To provide some protection for these people from blast and splinter you have to take them a tremendous distance, to bring them into the streets and make them travel for a mile or half a mile to the inadequate protection that is provided now.
    The Lord Privy Seal said we ought to consider the realities of modern war. As far as I can understand the new technique, it is that in all probability the civilian population will have to bear the brunt of intensive air attacks by which attempts will be made by each side to break the moral of the people. Every effort will be made to destroy the life of the civilian population, and adequate protection must be provided— in my opinion, by deep shelters. The country that is not provided against the worst effects is the country that will capitulate first. The great task that confronts the Lord Privy Seal is to make the country safe against air attack by adequate protection, so that we may stay the course when next war comes, and be able to win through. The Lord Privy Seal appeals for unity of public opinion. I want to quote from the London"Evening News" which stated:
    "The public was thinking and talking about bomb-proof shelters, and in some cases private enterprise was planning them as far back as 1934. The Government professed to be making experiments in connection with them in February, 1937."
    I interjected when the Lord Privy Seal was speaking that his predecessor in that office had complained about the cost. Let me quote the '' Evening News '' again:
    "In February, 1938, the Under-Secretary to the Home Office inspected public bombproof shelters in Berlin and Paris. He intimated that on financial grounds the provision of them for Londoners was out of the question."
    I and others are disturbed in mind, and wonder whether the policy of the Government has been shaped by a statement of that character. I have an uneasy feeling that financial considerations are the governing factors in the Government's policy. I suggest that money spent on deep shelters will not be a recurring amount. They are there for all time.
    1004
    The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth expressed disapproval of deep shelters because, he said, there would be a tremendous number of people who would have to go into one shelter. That is not necessarily correct thinking. I was impressed with a statement made a few months ago that the Morden and Merton District Council had worked out plans for shelters in the populated areas. There was to be one shelter for 300 people, so that the people would not have to travel long distances. It would mean that a shelter would be provided for each one or two roads. Provision for shelters holding about 1,000 persons was to be made at the busy junctions. I feel that we have not to consider, if we embark on a policy of deep shelters, that we must necessarily make preparations for immense numbers of people to be protected in each shelter. The hon. Member who preceded me said something about tubes. It is an undeniable fact that in the last War people took refuge in the tubes and suffered no casualties. Much of the misgiving concerning possible loss of life should be removed because of the experience in the Great War and the protection that the tubes did afford.
    I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that this country expects from him adequate protection against the worst evils of enemy air attack. The people have a right to be given that adequate protection. Questions of finance should not stand in the way. If public opinion is strong on any point it is on the provision of proper shelter accommodation. However much one may desire to see the womenfolk evacuated from the towns to places that would afford them greater protection, the loyalty which they have shown to their household duties and those with whom they live is such that they are not prepared to allow their men folk, sons and fathers, to run risks that they are not prepared to share. If the Government were prepared to embark with a greater degree of willingness upon a policy that would give the maximum degree of protection to the people, they would not only find the solution of the problem which causes concern to so many of us, but they would give to the people of this country a greater degree of faith than exists at the moment, and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will take cognisance of that fact.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I listened to the Minister quoting the fundamental principle of the Hailey Report, which I had discussed with people interested in the question of defence. I have not met anyone who is concerned at all with the defence of the people who recognises that principle as one that could in any way be justified, as providing a basis for considering this all-important question. The principle is all wrong. The whole of the Hailey Report is based upon an entirely false premise to the effect that, if you cannot provide protection for all, you shall provide protection for none. Never before in my life have I heard a Minister or anyone with any responsibility approaching the question in such an attitude of mind as that. The pill is gilded in such a very nice way—"all persons faced with a common measure of danger should have the same measure of protection." That is how the principle is presented. What is meant by it? The whole force of the argument is that if you cannot provide protection for all, you provide protection for none. How is it working out? The Minister has now laid it down, and it is being accepted by those who have taken responsibility in the various areas in connection with air-raid precautions, that under no consideration is there to be anything in the nature of deep or fully bombproof shelters considered.
    The Minister says that the Government will take responsibility for ensuring the most adequate protection for those whose work is essential for the carrying on of important industries. The Government will undertake that responsibility, but, as far as the adequate protection of the people as a whole is concerned, the local authorities, and those who are responsible to the Government for this work throughout the areas, have been given to understand that there is to be no question of adequate protection. The Minister says that there may be a shortage of materials, but is there any member of this Committee who will be prepared to say to the people of this country that, if we have not got material to provide adequate protection for all, we must not use the material we have to provide protection for some. That is the line of the Minister and of the Hailey Report. Never before was anything like it presented to this Committee or anywhere else. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) put
    1006
    a question which I tried to put earlier. It will be noticed that, while the Minister will give way to any other Member, he will not show me sufficient courtesy to give way if I want to ask a question. The Minister refused to give way to me when I wanted to ask a question, but he gave way on half a dozen occasions after that. I understand how Members opposite feel about me. One Member who is in this House at the present time went to Oxford and told the students there that many of the Members on the Opposition benches are thorough gentlemen —
    The ChairmanI would remind the hon. Member that we are not discussing him.
    Mr. Gallacher: It is permissible, I hope, to draw attention to the fact that the Minister was sufficiently discourteous not to give way when I wanted to ask a question. But the hon. Member for South Shields put the same question. It is a question in which I am particularly interested. What will you do if, in a particular area, a situation is provided by nature that allows of the most adequate protection being provided at very little cost? Do you then still continue to operate the Hailey principle, and say that, if nature has not provided opportunities in one area, you cannot use the opportunities nature has provided in another area. That is the principle of the Hailey Report.
    I would direct the attention of the Minister to the position of North Queens-ferry, which, as I have mentioned very often, is built on rock at the base of the north end of the Forth Bridge. Two miles away there is Rosyth naval base, three miles on the other side is the new aerodrome factory at Donibristle, there is a great munitions dump at Crombie, near Dunfermline. In fact, all round the area there are great munitions dumps stretching to Grangemouth. On the outskirts of the village there is a railway tunnel which runs through the rock. It could shelter 1,000 people, and, with the women and children evacuated, everyone who was left could be sheltered in that tunnel. If nothing is done and an air raid should take place, the people will naturally make for that tunnel. They will have to go down the railway embankment. Only about six trains a week pass through that tunnel, which is not really in much use. It is an old railway siding. The leading people in the village are very concerned

    1007
    about the lack of preparation in connection with defence, and they consider and discuss the question of the tunnel.
    Colonel Wincole, who was taking the place of the lad who had gone on holiday to Canada, went to look over the situation. He was taken through the tunnel by Dr. Brock, of North Queensferry. He has prepared a report, a copy of which has been sent to the Minister. What is the first thing he says? In order to carry out the desires of the Minister that there should be no discussion of bomb-proof shelters, the first thing he says is that North Queensferry is not a vulnerable area. Not a vulnerable area, with the Forth Bridge there, the Rosyth naval base, munition areas, munition dumps and aircraft centres.
    The report says that in order to get to the tunnel it is necessary to go up a very high hill, that the crowd would rush up the hill and become completely exhausted, and then there would be a panic. Imagine an exhausted panic. What would it be like? The significant thing about it is that this high hill has nothing whatever to do with the tunnel, because it is not on the road to the tunnel. That report is from the military expert who went to have a look at the place. How are the people to get the question of deep bomb-proof shelters considered if the Department act on the process of digging military men out of the moth-eaten lumber room and putting them in charge of defence? The report also says that if the people ran down the railway embankment they might sprain their ankles. Therefore, I suppose they had better stay on the top and have their heads blown off. Would it not be a simple matter to make a pathway along the railway embankment to the tunnel?
    Everything has been done to throw cold water on the efforts of those concerned to get this question properly dealt with. It is not only a question of the tunnel. In the vicinity of the village there is a great rock face 80 to 100 feet high, and there is an old quarry which is now covered with grass. Within a minute of almost any part of the village is this great rock face. Is it not possible at the base of that rock face to cut a series of short tunnels that would give adequate and effective bomb-proof shelters for the people? According, however, to the Hailey Report if there is not a rock foundation of that
    1008
    sort in another area you cannot use it in North Queensferry. In other words, you must not give this protection in North Queensferry if you cannot give similar protection to people in another area. That is why the military experts who have been to North Queensferry pooh-pooh the whole idea of bomb-proof shelters of this particular kind. They will not make use of the tunnel, nor will they consider the question of making use of new tunnels in the rock face there. As a consequence of this atttitude there is the greatest feeling of disquiet among the pople, not only in North Queensferry, but all over the area, because they are also affected by the situation in that area if a war should break out.
    There are many men in this district who have taken positions of air-raid wardens and are giving up their time and spending money going here and there at their own expense, and they feel that the attitude of the Government is such that their time, energy and money are being wasted. I have drawn attention to the fact that what they are faced with is the provision of blast-proof kennels that have to be sunk three feet. There is no soil in North Queensferry. There is the solid rock, with the thinnest surface of soil, not more than three inches deep, and in some places not an inch deep. Therefore, these people feel that in view of the situation that may possibly develop with attacks on the Forth Bridge, on the aeroplane factory, on the Rosyth Naval base and on the munition dumps, with bombs dropping and guns blasting in reply, it would be a terrible situation; yet because of the policy of the Government every effort is made to minimise the danger to the extent that the women and children are not to be evacuated from North Queensferry, and no bomb-proof shelters are to be provided.
    I wish the Minister would go up and have a look around the district and see the situation that confronts the people. I asked him to send someone while I was visiting there, but, unfortunately, it was not possible to do so. If a representative of the Minister's Department went there the right hon. Gentleman would have a much better report than the report of Colonel Wincole, which has made a very bad impression upon the inhabitants of the area. It is obvious that he did not pay any attention to the situation. He does not understand the modern conditions under which a war would take

    1009
    place. I cannot understand why it is that men who have had their military training long before the War are being used to deal with a situation where the whole technique of war has changed, and who cannot understand what Civil Defence means.
    As one who has been interested in the protection of people from air attack right from the beginning, I make my appeal to the Minister. I think it will be found that every step taken towards an advance in the understanding of this problem on the part of the Minister has come originally from this side of the House, and it is so on this particular question. While I am deeply interested in the protection of the people against air attack, I am not interested in National Service. As I said on another occasion, it is one thing to force a rotten Government to give service to the people, but it is an entirely different thing to try and force the people to give service to a rotten Government. Therefore, while I am not for National Service I am for air-raid protection to the fullest extent, and I demand of the Minister that he should give serious consideration to this question of bomb-proof shelters.
    I appeal to him to make a practical test. Let him send a representative of his Department to North Queensferry to study the situation and the danger that will menace the people there, and to consider what nature has provided for the giving of adequate shelter to the people, and on the basis of that report I am certain that he would finish with the Hailey principle that if we cannot give adequate protection to all we will give adequate protection to none. While it is our duty to try to our utmost to give adequate protection to all who are subject to similar dangers, let us see to it that we give protection to the maximum number of people when and where it is possible for us to give that protection.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: I am rather interested in the Amendment because the question of deep shelters undoubtedly is a matter of great interest to many people in the country to-day. Many people have the idea that the best form of protection is to crowd together in as deep a shelter as possible in the bowels of the earth. The herd instinct is one of the characteristics of the human race. We found that instinct prevalent during the War, but we
    1010
    did succeed after a certain number of months in getting the men to rely more on the surface. It was one of the most difficult things during the last War to destroy the herd instinct, and that is one of the great advantages that the trained soldier has over the untrained man or woman. These deep shelters, as I understand, would collect together a great number of people in a small space. What would be the result? We had experience of it in the last War. There were times when, unfortunately, panic took hold of a number of men and they rushed together to one spot when heavy shell-firing started.
    Everybody who had any experience of the last War knows that the gases used by the enemy are not intended to go upwards, they go down, and they are heavy enough to do that. The gases used by the Germans always found the lowest spot in the trench, the sump hole, and we always advised the men not to bunch together. The order was"Do not bunch. Do not crowd, and as far as possible keep on the higher ground in the trench. Stand on the firing step." We knew that as long as the gas masks were intact the gas itself was harmless and would find the lowest spot in the trench. When we had learned this we dug as many sump holes as possible, not for the men to get into but to get out of, and let the gas collect there. I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea of deep air-raid shelters, because I know the great majority of women and children feel safe if they are in a cellar or deeper still, and also that they feel safer if they are crowded together. It is very difficult to get women to separate, and yet I am convinced from my experience of the last War that the greatest protection one can possibly have during an air raid, whether from high explosive or gas bombs, is to disperse as far as possible. It is better than any trench. I, certainly, am opposed to the idea of collecting people in deep air-raid shelters. What would be the result if we did so? If you had women and children and the older men collected together in a deep air-raid shelter and a heavy bomb was dropped, a high explosive bomb not of 500 lbs. but of 1,000 lbs., what would be the effect? Anyone who has been in a deep dug-out and an ordinary small 18-lb. whiz bang has hit the top of the trench about 15 feet above, knows that the repercussion is terrific even from such a small shell.
    Mr, W. Joseph Stewart: You would not call that a deep bomb-proof shelter?
    Mr. Fleming: I do not, but if you have a deep air-raid shelter of 60 feet and the whiz bang is replaced by a 1,000 lb. bomb what would be the effect on untrained and undisciplined men and women when one after another the thuds came along with their repercussions throughout all the deep air-raid shelter? You would expect panic; I should. I am trying to face the facts. There would be a scramble, for what? They would not know; they would lose their heads. If such a thing took place in the open, and this is why I favour dispersal above ground as far as possible, you would have panic amongst the women and children, but if they were dispersed they would have a chance of doing something above ground. They would have no chance whatever in a deep air-raid shelter, and I am not putting it so strongly as though the deep air-raid shelter was actually struck by a heavy bomb, because if the deep air-raid shelter was pierced at any point by a heavy bomb and there was not adequate protection by means of bulk heads, the effect of the fumes would be to intensify the panic.
    Mr. Robert Morgan: Some of us have rather mixed ideas on this matter, but would the hon. and learned Member apply his remarks to a shelter like that at Ramsgate?
    Mr. Fleming: That is a tunnel which is already there. I would not oppose anything of that description, although I see no reason for it. If all the population of Ramsgate got into that shelter, and in an air raid it was in any way damaged or blocked at one part, you would have great panic. I do not know the actual depth of this smugglers' tunnel but I know that a modern 1,000 lb. bomb will pierce something like 50 or 60 feet of ground, and the repercussion from the bursting of such a shell is so terrific that if the air-raid shelter was not smashed, the effect of the reverberations throughout the whole of the tunnel would produce infinite panic amongst women and children. That is why I am against these deep bomb-proof shelters. I may be wrong. You may have great casualties through panic, and I think the better plan is to get the people better dispersed above ground.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Dunn: I am sure that all hon. Members listen with a great deal of interest to any ex-service men who give us the benefit of their experience, and I always listen with a great deal of admiration to men who saw service on foreign soil. Therefore, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming), but I was not able to follow closely the argument he made. When there is a bombardment and shells are falling, whether in a city or town, or in the country, one would expect panic among the people. It seemed to me that the question I had to decide, on listening to the hon. Member's speech, was whether or not there would be less panic if there were no shelters than there would be if there were deep shelters or some other sort of shelters.
    Mr. Fleming: I said that I preferred dispersal.
    Mr. Dunn: My view is that if the population, were dispersed and some of the people found their way into deep shelters, there would be less panic on the part of the population if they had the knowledge that there were these shelters than there would be if there were no shelters whatever. A great deal of the argument this evening has centred around all sorts of things, and very little attention has been paid to the Amendment. The Amendment asks that:
    "Approval of an air-raid precautions scheme submitted by a local authority under the provisions of the Act of 1937 shall not be withheld on the ground that it provides for any deep or heavily protected shelter."
    After listening to the long speech of the Lord Privy Seal, I am entirely at a loss to know whether in that speech the right hon. Gentleman intended to accept the Amendment. I am probably somewhat dense, but I found it rather difficult to sort out that speech, which I confess was not as lucid as one might have expected on this question from the right hon. Gentleman. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us whether the local authorities of the country subscribe to the views expressed by the Hailey Committee in their report. I understand that the local authorities are not in agreement with the committee's recommendations. From the Minister's speech, I got the impression that various types of shelters, the famous Anderson shelters and

    1013
    so on, are not ruled out of a possible understanding. If that is the view which the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey in his speech, it seems to me that there ought to be very little reluctance on the part of the Government to accept the Amendment, which I support.
    The Lord Privy Seal said that he hoped the question of Civil Defence would be taken out of party strife. I think the question of Civil Defence is entirely out of the realm of party strife. I subscribe to that view, as I think do all hon. Members on this side. But in the part of the country from which I come, Civil Defence and air-raid precautionary measures are made a matter of party propaganda. That is not done by the political party to which I belong and which, in the part of the country from which I come, supports air-raid precautionary measures and Civil Defence. If there is any question of chiding anybody, it seems to me that it ought not to be the party to which I belong, for we entirely support Civil Defence. If I may take the nod of approval given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as meaning that my interpretation of the Lord Privy Seal's speech was the right one, and that the speech did not rule out this Amendment, it seems to me that there is added force in the speech that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). We have the men to do the work of Civil Defence and to build, not necessarily deep shelters, but some sort of shelters to protect the civil population in an event of an emergency.
    There is one thing about which the country is anxious at the present time. The country asks the Government to stop fooling over this business and to let the people feel that the Government are in earnest about it. People are absolutely sick and tired of the lack of a clear lead to the country and the local authorities, who are anxious to get on with Civil Defence. I am certain that nobody who listened to the Lord Privy Seal's speech could feel in the least that there was any conviction in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth said that his local authority had submitted a scheme to the Minister. Maltby, the district in which I reside, has also submitted a scheme in identical circumstances. We cannot get approval from anywhere. It was submitted to the county council, and the
    1014
    county council submitted it to the Minister. We have the men to do the work, but we can get no answer from the Lord Privy Seal's Department. It is for these reasons that I support the Amendment.
    8.54 p.m.
    Mr. Woods: I listened with great attention to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, for I am very anxious, representing Fins-bury, that this Amendment should be accepted. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn), when the Lord Privy Seal ended his long lament, I was still wondering whether he accepted the Amendment or not. The right hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to be inspired by the assumption that any criticism of the Government on this matter arises from political prejudice, that the Opposition are here to oppose the Government and anything that the Government bring forward. I hope the Government will try to take a saner view of the problem. I feel very keenly indeed that this matter is one that should be lifted out of the range of party politics and political controversy. It is for many hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of our fellow-countrymen and women a question of life and death.
    In another aspect, the speech of the Lord Privy Seal seemed to be based on the assumption that all practical capacity is concentrated on the Treasury Bench and that those who have raised questions in other parts of this Committee are only theorists. The Lord Privy Seal began by describing the problem as one of providing a sound and comprehensive shelter policy. On that basis he went on to maintain that the major danger from which our people would suffer would be the danger from sprinters, blast and falling debris. Thus we have a major issue raised straight away. It may be that in certain districts the major danger will be that from blast, splinters, falling debris and spent ammunition from anti-aircraft guns. But in other districts, in densely populated areas, which may be particular targets for an invading air force, I am certain that the major danger will be from high explosives. A shelter policy which does not recognise that the main danger to a considerable percentage of the population will be from high explosive shells, cannot be, in any sense of the term, a sound and comprehensive policy.
    The next point taken by the right hon. Gentleman was that of the overriding

    1015
    character of military consideration. I do not wish to deal at any length with that point which has already been mentioned by several speakers, but it seems to me that a sense of security on the part of the working population of this country would be a primary consideration in the successful prosecution of a war. That, to my mind, is beyond all dispute. If the whole country feels that the Government are determined to provide protection, irrespective of cost, it will have a great influence. One ray of sunshine in the Lord Privy Seal's lament was the indication that now at any rate financial considerations do not weigh in this matter. If there is a feeling in the country that everything is being done to give the maximum amount of protection to the community, it will considerably influence the mass of the people and will help to equip them to withstand a long war, should that grave necessity arise.
    Another point in the general conclusions arising from the Hailey Conference was the axiom, which sounds very well in theory, that what is conceded to one area should be conceded to the whole country and that we should aim at impartiality and uniformity. As I say, that sounds well in theory but when we proceed to apply it to existing conditions it is like saying that we have a supply of spectacles of only one kind and that we propose to issue them, irrespective of the eyesight of different sections of the population and compel all to wear the same kind of glasses. That is the sort of argument used by the Lord Privy Seal. Obviously, those who were blind would not need any spectacles; neither would those who had good sight. So it is with air raid precautions. There are areas of the country where the people will not be worried about tin shelters. There are areas which will enjoy a degree of immunity and whose people will consider themselves fortunate in being so favourably circumstanced and will not want the Government to do anything for them.
    There are other areas however in which the situation will be wholly different. There are areas such as those already mentioned in this discussion, which offer an invitation to a raiding enemy. Reference has been made to munitions dumps and shipyards. We in Finsbury have to take into account considerations of that sort. At one end of my constituency are
    1016
    two of the main railway termini. At the other end is Liverpool Street Station and in the centre is one of the biggest goods depots in London in addition to markets and manufacturing concerns. It is just the sort of area which any intelligent enemy would try to dislocate. There is the maximum of invitation to raiding aircraft. Further, and this is the sort of consideration which was not dealt with by the Lord Privy Seal, there is the question of the actual site and the type of the buildings on the site, the density of the population, the housing conditions and the fact that this area is situated right in the heart of London.
    For the protection of such a population, tin shelters are useless because there are no sites for them, as far as the bulk of the population are concerned. Trenches are out of the question because there are no available open spaces. Above-ground shelters are out of the question, irrespective of the question of capacity, because the whole surface is already occupied. The borough council made a most exhaustive survey with regard to the strengthening of basements, and the conclusion reached, not by theorists, not by mere guesswork, but on the advice of engineers and architects, who surveyed all the buildings with cellars in the borough, was that there was hardly a cellar on which it was worth spending money. In nearly every case the superstructure was an old building which the least shock would convert into a heap of bricks and rubbish, such as I have seen in Barcelona and elsewhere in Spain. It is in such circumstances that this Amendment has a special application.
    The Government have their responsibility and the local authorities have theirs. The difference between them is that the local authorities are not dealing theoretically with the country as a whole, but are up against the concrete proposition of providing shelter for the population for whose safety they are responsible. The scheme suggested by the Government simply does not work out on the site and under the conditions which I have described. The borough council has submitted a scheme which has been turned down and I was interested to hear for the first time this evening from the Lord Privy Seal, that although the scheme was turned down for technical reasons, the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that, even had those technical reasons not been

    1017
    available, the scheme would still have been turned down because it would have provided for the people of Finsbury a standard of shelter which could not be made available for the rest of the community. But you cannot praise the scheme in that way and condemn it at the same time. If the scheme was such as to give the people of Finsbury a standard of shelter which could not be given to the rest of the community, then all the technical arguments against it fail.
    I have studied the correspondence and the technical objections urged to the scheme. The borough council has readjusted the scheme in the light of those criticisms and has made modifications to meet the requirements of technical advisers. But all they can get after considerable delay is just further rejection and procrastination. We in Finsbury are anxious to provide the maximum degree of shelter in an area which is particularly liable to danger, as was proved by experience in the last War. Instead of the Government saying,"We do not approve of this, and we suggest this or that," we just get a blank, negative attitude, and that is not in any sense helpful.
    One other aspect which was put forward by the Lord Privy Seal was the time factor, that it is so urgent and important that schemes should be carried through and made available in the least possible time. If there had been the same speedy response to the scheme as there was on the part of the borough council to the invitation of the Government to prepare schemes, the first experimental shelter would have been completed by now, and instead of it being a case of theorising and speculating, there would have been an actual example. In the last speech of the Lord Privy Seal he found a further objection in that this was all so new and novel, and that if a shelter of this type was built, it would be very speedily obsolete. I was particularly intrigued by that argument, because it is like saying to someone with a 1938 car that it is obsolete. It may not be the very latest, but it will be a very useful car, nevertheless, and unless we are to make a start with experimental shelters, there never will be a shelter at all. Arising out of the experience that is urgently necessary in such places as Finsbury, we should be only too glad to be pioneers and to hear that someone else had been able to build an even more satisfactory shelter,
    1018
    profiting by our experience. An air-raid shelter cannot be spoken of as obsolete in the same way as an aeroplane can be regarded as obsolete, and, therefore, we ask that the Government should accept this Amendment, consider the problem presented by vulnerable areas like Finsbury, and give us some degree of assistance instead of merely hostile and negative criticism.
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. Simmonds: A number of hon. Members opposite have assumed with some degree of optimism that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal proposes possibly to accept the Amendment. On the other hand, I am assuming that the probability is that at an early hour we may divide on this question, and in view of the many speeches to which I have listened this evening, I should like to be quite clear upon what we shall divide. As I approach this question of the deep or highly protected shelter, I should like to say, right away, that I am an enthusiastic supporter of this type of shelter, but in the right place and at the right time. If we examine this Amendment, what in fact does it do? It says that the Minister may not withhold his permission to a scheme on the ground that it provides for any deep or highly protected shelter, and that means to say that where he has a scheme with a highly protected shelter within it, he may not withhold his permission from that scheme. I hope within a very few minutes that I shall satisfy the Committee that that is not a very logical or possible thing for the Minister to grant, because this question of air-raid protection is always a matter of degree. There are localities which will be highly dangerous, and there are localities where there will be almost no danger at all.
    I believe the art in the administration of Civil Defence is so to attune your degree of protection as to meet the degree of risk. Surely, therefore, if any local authority in its enthusiasm proposed to put deep, bomb-proof shelters in Crediton or Honiton, down in Devon, the Minister would be bound to say,"This is a preposterous suggestion, because the degree of danger that will exist in that area will not warrant that type of protection." But I think that many hon. Members opposite were under a misapprehension as to what my right hon. Friend said. I gathered quite clearly

    1019
    from him that he is not opposed to highly protected shelters as such. What he is opposed to is placing these shelters in areas where the degree of danger does not warrant them. [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] I have no doubt he will be replying, and perhaps we shall clear this matter up. I gathered quite clearly that he had no objection to highly protected shelters as such, if they are put in areas which require that degree of protection and if they can be provided largely in areas of that type.
    Mr. Silverman: Did not the Minister imply that even where he was satisfied that a highly protected shelter was necessary and was adequate, he would still not be able to sanction it unless he was able at the same time to afford similar protection in other places in the country where there was similar risk?
    Mr. Simmonds: Yes, I think he did say that, but that is not at all in conflict with the observation which I have just made.
    Mr. Silverman: Surely it is.
    Mr. Simmonds: No, it is not. If there is a certain amount of labour and material available for the construction of these deep or highly protected shelters, surely they should be used, not where the local authority has most enthusiasm for highly protected shelters, but in the key danger spots where it is essential first to construct such shelters.
    Mr. Silverman: That is the exact opposite of what the Minister said.
    Mr. Simmonds: I trust the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way to him. We are not, in voting upon this Amendment, being asked to register in any way a vote either pro or con deep or highly protected shelters. If that were the case, frankly I would vote for highly protected shelters, because in certain cases they will be essential, but let us disabuse our minds entirely of that thought. That is not the issue. The issue, as the Amendment quite clearly puts it, is solely this, that if the Minister finds that a highly protected shelter has been incorporated in a scheme, where the degree of danger certainly does not require such a structure, he may not be able to rule it out. That seems to me to be an absurd
    1020
    contention, and I do not think the hon. Members who put their names to the Amendment can quite have seen where it was carrying them. I can understand them wanting a discussion on this subject, and I think they will have fulfilled that purpose admirably, but I hope we shall not be told that we are voting either for or against highly protected shelters.
    9.14 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: The Lord Privy Seal rose at 6.30 p.m. He sat down at 7.25 p.m. We have been all the time trying to find out whether he accepted or rejected the Amendment. The hon. Member who has just spoken thinks he rejected the Amendment. I listened carefully for any word from the Minister— because, after all, as far as we are concerned it would have been the most important word— to give us any indication as to whether he proposed to ask the Committee to accept or reject the Amendment. I heard nothing in the whole of those 55 minutes which indicated his views on that matter at all. The hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds)himself has had to arrive at his conclusion not by reference to any specific sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech but by his idea of the general atmosphere surrounding the speech. He hopes he will not be told that if he votes against this Amendment he will be voting against deep or heavily-protected shelters. He can rest assured that most certainly he will be told that, both here and elsewhere; because the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the Finsbury scheme made this point clear at any rate, that if it had been technically sound, so that his technical advisers could take no objection to it, he still would have rejected it on the ground that he could not provide a deep or heavily-protected shelter for every place of similar vulnerability and risk.
    We on this side of the Committee believe that to be a thoroughly absurd position, especially as the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have made civil defence one of the functions of local government. That argument will mean that in matters of civil defence every district will have to march at the pace of the slowest. If a district says,"We want to do this, that, or the other thing," the answer will be, "There is a district of similar vulnerability which has not got defence plans of that particular magnitude, and therefore you cannot have your

    1021
    scheme." I venture to say that is a doctrine to which the Minister ought never to have committed himself, because when I put a simple question to him he replied, with the one show of light and heat which he displayed during his 55 minutes speech, that it would be foolish for a district not to take advantage of any resources nature had provided for it. We quite agree with that, but surely that cuts across his other principle.
    Take the case of Surrey, of the geological features of which I can speak with some knowledge. You could have deep air-raid shelters in the chalk rock in the parts where the right hon. Gentleman himself resides, because nature is there assisting. There are there natural caves and excavated caves which lend themselves to this form of defence. But in the sand near Haslemere and Limps-field, where there is a different geological formation, there are not those natural shelters. Presumably the people ought not to have them in the districts where chalk is the principal geological feature because it would give them something additional in the way of defence to what could be provided in the sand areas. All we ask is that a scheme shall not be rejected merely because it provides for a deep or heavily-protected shelter, and, after all, heavily-protected shelters are not of necessity shelters going deep into the earth. The right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that they could be above ground, and I myself can think of many places where, although the degree of vulnerability may not be very high, that form of structure ought to be undertaken for technical reasons.
    We on this side of the Committee do not pin our faith to any particular engineering scheme. Clearly that is a matter for experts. What we do say is that this particular form of defence, where it is technically sound, ought not to be ruled out on any of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman applied to technically sound schemes of this description. Several hon. Members, without any great engineering experience, have given their views on the engineering problem involved. The hon. and learned Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming), drawing on his experience of recruits in the late War, proposed to apply the same principles to women and children in the next war. It seemed to me to be a somewhat faulty logical process, but it seemed to
    1022
    satisfy him. I think the fallacy underlying his arguments is that he would deal with the problem in the terms of one bomb. The old economists always used to talk about one man on a desert island, but except at very rare periods in the world's history the economic circumstances surrounding that one man have not really been of universal application, and in talking of the problem of people above ground to envisage it in terms of one bomb is a fallacy. I imagine that if there is an air raid the population above ground will find a very large number of bombs falling over a comparatively small area. Obviously, within reasonable limits, the greater the concentration of bombs on any given area the greater the military effect the enemy is likely to be able to achieve, and women and children attempting to disperse in the open, with bombs from above, with spent shells falling and all the splinters from our own anti-aircraft artillery, will be as much subject to panic and terror above ground as they are likely to be subjected to underground.
    The hon. and learned Member proceeded to assume that any large underground shelter would not be properly partitioned off, so as to lessen the effect of any explosion that might occur. Really the arguments addressed to this particular scheme might be addressd to a scheme that was technically sound, and it should not be assumed that local authorities would rush in to construct the least efficient shelters and ask people to take refuge in them. We believe that within the scheme of Civil Defence there is a place, in districts where either nature or artifice enables it to be done, for the construction of these deep or heavily-protected shelters, and we ask that in such cases the Minister shall not reject a scheme merely because it includes a deep shelter. He told us that even if the Finsbury scheme had been technically sound he would have rejected it apparently because some neighbouring boroughs either had not got or could not get such a scheme.
    Surely it is an entirely new military doctrine that we may not protect one part of our front in a certain way because the same form of protection cannot be carried out all along the front; that if there is not enough barbed wire to protect the whole front, we should

    1023
    have no barbed wire at all; that if there is a canal that does not protect all the front we should not take advantage of its protection anywhere along the front; that if machine gun emplacements cannot be prepared everywhere there should be no machine gun emplacements at all. Faulty as the preparations of the Secretary of State for War proved to be last September, he never tied himself down to any such doctrine as that which was elaborated by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. If we believe the story of the Government that we are hard pressed for time, and that short-term policies have to be adopted because there is no time for a long-term policy, surely it is all the more essential to make use of any particular form of defence wherever it is applicable, even though it cannot be used everywhere.
    The Amendment is one which we did hope the Government would find it possible to accept. The Minister did not either accept or reject it in his speech. He spoke about everything else, but the one thing we did not know was his opinion about the Amendment. We knew his opinion about most other things in this world. We are still hopeful that as he desires, I know, that preparations shall be adequate and speedy throughout the country, he will find it in his heart to accept the Amendment, and let it be understood by local authorities in the country that where deep or heavily protected shelter is feasible and is the appropriate form of defence in that particular place, the Government will not reject the scheme merely because it includes the best instead of the second best.
    9.27 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee for more than a very few moments, but I do wish to try and remove misapprehensions which have been somewhat prevalent in regard to the policy that I outlined to the Committee in my first speech. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and some previous speakers, seemed to me to have represented the conclusions I put to the Committee in a light which does not truly represent what I endeavoured to say. As the hon. Gentleman said, I made it quite clear that I did not interpret the report of the Hailey Conference as implying that natural resources should not be made use of in suitable cases. I
    1024
    said quite frankly that it would be no part of the policy of the Government to apply the principle of equality to the extent of denying the advantage of particular natural resources. The principle of equality is to be interpreted, according to the policy of the Government, in this way, that, where time is limited and where resources in professional advice, skilled supervision, materials, etc., are limited, it is wrong to concentrate an undue proportion of those resources in the provision in a particular locality or particular section of the community of shelter beyond what could be provided for other people similarly placed. It is not a question of saying that because we cannot do this thing everywhere we should do it nowhere. We say that because we cannot provide shelter to a particular standard everywhere we should apply our resources to providing shelter on so far as possible uniform standards everywhere for people exposed to a similar degree of risk.
    I want to make that absolutely clear and I want to make it clear to the Committee that experience is showing quite clearly to-day that we are getting very near the limit of our resources, particularly in skilled supervision. We have got to husband our resources if we are to provide in the shortest possible time a maximum protection for the population at large. That does not mean that we shall not proceed, taking the cases of greatest risk first, to provide more heavily protected shelters, as and when our resources allow, for workers who are exposed to the highest degree of risk. We may learn valuable lessons from so doing. I would be the last to say that we have yet reached ultimate wisdom in this matter, but I do say with very great confidence that the principle of equality which was enunciated with all the authority of the Hailey Committee, which is accepted by the Government, is a sound principle, and departure from it will prejudice our object of providing the maximum degree of protection in the shortest possible space of time.
    The other point on which I want for one moment, if possible, to remove misapprehensions is in regard to the manner in which financial considerations enter into this problem. I have never suggested for a moment that financial considerations are of no importance. One hon. Member said it was absurd to suggest that

    1025
    finance should be left out of account. I have never suggested that it should be, but what I have made clear to all working on this problem is that in my judgment, having regard to the nature of the problem of protection, the appropriate course is first to examine on technical and practical merits the various schemes of protection, and to let finance enter into the matter at the last stage. I made the position perfectly clear in a speech I delivered on 1st March in this House, and I would just like to read the relevant words to the Committee:
    "The Committee will notice that I have said nothing at all about finance in connection with shelters, but that is not because I do not think it is important. Our financial strength may well prove to be our strongest arm of defence, and we should be very careful not to weaken that arm by rushing into expenditure recklessly, but I have said nothing about finance because in my opinion it comes last in the process of consideration. We ought first to consider the problem on its merits." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1939; col. 1313, Vol. 344.]
    That is exactly what I asked the Hailey Conference to do. As the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) made clear, I asked them to consider the problem of heavily protected shelter on its merits. I said that finance would be considered at the proper time by the Government. I think it will be clear from what I have said that I cannot accept the Amendment. I think it would be quite wrong that the Government and the Minister concerned should be asked to pledge themselves never to reject a scheme of defence on the ground that it made provision for heavily protected shelters. That is quite a different thing from saying that the Minister will not necessarily reject a scheme merely on that ground. I oppose the Amendment.
    9.33 p.m.
    Dr, Guest: I am sorry to delay the Committee unduly, but I think the Lord Privy Seal is entirely wrong in his interpretation of the meaning of this Amendment. It does not mean that the Lord Privy Seal will be obliged to accept any scheme on the ground that it provided a deep air-raid shelter, but it means simply that he would not be obliged to reject it merely on that ground and only on that ground. It complies exactly with what he himself said was his policy with regard to the Hailey Report. He said that the Government have accepted the Hailey Report
    1026
    and that its acceptance completed the Government's plan. That meant, as I interpret it, a limited use of heavily protected shelters. That is precisely and exactly what this Amendment means and if the Government vote against this they are voting against what the Lord Privy Seal has himself said is the Government's policy. I venture to think that the Lord Privy Seal, if I may say so with respect, has been confused in his presentation of this case throughout. To-day it is not intended to force any special type of shelter on the Government, but it is intended that it shall be left to the local authorities.
    With regard to the general statement— the general affirmation of fairness between one part of the country and another— it is perfectly clear that different parts of the country in which the conditions are similar should be so far as possible treated in the same way. That, I suggest, is more or less a political matter and not entirely the practical matter which we ought to be discussing to-night. You cannot get complete equality between any two areas of the country. The authority which is best fitted to deal with questions of inequality and which is the best judge of what the particular local area requires, is the local authority itself. Under the Air-Raid Precautions Act it is the local, authority which has to carry out the work of air-raid precautions.
    In the case of Finsbury, Hammersmith, Sheffield or any of the very large number of municipalities or local authorities in the country, the local authorities are those who know most accurately the conditions. Precisely because of that, their representations ought to be given special attention. I do not think that the Lord Privy Seal would refuse to do so. If Sheffield or some other area brought forward its special problem and said:"Here is a point of special vulnerability. Here is a place that is likely to attract attack. We require for the protection of the workers in an essential industry who live in that area a heavily protected shelter. Otherwise they will all be killed and the industry will not be able to carry on"; would the Lord Privy Seal refuse his consent? Certainly not. That is precisely what this Amendment asks him to do and that is why we put it down. That is the proposal of this Amendment, and if the Government vote

    1027
    against it they are voting against the position which I have outlined. There is no doubt about that.
    After listening to the Lord Privy Seal I feel a considerable degree of disquiet as to whether the Government adequately appreciate the realities of this problem. We are talking to-night about shelters and we have said very little about evacuation, but the real protection of the population is neither in evacuation nor in the number of shelters, but in the general direction of the policy of the Government. I am not talking about foreign policy but of policy in the protection of the civil population as a whole. That involves the use of evacuation and of air-raid shelters as means of protection. I should say with regard to Finsbury that that area could not be adequately protected, even by deep shelters, and that what it really requires is that Finsbury should be evacuated on a very large scale.[Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says that it cannot be evacuated because its industries are required to be carried on. I live next door to Finsbury and I know that it is an extremely vulnerable place, and if what my hon. Friend says is correct, then Finsbury and any other similar area should be given adequate, that is deep, or heavily protected shelters. There can be no other argument about it. If you cannot evacuate people you must protect them. You cannot carry on your industries without doing that.
    I must, however, confess that I feel, and I am afraid that the country will also feel, that in this matter of Civil Defence the Government do not see as clearly the realities as they do in the case of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and not even there perhaps as clearly as they might. The problems of Civil Defence are comparatively new, and the whole of the civilian population is, as it were, in the line. If the Government would look upon the matter with the same sense of stark reality as that which will face them in the eventuality of war, and would consider that the civilian population will have, as it were, to strip itself to the buff in the fight with death, they would do everything that was necessary in order to equip the population to resist. If necessary you will have to evacuate your population on a much more wholesale scale than has been proposed
    1028
    up to the present, and to provide those who must remain in the factories, the docks or elsewhere with protection on the lines of military fortification. Otherwise the work of the country cannot be carried on. Unless we have this realisation on the part of the Government of the grim realities of the situation, I am afraid that disquiet will continue in the country. The Lord Privy Seal has taken 55 minutes in a speech to argue, apparently, although he did not say so, against an Amendment which merely puts into form what he has stated was his own conclusion. I am afraid the general feeling of the country will be that the mind of the Government is very much more confused than we feared it might be.
    In this respect I am the more perturbed because, having been very much concerned from the very beginning of the discussions in this House on air-raid precautions, I have always found that representatives of the Government were confused on this matter. On the original Bill an Amendment was moved from this side to make evacuation one of the duties of the Government, but it was strongly resisted from the Government side on the ground that it was unnecessary and would be unworkable. We were right on that matter of evacuation and the Government have accepted that policy. I venture to suggest that we are right on this matter of shelters too.
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. Hicks: I apologise to the Committee for entering into the Debate at this late hour, but I would not take part in it if it had not been for the interjection I made when the Lord Privy Seal was speaking, particularly in regard to the work of the Hailey Conference in examining this problem, and in relation to costs. I generally like to speak after the Front Bench have spoken, and if the hon. Member concerned had waited two or three minutes he would have been able to finish. The Lord Privy Seal said that he wished that Members of the Committee had read the Hailey Report; I wish they had, but equally I would be entitled to say that I wish the Lord Privy Seal had read the Amendment. In those instances it would have been of great value. I may have two or three words to say on the subject of the report, with your permission, Sir Dennis, later on. I suppose no question is more extensively considered

    1029
    in connection with the subject of air-raid precautions than that of the deep shelter, and there is no question on which there is less experience. Very few people have had experience of deep shelters, and the Hailey Conference was set up to consider what type of shelters against air raids they would recommend the Home Office, the Lord Privy Seal and the Government to adopt.
    The Hailey Conference, after consultation, considered all suggestions that were brought before them. No restrictions were placed upon the evidence. The Lord Privy Seal said that we could have any Department of State before us, and that any of the Services that we required would come. No technical knowledge that was available should be withheld. Anything for which the committee was entitled to ask was asked for and freely granted, not only by the Departments but by people who had had experience in air raids, chiefly in Barcelona. Some of the people were present when certain air raids were on. All that evidence was brought before us, and we examined it to the best of our ability. We may not have been able to examine it thoroughly, or to draw correct deductions, but the evidence was examined to the best of our ability, and we came to unanimous recommendations. Reference is made to deep bomb-proof shelters, but there is a difference between a deep shelter and a bomb-proof shelter. The two are frequently associated, but, so far as we were able to get information, a really bomb-proof shelter has not yet been constructed. We de not know what a bomb-proof shelter is. It depends on what is the size of the bomb, how it is going to hit, and the conditions under which it will strike.
    We do not say it is outside the realm of possibility to establish a bomb-proof shelter, or that the engineering industry are not able to evolve ways and means of protecting themselves against explosives from the air, but at the moment evidence that that is the case is not available. Again, in considering the question of deep shelters, the question arises whether they should be approached by ramps or by steps. We examined that question, and my own personal view, which I think was generally accepted, was that it would be better that the approach to a deep underground shelter should be by a ramp rather than by steps, particularly if it were necessary to carry any injured
    1030
    persons down on stretchers. Therefore, we subscribed to the idea that ramps were preferable, and personally I would not have a continuous ramp, but at given distances would have stretches which were level, because, once people get on to a ramp under excited conditions, it is very difficult to stem the rush.
    Another problem was that of the limit of seven minutes' warning, the consideration of the area from which people would be drawn for the purpose of getting them into the shelter, and how many people could pass in a given time. Evidence and statistics were put before us with regard to the discharge of people from railway stations and football grounds, and we had also to consider the type of people who would be taken underground. It seemed probable that the people coming from football matches, and also from railway stations, particularly during the rush hours, would not include very many elderly or infirm people, mothers with babies, and so on. These questions had to be considered, and also the question of people having to dress and get into the streets from the top of buildings of three or four storeys and get to a shelter perhaps 100 yards away.
    Then there was the question of the black-out. I will tell the Committee what happened in one big town with a population of 500,000 or more. We had local lorry drivers, men using their own lorries, men who worked in the town and knew it well. A black-out was decided upon; the casualty station was fixed at a given point; the men started from a given point, and casualties had to be picked up there and taken to the casualty station. The time necessary for this would have been five minutes in ordinary daylight. Ten minutes was allowed because of the darkness, but it was 55 minutes before the first one arrived. I want to give the Committee some understanding of how people will behave under conditions of panic and black-out when they are unable to find a shelter, and the amount of confusion that is likely to be created in this and other ways, because it is necessary that these facts should be utilised in order to get a proper balance of ideas.
    Then there is the possibility of air-raid attacks once every hour. An enemy is not going to wait a week or a fortnight between attacks; the object may be to intimidate the population and sterilise industry, and, accordingly, attempts may

    1031
    be made to air-raid the country once every hour— 24 times a day. I do not know how many have thought of that possibility. So far as we were able to get evidence from Barcelona, at the end of the war, by the time they were bombed or starved into submission, the air raids were about eight a day, and so many people were driven underground that production was practically sterilised and there was no production at all. It is easy enough to be driven underground, but if you get no sustenance underground it is not much use going there. In a city like London or any other large industrial city, it would be necessary to maintain the life of the people, and we have to consider how far away from their work they would have to be taken and what protection could be given them. The reason why we were not able to recommend the type of shelter that is in the minds of people who think that the farther you go down the safer you are, was due to the fact that insufficient research had been undertaken, either by the Government or anyone else, to enable the effects of blast to be measured. Indeed, we have difficulty in getting a definition of blast, even from the scientists. The definition given on page 11 of the Hailey Report is:
    "By 'blast' we mean intensely high pressure created by explosion in the air which surrounds the explosion itself."
    It has been proved to us that, if you are 80 feet underground and a bomb drops at the mouth of the entrance to the shelter, the danger to the people inside is much greater than it would be outside. The blast will travel right down. We do not yet know whether blast goes round corners, but, so far as we were able to get any evidence at all, it appears that the danger would be quite as great half a mile down as it would be 10 yards away from the approach to the tunnel. The evidence available at the moment does not support the claim that protection would be afforded by digging holes 80 or 90 feet underground. Our report on the question of deep shelters was conditioned entirely by the fact that sufficient research had not taken place. I should like to read to the Committee some extracts from the report in order to indicate the kind of information we obtained. On page 25, the report says:
    "Scope for further research
    Our investigation has been hampered by the fact that in certain aspects of the subject
    1032
    knowledge is still far from complete. There are many relevant technical and scientific problems which still require elucidation. Our attention has been particularly directed to the need for further exploration of the following points: —

    (i) The phenomena of blast, especially ' shadow 'effects, and the value of baffling devices, with particular reference to the physiological effects of blast.

    (ii) The penetration of bombs into various clases of soils.

    (iii) The propagation of earth waves by underground explosions."

    A great amount of experimentation has taken place on that subject, but it is not sufficient at the moment to enable conclusions to be drawn as to the area of vibration that is created by a bomb dropping into the earth, and the effect that it has on everything immediately adjacent. The report goes on:
    "Methods of lighting which would facilitate movement at night without impairing the effect of a black-out."
    We say:
    "We do not, however, suggest that this is by any means an exhaustive list."
    Then the report continues:
    "We are aware that research and experiment have during the last few months been pursued more systematically than before, but we are impressed with the extent of the work that still remains to be done. We understand that some difficulties have been experienced, such as the lack of available ground for the conduct of practical experiments; and we feel in general that the work of research is still being conducted on too restricted a scale. Though we do not overlook the need for long-term, or fundamental research on some of the problems involved, we believe that there are immediate and pressing requirements in the direction of practical experiments to settle certain points, particularly the lethal effects of blast, which are now in doubt. The country possesses, in numerous specialised institutions, in its universities and scientific bodies, ample resources for the conduct of investigation and experiment, and the fullest opportunity should be taken of seeking their assistance and collaboration. We wish to draw particular attention to the fact that full benefits cannot be obtained from such collaboration unless those whose assistance is being sought, or who will have to make practical use of the results, are kept fully and promptly in touch with the progress of investigations conducted by or on behalf of Government Departments."
    That was put in particularly because the results of Departmental examinations have not been available for everyone. Referring to lack of confidence by the public in the Government's policy, the report says:
    "This may be partly due to the fact that its full extent is not yet appreciated; but

    1033
    we believe that it is even more to be attributed to the fact that the Government has not yet found itself in a position to present to the public a complete picture of the scheme of defence which it proposes to undertake. Ignorance of the Government's intentions in regard to strongly protected shelters has, in particular, been responsible for much of the prevailing doubt and uncertainty. Not until the Government is able to make public the full extent of the shelter measures contemplated can it hope to gain a general support for its policy, and thus ensure that both the local bodies and individual citizens shall effectively recognise their responsibility for taking their share in the preparations against attacks by air."
    And finally, because we know that property rights will have to be dealt with, we say in the report:
    "If any legal difficulties are found to stand in the way, we hope that the Government will not hesitate to equip itself with the powers necessary to overcome them."
    I felt it was necessary to say that as plainly as I could, in order to show the approach we made to the problem and the character of the deductions which we have made. But we have never organised opposition to future developments or closed our minds against further possibilities of better protection than had been previously visualised. Therefore it is difficult to understand the Minister's attitude when we are asking him not to make up his mind definitely, for all time, against deep or stronger air-raid shelters, so that, whatever science or engineering skill makes available for him in future, he will not fail to take any opportunities to
    give himself power to provide effective protection to the maximum possibility for the protection of our people against air attack.
    10.0 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M, Cooper):May I intervene to deal with the question of what exactly the effect of the Amendment would be? I do not know what effect those hon. Members whose names are attached to the Amendment intended it to achieve, but I can put forward my view as to what these words would mean if they were incorporated in an Act of Parliament. My advice is that the effect would be that if, on a scheme being submitted to him, the Minister desired to object to that scheme because it contained provision for a deep shelter which, in his view, was inappropriate, on account of the nature of the situation and the excessive call it would make on the available labour or materials, or expert supervision, or anything of that kind, with this Clause, he would not be free to do' so; his hands would be tied, and the scheme would have to be passed. I say no more, because the hour is late; but I think it right to put before the Committee that view of the effect of the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 206.

    Division No. 166.]

    AYES.

    [10.3 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Gallacher, W.

    Kirkwood, D.

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

    Gardner, B. W.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Lathan, G.

    Ammon, C. G.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Leach, W.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lee, F.

    Barr, J.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Leonard, W.

    Batey, J.

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

    Leslie, J. R.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Logan, D. G.

    Benn, Rl. Han. W. W.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Lunn, W.

    Benson, G.

    Groves, T. E.

    Macdonald, G. (lnce)

    Burke, W. A.

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

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Cape, T.

    Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    MacLaren, A.

    Chater, D.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Maclean, N.

    Cluse, W. S.

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

    Mainwaring. W. H.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hayday, A.

    Marshall, F

    Collindridge, F.

    Handerson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Milner, Major J.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Montague, F.

    Daggar, G.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

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

    Davies, B. J. (Westhoughton)

    Hicks, E. G.

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

    Davies, S. O. (Morthyr)

    Hills, A. (Pontefraet)

    Muff, G.

    Debbie, W.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Jagger, J.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Ede, J. C.

    Jenkins, A, (Pontypool)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Owen, Major G.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    John, W.

    Paling, W.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Parker, J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Frankel, D.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Pearson, A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Walton, W. MeL.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Ridley, G.

    Sorenson, R. W.

    William., E. J. (Ogmore)

    Riley, B.

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

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Ritson, J.

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

    Wilmot, J.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Rothschild, J. A. do

    Thurtle, E,

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbary)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Viant, S. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Shinwell, E.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    Silkin, L.

    Watkins, F. C.

    NOES.

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

    Hambro, A. V.

    Peake, O.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Petherick, M.

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Pilkington, R.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Harbord, Sir A.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Assheton, R.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Hailgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Balniel, Lord

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Hepworth, J.

    Rathbone, J.R. (Bodmin)

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

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Beechman, N. A.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Bait, Sir A. L.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. MoG.

    Remer, J. R.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Beulton, W. W.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Ropner, Colenel L.

    Bracken, B.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Rowlands, G.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

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

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Bull, B. B.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Hunloke, H. P.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Burghley, Lord

    Hunter, T.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

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

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Ferfar)

    Cary, R. A.

    Kellett, Major E. O.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Channon, H.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Kimball, L.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Somerville, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

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

    Levy, T.

    Spans, W. P.

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

    Lewis, O.

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

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Lipson, D. L.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Lloyd, G. W.

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

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Loftus, P. C.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

    Lyons, A. M.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    De Chair, S. S.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Thoneycroft, G. E. P.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

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

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Tufnell, Lleut.-Commander R. L.

    Duggan, H. J.

    McKie, J. K.

    Turton, R. H.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Magnay, T.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

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

    Ellis, Sir G.

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

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Markham, S. F.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Waterhouse, Captain C,

    Fleming, E. L.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

    Webbe, Sir W. Harold

    Furness, S. N.

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

    Walls, Sir Sydney

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Gledhill. G.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Gower, Sir R. V.

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

    Wise, A. R.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wlrral)

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

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J

    Wood, Hon, C. I. C.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Munro, P.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Gretton, Cal. Rt. Hon. J.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

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

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Guinness, T. L, E. B.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Major Sir James Edmondson

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    and Mr. Grimston.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Amendment made: In page 7, line 27, at the end, add:
    "and the expression ' the National Trust ' has the same meaning as in Section forty of the Finance Act, 1931." —[Mr. H. Strauss.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.11 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: Before we part with the Clause I would again offer a very friendly criticism as to the effect of Sub-section (4). That is the Sub-section which vests these shelters in the public authority. Inasmuch as they only take rights in the earlier part of the Clause to enter on the land in order to construct them, the only property which they have after the shelters are made is in the shelters themselves, that is to say, in the entrances running underground and in the underground shelters themselves. In my view, that means that they have no right of lateral support, and, therefore, it seems to me that they ought to make certain that the local authorities are given sufficient easement to make quite certain that neighbours, either accidentally or on purpose, may not use the underlying and adjoining soil in such a way as to make useless the expensive erection of these shelters within a short time. There are two smaller points. Local authorities have only such rights as are given by Statute in respect of these shelters. While they are given the right to construct the shelters, they appear to have no right to maintain and repair them, which it seems to me ought to be expressly given for safety's sake at least. Thirdly, I am not at all clear as to what purposes the shelters can be put to by the local authorities — the shelter itself is simply vested in them — whether that means that they have to retain and use them solely at all times for nothing except air-raid shelters, or whether they are given the right to use them for subsidiary purposes. I only offer these criticisms so that these matters may be considered, because they are important, before the Bill becomes law.
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I was going to raise most of the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, but there is one further thing. Although these are underground shelters, the local authority has no right in the ceiling of the shelter and the owner of the soil can remove it if for
    1038
    any reason he does not like it, or the whim takes him, and then the underground shelter has merely become an opening in the earth and its whole value disappears. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that the position of the local authorities with regard to their rights in these shelters will require considerable overhauling before he will have provided them with the kind of protection for their works which is absolutely necessary. We have had a remarkable series of discussions on this Clause, and I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the kind of thing that is going on. At one stage we had the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)collaborating with the Government, whom he would not touch at ordinary times with a barge pole, and acting as one of the law officers of the Crown in their absence, and, in the absence of the usual unpaid Law Officer of the Crown, the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). The hon. and learned Gentleman left the Chamber immediately after his advice had been accepted, and I can only imagine that he had gone to draw the fees. For I am certain that so strong a trade unionist as he would not have done as much legal work as he has done this afternoon without some hope of reward either now or in the future. I have some misgiving whether I shall not see him sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman and officially advising the Government in the able way that he has done unofficially this afternoon.
    I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford by a letter which I have received from the clerk to the Middlesex County Council with regard to this Clause. It is important to pay attention to the views of the County Council of Middlesex in this matter because they represent, although one of the smallest, one of the most populous counties in the country and one of the most vulnerable. The remarks of the clerk to the Middlesex County Council are as follow:
    "It is observed that in lieu of compulsory acquisition a procedure by way of entry is substituted. This is limited to underground works and the procedure would be inappropriate to above-ground works because Sub-clause (4) only ' vests 'the underground works with the necessary shafts in the Authority" —
    Really the Bill vests the hole in the authority, and leaves the walls and the roof in private ownership —

    1039
    "which may be fitting as the works are mainly constructed in the subsoil, but would not be applicable to above-ground works as obviously the authority constructing the works would require, if not the freehold, at any rate a long leasehold interest in the site.
    I also observe that in Sub-clause (2) the local authority is required to give public notice before constructing underground works in commons, open spaces etc. The local authority must advertise its intentions at least 28 days previously and if there are any objections everything is held up until the Minister has held an inquiry.
    Whilst there may be some good reason for this procedure where the common or open space is not vested in the local authority, it appears to me to be quite out of place when the local authority proposes to construct such works on open spaces of which it is the owner. In these cases the local authority would not give notice in writing under Sub-clause (1) so that Sub-clause (2) might be limited to cases where the common or open space is not in the ownership or under the control of the local authority so that notice of entry has to be given. In any case the time that must elapse would in my view be detrimental to the progress of works, particularly in the more vulnerable areas."
    This Clause was put into the Bill in the former Committee stage at a very late period. We have done the best we can to make a workable Clause of it. The comments of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford, reinforced by these comments of a man who will have to administer the Act in one of the most important areas in the country, indicate that a good deal more effort will have to be made before you can provide the local authorities with a Clause which they can work successfully in the various parts of the country. I can only express the hope that between now and the time that the Bill is considered in another place every effort will be made to deal with the practical and technical difficulties that may arise, so that no hitch may occur in the provision of this very urgently needed shelter accommodation. I want once again to rebut the view put forward earlier in the Debate by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that these are things that are really not of the utmost urgency. They are. We cannot wait until hostilities are declared before we get on with the provision of these underground shelters. It is safe to say that an underground shelter that has not been previously constructed will prove very difficult to construct once hostilities have broken out and men's minds are being diverted to other things. In the interests of the
    1040
    civilian population I hope the Minister will make every effort to secure that this Clause shall be thoroughly workable by the time the Bill becomes an Act.
    10.21 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for their practical suggestions in regard to a matter which is very technical and, admittedly, very difficult. In this Clause we are literally breaking new ground, and we must all contribute what we can to ensure that we make a success of it.
    Clause 8, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Application of Part III.)
    10.22p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 10, line 33, after"premises," to insert "mine or commercial building."
    This Amendment is little more than drafting. The Committee will recollect that there is power in the Bill to specify a particular factory premises even if it is in a non-vulnerable area. This Amendment enables a mine or commercial building which is in a non-vulnerable area to be specified by the Minister.
    Amendment agreed to
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 10, line 34, leave out"they," and insert"the premises, mine or building."
    In line 36, leave out"they," and insert"the premises, mine or building." —[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.— (Code for occupiers of factories, etc.)
    10.24 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, to leave out from "expression," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
    " 'the code' means the said code as for the time being in force, or, in relation to shelter provided before the issue or approval of any-such code, the said code as first issued or approved, and the expression ' shelter of the approved. standard ' means air-raid shelter

    1041
    which at least complies with all the requirements prescribed by the code:
    Provided that any air-raid shelter provided before the passing of this Act which the Minister is satisfied is substantially equivalent to shelter which complies with all the requirements prescribed by the code shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be shelter of the approved standard."
    This Amendment is designed to achieve several distinct purposes. In the first place, it defines the code as the code for the time being in force, and it provides that in relation to a shelter provided before the issue or approval of the code, it means the code as first issued or approved. This is necessary because under Clause 21 grant is payable in respect of a shelter provided before the passing of the Act, and we must be perfectly clear as to the conditions that must be satisfied. Further, this provision reflects certain developments that have taken place in the code as framed since this Bill was first drafted. When the Clause was first put into shape, no one knew exactly what form the code would ultimately assume. We rather visualised that it would set up various standard types of shelter and that employers would have a choice as between those standard types. When we came to draft the Bill it became clear that the code had to set up a standard, and that any type of shelter which might be referred to in the code would be referred to by way of illustration. There is another reason why we have had to proceed by way of setting up a standard, and it is this, that whatever the type of shelter provided we have to secure that it is adequate for the number of persons for whom it is provided. That, again, is a reason why we must rivet our attention on the standard rather than on the type of shelter. For these reasons the Amendment and a number of consequential Amendments, which I am afraid bulk large on the Order Paper, will be required.
    10.27 p.m.
    Mr. T. Johnston: We do not oppose the Amendment, but we should like to be assured that this provision will not mean any further delay in getting commercial and factory buildings structurally improved for the provision of basement shelters. We have been at this for four months, and yet there are great cities in this country where not a single commercial building has a basement shelter for one employé. There are factory
    1042
    buildings where no provision has been made of any sort or kind at this hour, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that in Clause 13 after the passing of this Bill a proprietor may take another three months before he sends in his report, and after that report has been sent in and it is approved, it has to go through some local committee which may not meet for another month. By that time there will be a struggle for materials and for labour. That is already very serious in London, and I shall be surprised if there are not areas in this country in which commercial buildings will not be provided with basement shelter this year. This is a serious matter.
    The whole purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts is to strengthen the morale of the civilian population, but by every pretext both in this House and outside there have been serious and unwarrantable delays in arming the right hon. Gentleman and local authorities with the necessary powers to provide shelter for our civilian population. I have sat for hours during the Debates on this Bill and have listened to all sorts of opinions as to whether property owners were adequately protected or not. The fact remains that we shall not be able to carry on production in the industrial areas unless we can provide shelter for the industrial workers in their ordinary avocations. It is a most serious matter that four months; should have elapsed and that there should be no commercial building and very few factories treated, except in Scotland. I trust that after the code has been produced and the precise meaning of"substantially equivalent" — by the time the lawyers get after that—
    Sir J, Anderson: I do not think the question of"substantial equivalent" is a matter for the lawyers. It is a matter of administration in deciding whether a grant is payable.
    Mr. Johnston: Am I to understand that there is no appeal against the Minister's decision?
    Sir. J. Anderson: Not as regards the payment of grant.
    Mr. Johnston: And as to what is substantial equivalent?
    Sir J. Anderson indicated dissent.
    Mr. Johnston: I am delighted to hear that there is no appeal and that work can proceed immediately, and that there will be no further delay in the local committees. From the moment the Bill receives the Royal Assent, we can take it there will be no further delay, apart from the delay that will necessarily arise because of a shortage of material and labour. I trust that, with the right hon. Gentleman's pledges on the matter, we shall not have to wait until Christmas before there is some protection for some of the workers in commercial buildings and factories.
    10.32 p.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: I should like to ask one question. There is a curious phrase in the definition —
    "the expression ' shelter of the approved standard ' means air-raid shelter which at least complies with all the requirements prescribed by the code."
    What does this indicate? One would be accustomed to a definition which said that it should include shelter which complied with the requirements, but the phrase '' at least"might include anything else which anybody liked.
    Sir J. Anderson: That expression is intended to convey that a shelter shall not be excluded from qualification for grant because it goes beyond the standard prescribed by the code or because it is, from some points of view, abetter shelter than that prescribed by the code. It must be at least equivalent, in the standard of protection provided, to what is laid down in the code, but it may go beyond that and it may be better, and it will not, on that account, fail to qualify for grant.
    10.34 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: A question arises on this Amendment, and again in some of the later Clauses, about which I am very much concerned. I think it is the general practice that when any buildings are structurally altered, plans are deposited with the local authorities of the area, and they always have a record of such alterations. Under this Amendment, and under the code, it seems that serious structural alterations may be made in a building, and that if they are made in a factory, the responsible person is the factory inspector, and if they are made in a mine, the mines inspector. Apparently no record is to be kept or sent
    1044
    to the local authority in the case of a factory, and the local authority will have no responsibility. I think that is a very serious position in which to place local authorities, and frankly, although I have great respect for factory inspectors, I do not think they are so trained as to be able to do as well in this matter as a local authority. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of providing that local authorities should have full information regarding every case of structural alteration.
    A number of local authorities at present are having plans sent in by competent architects for structural alterations and they have had to inform those who have sent in these plans that there is no Act of Parliament dealing with the matter yet, and that there is nobody competent to deal with these plans. It would appear that, even when this Measure is placed on the Statute Book the local authorities will not be competent to deal with these plans and I do not think that the factory inspectorate has the necessary staff or the necessary experience to deal with all these cases. This may become a serious matter affecting the safety of a great many people and it should be dealt with by those who have the necessary qualifications and training. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should look into the question of having copies of all plans lodged with local authorities and at the same time I think local authorities ought to have the same power in regard to factory buildings, as they have in the case of commercial buildings.
    Sir J. Anderson: I did not realise that this point arose upon this Amendment, but it is familiar to me because it has been raised at conferences with the local authorities. I have given the associations of local authorities a promise that, in the administration of this provision, arrangements will be made to keep local authorities informed, in the manner that may be mutually agreed upon as most convenient, about those plans for the provision of shelters in factories which come within this Clause and Clause 13. The point, I suggest, really arises on Clause 13, under which the owner or occupier of a factory has the obligation to make a report to the factory inspector. It is under that procedure that the factory inspector gets to know. I think the representatives of the local authorities were satisfied with the assurances which were given to them.
    Mr. McEntee: May I ask whether in the regulations which it is proposed to make under Clause 29 a regulation could be introduced to cover this point?
    Sir J. Anderson: It is a matter that can easily be covered by a Departmental instruction because it is only a question of arranging in what circumstances the factory inspector should convey the desired information to the local authority.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, order to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 21(Exchequer grants in respect of provision of air-raid shelter in factory premises, mines, commercial buildings, etc.)
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move in page 22, line 36, to leave out"an approved type for," and to insert "the approved standard for all or any of."
    This Amendment is consequential on the fact that you may now have a requirement to provide a shelter, not for the whole of those employed in the factory but for part of them.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: I wish to raise the case of a factory inspector insisting that the amount of accommodation that shall be provided shall be the accommodation for the maximum number of employés engaged at any time. A number of factory owners contemplate, particularly where they have a branch establishment in the country, in a safe area, that should there be a war they would immediately remove the greater number of their employés to the country. I understand that in some cases the Home Office inspector is laying it down that, irrespective of this consideration, the owners shall be required to provide accommodation for the total number of employés working in the factory. In one case of which I can give the right hon. Gentleman particulars, where a firm now employs 1,000 people, they have gone to a great deal of trouble, and they claim that, for various reasons, in the event of war the number of people who would be working at that factory could not possibly exceed 300 or 400, and they think it is unfair that they should be compelled to provide accommodation for 1,000 people when they know very well that not half that number would be working there in the event of war.
    10.42 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I think this is really bound up with the definition Clause, in regard to which Amendments later on the Paper will come up for consideration in due course. It is perfectly clear that, as the Bill is drawn, the obligation upon the occupier of a factory or the owner of a commercial building is to provide shelter for all the persons who are ordinarily employed, and the definition Clause makes that clear. This Amendment is purely a matter of machinery and does not affect the scope of the employer's obligation. If it is in order for me to pursue the matter in reply to what the hon. Gentleman said, I think the answer to his argument is that what we aim at securing is that as far as possible all factories and commercial premises shall be fully equipped with shelters capable of accommodating the people who ordinarily work on the premises. It may well be that a particular employer contemplates arrangements by which, in the event of war, a proportion of his employés shall remove elsewhere, but if shelter provision were made on the basis of that assumption — it can only be an assumption — the building in question would remain incompletely equipped, and it might well be that in fact the employer would not be able, when the time came, to give effect to his intention, or it might be that attack would come on his premises before he could give effect to his intention; and the view of the Government is that it would be a very serious matter if, as the result of the requirement to provide shelter having been limited, as suggested, to the number of people that the employer expected might be at work when the contingency arose, inadequate shelter was provided. The scheme of the Bill, therefore, is designed to ensure that full provision will be made, irrespective of the present intentions of any occupier.
    Mr. Kennedy: It is the number of persons employed at what time?
    Sir J. Anderson: The number employed at the time when the notice is served.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: In Clause 21 it states that an employer has to provide protection for the persons working"in or about the mine." The heading of the Clause reads:
    "Exchequer grants in respect of provision of air raid shelter in factory premises, mines, commercial buildings, etc."

    1047
    At a mine there may be 1,500 men employed below on one shift and 350 men employed on the surface, and I should like to know whether a coalowner has to provide shelter for the whole 1,850 or whether the men who are working below will not be provided with shelter. The reference is to men working"in or about the mine" and I should like to know whether shelter has to be provided for 1,850 men or only for those working on the surface.
    Sir J. Anderson: This point is really relevant to the definition Clause. In that Clause, Clause 80, it says that the number of persons who work in a factory or mine who have to be taken into account
    '' shall be the number employed at any one time in a normal day."
    There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with that point, and I suggest that it would be convenient if the matter were dealt with when we come to it.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: The point is that I was referring to the number of men who may be working on one shift.
    Sir J. Anderson: The Amendment to which we shall come in due course deals with the problem of shifts, and I suggest that it would be convenient to deal with the point then.
    10.48 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Is it not the case that that Amendment deals with the"standard and approved" type of protection, and that a mine may call for protection which may be quite different from that which may be the standard and approved type in the case of a factory or a commercial building. I have read the booklet which has been published by the Department and issued to the mine owners. There are certain buildings at collieries, such as the winding gear, the fan house, etc., which require extra special protection, because immediately anything happened to any of those places the whole mine would be completely dislocated. I suggest that the Lord Privy Seal should find out whether a different type of protection should not apply to mines and to colliery buildings.
    10.49 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: As I explained on an earlier Amendment to which this is consequential we have got away from the
    1048
    conception of a standard type and we have got down to standard protection. We call upon a mine-owner to provide the type of shelter best suited to a particular case. As long as that shelter provides protection of a standard not inferior to what is contemplated by the Bill, then the requirements are met. The change of form suggested now goes a long way to meet the point.
    Mr. David Adams: May I ask the Minister what is meant by the very remarkable sentence contained in Clause 21, page 22, line 39? It says:
    "A grant equal to the appropriate proportion of so much of the expenses of a capital nature incurred by him in providing or securing the provision of the shelter as the Minister considers reasonable."
    Can the Committee have some explanation of what that very remarkable statement means? Are we to be dependent upon the general feelings of the Minister at any particular time, or is he given something definite?
    Sir J. Anderson: May I to save time call attention to the fact that the Clause does provide for regulations and deals with what is reasonable, and no expense should be deemed to be reasonable in so far as it exceeds the standard provided by regulation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 23, line 5, leave out"an approved type for," and insert"the approved standard for all or any of."
    In line 36, leave out from"Act," to the end of the Sub-section.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison. ]
    Question proposed,"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: I should be very glad if the Lord Privy Seal could grant a request which I am going to make for the miner's Members of Parliament. It is not very often that we ask for anything. May we have the instructions that he is giving to the mineowners so that the miners' representatives may be able to understand those instructions?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am not quite sure that I know precisely what the instructions are to which the hon. Member refers, but I can promise that any com-

    1049
    munication or instruction which may have been given by the Department to the employers in connection with this matter will be made freely available to the representatives of the miners.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Thank you. Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 54.—(Special provisions as to supply of water for extinguishing fires.)
    10.54 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 51, line 19, to leave out from"tank," to the end of line 39, and to insert:
    "the scheme may confer on the fire authority, for the purpose of constructing the tank and installing any pumping plant or other necessary apparatus, the like powers as are conferred on local authorities by Part II of this Act for the purpose of constructing underground air-raid shelters and works connected therewith."
    Hon. Members will recall that during the earlier Committee stage when we came to this Clause, which is concerned with the provision of underground tanks and apparatus of various kinds in connection with emergency fire fighting schemes, a promise was made that the provisions of the then Clause 7, which were to be replaced by the provisions of a new Clause, would be made applicable in a modified form to this Clause. This Amendment gives automatic effect to that pledge.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.55 p.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: May I ask the Minister one question? I am not certain whether there is anything in the point but I would like to put it to the right hon. Gentleman. The local authority which is the fire authority under Clause 54 is not the same local authority as under Clause 73. Under Clause 73, in the new draft, the local authority is given certain powers. The only proviso in regard to getting any authority from anyone else is where there is a highway authority which is an authority other than the local authority. That Clause will not be applicable in regard to the fire authority. The local authority who is responsible for roads but is not the highway authority will be using as it
    1050
    were its own property under Clause 7 (3), and therefore it does not have to give notice to anybody in such cases. In the case of the fire authority it will not be an authority using its own road and it should, in that case, give notice to the local authority who is responsible for the roads. It seems that this point has been overlooked and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look into it.
    Sir J. Anderson: This may be a more or less technical drafting point but I will see that it is looked into.
    Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a technical drafting point, but I am informed that in London the county council is the fire authority and the highway authority is the Metropolitan Borough Council. When you get into the county areas, you have in some cases the Minister of Transport as the highway authority for the trunk roads and the county council for the county roads. The county is not the fire authority at all. The county district authority, as the fire authority, is responsible only for the roads which I have not already enumerated. It is very important to get this point absolutely clear.
    Sir J. Anderson: When I said this was a technical drafting point I did not mean that it was unimportant. I thought there was agreement on both sides on this point, but the doubt raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is as to whether we have in fact agreed; that is the point.

    CLAUSE 59.—(Compulsory hiring of land.)
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 54, line 36, at the end, to add:
    "(5) Any reference in this Section to land includes a reference to any building or part of a building."
    This Amendment is necessary where a local authority wishes to hire part of a building, and express power is necessary to enable them to do so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 83.—(Short title, citation and extent.)
    Mr. Peake: I beg to move —
    10.59 p.m.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: On a point of procedure, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. I would like to ask whether, in fact on the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman is about to move, we are raising the points which are raised in the proposed new Clause (Provisions as to Northern Ireland) which is on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter entirely in the hands of the Committee.
    Mr. Benn: In that case I shall be right in raising the point which I want to raise. At an earlier stage in the proceedings I raised this point of procedure, or perhaps it is a point of Order. My contention is that Sub-section (2) of the Secretary of State's proposed new Clause is outside the Title of the Bill, because it amounts to an amendment of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.The reply of the Government is that in their view that is not the case. The reasons why I think it is outside the Title of the Bill, and in fact is a substantial amendment of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, are these: First of all, the Government of Ireland Act lays down, in Section 9, that certain matters relating to land are not within the competence of the Northern Ireland Government; and Section 4 specifically includes, as matters not within the competence of the Northern Ireland Government:
    "The making of peace or war, or matters arising from a state of war."
    I notice that in Clause 6 of the Bill the words"hostile attack" are used, so I imagine that the Bill does deal with matters arising from a state of war. Therefore it appears to me that the right course for the Government to pursue would have been to amend the Government of Ireland Act, and not to pretend by this strangely worded declaratory Subsection, that they always had the power to do these things. That is my first point. My second point is that, if it be a fact, as the Under-Secretary says, that Sub-section (2) is merely declaratory, and that the power exists already, under the Government of Ireland Act, to clear up these points, I would point out that Section 51 of the Government of Ireland Act lays down a special procedure for clearing up doubts as to what powers do and what powers do not reside with the
    1052
    Government of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the questions that I would put to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, are, first: Is this Amendment in fact a substantial Amendment of the Government of Northern Ireland Act, and, therefore, out with the Title of the Bill; and, secondly, if not, is the Amendment otiose or superfluous inasmuch as the machinery for making such a declaration already exists in Section 51 of the Government of Ireland Act?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must confess that it is extremely difficult for me to answer those questions, since I have not had sufficient time in which to consider them, but on the face of it I must rule against the right hon. Gentleman. It does not seem to me, as far as I can tell, that the Sub-section in question is unnecessary or outside the scope of the Bill. It does not strike me that either of those contentions is sound, and, therefore, I must conclude that the proposed new Clause is in order.
    11.4 p.m.
    Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 79, line 43, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I was going to suggest to the Committee, when the right hon. Gentleman rose, that it might be for the general convenience to take the discussion of this Amendment and of the proposed new Clause of the Home Secretary at the same time, and then to take a Division, if a Division is challenged, on either the one or the other, as the right hon. Gentleman may prefer. The general purpose of the Amendment is to give effect to an agreement which has been reached, subject to Parliamentary approval, between the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance, for the payment to the Northern Ireland Exchequer by the United Kingdom Exchequer of a contribution in aid of the cost of civil defence. This contribution is not to exceed a total of £ 750,000 for the next four financial years or £ 50,000 in any subsequent year, the amounts, of course, being determined, as stated in the body of the new Clause, by the Treasury from time to time. Sub-section (1) of the new Clause provides that
    "The provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of this Section, shall not extend to Northern Ireland."
    I think the whole Committee will agree that it would be administratively impos-

    1053
    sible, in a Bill of this kind, to apply its provisions to Northern Ireland directly, because that would involve direct negotiations and direct interference by the Treasury with the local authorities in Northern Ireland, and, on both administrative and legislative grounds — that is to say, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920— such a course would be practically impossible. Sub-section (2) of the new Clause, as I said in answer to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) this afternoon, is declaratory of the law, and it follows on a provision in the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, of a similar nature. The question of Civil Defence was, of course, not specifically dealt with in the Government of Ireland Acts, 1920 and 1922. In fact, at that time, obviously, this kind of defence was not in contemplation at all. Doubts existed in 1937 as to whose function this form of defence was; and that was the reason why we declared in Section 14 of the 1937 Act that:
    "It is and always has been within the functions of the Government of Northern Ireland to secure that in Northern Ireland precautions shall, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, be taken with a view to the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air, and that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to make laws for such purposes."
    Mr. Benn: Why did not the Government in 1937 make use of the machinery, which had been very carefully thought out in 1920, under Section 51, by which this matter could have been settled there and then without any declaration?
    Mr. Peake: I really think it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to leave me to explain the matter in my own way and to deal later on with any points he has to put. Following the Act of 1937, the Northern Ireland Parliament passed an Air-Raid Precautions Act in 1938. That provides for the apportionment of responsibilities and financial burdens between the Northern Ireland Exchequer and the local authorities in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in Great Britain. The present Bill goes further than the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, in imposing liabilities not only on local authorities but also on public utility undertakings and private persons, and provides for Government assistance to them. The Government of Northern Ireland contemplate introducing similar
    1054
    legislation in their Parliament, and, in so far as they incur expenditure for this purpose, they will, if this new Clause is passed, qualify for grants from the Imperial Exchequer in the manner proposed by this Clause.
    I am afraid I shall have to detain the Committee for a few moments in explaining the financial relations between the British Exchequer and Northern Ireland. The financial arrangements between, the United Kingdom and the Northern Ireland Governments depend on the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and the Consequential Provisions Act, 1922. Approximately 80 per cent, of the tax revenue of Northern Ireland is derived from the Northern Ireland share of the reserve taxes attributable to Northern Ireland. That is to say, the United Kingdom Government levies the Income Tax, Surtax and Customs and Excise, and administers the Post Office of Northern Ireland, and pays over the net yields of those taxes after deducting cost of collection. Broadly speaking, the people of Northern Ireland pay the same taxes as the people of Great Britain. On the expenditure side the same standard of social services is maintained and there is a Budget surplus, which in practice forms the contribution of Northern Ireland to the Imperial expenditure. Northern Ireland is obviously not among the most wealthy portions of the United Kingdom, and, for the last 10 years at any rate, has suffered very seriously from unemployment and depression. It has been, in fact, in very much the same position as our Special Areas, and even in the last I2 months the figure for unemployment has averaged 20 per cent., which is practically double the figure for Great Britain. Apart from certain reserved services, the cost of the local administration is borne by the Northern Ireland Budget, whilst the cost of Imperial services, such as defence, foreign affairs and so forth, is borne by the United Kingdom Government. In 1937 it was decided that legislation about civil defence should properly be passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament.
    As in the case of Great Britain, part of the public cost falls on local authorities and will not be affected by the proposed new Clause. As regards the portion falling on the Northern Ireland Exchequer, there is nothing in the Government of Ireland Act or the Act of 1922 which covers the question whether

    1055
    the United Kingdom Government should make some grant to the Government of Northern Ireland to cover part of the civil defence expenditure falling on the central Government of Northern Ireland. As long as expenditure on air raid precautions was comparatively small, there was no practical inconvenience in the way of it being charged to the Northern Ireland Budget without any grant from the United Kingdom, but the larger expenditure which will be required under the provisions of their legislation corresponding to the present Bill might seriously upset the Northern Ireland Budget if no grant towards it were made by the United Kingdom. If no grant were made the first result would be that the Budget surplus, and consequently the contribution of Northern Ireland to Imperial expenditure, would have been proportionately reduced. What we are doing by making a grant to Northern Ireland in respect of Air-Raid Precautions and Civil Defence expenditure is to enable them to continue to make a substantial contribution towards Imperial defence. The provisional figure for the Northern Ireland contribution was, in the year 1937-38, £ 1,100,000, in 1938-39, £ 1,000,000, and next year it is £ 700,000.
    Mr. Benn: What was it in 1920?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid I cannot give the figure.
    Mr. Benn: It was £ 6,250,000.
    Mr. Peake:We can go into these figures a little later on in greater detail, but I am pointing out that, as far as this heavy burden for Civil Defence and Air-Raid Precautions is concerned, there are three courses which might be followed. The first is that their Imperial contribution might be very greatly reduced. One alternative to that would be for them to increase taxation in Northern Ireland. This would be a very difficult thing for them to do because the principal taxes— Income Tax and Excise and Customs— are part of the reserved taxation, and the field available for increased taxation in Northern Ireland is exceedingly small. They already pay upon all the other subjects of taxation the same rate of taxes as people pay in this country. There is one other possible alternative which I am sure the whole Committee would wish to turn down, and that is that they should
    1056
    cut down their social services. I do not feel that it would be the wish of anybody in any quarter of the Committee that the social services in Northern Ireland should be reduced below the levels at which they stand at the present time, and which are on a corresponding scale to those in this country.
    Mr. Gallacher: What are the other alternatives?
    Mr. Peake: If there are any other alternatives the hon. Member will no doubt await his opportunity and tell us what they are.
    I want to say a few words about the amount of the proposed contribution. It would manifestly be wrong to provide for the whole of Northern Ireland civil defence measures on the same scale as are required for Great Britain, since the degree of vulnerability is not comparable, and account has been taken of this factor in assessing the total amount of expenditure in Northern Ireland. Apart from Belfast, which is obviously of very considerable importance on account of its shipbuilding activities and the naval construction which goes on in the shipyards, a considerable portion of Northern Ireland is of a character which does not require a very great deal of expense on Air-Raid Precautions and matters of the kind dealt with under this Bill. But if the expenditure in Northern Ireland were to be on a comparable basis per head of the population with that undertaken in this country, the expenditure in Northern Ireland would be 2.8 per cent. of the expenditure on Civil Defence undertaken in Great Britain.
    Government expenditure in Great Britain, including the Estimate for 1939– 40, and the proposed expenditure under the present Bill, will amount to approximately £ 81,000,000, and consists of £ 25,500,000 under the present Bill, £ 20,000,000 for steel shelters and £ 36,000,000 under the Air-Raid Precautions Act. Of that figure, 2.8 per cent. would amount to £ 2,268,000, so that if the expenditure in Northern Ireland was on a comparable basis with the average for the whole of Great Britain, that is the figure which Northern Ireland would have to spend under the Bill and the Air-Raid Precautions Act. In point of fact, the estimated expenditure in Northern Ireland is going to be £ 958,000, and that is 42 per cent. of the figure of

    1057
    £ 2,268,000, which would be the comparable figure, if they were to spend on these matters on the same scale as we are spending in Great Britain. The various heads of expenditure have been discussed and agreed between the Departments in Northern Ireland and in this country. The maximum grants proposed to be made represent 80 per cent, of the actual expenditure falling on the Northern Ireland Exchequer, that is to say whereas we under this Clause say that we are prepared to go to a maximum of £ 750,000 over a period of four years, in order to attract that grant the Government of Northern Ireland will have to expend at least £ 900,000.
    To summarise the facts that I have put before the Committee, it will be seen that the proposals do not affect the amount of expenditure falling on the local authorities, public utility undertakings or persons in Northern Ireland. All those bodies and individuals will have to bear exactly the same proportion of civil defence expenditure as they would do if they were situated in Great Britain. The British Government are prepared to contribute, subject to Treasury approval of individual items, up to £ 750,000 for the next four years, provided the Northern Ireland Exchequer are prepared to bear a burden equivalent to 20 per cent. As far as the £ 50,000 per annum in subsequent years is concerned, that provision is put in for two purposes. The first purpose is this: it may very well be that the Government of Northern Ireland will not expend such a sum as will attract the full grant from this country during the four years ending 1943. They are a good long way behind Great Britain in the undertaking of civil defence expenditure. Whereas in this country we have already spent rather more than half of our total estimated expenditure, in Northern Ireland they have spent barely one-third of their total estimated expenditure, and it is probable that they will not complete their schemes before the four years fixed by the new Clause expires.
    For that reason we are providing that a further £ 50,000 per annum may be granted in subsequent financial years. That sum will also be available to meet the expenses of maintenance and storage and other costs which will continue after capital expenditure has been completed. It is indeterminate in point of time but every item has to be
    1058
    approved by the Treasury and I can assure the Committee that there will be no undue extravagance under the proposals we are making.
    Mr. Gallacher: Money for everything except old age pensions.
    11.26 p.m.
    Mr. Benson: I must congratulate the Under-Secretary on putting a very good face on a very bad case. He suggested that the financial arrangements between this country and Northern Ireland depend upon the Act of 1920. It is perfectly true that the Act of 1920 intended to establish the financial arrangements between Great Britain and Ulster, but it has never succeeded in doing so. There has always been a steady demand for, and when the Conservative party have been in office, a steady grant of, subventions from the taxpayers of this country to Northern Ireland, and this is only the latest of a long series. Your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Dennis, ruled that Civil Defence was what is known as an Irish service upon which the Northern Irish Parliament was perfectly entitled to legislate itself. Section 21 of the Government of Northern Ireland Act says quite definitely that an Irish Service shall be borne out of Irish taxation. The words of the Section are:
    "The Government of Northern Ireland shall make provision for acts within its jurisdiction of Irish Services and any grant contribution out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom so far as made for these services, shall cease."
    The grant which is now being made does not come within the four corners of the Act of 1920. It is simply carrying on the policy of granting subventions to the pets of the Tory party. The Under-Secretary made a very strange suggestion: He said that when the expenditure on air-raid precautions was a very small amount it could be borne without any inconvenience, but that now that it has grown to a large amount we must not inconvenience Northern Ireland. So we must dump it on the British taxpayer. He asked what are we going to do? Are we going to ask them to cut down then-social services? Nobody on this side of the Committee would ask them to do that, but what we do ask is that they should cut down their undoubted extravagance.
    The Under-Secretary gave us a description of the financial arrangements be-

    1059
    tween this country and Northern Ireland. I should like to extend that description. He referred to the Imperial Contribution. The Imperial Contribution was to be one of the most important links between this country and Northern Ireland, according to the Government of Ireland Act; and under that Act, it was estimated that it would amount to £ 8,000,000 a year. Local Irish services were to be borne by Irish taxation, but Ulster was to pay her share of the very heavy Imperial expenses, such as War Debt, War Debt interest, and Defence. This year, we are paying some £ 200,000,000 interest on the National Debt and some £600,000,000 for Defence— a total of £ 800,000,000. That amounts to £20 per head for every man and woman in the country. The hon. Gentleman said that Ireland was making a handsome contribution towards this, and he gave us the figure. It was £ 700,000— 11s. per head of the population of Northern Ireland. We are paying £ 20 per head, and the handsome contribution which we get towards this from Northern Ireland amounts to us. per Irish head.
    But that leaves out of account entirely the various payments from this country to Northern Ireland. As a matter of fact, Northern Ireland contributes nothing to the Imperial expenses of this country; she is a drain and a drag year by year. To begin with, we have surrendered £650,000 a year in Land Annuities, which flow into the Exchequer of the Northern Ireland Government. In addition, this year we are making a payment of over £ 1,700,000 directly from our Exchequer to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland. The total loss this year on Northern Ireland, as far as the taxpayers of this country are concerned, is £ 1,600,000, irrespective of the proposed grant under this Clause. Now we are proposing, on top of that deficit of £ 1,600,000, to add £ 750,000 which may well be spent in the next 12 months, although it is a maximum over four years. In addition to that, I see that, according to a recent answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are proposing to pay agricultural subsidies to the farmers of Northern Ireland directly from the British Exchequer.
    All this adverse balance is what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department refers to as a handsome contribution from Northern Ireland. As the Clause is drafted, I say quite
    1060
    definitely, in contradiction of the Undersecretary, that there is practically no check on Northern Ireland extravagance. The whole of the present arrangements between this country and Northern Ireland put a premium on Northern Ireland extravagance. They are supposed to pay an annual Imperial contribution, but that Imperial contribution is the last charge upon the Northern Ireland Exchequer, and the more they spend inside Ireland, the less becomes that contribution to us. They know that, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, and they know how it works out. Lord Craigavon actually boasted how Parliamentary institutions do not cost the Ulster people a shilling.
    The whole expense of their comic opera Parliament is borne out of our taxation. Those words I have quoted were Lord Craigavon's words on 13th March, 1926, and I can see that in a very short time Lord Craigavon will be going about saying that the whole of A.R.P. does not cost the Ulster taxpayer a single shilling. In view of this extraordinary and extravagant arrangement between this country and Northern Ireland, we are entitled to ask what safeguards there are. The Under-Secretary said that an Act had been passed and was already in existence in Northern Ireland on the lines of the Bill which we are discussing.
    Mr. Peake: No, I should not like to be misunderstood. I said an Act had been passed on the same lines as our Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937.
    Mr. Benson: I beg pardon!—on the same lines as the Air-Raid Precautions Act. The hon. Gentleman suggested that, therefore, there was no likelihood of any wild expenditure in Northern Ireland. But this new Clause gives them power to pass an Act, not similar in terms to this Bill, but similar in intention. It gives them unlimited scope and a free hand. If the hon. Gentleman refers to Sub-section (2) of the new Clause, he will find that it gives Northern Ireland a free hand to pass any kind of Act they like and send the bill to us. The hon. Gentleman suggested that because the grant had to receive Treasury sanction, the Treasury would, therefore, be able to check the expenditure, but on what basis is the Treasury to check the expenditure? Is it to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General here? Are the accounts

    1061
    to come before the Public Accounts Committee of this House for examination, or is the Treasury to rely upon the audit of the spenders themselves? Are we to accept Northern Ireland's certificate that they have been careful and wise in their expenditure? There is no safeguard in the new Clause as it stands. I do not know whether the Government have any safeguard in mind. They may have, but all that we are concerned with is the wording of the Clause and there is no suggestion of a safeguard in it from beginning to end. We are shovelling out money for Northern Ireland and, as far as I can see, there is neither check nor control either contemplated or designed.
    There is another important matter. We have no guarantee that this money will be spent fairly and justly as between one local authority and another. There is in Ulster a very high percentage of Catholics in the population. Are they going to get their fair share? The Northern Ireland Government has a very highly developed spoils system. It has a spoils system which is a disgrace to the British Empire. It is practically impossible for a Catholic to get a job under the Northern Ireland Government. We are paying this year £ 1,600,000 into their Unemployment Insurance Fund. It may astonish the House to know that among the officials who conduct investigations under Part II of the Act — the means test — there is not one Catholic.
    Take another point. Education is a transferred service, and grants are under the control of the Northern Ireland Government. Of the building expenditure on schools last year, 93 per cent, was on Protestant schools and only 7 per cent, on Catholic Schools, yet 33⅓ per cent, of the population are Catholic. Of this - £ 700,000, is 93 per cent, going to be spent in Protestant areas, and will the Catholic areas get the other 7 per cent.? They are doing that in education. They have their spoils system working so far as their Government, civil servants, and employés are concerned. What precautions are there in this Clause? I am not prepared to hand over a penny of English taxpayers' money to Northern Ireland until this thing has been cleaned up. Every day the Government of Northern Ireland is a violation of the Government of Ireland Act. They were pledged in that Act to make no distinction between one religion and another, but their whole administra-
    1062
    tion is a violation of that pledge. Nothing whatever has been done, no attempt has been made, to check it. The Government here ask for a subvention of £ 700,000, and they give powers to the Northern Ireland Government not only to spend the £ 700,000, but to spend more. It is suggested by the Under-Secretary that the expenditure will be £ 900,000. We have no check on that, and even that extra £ 200,000 will not be borne by Northern Ireland; it will come out of the Imperial contribution. It is of no use pretending that Northern Ireland are bearing 20 per cent, of the A.R.P. expenditure. This expenditure there will be borne by grants from this House and by deductions from the Imperial contribution. That is the whole farce of the Northern Ireland position. We give them a comic opera Government which has enabled the Government of the six counties to be carried on by gangsters,"and send the bill in to us." I, for one, shall vote against this infamous Clause.
    11.43 p.m.
    Sir Ronald Ross: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and I hope it will be read by every working man in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Benn rose —
    Sir R. Ross: Surely it is a little early for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and interrupt.
    Mr. Benn: I was only going to ask whether the speech will be read by the 11 Ulster Members who are absent and whose work is being done by the Government. We seldom see or know anything of them until we read the Honours List.
    Sir R. Ross: That is too bad, and if the right hon. Gentleman had taken any interest in the matter, he would have known that there are not 11 Ulster Members absent. He has not counted us right, but if the right hon. Gentleman addresses himself to the topic, doubtless he will get it right. I was saying that I hope the speech that we have just heard will be read by every working man in the North of Ireland, so that they may read of the sneers and the jeers which came from the Socialist party. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite assist to impose taxes on Northern Ireland. We are not able to impose them on ourselves,

    1063
    but they are imposed from here, and we pay every penny as much taxation as anybody else does. Are we to be denied even the elementary right of being protected at the nation's cost?
    A little while ago we had from the so-called Socialists opposite the amazing contention that in a crisis the State could call upon the assistance of only those of its citizens who felt inclined to give it. [An HON. MEMBER:"Northern Ireland got out of the Military Training Act."] If so it was because hon. Members voted for that; it was not we from Ulster. We wanted to be on the same footing as everybody else. It was the one occasion on which all parties have been united, the National Government, the Opposition, the Liberal Opposition, the Independent Labour party, and the Communist party — to a man. They all voted for it, and it was entirely against the views of the representatives of Ulster, who wanted Ulster to bear the same share as everybody else in defence.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: That was a case of men, and not money.
    Sir R. Ross: I am coming to the money. I know it interests hon. Members opposite more than anything else. We in Ulster pay exactly the same as everyone else in the United Kingdom, and are we not entitled to the same protection?
    Mr. E. J. Williams: What do you take from us?
    Sir R. Ross: We take money for the social services. Do you want to stop them? What we were giving originally under the Act of 1920 was so many millions. As social services rise the amount we have to spend on them inside our area rises, too. To anyone of intelligence it would be clear that the more expenditure rises on the social services the more we are required to spend locally inside the area. Is this a new principle that areas are only to be protected in proportion to their wealth? Hon. Members opposite occasionally almost boast of the poorness of their constituencies and the hardships of their constituents. They are hoarse with their efforts to get more money. Apparently we in Ulster are either to put on extra taxes
    1064
    or are to be denied the elementary defences which everyone is given.
    As for the hon. Member for Chesterfield, he started off on a diatribe in terms of abuse which came very freely and easily from his lips. No doubt he is used to using them to his friends and other people. He said we were prejudiced and that Catholics could never get any appointments in Northern Ireland. There are many people who consider that Catholics have more than their fair share. It is a pity he does not know something about it. The police are an important body and out of the six county inspectors in Ulster four are Roman Catholics. He spoke about education. The Roman Catholic schools there have a greater degree of control than they get in Great Britain. The senior permanent official in the Department of Education, Northern Ireland, from the time Northern Ireland has existed up to this year, when this very distinguished and admirable official retired, was a Roman Catholic.
    Mr. Benson: You could not sack him.
    Sir R. Ross: We did not want to. We
    appointed him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must"take it" if he finds that he is wrong. He was appointed by the Northern Ireland Government, he served them well and faithfully and now he has returned after 17 years as the head of his Department. So I hope we shall hear no more on those lines. In any case, I think it was nice of you, Sir Dennis, to allow the hon. Member to stray so far from the matters before us. [HON. MEMBERS:"Order!"] If I have said anything which may be derogatory to you, Sir Dennis, I unreservedly withdraw it, because I think it has been fortunate for me to have the opportunity of denying these imputations. I cannot go very far into the subject or I should do so. As to the whole point of this question, as to whether it is an expense which is to be borne by the Imperial Exchequer or by the Northern Ireland Exchequer, the first time the matter came up was in the Air-Raid Precautions Act, Section 14. I raised the point. I did not get any assistance from the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite or from anyone else on the other side of the House. This was something outside the 1920 Act. There is nothing inside the 1920 Act which suggests that Northern Ireland should have

    1065
    to pay out of its own share of the taxes raised in its own territory towards defence. Any Defence Service has always been borne by the Imperial Government, but an agreement has been come to, and I do not propose to argue or try to go behind that agreement. But that agreement is specific in terms.
    I believe I am right in saying that all such things as the protection of Northern Ireland Government establishments are paid for by the Northern Ireland Government. On a percentage basis per head we are getting a far smaller contribution than anywhere else, and I think that is an agreement which is certainly by no means on the generous side to us. The duty of arranging these A.R.P. measures, and so forth, has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Government. They did not want it, but it was the difficulty of doing it from here. I still maintain that the ultimate responsibility is a responsibility for this country. The local authorities and everyone else will have to contribute in our country as they do elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gallacher: de Valera.
    Sir R. Ross: I heard an entire party making some rather unusually low comment at that moment. I suppose that that was, as usual, that we should go with Mr. de Valera into Eire. That would be driving us on to a scale of social services infinitely lower than those enjoyed in this country or in Northern Ireland. I do not think anyone wishes to put us on a lower scale of social services. At all events, it will be of great interest to working men in Northern Ireland. I would remind hon. Members opposite that there are over 80,000 members of British trade unions alone in that area, and they certainly will look with interest at the attitude taken up by the Socialist party here, which, in effect, says either that we should be deprived of the elementary rights against air raids or else we should have to pay extra taxes to provide them for ourselves. I do not think this is a particularly generous agreement with Northern Ireland, but it is an agreement, and, therefore, it should be honoured, and I think the attitude of any party which tries to deny the people in a big industrial area— because it is the Belfast area which is really the big area, and no one suggests that the small towns in
    1066
    Ulster should have much air raid protection— should try to deny them what is given to everyone else. That would be an outrage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    11.55 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I rise for the purpose of making a suggestion, to which, I understand, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is agreeable. It is that, since on the Amendment to leave out Subsection (2) we have had the discussion on the subject of Northern Ireland, it would be convenient if we could now divide on the new Clause and so clear that subject off the Order Paper. Then perhaps the Government would agree to report Progress, and we could proceed with the other new Clause straight away tomorrow.
    The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that his request that the new Clause (Provisions as to Northern Ireland) should be taken out of its order is unsual. The position, however, is that the only other items to be dealt with in Committee on the Bill are two new Clauses, and, as they are both Government Clauses, if the Government agree and the Committee generally do not object, I do not see why the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman should not be followed.
    Mr. Morrison: I appreciate that my suggestion is unusual, but as the discussion we have had has covered both the Amendment and the new Clause, it seems to me that, if we could clear the subject off now, so that it will not need to come up again to-morrow, it would expedite the business, and I am sure we shall all be very much obliged to you, Sir Dennis, if you can see your way to accept the proposal.
    The Chairman: I entirely agree that it would be an advantage, but I must guard myself against its being used as a precedent.

    NEW CLAUSE.— (Provisions as to Northern Ireland.)
    (1) The provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of this Section, shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
    (2)It is hereby declared that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to make laws for purposes similar to the purposes of the provisions of this Act which do not extend to Northern Ireland.
    (3)There may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Government of Northern Ireland, grants towards the expenses incurred by that Government for the purposes of civil defence, of such amounts as the Treasury may determine, so, however, that not more than seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds in all shall be paid under this Sub-section during the four financial years
    ending with the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and forty-three, and not more than fifty thousand pounds shall be paid under this Sub-section in any subsequent financial year. —[Mr. Peake.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question put,"That the Clause be read a Second time." —[Mr. Peake.]
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 76.

    Division No. 167.]

    AYES.

    [11.59 p.m.

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Albery, Sir Irving

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

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Hambro, A. V.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    peake, O.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Harbord, Sir A.

    Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

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

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Beechman, N. A.

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

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Boyee, H. Leslie

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Menmouth)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Rowlands, G.

    Bull, B. B.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Hunloke, H. P.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Hunter, T.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

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

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    James, Wing-commander A. W. H.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Jennings, R.

    Selley, H. R.

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

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Kellett, Major E. O.

    Spens. W. P,

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

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Soottish Univ.)

    Storey, S.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Kimball, L.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Leighton, Major B, E P

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Loftus. P. C.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Turton, R. H.

    Duggan, H. J.

    McCarquodala, M. S.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Dunglass, Lord

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Eastwood, J. F.

    McKie, J. H.

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

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Magnay, T.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

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

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Markham, S. F.

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

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Furness, S. N.

    Medlicott, F.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

    Wragg, H.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesay)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Gledhill, G.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Munro, P.

    Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Lieut-

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Colonel Harvie Watt.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Gallacher, W.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Daggar, G.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Dalton, H.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Barr, J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Dobbie, W.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Benson, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Burke, W. A.

    Ede, J. C.

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

    Cooks, F. S.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Collindridge, F.

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

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Macdonald, G. (Inn)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Marshall, F.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Jagger, J.

    Milner, Major J.

    Sorensen, R. W

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

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

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

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Paling, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    John, W.

    Parker, J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Pearson, A.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Price, M. P.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Kirkwood, D.

    Pritt, D, N.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Lathan, G.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Wilmot, J.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Ridley, G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Leach, W.

    Ritson, J.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Leonard, W.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Logan, D. G.

    Sexton, T. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    Resolution agreed to.

    Clause added to the Bill.
    Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.''—[Captain Margesson.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY [Money].
Resolution reported,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Ministry of Supply, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) the salaries of the Minister of Supply and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, and the salaries and allowances of other secretaries and officers and servants appointed by the Minister of Supply;

(b)payments by way of grant or loan for the purpose of inducing the augmentation of stocks or the improvement of storage facilities;

(c)grants in respect of capital expenditure reasonably incurred in complying with directions of the Minister of Supply to take measures which in his opinion are necessary to secure the due functioning of certain undertakings in the event of war, being grants at a rate in the pound equal to the standard rate of income tax for the year1939-40 on that expenditure;

1070

(d)any other expenses of the Minister of Supply to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury;

and to provide for the extension of the meaning of the expression" defence services ' in Section one of the Defence Loans Act, 1937."

BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the British Overseas Airways Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Nine Minutes after Twelve o'Cloc

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  JAPAN (IRON, COPPER AND OIL IMPORTS).
  JAPAN (IRON, COPPER AND OIL IMPORTS).
  PRODUCER GAS (DIESEL MACHINERY).
  PRODUCER GAS (DIESEL MACHINERY).
  GERMANY (IMPORTS OF HORSES).
  GERMANY (IMPORTS OF HORSES).
  RUSSIA, POLAND AND SCANDINAVIA.
  RUSSIA, POLAND AND SCANDINAVIA.
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES (SUBSIDIES).
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES (SUBSIDIES).
  MINISTERS AND DIRECTORSHIPS.
  MINISTERS AND DIRECTORSHIPS.
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
TELEVISION.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  PROVINCIAL SERVICE EXTENSION.
  PROVINCIAL SERVICE EXTENSION.
  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  CONGLETON.
  CONGLETON.
  STALYBRIDGE AND HYDE.
  STALYBRIDGE AND HYDE.
  HOLIDAY CAMPS.
  HOLIDAY CAMPS.
  PUBLIC HEALTH, STALYBRIDGE.
  PUBLIC HEALTH, STALYBRIDGE.
  INDIA (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER TRIBES).
  INDIA (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER TRIBES).
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION (VICTORIA GATE, HYDE PARK).
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION (VICTORIA GATE, HYDE PARK).
  ROYAL NAVY (OIL SUPPLY).
  ROYAL NAVY (OIL SUPPLY).
  CIVIL DEFENCE (WALLSEND).
  CIVIL DEFENCE (WALLSEND).
  CIVIL AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (COMMITTEE).
  CIVIL AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (COMMITTEE).
BRITISH ARMY.
  MILITARY TRAINING ACT.
  MILITARY TRAINING ACT.
  HORSES (EXPORT).
  HORSES (EXPORT).
  HEALTH.
  HEALTH.
  OFFICERS EMERGENCY RESERVE (BADGE).
  OFFICERS EMERGENCY RESERVE (BADGE).
  GREENOCK (TERRITORIAL UNITS).
  GREENOCK (TERRITORIAL UNITS).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY ENLISTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY ENLISTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS (EMBODIMENT CONDITIONS).
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS (EMBODIMENT CONDITIONS).
  SUMMARY PROCEDURE ACT (LONDON COURTS).
  SUMMARY PROCEDURE ACT (LONDON COURTS).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  COTTON INDUSTRY (CARDROOM DUST).
  COTTON INDUSTRY (CARDROOM DUST).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  WARWICKSHIRE COALFIELD (STATISTICS).
  WARWICKSHIRE COALFIELD (STATISTICS).
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (WALES, STATISTICS).
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (WALES, STATISTICS).
EDUCATION.
  MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME (WALES).
  MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME (WALES).
  BLACK-LIST SCHOOLS, GLAMORGAN.
  BLACK-LIST SCHOOLS, GLAMORGAN.
  MOTORING OFFENCES (DRUNKENNESS).
  MOTORING OFFENCES (DRUNKENNESS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (YORK WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "THETIS."
4.17 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE)THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE) moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to investigate and report upon all the circumstances surrounding the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis" and the subsequent attempts to save the lives of those in the ship.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the public inquiry which is the subject of this Resolution will, as I informed the House last Thursday, be held by Mr.
386
Justice Bucknill. The Judge has expressed the desire that he should have the assistance of three assessors, one of whom should be a naval officer with experience in the submarine service, another of whom should be one of the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, and the third of whom should be a person skilled in the science of naval architecture. It is accordingly proposed to appoint as assessors: Captain George Cunningham Paton Menzies, R.N., who is a submarine specialist in the Royal Navy; Captain Archibald Hamilton Ryley, one of the Elder Brethren; and Professor Thomas Bertrand Abell, Professor of Naval Architecture in the University of Liverpool. The appointment of these gentlemen meets with the full approval of Mr. Justice Bucknill. I need hardly remind the House that while the technical knowledge of the assessors will be of immense value in carrying out a full inquiry, their function is solely to assist Mr. Justice Bucknill, and they will have no responsibility for the findings of the tribunal.
The purpose of the Resolution now before the House is to apply to the inquiry the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. This Act confers upon a tribunal appointed by His Majesty or a Secretary of State, in pursuance of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the powers of the High Court to take evidence on oath, to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of documents. The Government will, of course, give all the assistance in its power to the tribunal, and as a considerable amount of preliminary work is necessary before the inquiry can be opened, the Treasury Solicitor has been instructed to place his services at the disposal of the tribunal for the purpose of collecting all the evidence and other material which the tribunal may require to have submitted to it.
The House may desire to have information as to when and where the inquiry will be held. These are, of course, matters to be decided by the tribunal, but I understand that it is not now intended, as was suggested in the statement which the Prime Minister made on Monday last, to defer the opening of the inquiry until the "Thetis" has been salved, as it is impossible to say how

387
long this will take. I understand, however, that every effort will be made to open the inquiry as soon as the necessary preparations have been completed and that, so far as the venue of the inquiry is concerned, the tribunal will consider the convenience of all parties in deciding where to hold the inquiry. The inquiry will accordingly be opened in London and some part held in Liverpool to enable the evidence which is more readily available there to be taken. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to investigate and report upon all the circumstances surrounding the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis" and the subsequent attempts to save the lives of those in the ship.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved last Thursday by Lord Snell, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers with reference to the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government.
4.21 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, when I moved the adjournment of the debate last Thursday, Lord Addington had just concluded a speech in which he made an earnest appeal on high Christian grounds for the policy of conciliation which had been adumbrated (to use that new word) by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. No one could possibly differ from the words Lord Addington used. Nor indeed, as I have read this debate anew, having heard every word that was said, do I think it would be easy for any reasonable man to differ from the words that were said by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and by the subsequent speakers. I trust that I shall not bring the debate down to a lower level, or say anything acutely controversial, but I have one or two things to say, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I say them very briefly.
The first is that I am an unrepentant believer in the policy known by another
388
new word which I do not like—the policy of appeasement. I was called to task by my noble friend Lord Cecil, when he said nobody believed in that policy. I said "I do," and I understood him to say that I was one of the untouchables or words to that effect. But I am quite unrepentant. I am quite sure that a conference is better than a war every time. Nor do I for a moment agree that this country sacrificed any essential of honour, still less of material advantage, by what was done at Munich and subsequently. I am convinced that history will record that what was then done, as was accepted at the moment by everyone, was done rightly and wisely and well, and so I stand here an unrepentant believer in conference—as a famous writer in The Times put it "conference before the killing begins." Of course it is right that that should be so. I agree, not that peace was bought at too great a price—I do not think that is in the least true—but that we must make ourselves strong so that as time goes on and other crises arise we shall be ready.
Since those days we have made immense strides. I understand from public statements and what I have learned from Ministers and others, whose opinions and whose knowledge are open to all of us, that the increase in our strength to fight is far greater than we anticipated six months ago. That is all to the good. Not that we believe for a moment in a policy of what is called aggression. I am going to submit that we have got to alter our vocabulary and abandon the word "aggression" altogether. Some years ago our trouble with Italy was all caused because it was known that in certain particulars we were so weak that we were barking up the wrong tree when we tried to pretend we could force agreement; we were not strong enough to do it. Now that has all changed. Now we are strong. Yet I am told on good authority that there is a chance of war because there are those who think that a sudden blow at the heart of the Empire can be so designed and so inflicted that we should be prepared, within a few weeks, to agree to a disgraceful peace, and that there are documents in existence which people have seen which show that that extraordinary delusion exists.
I have had some days to think over what I would address to your Lordships,

389
so I can choose my words. I agree that this extraordinary delusion does really obtain in responsible quarters across the North Sea. I can only give my own experience for what it is worth. Having been for twenty years responsible for raising troops by voluntary enlistment in a great county supplying a considerable portion of the Territorial Forces of this country, and having been in other ways brought into touch with the people of this country on non-party lines as Chairman of the National Savings Association, I can perhaps claim to have rather a unique opportunity of finding out what the mind of our people, men, women and children, is, and I say without hesitation, looking back to the days of 1914, when as Secretary of State for War I had to think of the same things, that the spirit of the people, their determination to join up, is far higher now than it was then. Indeed it is true that it was then most difficult to get the numbers we wanted by voluntary enlistment, whereas now our numbers for voluntary enlistment are overflowing. In almost every county in this land the Territorial Force is up to full strength.
How well we remember the days when we were distressing ourselves, and having discussions with the Opposition—of which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had a special cognisance, and of course also the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, who was in the Cabinet with me—as to whether it was possible to get the people to agree to some form of conscription, and nearly all of us agreed that it would split the country from top to bottom. It was for that reason and not for any political reason that we abandoned any such idea at that time. Now see what has happened. Only this morning I received information from responsible officials who tell me that they themselves were quite astonished that the whole of what is termed conscription was gone through without a hitch of any kind, and that their only embarrassment was that many more people turned up than they thought could possibly attend. Having regard to the number who had already joined up, and to all those who might be in hospital, they had formed a very good estimate of the number, but that estimate was exceeded. My Lords, believe me, in my journeys from end to end of this country, talking to the national savers, a quiet body of people who
390
represent the majority in this land, I find a unanimity of heart and soul among the people of Britain to stand for what they think just and right which is incomparably greater than that shown at any time in my recollection.
Then, if my words might reach across the North Sea, what folly it is to think, when they failed utterly to crush us by surprise attack in those days, that the burning down of some towns, the destruction of beautiful buildings, the killing of women and children, would make our people give in now. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that just the opposite effect would be the result: the people of this country without exception, would say: "We will never give in, and we will walk forward resolutely right to the end." I have said this because, so far as I know, nobody has pointed out the great change that has come over our people. It is a real change. There is a determination that they will not give in. Now comes the question, Change to what? "And here I plead for a rearrangement, not of our forces but of our vocabulary. Especially I would appeal to the noble Lords, Lord Snell and Lord Addison, that they would not say, "We stand fast for democracy," because that is so embarrassing. Our old ally Portugal and our old friend Turkey, so vital to us in this business, cannot join in that fight. They do not call themselves democracies and do not pretend for a moment to be democracies. And if you are going to pursue this idea and go further into Europe, into another country, how absurd it is to say "We fight for democracy." That is not what we fight for. Still less should we say we are fighting against totalitarian States. Far from it. Our most valuable allies and friends are themselves totalitarian States.
Then what do I suggest? I suggest that we should say, "We stand for, and we should like to call ourselves the head of, a League for Fair Play." That is a very simple English expression, a League for Fair Play, to see that the little man is not done in by the big man. We stand or fall by that. But other people do not understand our language so well. Then I would say this is a League of Humanity. We seek humane methods, as opposed to brutal methods. Believe me, my Lords, if you are going to get people to fight for a cause, von must tell them what we are fighting for in unequivocal terms. If

391
you tell them we are going to fight for democracy against totalitarian States, and they find themselves alongside people who take the opposite view, the thing will be a failure. So, with respect, I say you should form now a League of Humanity. If we must have a lingua franca which all men can understand, I would quote, though its context is not so magnificent as the words, something which was said to me by the late Dr. Butler of Harrow School. He said to me as I was leaving Harrow School: "My boy, let this be your motto" and handed me a paper on which were written words which I can only speak in the way we Harrow boys spoke, and not as Winchester men talk. The words were these: Homo sum; humani nihil à me aliènum puto. I would interpret that as meaning that I am going to stand for any other man of the human species and save him from attack by the big man who is trying to down him in an unjust cause. That is what we are fighting for.
Having defined as best I may the kind of league which I think His Majesty's Government, with the full support of any other Government, should form, I make a further suggestion of which I ventured to send notice to my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is a suggestion which I believe is not altogether inopportune. If you are going to say to all these millions of people who are going to be prepared to fight, and will fight, in the cause of humanity, you must give them some idea that you are starting on a new course, a more humane course. I hope your Lordships will not reject this idea at once, because, believe me, other people, infinitely more important than myself, have thought that there is a real point in it. It would be a good plan to ask of all who join this League of Humanity that they should begin by saying "As between ourselves, we foreswear forever the most brutal means of warfare and we will, as far as we can do it, abolish the submarine."
I remember attending a naval review with a very eminent Indian statesman. We looked at the battleships and cruisers and the other surface ships, and he said: "I, as a Buddist, can look at these with some comfort, because in the terrible catastrophes that have befallen mankind in my life—the earthquakes of Messina and Martinique, the floods in China. The
392
earthquakes in Japan—the British Fleet have been foremost in saving human lives. It is true they would have done better without their guns, but they have done their best in the saving, not of tens of thousands, but of hundreds of thousands of lives." Then we came to the submarines and he said: "Can they do any of these things?" and I said "No." He said: "What is their function?" and I said: "To starve and to drown." He said: "Can the submarine do none of these things?" I replied: "Oh no, it is totally unfitted for anything else." He said to me a profound thing, which I quoted to M. Clemenceau and Marshal Foch at the end of the War. He said: "And yet you white men profess and call yourselves Christians." It is profoundly true that every submarine which swims on the sea is a sign to all and sundry that our Christian professions are as nought. Suppose you said to each of those who joined this League of Humanity: "We are going to stand together. Let us begin by saying we will abate the most acute horrors of war. Hitherto we have been saying that we will foreswear war altogether. That has not worked very well. Let us do what was done long years ago in the days of chivalry. Let us begin by stopping the most brutal and horrible things." I think really that gives a better chance. Foolish men have said: "Oh, no. The nations will never stop at anything." That is not true, because they have not killed their prisoners. Whether from fear of consequences or from inherent recoiling from a thing so base, they have not killed their prisoners. They have not, in fact, poisoned the water supplies of whole countries, though they could have done so.
Let us, I respectfully submit, begin in this way and say to our friends: "Abandon submarines." I know that some here will say at once: "Oh, but you are thinking of the days when that nearly came about, at the time of the Treaty of Versailles, when we know you took a leading part"—as I did, because I was one of the delegates at Versailles. It has been said—I saw in yesterday's Press an eminent sailor repeating it—that the submarine is the weapon of the weaker Powers, so that no one will ever agree to that so long as England has a predominant Fleet, and as England must have a predominant Fleet in order

393
to survive, you never can do it. The thesis is untrue. I see before me a man who knows that I am not speaking without the book when I say that the advance of science in the detection and destruction of submarines has got to such a point that it is true to say that only those who have a preponderance of surface ships can use the submarine weapon. I will quote here one who is perhaps our greatest military genius, whose name I will give to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, though I am not entitled to give it to your Lordships. He said to me not long ago, in good, simple words, all the facts having been placed before him—among others by Lord Chatfield, whom I see here—"The submarine is as dead as the dodo." He added "Given the money." The money has been provided. It is an emphatic way of stating what is in fact a truth. Given the predominance in surface ships, modern science and certain developments which I need not here particularise have made it true to say that, although it is the fact that certain other Powers have a new technique of building submarines which enables them to turn out such a vessel at least twice as fast as could have been done a few years ago, modern technique has provided us, and all those who do not like the submarine, with a method to destroy them far more quickly than they can be produced if they attempt to function in the open sea.
I say this because I challenge contradiction in suggesting that now is a time when you can make a proposition for the abolition of submarines and submarine warfare without being countered by the statement that it is the weapon of the weaker Power. It is not; it is the weapon of the stronger Power, and the stronger a Power in surface ships, the greater is the power for mischief of its submarines. The weaker the Power in surface ships, the more dangerous is it for it to attempt to use the submarine. If this suggestion should commend itself to my noble friend—I hope he will not completely reject it; there are, I know, others who would not reject it—it might open the way to this Humanitarian League, asking the others to join us. There would be only three men who would have to say, "Well, we agree to it"—only two in Europe and one in the Pacific: the Emperor of Japan, the King of Italy, and the Chancellor of Germany. If those were to say
394
"We agree," at once the dream that we all dreamed in 1919 might come true—it nearly did come true—and all the submarines in the world could be towed out into deep water and sunk in a thousand fathoms. It might happen. I say nothing of Spain, because it is well known that Spain would naturally agree to such a proposition, exhausted as she is by such a terrible struggle and only too anxious to recuperate in peace. Nor need I refer to the United States, because we know full well from his previous utterances that the President of the United States would be the first to join if such a proposal were acceded to.
And, of course, once that were done, although the League of Humanity might not yet have come to an agreement with the other States, we might go further—who knows?—and say: "Why should we not do this for the long-range bomber, before the killing begins and before we all become troglodytes, before all the squares in our towns are filled up with trenches with difficulty freed from water, before we all go stark, staring mad, so that they will say in the future that there was not a sane man amongst us?" We might agree not to do this foolish thing, especially, to come back to the thesis which I first put before your Lordships, as nothing of that kind can destroy the heart, soul and spirit of the British people, and, I vow, not of the French people either. On those lines—and if they are perhaps novel now, I submit that they are worthy of consideration—we might well proceed.
There is one more subject, and then I have done. It is proposed by a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, in to-day's Times that we might well revive the Ministry of Propaganda. Of course we all know that certain preliminary steps have been taken to that end. Now I would plead that if we do revive the Ministry of Propaganda, it should be confined strictly to telling the truth. I implore His Majesty's Government, and I will ask the Foreign Secretary, to assure me that they have no intention of supporting a Ministry of Propaganda countering lie with lie.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD MOTTISTONE: That way danger lies. I speak of what I know in this matter. In common with ever so

395
many whom I am addressing, I spent long years with fighting troops on the Western Front, and I also served on other fronts. We know what the soldiers thought: all these lies disseminated by the different propagandas of the different countries did infinitely more harm than good. There was one particular, damnable lie which, if it had been true, would have made it impossible for us ever to shake hands with our enemies again. I remember so well when it was brought to me, and I see one here to whom it was also brought. I said then: "That is a lie." I asked my colonels—I had then a considerable force—to meet me, and I said: "Are you prepared to issue this to the troops under your command?" They answered "No! No, Sir; even if you order us, we will not do it; it is a lie." And they used various expletives about the lie which, as they were Canadians, I cannot possibly reproduce in your Lordships' House!
I implore the Government not to be led astray—and there are people who want to do that. Let all the propaganda be open and above-board; but let every effort be made to make the people of other countries understand the truth. Let them realise that, far from brutalities happening in Palestine, there the example of restraint set by our troops in most difficult circumstances has been almost the most remarkable thing in these post-War years. Let all that be said. But to try to tell lies, or even to vilify the enemy—that way danger lies, and it may well make peace impossible and war certain. I hope that nothing I have said will in any way make the situation more difficult or dangerous—I hope not. I hope the noble Viscount, when he speaks, will very kindly give me an answer to the two questions that I have asked him. I believe that if we keep our heads and our tempers, there is no doubt that the next harvest that we shall await will not be a harvest of blood and tears, but a harvest of peace and good will.
4.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord—in its beginning, at any rate—was a very fitting continuation of the speech made by my noble friend on Thursday, and I would suggest that few even of those of us who have had the longest Parliamentary experience
396
can have listened to a speech which more faithfully presented British ideals or gave a more accurate account of the British aims and objects than the speech made by my noble friend on that occasion. In addition to presenting a view which I believe to be shared not only by the overwhelming majority of our fellow-countrymen but also by our fellow-countrymen overseas, who find expression in their own Parliaments, the speech was an appeal to a world that shows obvious signs of incipient madness, to pause and take stock of the situation while still in a position to do so, and quite rightly it promised our wholehearted co-operation in any genuine and sincere attempt to find a peaceful solution for the many intricate problems which darken the international horizon.
At the same time, my noble friend, I think, laid proper emphasis on the fact, which is just as important as our desire for peace, that if the leaders of other countries are determined to submit their case and their countries to the arbitrament of war, there are principles and interests for which we will fight, and that we have complete confidence in the result. I am afraid that in the present state of the world it is unfortunately true that the last part of my noble friend's speech was the most important, because the most urgent matter at the moment appears to be to find an effective deterrent against the continuation of the practice, which has been adopted with success in recent years, of solving questions by the sudden threat of employing overwhelming force. No one can doubt, and no one does doubt, our readiness to talk, but there is only too much reason to think that widespread doubts exist as to our willingness and readiness to fight, and surely nothing can be more important than to make quite certain that the world does not repeat the tragic mistake of July, 1914, in that respect.
But even if that is achieved, it will not solve the world's difficulties. At the best, it can only provide an opportunity for a genuine attempt to solve them by peaceful means rather than by war. Even so, what an immense gain that would be, and in that connection the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down raised another part of my noble friend's speech on Thursday—namely, the importance of each side trying to understand the other's point of view. If the noble Lord opposite

397
can really get the idea of fair play into the heads of those who may conceivably be our opponents, he will have done a very great work, but it is not going to be easy, and if one approaches the situation from the angle of endeavouring to inform one's self of the opinions of those who may be opposed to us, the immense difficulties of the task at once become apparent, and that for the very obvious reason that over a very wide area of the Continent of Europe the usual channels through which public opinion normally finds expression have been closed—the public Press and the platform. Dr. Goebbels is reported to have proclaimed his intention of making all Germans think as one man. With an intelligent and highly gifted race like the Germans, that is, of course, impossible, but what apparently can be done, and appears indeed to have been done, is to make the newspapers all write as one man, and a study of the German and Italian Press at the moment is not very encouraging.
When one draws on private sources of information which are open to those of us who have Italian and German friends, one finds that a view is widely held by both Germans and Italians who are by no means hostile to us, and who certainly do not want war, that it is unreasonable on our part, having acquired a world-wide Empire, largely by conquest, to stand in the way of other nations who feel that their necessities compel them to imitate our example. Another view was expressed to me recently by a young Nazi. I asked him whether he and his contemporaries really wanted war, and I added that my question was due to the widely-held impression that the attitude of Germany, to-day, bore a remarkable resemblance to the German attitude before the outbreak of war in 1914. His reply was that he and his contemporaries did not want war, but had no fear of war. They felt, he told me, that it was essential that a great country should be strong in order that in the event of its failing to satisfy what it looked upon as legitimate demands by negotiation, it should be powerful enough to achieve its object by force of arms.
There is another view held on the Continent, which was well described in an interesting article by Commander King-Hall in the Press on Saturday, where he pointed out that the idea of
398
encirclement was being preached in season and out of season in Germany. We all remember that that is precisely what happened in the years previous to 1914. The new factor appears to be that, in order to meet the undoubted fact that it would be just as hard to lead Germans on to an aggressive war as it would be easy to rally the whole country in defence of the Fatherland, the proper answer to encirclement is deemed to be counter-encirclement. I believe those are the views which are widely held abroad, and it is right and proper that the remarks of my noble friend below me, and of my noble friend opposite, as to our determination being far more universal than it was in 1914, should be equally well understood. If that happens I can see no ground why reason should not prevail in the long run. We live certainly in the days of miracles, that is to say, things happen which a year ago no one in his wildest moments would have dreamed could happen. Is there any reason why we should not enter upon a good time in the future?
There is another point which is germane to the subject—namely, the point of view of ourselves and of other countries, to which I would like to turn for a moment, and ask my noble friend below me some questions. The Prime Minister recently stated in a speech in another place that it was incumbent upon us to make our position clear and unmistakable, whatever might be the result, but unfortunately he followed that up, some six weeks later, with another speech in which he pointed out that the Colonial question would have to play a part in laying down the conditions in which a settled peace could be established, and he stated in that connection that there were many concessions which might without too great difficulty be made if one could be certain that they would not be used to bolster up some strategic aim. I read those words with disquiet. I wondered what inference would be drawn abroad from those remarks of the Prime Minister. I wondered what inference we ought to draw from them ourselves—and among ourselves I include in particular our fellow subjects, native, British and Indian, who inhabit the Colonies in question, and who suffer from the unique disability within the Empire that they are not represented in any of our Parliaments.

399
If I crave your Lordships' indulgence in representing their case, which of course I cannot claim to do in anything but a perfectly private capacity, I would venture to do so on the ground of an association with tropical Africa which began immediately after the Battle of Omdurman, and extends therefore, with interruptions, over a period of more than forty years. No one who has had that experience can fail to have developed a genuine liking for the African native, and a great admiration for the officials and soldiers who spend a great part of their lives in Africa, and for the pioneers whose energy and enterprise have been responsible for the development of the natural resources of that great Continent. There have been mistakes without doubt, but, taking it by and large, we are entitled to be extremely proud of the work of our fellow countrymen in Africa, and the raising of the standard of living of the African has been something which nobody could possibly have foreseen forty years ago.
I had the experience only the other day of driving in a car along a road close to a place where, forty years ago, I remember encountering a perfectly naked black man armed with a spear, followed by a wife dressed in the same costume, carrying on her head all the family chattels. Well, I met possibly the grandchildren of that couple, the boy dressed up to the nines on an up-to-date motor bicycle, with his girl on a pillion behind him, exactly the same as a couple you might meet, except for the difference in colour, on the outskirts of any of our cities. I asked four people of experience—a District Commissioner, an experienced settler, a Roman Catholic Archbishop, the head of the missionaries, and a young man just out from Oxford—how much of all this change was mere change and how much represented progress and real improvement. The men whose opinions counted most, the settler and the District Commissioner, said it was at least fifty-fifty. The missionary put it considerably higher, and of course the young man from Oxford, who had had no opportunity of studying the question, bluntly said: "You cannot arrest the march of progress." He will learn more about that very quickly.
The situation as these people see it is that the Prime Minister has expressed the
400
view that in certain circumstances many concessions might be made, and it is not unreasonable that they should feel that any concessions can only be made at their expense. On the other hand, we have all read the reported demand of the German Chancellor for the return of the Colonies which he says were stolen from Germany. It is safe to infer that so long as that sort of language is used the prospect of any sort of understanding must be small indeed. But taking an optimistic point of view, and assuming, as we are entitled to assume, that the efforts of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister persuade the countries involved to discuss their differences in a reasonable frame of mind, what sort of concessions are we in fact prepared to make in regard to the Colonies? I should be glad if my noble friend could enlighten me on this subject, because I can assure him that my post-bag makes it clear that I am by no means alone in feeling anxious about it. At the same time I hasten to assure him if he feels he cannot answer me, that I recognise of course that in times such as we live in it is he alone who can judge what it is proper to say or not to say.
But I do beg leave to point out this. We have assumed heavy responsibilities towards the native inhabitants of the territories involved. You cannot destroy a whole system and replace it with another system, and then leave the whole thing to go back as it was. It will not go back. The situation of these territories gives them capital importance to us from the strategic point of view; their retention is as important to us from the point of view of defence of Imperial communications as their possession would be important to a hostile Power as bases from which those communications might be cut. The main reason for the retention of the Colonies conquered from Germany after the war was strategic. In view of the unparalleled efforts which we are devoting to the strengthening of our defence forces at home, is there any sense in contemplating the possibility of surrendering vital strategic points abroad? The answer seems to me to be so indubitable that it seems hardly necessary to ask the question. In that case what concessions can the Prime Minister have had in mind? Already under the mandatory system Germany, in common with other nations, enjoys equal economic advantages with ourselves. She is on complete equality

401
with ourselves, except from the point of view of sovereignty. Her demand is quite clearly that we should surrender the sovereign powers which we now hold. I hope that it may be taken for granted that His Majesty s Government do not contemplate this as a possibility.
In conclusion may I urge this point in extenuation of a speech of unaccustomed length so far as I am concerned? It is possible to visualise a situation arising where the only obstacle to the establishment of an enduring peace may appear to be the sovreignty of the former German Colonies. We ourselves are only involved to the limited extent covered by the territories which we now hold subject to a Mandate under the League of Nations; that is to say Tanganyika, a small part of the Cameroons, and Togoland. France, Belgium, South Africa., Australia, New Zealand, and Japan all bold former German territories under similar conditions. We obviously cannot speak for them. But the danger that I see is this, that it is quite possible that we may be accused of jeopardising the prospects of enduring peace by obstinately clinging in a dog-in-the-manger spirit to a few hundred thousand square miles of African desert of which we already hold far more than our share. I suggest that criticism of that kind is on all fours with the "Danzig is not really worth a war" attitude. It strikes me as a dangerous and misleading half-truth. At the end of the last century we very nearly came to blows with France over the Sudan. We stood firm on that occasion, and reason prevailed then. It would be tantamount to admitting the bankruptcy of civilisation and statesmanship to believe that reason will not prevail in almost similar circumstances again.
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the speech of my noble friend Lord Stone-haven in dealing, as he did, with one particular aspect of this problem, the Colonial question, which no doubt will have to be dealt with, but does not appear to me to be one of the questions which it is urgently necessary for the Government and the House to settle at this moment. Nor am I going to take up the challenge that my noble friend Lord Mottistone delivered to me to justify a rather hasty observation I made in reply
402
to an interruption by my noble friend. He will forgive me for saying that this habit of interruption does occasionally lead to such unfortunate results.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Yours or mine?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Both. I propose to confine myself to the very striking and impressive speech which the Foreign Secretary delivered on Thursday. That raised completely the real questions we have to consider at this moment. He began his speech by dealing with two or three special questions. I do not propose to say anything about them, except as to China. He quoted with very legitimate pride the statement that Dr. Wellington Koo had thanked him for his sympathetic attitude at Geneva. I have the great honour of the acquaintance of Dr. Wellington Koo, and I am quite sure he would have thanked my noble friend whatever he had said, feeling that that was only a decent civility from the Chinese point of view. But I do not believe there is very much difference of opinion between my noble friend and myself about this question of China, except on one point.
I imagine he would agree that the controversy which is raging in the terrible war in the Far East is precisely the same controversy as is waging—fortunately without war—at this moment in Europe. It is the great question which we have got to settle, and which I look upon with the greatest anxiety, as I believe everyone in your Lordships' House looks upon it—is it legitimate for a country to make aggression on another country in order to carry out what it regards as its material or even political interests? Ought there to continue that which always used to exist—namely, the right of war on the part of any sovereign State? I believe that is the real issue with which we have to deal, and that is certainly the issue which is being fought out in the Far East. It is the attack, the aggression, the invasion by Japan of China, carried out with a ruthlessness which must be the subject of admiration from a certain school in Germany, but which I am glad to believe would be impossible, even nowadays, in Europe. I know the immense difficulty about doing anything about China. It would be indiscreet if I were to dwell on it in detail. That, indeed, is a matter entirely for the Government to deal with, but I should

403
be glad if my noble friend could give us the assurance, not only that he is sympathetic with China, which I am sure everyone in this House is, in the terrible position in which she is placed, but that he recognises, if there is any possibility, and so far as there is any possibility, we ought to do everything to assist China to drive back the Japanese invasion from her shores.
That is all I desire to say on the special points with which my noble friend dealt, but I do want to say a few things about the general policy as outlined in the extraordinarily interesting and, to me, extraordinarily persuasive speech which he delivered. If I understand my noble friend rightly, he considers there are two main chapters, as it were, of our foreign policy. The first is to resist and prevent aggression as far as we can. I will not quote his words, but I have the speech here and I was delighted when he put it in a very general phrase. I naturally am in entire agreement with that. The Covenant of the League of Nations, which I have spent some time now in considering and advocating, rests indeed on that theory, almost principally—the objection to a resort to war in pursuit of either a righteous or unrighteous cause unless everything possible has been done to try and settle the difficulty by agreement. Therefore I have no kind of criticism to make of that part of my noble friend's speech. He then goes on to say that the other great aspect of foreign policy must be our readiness to deal by negotiation and discussion, or, I suppose he would say, by arbitration or mediation or any other way, with any international difference that may arise. There, again, of course, I am entirely in agreement with him. Although I see questions have been raised as to whether it was judicious at this moment to put that forward quite so definitely as he did, I think he is very likely to be a better judge of that than his critics, especially with the information that he has at his disposal. I doubt whether it is ever indiscreet or undesirable to state what you believe to be fundamentally the truth, and I believe that to be fundamentally the truth. So far I am in entire agreement with the policy my noble friend advocated.
Now we come to the methods by which that policy is to be carried out. As to the resistance of aggression, he advocated
404
what is now conveniently called the peace bloc. He had the general support of the House in that advocacy except, I noticed, from my noble friend Lord Phillimore, who was unhappy, as I understand, because he thought Russia was to be brought into the peace bloc. As to the desirability of that on material grounds I am afraid I take a different view altogether from Lord Phillimore on that point, and I cannot help thinking that the fact that the possible aggressors are so very anxious that Russia should not come into the peace bloc must be a pretty good ground for thinking she will be an important factor if she does come in. I am not going to argue the question of Russia at any length, but I would like to say a word regarding the position of those who hold the view that we ought not to receive assistance in the cause of peace from a country like Russia, not, I hope, because her economic views are different from ours—because that would be a ridiculous ground—but because she takes a different view, unhappily, on questions of religion. I cannot see why that should be so. If Russia is prepared to help us to do what is right, I cannot see that we are justified in not accepting, and indeed in asking for that acceptance, because she holds other views which we are confident are wrong. If that view is to be held, I wonder why Lord Phillimore raised no objection to the entry of Turkey into the peace bloc though he did raise strong objection to the entry of Russia. On that kind of ground I see no distinction between Russia and Turkey.
I pass from that, and come to the more serious, more thoroughgoing objection of Lord Ponsonby. He said—and I was delighted to hear him say it—that he greatly preferred the League's system to the system of the peace bloc. So do I, very much. I prefer it because it is a permanent device for dealing with all aggression and not only with the immediate emergency in which we are engaged now. If we are to go on in Europe, I am perfectly clear myself that we have got to have some permanent machinery by which aggression will be stopped, not merely by a hastily summoned alliance of countries who fear a particular aggression, but as a general principle in international affairs. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary rather suggested that his difficulty was that the League was not effective. I am quite certain, if he will

405
forgive my saying so, that if this country had put into the maintenance and support of the League half the energy and vigour and courage which it has put into organising the peace bloc, the League would have answered and worked admirably and perfectly well. And I think it would have had great advantages. Not only is it permanent but it has the immense advantage that it is not directed against any particular country. I know it is said that the peace bloc is there to stand against any aggression. Unfortunately, owing to the circumstances in which it has been formed, it is, obviously, almost a bloc to resist Germany, and that opens up—I will not say the whole but a large part of the difficulties in which we find ourselves with regard to that country.
So far, therefore, though I am afraid I do not go very far with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, he and I are agreed in preferring the League system to the peace bloc system, but it would be very unfair to him if I suggested that that was the main view he held. He believes in total disarmament and a completely pacifist policy. I suppose anyone who has thought about it at all would agree with him that if such a policy were practicable—that is to say, if you could induce all countries in the world to abandon armaments and rely solely on discussion—that would be an immense improvement in the world, a fresh birth of civilisation; but I see no prospect of it. We have seen in a very recent case indeed what happens to a country when it is put into the position of being totally unable to defend itself. What happened in the case of Czecho-Slovakia? In spite of the challenge of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I am not going again into the question whether she was rightly induced or wrongly induced, but she was induced to abandon her effective defences. Her line of defence was handed over to Germany, her arms were handed over to Germany, all her money was handed over to Germany, and she was absolutely powerless. And then what hapened? Not that Germany treated her any better, but immediately took the opportunity of marching into Prague and, in effect, annexing the whole of the country. With all respect to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, I am not prepared to put my country in the same position as Czecho-Slovakia.
406
I cannot help feeling that nowadays, as the world is, force is essential, inevitable and unavoidable. What I do say—and I do beg my noble friend to consider very carefully whether he does not ultimately agree that this is so—is that it is far better that that force should be controlled and regulated by a great international authority than that it should be left entirely at the disposition and control of each country, merely anxious to use it for its own purposes. That seems to me the only difference that remains between my noble friend and myself.
So much for the question of aggression. May I just say a few words about the point of negotiation? As I have said, I am strongly in favour of negotiation on any subject provided, as the Foreign Secretary made quite clear, that the negotiation is carried on in a really peaceful atmosphere, without any threat by one side or the other. But my difficulty about the Foreign Secretary's system is that he contemplates—probably he would tell me it is the only practicable thing—bilateral negotiation with Germany. I do not think that is going to be a successful way of dealing with the difficulty with which we are faced. I think it is true to say that Germany—and of course by Germany I mean in this case the Government of Germany, for I cannot tell what the people think, though I can hope they do not take the same view as their Government—that the Government of Germany do not take fundamentally the same view as we do of these international questions, and that is the real difficulty. I do very earnestly urge upon my noble friend and noble Lords in all parts of the House to consider that aspect of the case, because, unless we get clear about that, we shall not be able to deal with this subject by any kind of negotiation, and we are almost certain to drift into war.
It is not the case that Germany and we think broadly alike, that Germany has certain grievances of a special, specific and definite character, and that if you could only remove those grievances we should all be able to work together for a common purpose in a common way. Unhappily, I do not believe that that is a true account of the situation at the present time. I believe not only this Government of Germany but all the Governments of Germany of which I have any knowledge, from the time of

407
Frederick the Great downwards, have taken an entirely different view. Their view has always been that the nation's right depends upon its strength, and that the only real test of whether a national action is justifiable or not is whether the country which carries it through is able to carry it through. I know that sounds very shocking to British ears, but I am convinced that it is the position. They have erected the State into a kind of semi-divine position. That is my view; it may be wrong; but if I am right you will never understand the German position unless you recognise that they believe the State to be a semi-divine institution which it is wrong and wicked for any of its subjects to oppose, which makes its own law for itself, and says that what the State intends to do, and makes clear that it intends to do, becomes right by that fact alone. I may put this too strongly, but I believe, broadly speaking, that is right.
I was interested in the account—I am afraid he has left the House for a moment—that Lord Stonehaven gave of a conversation with a Nazi friend, because it was really very much what I have been saying, that when you came to examine what the Nazi meant it was consistent with the explanation I have given and consistent with no other. What the Nazi said, in effect, was: "We do not desire war, but if we cannot get what we wish without it, then we are not afraid of it." In other words they say: "The whole thing is: Are we strong enough? Have we the power to carry out what we believe to be in the country's interests? For us that is perfectly right, and if it means war we see no reason why we should not indulge in it." It is for that reason that I doubt very much whether in the existing circumstances there is any prospect of your getting to a real settlement by bilateral conversations with Germany. I think you have far more chance if you can bring the whole world into these discussions, or at any rate a large section of it.
I felt myself in sympathy with what Lord Darnley said earlier in his demand for a conference. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that to start a conference in the old form of international conference just now without preparation, without any investigation as to what the conference would probably do, would not
408
be wise. But if you had kept the League in active operation, you would not have had to deal with that. There it would be permanently ready to your hand. At any moment you could go to what is in effect a conference of all the civilised Powers and ask them whether they saw some way out of the difficulty. I was interested to observe that my noble friend Lord Mottistone is in favour of a new League, which he calls the League of Humanity. I did not quite make out what its methods of operation were to be, or what its functions were to be, except that it was to defend the small Powers, which I admit seems to be a little astonishing from a noble Lord who so warmly defends what happened with reference to Czecho-Slovakia. But putting that aside, he asked for a League of Humanity, one of its duties being the abolition of the submarine and of bombardment from the air. I wish I could bring myself to believe that any such policy had even an outside chance of success. I am quite sure that if you abandon your present League and start to construct a new one, you will come to grief.
There are other suggestions with which I will not deal, because they have not been advanced in this debate. I prefer to come back to what I understand to be the policy of His Majesty's Government. They say: "Yes, the League is right. We would like to see it effective. We still believe that the broad principles on which it is founded are right. We have already defended our action at Geneva on the ground that we are doing nothing that is inconsistent with the broad principles of the League. But at present"—this I understand is their view—"it is more practical to proceed with the peace bloc, even though that cannot be a permanent solution of the difficulties of Europe." I am very much afraid of that policy. If it fails, of course we are in another war, and anything may happen, though I think even then even the nominal existence of the League would still be of value. But suppose it succeeds, and gradually there is a diminution of tension and we get back to something like the position we were in before the War of 1914. Do you think then would be the best time to try and set up again a League which you had allowed to drift still further downhill during the intervening period? I am afraid you

409
would find it far more difficult even than at the present time, infinitely more difficult than it would have been if the Government had pursued at an earlier stage a vigorous policy such as I am venturing to indicate at this moment. I believe there is still a chance, but there is no further time to be lost if you are going to aim at setting up a permanent organisation for peace in the world—and what a magnificent thing it would be if it could be done! If you are really going to aim at that, to aim at re-establishing the broad principles of the League—I do not care about the modification of this or that Article, that is a small matter—I am quite sure you have no time to lose. You must begin now with your first steps in that direction, and your first step should be to see that where there is any possibility of utilising the machinery of the League you should utilise it and put the whole force of this country and her allies behind it. That is the only way in which you will recreate the authority and the prestige of the League, without which I very much fear you may not be able to deal with the terrible difficulties before us.
5.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I rise to deal more particularly with the Far Eastern situation, but before doing so may I join with those who have congratulated my noble friend Viscount Halifax on his speech last Thursday, a speech which I believe has been unequalled in this House in many respects? I confess that some of the implications of that speech have left me a little uncertain, but in these days when events move so rapidly, when crises follow each other so quickly, I do not think it is fair to ask the Foreign Secretary to define too closely policy in regard to what may happen a few months hence. But I do agree with him that whilst we are rearming, and rearming as rapidly as we can, we should make every effort we can to negotiate a permanent peace. In the meantime I think there are very few in this country who would be so bold as to question the policy of the Government in connection with the non-aggression pacts which have recently been set up. I go even so far as to support the pact with Russia, so long as that is not in any way turned into a military alliance. I think we are extremely fortunate in
410
having Mr. Neville Chamberlain to-day as our Prime Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, as Foreign Secretary. I congratulate them most warmly on the magnificent work they have done during the past year and the magnificent work which they are performing to-day.
Let me now turn to the Far East, which is the reason why I have risen to-day. In the past two months I have made several speeches on the war between China and Japan, and upon the last occasion I ventured to say that the position was growing worse. To-day I would venture to say that the position is worse than ever. The Yangtze valley, that traditional area of British trade, is entirely closed, and continues to be closed, to outside trade in spite of the fact that the Japanese are trading there all the time. Currency and trade restrictions continue. I referred only six weeks ago to the fact that they are becoming worse. The Yokohama Specie Bank have now created a dollar with the same value as the national dollar—equivalent to eightpence in English money—and are insisting that wherever possible this dollar should be used as against foreign currency. They are having some success in this regard, because European merchants have to obtain a living and in many instances they are being forced to use that new currency instead of the old national currency which had a circulation throughout the world.
Then there is the question of trade from Shanghai to British ports. The United States for the past thirty years, France and our Dominions, have all insisted upon consular certificates being given for any goods which are exported from Shanghai on the basis that they have been financed by financial arrangements which are open to everybody. The Japanese are using our ships to carry goods under conditions which are quite contrary to that usage. I wish to ask the noble Viscount to take such steps as will arrange that in future British consular certificates shall be given on all goods exported from Shanghai to British ports. I know there is a question about how that may be done: I am advised that an Order in Council would suffice for that purpose.
But I come to a far more serious side to this situation. Grave anxiety is now being caused all over China among

411
British residents by the truculence of the Japanese soldiers and sailors to our nationals. In Tientsin, indeed, the Japanese have instituted a blockade of the Settlement. I have it on good authority that they have placed barbed wire round the British concession, and they are reported to have put guards on the concession exits in such a position as to isolate it completely. I understand that certain ships belonging to our nation, the United States and France are taking steps to remove that blockade; but I should like to ask my noble friend what it is intended to do in that regard and how we are going to resist this new form of pressure, as I might call it, on the part of the Japanese. I would make this suggestion: that His Majesty's Government should immediately inform the Japanese Government that in reprisal for the blockade in Tientsin, Japanese ships shall be denied the use of the ports of Singapore and Penang for the transit of their goods. That would be a perfectly legal action, as I understand it, under International Law, and unless we are going to use military force, we must use some action of that kind if we are to counter what Japan is doing in China to-day to our nationals and our trade.
Then I come to Shanghai. Quite recently in Shanghai there was the case of the British mill manager who was bayoneted by Japanese soldiers at Pootung, which is close to Shanghai. That unfortunate man was refused all medical aid for a number of hours and has subsequently died as a result of his wounds. Not only that, but he was refused permission to see the British Consular representative in order to represent his case. I understand that certain representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Japanese authorities in regard to this case, but I should like to know whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to press this case and to exact all reparation for this unwarrantable and brutal act.
Then there is the case of our military attaché, Lieut.-Colonel Spear, who, it is reported as late as to-day, is still being held by the Japanese on the ground that he is a spy. I should like to ask my noble friend what it is proposed to do in that case, and what right the Japanese have to arrest one of our military
412
attachés on any ground whatsoever without referring to the General Officer commanding our troops in that quarter of the world. It is really inconceivable that such a state of affairs could have been reached in that part of the world. I wonder how long it is going on and when it is going to be stopped, and what His Majesty's Government propose to do in order to affect it. Just at this moment, when all these cases are going on, rumours—and very strong rumours at that—are rife that one of the two battalions quartered in Shanghai is to be removed in September. The two battalions that are there are hardly sufficient to guard the perimeter of that Settlement. If one were withdrawn it is quite certain that the Japanese would take that as a sign of waning interest on the part of His Majesty's Government and the British people in this question, and probably make it an excuse for the seizure of the International Settlement, as they are trying to do at Tientsin and Amoy.
It is not, so far as I can learn, an idle rumour that the Japanese have in view the seizure of Shanghai. July 7 is a danger date, for it is the date of the second anniversary of the Sino-Japanese war. I venture to suggest to my noble friend that it would be wise not to deplete the forces in Shanghai, if that rumour be true, but to strengthen them, and to send further ships to Shanghai in order to prevent any seizure, if that is contemplated. I further venture to suggest to my noble friend that such action should be taken in consultation with the American authorities and French authorities, both of whom have the deepest interest in the maintenance and the integrity of the International Settlement at Shanghai. I am told that the Japanese seem to think that their best way of coping with what they call the anti-Japanese campaign in China is to take possession of those Chinese who are protected by the foreign flags. That is why they are now taking their action in Tientsin, why they have done what they are doing in Amoy, and why they may do what it is stated they have in view to do in Shanghai. If this were the case, what would be the result? The trade of Shanghai would decrease to practically nil, because obviously all the Chinese in the Settlement would as soon as possible leave it and retire to the interior of

413
China. In that event trade would evaporate very largely, and the £200,000,000 of investments which this country has in Shanghai would become mere waste paper.
The war has gone on so long, and there has been so little resistance on the part of England and the United States to the many Japanese acts of interference and trampling on the rights of British and American subjects, that the people of Japan believe that they can take any steps they like, to-day, in order to prosecute the war. With that object they would seize the International Settlements, and they believe that it is their right to do so. That may be their view, but it is not our view, and I submit that we should take every step possible to prevent such action, especially in Shanghai. There is no doubt that the situation in Shanghai is very serious and very critical. I cannot urge too strongly upon His Majesty's Government, again, the necessity for strengthening our forces there, and of strengthening our naval forces in the vicinity as well, as I have said before, in consultation and, I hope, co-operation with the United States and France.
Let it be remembered that a very important part of the British Empire lies in the Pacific Ocean. Any such step as the occupation of Shanghai by Japan would mean a vital blow not only to this country but to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and to the British Empire as a whole. Apart from trade it would signify loss of prestige and power in the East which could never be regained. In China no British subject would ever be able to hold up his head again. I appeal to the Government, with all the force at my command, to prevent this shame falling upon us, and upon the British Empire, and to take action before it is too late. I think it is true to say that the British Empire made Japan, and if we are not careful Japan will unmake the British Empire.
5.54 p.m.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I would like to endorse the concluding remarks which have fallen from the noble Viscount opposite. At the commencement of his speech he paid eulogy to the speech of the noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary, and I am very sorry—I wish it were otherwise—but I cannot follow him in that course. The noble Viscount, Lord
414
Halifax, made a very interesting pronouncement, and as usual he succeeded in completely mesmerising your Lordships. The noble Viscount is an expert in the art of hypnotism. He casts a spell where-ever he goes, and that is not in the least surprising because as a private individual we all regard him with admiration and respect. Like one of his predecessors, Lord Grey, he has devoted his great talents and abilities to the service of the State when he might have been engaged in more agreeable pursuits, and I confess that for many years, in fact until the last two years, I shared your Lordships' admiration for the noble Viscount and all his works. Since he succeeded Mr. Eden as our Foreign Secretary, however, I admit that I have been sadly disillusioned, and the iridescent mists of hero worship have gradually been dispelled by the icy blasts of foreign policy, which have revealed the noble Viscount in his true colours.
I do not for a moment suggest that this will wring his conscience—I think those were the words he used in the debate on Thursday—or that your Lordships have passed through that harrowing experience—perhaps your Lordships' time has still to come—but I do believe that there are many people outside this House who share my disappointment and misgivings. After all, a statesman, like a private individual, must be judged by his deeds rather than his words. As I have said, the speech delivered by the noble Viscount on Thursday produced an hypnotic effect on the members of your Lordships' House, and since we adjourned we have had the advantage of reading it in cold print. Personally I have read it three times, and the impression created when I listened to it has been confirmed.
If I may be allowed, with all deference, to say so, I think it was a thoroughly bad, ill-timed, and confused speech. It was bad because it demonstrated once more the cleavage which exists, I believe, inside the Cabinet and also in the country, between the protagonists of appeasement on the one hand and those who believe in collective security on the other. It was ill-timed because at the very moment when the Government are supposed to be building up what they call a peace front, it creates an impression, both at home and abroad, that this country is prepared to make another cynical deal with the aggressors. It is

415
confused because it contains no constructive plan, no solid foundation, upon which to rehabilitate the shattered fortunes of Europe. Surely the time has gone by when we can be content with a string of platitudes about the necessity of understanding the points of view of other nations, of reaching an understanding with Germany and of securing a footing of mutual confidence with other countries so as to enter into an era of general friendship. Everyone is agreed about these things and others enumerated by the noble Viscount. They are all excellent, they are essential, they are the A B C of international relationships. But what your Lordships want to know, and what I believe the country wants to know, is how are they going to be achieved? Is it by recourse to the method of Munich or the method of Geneva? Is it by further instalments of appeasement or by trying to establish the rule of law? Is it by giving away other people's lives and properties, or by making some sacrifice ourselves for the cause of justice and peace?
For two years past the noble Viscount has been giving us doses of soothing syrup, which I believe only create a feeling of nausea among our friends, and of exuberance in other quarters. His speech on Thursday only increased anxiety in Paris, suspicion in Moscow, dismay in America, bewilderment in Rome and irritation or exultation—I am not sure which—in Berlin. In some quarters it appeared to be regarded as the preliminary to another Munich, in others as an apology for the encirclement of Germany. The noble Viscount began his speech by telling us that he was engaged in the pursuit of the purpose which the Prime Minister described the other day as that of "building up a peace front against aggression." Surely this is not the first occasion that a British Cabinet has been engaged on this meritorious undertaking. I always understood that that was what we had been trying to do ever since the War. Then what about the League? Has the noble Viscount forgotten that this country, in conjunction with others, joined in a solemn League and Covenant at the conclusion of the bloodiest war in history to prevent aggression? Why, then, during the last two or three years have he and his colleagues discarded this institution on every occasion when vital issues should
416
have been discussed? Why at the bidding of the Dictators has he repudiated the Articles of the Covenant? Why has he descended from the moral plane of this Covenant to the pre-War level of power politics, rank opportunism, and expediency applauded and practised by Hitler and Mussolini?
That after all, to put it quite frankly, is what the noble Viscount and his colleagues have been doing ever since the Prime Minister's "midsummer madness" speech in June, 1936. It is called "Appeasement"; it might have been called something else. In March of this year, as we know, they made a discovery. When Hitler marched into Prague they realised that "midsummer madness" would not work, and that appeasement was dead. And since March, so they tell us, they have a new policy. What is their motto? As far as I understand it, it is this: "Rebuild to-day what we pulled down yesterday, what we erected the day before." If we consider it dispassionately, could anything be more ludicrous? Here was a building erected upon the sacrifices and the sufferings of millions of men who died in the World War, but by the sheer stupidity, the obstinacy, and the cowardice of a handful of so-called statesmen in our own and other countries, this building has been dismantled, and to-day it stands as an empty shell.
Now the Prime Minister and the noble Viscount propose to erect what he calls a more practical structure. What are the foundations of this new edifice? Are they justice, the rule of law, and collective security? Not a bit of it. The foundations are unilateral and bilateral pacts based on national interests. In the words of the noble Viscount:
"The assurances would operate, as in the case of Poland, if there should be a clear threat to the independence of Rumania or of Greece which the Rumanian or Greek Government respectively considered it vital to resist with their national forces."
Well, I suggest that that can only mean that each of those Governments is to be the sole judge as to whether a particular act, or a particular incident, is to be considered as a clear threat to their independence. I do not often find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, but I entirely endorse what he said on this point—namely, that the policy we are now undertaking is worse

417
than collective security, because it seems to be not under the aegis of the League of Nations. The decision therefore as to whether this country is to be involved in war is apparently to be left to the judgment of the Turkish, Greek, Polish or Rumanian Governments. Is this a practical substitute for a decision taken by a Council representing the anti-aggression front—a Council upon which this country would be represented?
Therefore I humbly suggest to the noble Viscount, that his methods are most impracticable. They are merely a hand-to-mouth expedient, to which he has been been driven because he and his colleagues have betrayed the League and repudiated the Covenant, and they have not the courage to admit to their fellow countrymen and to the world that they have done so. These unilateral and bilateral pacts are the price which we have to pay. They include, as I think my noble friend Lord Cecil pointed out, far greater risks but have none of the advantages which a real and properly organised system of collective security is able to offer.
The noble Viscount told us about China. He said that the Government were doing their best to see that British interests are accorded due respect and that treaty provisions are upheld. Whatever the policy of the Government may be in the Far East—and the noble Viscount who just sat down has described it to us—I do not think we can say very much for its results. British interests, trade and commerce, and even the lives of British subjects are menaced. Every week we read in the newspapers of acts of terrorism and intimidation on the part of Japan. I wonder how many protests have already been made by our Government to Tokyo. The noble Viscount appears to have forgotten that a barefaced war of aggression has been going on in China for the last two years, and he seems oblivious of the fact that if China is conquered our position in Hong Kong and in the Pacific becomes one of extreme danger.
Will he tell us what he has done to assist the victim of aggression? Mere declarations of sympathy, I suggest, are cheap. I believe he has already given China a small loan, and he has allowed her to import munitions from this country. That is very creditable, but has he also tried to prevent the export of arms and the materials for the manufacture
418
of armaments to Japan? Has he taken any steps to exert economic pressure upon Tokyo? I should have thought that at Geneva he would have taken the lead in responding to the eloquent appeal that Mr. Wellington Koo made to the Members of the League. It is a melancholy fact that respect for this country in the Far East has completely vanished. In fact it no longer exists, and this unfortunate result, I suggest, is due to the policy pursued by the noble Viscount and his predecessors, especially Sir John Simon, who in their anxiety to appease Japan at the expense of China have destroyed the reputation of the British Empire for justice and fair play.
The next item which the noble Viscount mentioned in his speech was his account of the negotiations which have been going on with Russia. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches in this debate, and I have not heard a single word of protest about the delay which has been going on with regard to these negotiations. After all, do your Lordships realise that ten weeks have elapsed since these negotiations were started? In March, Poland and Rumania were threatened with invasion. For a few days the Government saw the red light, and there was great diplomatic activity. We also remember that at that moment Russia proposed a Nine-Power Conference, but M. Litvinov was told that this proposal was premature, I want to ask the Foreign Secretary, is this the way in which he hopes to build up his peace front? Will he tell us why he refused the Russian offer? Since then, we know, negotiations have dragged on drearily, clogged with suspicion on both sides. I suggest that if that conference had been held M. Litvinov might still have been in the saddle to-day. After all, he was the champion of the League and of collective security. What help, may I ask, did we give him at Geneva? We simply ignored him. Like Mr. Eden, he was sacrificed on the altar of the League, perhaps not at the bidding of Mussolini and Hitler, but at any rate to their intense joy and satisfaction. Will the noble Viscount tell us why we are still splitting hairs with Russia? I believe the vast majority of people in this country regard the inclusion of Russia in a new peace front as absolutely vital, and it is this public opinion which prodded the Government to negotiate with Russia in the first instance.

419
I do not pretend to know what the military strength of Russia is at this moment, but I understand that, on the whole, she is far better armed to-day than she was in 1914. For instance, I am told that the peace strength of the Russian Army is 1,800,000 men, and that her reserves are somewhere between 14,000,000 and 16,000,000 men. She has also, I am told, an Air Force of between 10,000 and 12,000 aeroplanes, of which 4,000 are first-line military aircraft. I do not know that anybody outside Russia really knows what the real strength of the Russian Army and Air Force is, but we must all agree that the potential strength of Russia is enormous. Whatever it may be at this moment, most of us probably realise that without Russia the peace front cannot function effectively.
My noble friend Lord Cecil said that, if Russia was not included in this front, war was almost inevitable. No one can regard Poland and the Balkan countries as a substitute for Russia, and without her help these countries are bound to go under because we are powerless to give them any direct assistance. I am sure your Lordships have not forgotten one of the greatest tragedies of the last War when Serbia and Rumania were overrun, and I need not remind your Lordships of the campaigns of 1914, 1915, and 1916, when it was the Russian pressure in the East which enabled France and ourselves to hold the Western Front. Noble Lords opposite—and I refer especially to Lord Phillimore who alluded to this subject in his speech last Thursday—noble Lords who oppose the inclusion of Russia are like the Bourbons; they have learned nothing and forgotten everything. War is, as we know, always a gamble, but if Russia remains neutral or aligns herself with the other totalitarian States, then the outlook for the British Empire would be black indeed. That is why I believe M. Molotov talks about pulling chestnuts out of the fire, with the result—very regrettable, I admit—that we are compelled to eat humble pie.
The other day in another place the Prime Minister said:
"I cannot help feeling that there is a kind of veil, a sort of wall between the two Governments which it is extremely difficult to penetrate."
Well, I ask the noble Viscount opposite, who is responsible for erecting this wall?
420
Some noble Lords, I know, say that we cannot trust Russia, but I think we also have to ask ourselves whether we can expect the Russians to trust us. Why do they not trust us? I venture to give three reasons. The first is that after Munich, and after Abyssinia, no one trusts us. There is hardly a foreign Government that trusts the present Government in this country. That is the first reason. The second is that during the Munich proceedings Russia was given the cold-shoulder; she was deliberately pushed on one side; and M. Litvinov was left high and dry at Geneva. I believe that certain people prided themselves on the fact that the betrayal of Czecho-Slovakia had been accomplished without the assistance of Russia. Thirdly, the Russian Government know perfectly well that in certain quarters in this country there was lurking a hope that the German eagles would fly eastwards and not westwards, as it was apparently intended that they should do at the time when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. It was no doubt hoped that after a long and inconclusive struggle in the East, France and Great Britain—strutting about like cocks on the European dunghill—would be able to dictate peace to the exhausted totalitarian roosters.
Before the invasion of Prague there was no suggestion from the Foreign Office of pulling the chestnuts out of the fire so far as Russia was concerned. Sometimes I wonder whether, even now, the Cabinet are really in earnest, or whether these negotiations are not merely another sop to public opinion. Is it possible that history is about to repeat itself? Your Lordships will remember that in 1935 Sir Samuel Hoare announced to the Assembly at Geneva that this country and our Government stood behind the Covenant in its entirety. The then Prime Minister, Lord Baldwin, proceeded to win an Election on the strength of that speech, which a few weeks afterwards was entirely repudiated when the Hoare-Laval agreement was announced. Unfortunately, these pigeons are now coming home to roost. I would give anything to be certain that the Government are now really in earnest and that, in spite of the delays which have happened—and everyone must admit that these delays have been most heartbreaking—Russia may yet be induced to join the peace front, and that every European State

421
which is a Member of the League may be invited to do likewise.
I am not at all sure, however, that some members of the Government, and some members in another place are not still obsessed with the notion that there is a "Bolshie" behind every bush. They are frightened to death of Communism, and I believe—and I have very good evidence of it—that is why more pressure was not brought to bear on Mussolini over Abyssinia. It was because it was feared that if he was overthrown a Communistic régime would spring up in Italy. It cannot be too often emphasized, as I think my noble friend Lord Mottistone reminded us, that what are described as ideologies do not enter into this question at all. How does the internal domestic government of other countries concern us? It is not our job, surely, to tell the Russians, the Germans and the Italians that they must all be good democrats; nor is it our business to pronounce a verdict upon the relative merits or demerits of Communism, Nazi-ism, Fascism or any other ism. Surely all that we are concerned about is that these countries should keep the peace and not resort to violence against their neighbours. Therefore, if Russia is willing to join with us and France and other countries to prevent aggression in Europe, surely we should welcome her with open arms.
If, as many people believe, her inclusion is vital to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of war, then may I respectfully ask, why does not the Prime Minister, or if he is too old to undertake the journey, why does not the Foreign Secretary fly to Moscow to clear up any misunderstandings there may be and make whatever arrangements are necessary to implement this pact? Surely, if the Prime Minister could fly to Berchtesgaden and Munich to meet Herr Hitler, there is no reason why in a matter of vital urgency of this kind he should not do the same and make a similar approach to the Dictator at Moscow. I understand that a very distinguished official from the Foreign Office has been entrusted with this tremendously important task, but I venture to suggest to your Lordships that that is not enough, that this is not a time to stand on ceremony when the fate not only of Europe but probably also of this country may be hanging in the balance.
422
When the noble Viscount on Thursday had finished with Russia he proceeded to give us a lecture upon the methods of conducting international relationships. As I suggested in an earlier part of my speech, he delivered what I would respectfully suggest were a number of platitudes, many of them old friends whom we have met before. I observed that running through this lecture there was a very ominous word which occurred five times—I counted them—in the latter part of the noble Viscount's speech. It was the word "negotiation"—negotiation was the key which would unlock the door and solve our difficulties. That no doubt is a wonderful discovery, but it sounded, I think, too much like its twin brother "appeasement." May I remind the Foreign Secretary that negotiation has been the stock-in-trade of the Foreign Office for a very long time, in fact for centuries? Has he no other word in his peace vocabulary? The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, suggested that arbitration was included under the heading of negotiation. Perhaps I am unduly suspicious, but I cannot help feeling that arbitration was left out purposely. The trouble is, of course, that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues are obsessed with the idea of national sovereignty; they are not prepared to submit themselves to the rule of law, and unless they are willing to lead how can they expect other countries to follow their example? That, surely, is the crux of the whole business.
Negotiate by all means, sit round a table by all means, but if there is no settlement, and if these negotiations end in a deadlock, the question is, are we prepared to submit the issues to the adjudication of a third party, to a disinterested and impartial tribunal? If not, then I venture to think that collective security is a myth and the rule of law an impossibility. The noble Viscount talked about justice, but how, I venture to ask, can he expect to dispense justice if the appropriate machinery is non-existent? How long is every nation to be the judge of its own cause and the punisher of its own wrongs? We have had negotiation by diplomatists. We have had negotiation by conference. Munich, of course, is the latest example. My Lords, believe me, something more than negotiation is required if an atmosphere of confidence and of good will is to be created in Europe.

423
The Foreign Secretary also said that he did not think war was unavoidable. I hope he is right, but surely the whole experience of the human race is against him and proves that he may be wrong. So long as nations choose to live in a state of complete anarchy, where each Government is a law unto itself, where every country is armed to the teeth and when armaments are increasing at a terrific pace, there can be only one end, sooner or later—I do not know when—and that end is war. Unless someone—President Roosevelt, the Prime Minister, M. Daladier, I do not know who—can introduce a new system based on the rule of law, with overwhelming force organised and mobilised behind the law, then the crash, the duel, is inevitable. Humanity cannot escape from it, because it is part and parcel of the system under which we choose to live. On the other hand, if we develop the principles of federalism and apply them to the League or, if you like, to this new peace bloc or confederation, if you equip that institution as an international authority whose task is to administer justice, you may—I do not say you will—avert the catastrophe of war. I say you may, because after all the blunders and folly, all the wasted opportunities, of the last twenty years, it may possibly be too late.
But I agree with the noble Viscount that that is no reason for throwing up the sponge. Obviously, however, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, pointed out, there is no time to lose. Every minute counts. Therefore I suggest that the first thing to do is to build up your peace front, or whatever it may be called. I suggest that pacts in themselves are not enough, that ways and means of implementing them must be worked out by financial, economic and military experts from all those countries who are prepared to resist aggression. Therefore may I venture to make this suggestion, that we should send as soon as possible, a military mission to Moscow if the Russian Government will agree. In 1917 I had the privilege of being one of the members of the Milner Mission which was sent to Russia, and I well remember the unsatisfactory state of affairs which existed even at that time after three years of war. No effective liaison, no complete liaison, had been established and organised in order to ensure joint action between the Allied and
424
Associated Powers. I hope we shall not repeat this tragic mistake.
I must apologise to your Lordships for being so long, but I am coming to an end. At this moment I suggest that the British peoples stand in grave danger, perhaps the gravest in all our long history. Such a situation naturally calls for statesmanship of a high order. It calls for courage and patience. But it also demands prompt and imperative action, not only in our diplomacy but also in our defensive arrangements. I am sure your Lordships all rejoice that our King and Queen have won the hearts of the American people. God forbid that these feelings of good will and mutual respect between these two branches of the English-speaking community should be dissipated by a second Munich. That indeed would be an irretrievable disaster. On the contrary, let us enunciate a just, resolute and virile policy, based upon the eternal principles of the rule of law. Then I am convinced we shall win not only the support of the majority of the nations of Europe but also the respect and collaboration of our friends in America. And when the new confederation has been firmly knit together, not to encircle Germany or Italy or any other nation, but for the sole purpose of creating a righteous peace, then we can hold out the hand of friendship to the German and Italian peoples and invite their co-operation in promoting the advancement of our common civilisation no less than the cause of equity and justice.
6.40 p.m.
LORD HARMSWORTH: My Lords, I should not have intruded on your Lordships at this late hour if the Foreign Secretary had been at the moment on the Front Bench below me; but as, in accordance with our arrangements in this House, I had undertaken to speak, no doubt the Foreign Secretary has taken the opportunity for a well-earned respite from the debate of this afternoon. In the course of his remarks Lord Davies made one observation with which I found myself in entire agreement, and that was that this country and our people stand at this moment in a position of great peril. That is why I am, with my noble friend Lord Mottistone, an unrepentant upholder of and believer in the policy of appeasement, or, if that word is entirely discredited, of conciliation or

425
negotiation. I am one of those members of your Lordships' House who feel grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, for introducing his proposal the other day. I am prepared to uphold the policy of appeasement even if I am to be charged, with His Majesty's Ministers, with "crawling back to the discredited policy of appeasement." I employ the picturesque language of one of the most influential leaders of opinion in this House, and it is only because this policy of conciliation is so misapprehended and so little popular, apparently, that I join in the babel of voices about war. I have often thought that we run a serious danger of being talked, written, radioed and rumoured into war. It is an old belief, and a very sound one in my judgment, that nothing tends so much to war as talking about war. I wish we could have a close season for warlike talk, during which time the practical men could get on with measures of defence and statesmen be free to consider, to welcome, and, I would say, to invite means of settlement on lines of common sense.
In such an emergency as this—and I believe it to be a serious emergency—the functions and duties of Government should be divided into two main categories: one, of course, in the preparations for defence, and the other in regard to our relations with our neighbours. In regard to defence I need say nothing. In regard to the most important of all our relations, those with France, there is little to be said: whatever affects France affects us. But what of our less harmonious neighbours—and forgive me if I venture to go back to some of the more elementary matters connected with this crisis—what of our relations with Italy? I think I am right in saying that we have not been at war with Italy since the time of Julius Caesar. The people of Italy—let us remember it even in these days of angry resentment—are our traditional friends. We have for them, and they have for us, the highest possible regard. We have no cause whatever to quarrel with the Italian people. To them we owe a very great part of our civilisation. To many of us Italy is a second home. It is unbelievable to me—I find it to be incredible—that we should ever find ourselves in the position of trying to destroy by bombardment or otherwise any of the immortal treasures of Italian civilisation.
426
Then, if I may be so bold as to speak of Germany, our relations with Germany have not always been so happy or our sympathies so fervid, yet to Germany is it not true that every one of us in this House owes an immense debt of gratitude for her achievements in philosophy, in science, in music, and in many other ways? So far there is no enmity between the British and the German peoples. Our difficulties latterly have been with the German Government and German statesmen. Their methods we have had good reason to deplore, and sometimes bitterly to resent. But may I be a little bolder still and say, can we not observe that the German Government so far have not challenged a single vital and essential British interest? Not one. I mean such a British interest as would really call for all the energies of this country to rebut it, such—to give a simple instance—as an attack on the coast of England or, I will say, on Gibraltar.
I return for a moment to the critics of the Prime Minister and his Government, who urge, as I think my noble friend Lord Davies would urge, that we cannot in decency and honour have any truck with totalitarian statesmen. They follow, even so benevolent a man as I know my friend Lord Davies to be, with angry suspicion any hint or suggestion that His Majesty's Ministers are seeking to approach a peaceful settlement. They seem to hold—and indeed we have heard my noble friend express such a view this afternoon—that to speak of reconciliation, or conciliation, or appeasement, or whatever you choose to call it, is in itself a kind of treachery, an indication of weakness and vacillation of purpose, and calculated to shake the confidence of our partners in the non-aggressive front. I was deeply impressed by the knowledge that my noble friend exhibited in regard to the emotions in Paris, Moscow, Leningrad and America evoked by the speech of my noble friend the Secretary of State. I should be very much obliged if Lord Davies would, when he is at leisure, convey to me his means of information as to what is being felt and thought in all the capitals of the world.
I am glad to observe from the course of this debate that this opinion in regard to conciliation is not uniformly held by your Lordships. Indeed, I believe there

427
is a large body of opinion in this country that has no sympathy with this repudiation of appeasement and would welcome with huge relief any peace movement on the part of my noble friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Government. Let me say in regard to the so-called untouchableness of some of these totalitarian Governments, that in my own brief experience of foreign affairs British Governments have concluded agreements, and lived on friendly terms, with Governments whose methods and systems compared unfavourably with those of Germany and Italy. Cases will occur to, and be well within the memory of, every one of your Lordships. Some of my Liberal friends are deeply concerned with principles of international morality, the maintenance of democratic systems, the rule of law, and the like. I am all in favour of those principles in theory, and in the seclusion of my library, but I would not willingly commit the men, women and children of my country to a frightful war in defence and upholding of abstract principles.
I want to know better why this desperate adventure should be embarked upon. I would not willingly risk the fortunes of this country and Empire in support of what are called ideologies—in support, in particular, of theories about democratic government. Can we claim that our own system is satisfactorily democratic? I appeal to noble Lords sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Are they satisfied with the quality of our democratic system? This must be said, that when we speak of democracies, I would venture to say that the Nazi régime in Germany is at least as democratic as that of some of the States with which we are now seeking friendly co-operation.
In conclusion, and with apologies for intervening between your Lordships and the expected speech of the Secretary of State, I would say that in this House we, I am sure, harbour no illusions with regard to the nature and effects of what too easily has been spoken of as the next war. But I am afraid that such illusions are very prevalent in the popular mind. At this moment, I think of our people as a great people, foremost in its example of tolerance, good-nature and decent government sliding down to a dreadful abyss in a whirl of fine sentimentalism and confused thinking. I contemplate a
428
war, and so must everyone of your Lordships, in which the front trenches will be in the great cities, where civilian populations will be exposed, as they have been in Spain and China, to dangers and hardships that have not often been endured by armed and disciplined forces in the battlefield. I foresee a struggle which, if it should come, will change the course of history and result in irreparable loss to all the nations engaged in it—an inconclusive war that will open up a vista of strife and hatred in Europe lasting perhaps for whole generations. There is, I submit, nothing in our present situation, grave and difficult as it is, that calls for so enormous a sacrifice on our part or on the part of our potential antagonists.
6.55 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I have no right to speak again in this debate, but with your Lordships' assent I would like to make a few observations upon some of the speeches that have been made, and some of the arguments that have been advanced. As is always the habit and the custom in your Lordships' House, we have again witnessed grave and important subjects being debated with great dignity and great restraint, and a great sense of responsibility, and nothing, I suppose, is more noticeable in such a debate as we have had than the respect with which sentiments that are widely differing are universally received. I think perhaps it may not unreasonably be claimed on behalf of this House that in that respect we set an example that is not always followed in other places.
Perhaps before passing to some of the more particular matters that have been raised in the debate I might make one general observation without the risk of appearing egotistic. I have noticed that the speech which I had the honour of making to your Lordships on Thursday has been variously interpreted in different quarters. Of course it is one of the most habitual propensities of politicians and those who contribute to the Press that when they have strong opinions they naturally select from any speech only those portions of it which are in appearance, if not in fact, favourable to the particular argument that they desire to stress. It certainly would be quite unprofitable, and most unhelpful, for me to attempt to make any comment on any

429
observation so inspired, because for one thing the process, if once embarked upon, would be totally and painfully unending. From that I excuse myself, only asking that the observations which I made on Thursday shall be considered as a whole.
As regards those members of your Lordships' House who have contributed to this debate I, speaking personally, have nothing but gratitude for the generosity with which they have treated my own contribution to it, with indeed one notable exception, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who was good enough to speak to us just now. He advanced a theory which I confess was entirely novel to me, and from the surprise of which I have as yet only partially recovered. He attributed the kindly reception that your Lordships have given to my speech to the fact that I had—I think his phrase was—"succeeded in completely mesmerising" the House. He will forgive me for saying that it was not unnatural that Lord Davies, intoxicated by his own eloquence and by that extreme felicity of phrase which comes so spontaneously from him, should have been free from any risk of such mesmerism. It was not therefore at all strange to me to hear from his lips that His Majesty's Government, and I think I in particular, were lost to all sense of courage, all sense of honesty, intelligence, and—I do not think I do him an injustice—all sense of political virtue, of which he will permit me to say I drew the conclusion from his speech that he had a comparative monopoly.
The position in the Far East has been destroyed by myself, completing the ruin begun by Mr. Eden, and he in his turn contributing to the ruin already begun by Sir John Simon. The delay in the Russian negotiations was entirely the fault of His Majesty's Government and of this country, and I regretted to hear the noble Lord say that he had formed the melancholy conclusion that His Majesty's Government were not sincere in their efforts to reach an agreement with Russia. To that last observation the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not reply, because I think that the only reply that I could make would be one that perhaps would be better made outside this House than inside. I am the more easily relieved from replying because I feel that all your Lordships who heard Lord Davies's admirable speech will, like
430
myself, have formed the conclusion that there is one broad remedy, and one only, for the distresses and discontents of the present time in our foreign policy, and that is that the noble Lord himself should be in charge of it.
With your Lordships' permission, I must make one or two attempts to answer some of the specific questions that have been raised in the course of this debate. It has, I think, been asked why I should have made any speech at all upon foreign affairs at the particular moment that I did. My answer to that, a perfectly brief answer, is that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Snell, happened, for reasons of which I am totally unaware, to choose the particular day of last Thursday to place his Motion on the Paper, and I think he indeed made that choice a long time ago. When he so chooses he has the right, unless I show him grave reason, to summon me to this House to answer anything that he may say. And I indeed saw no reason to ask the noble Lord to postpone the debate because—and here I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, who I think said that it was seldom indiscreet or undesirable to speak the truth—I myself have formed the view that on the whole it is seldom too early or too late to speak the truth, if you are sure that in fact truth it is. That brings me to a question that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, asked me in relation to propaganda. I most entirely and warmly share his view that propaganda—a word which has achieved a rather unenviable significance—should, and would most usefully, be conducted on the lines of plain facts, and of objective statements, and of assertions of truth. I believe that if the countries of the world know that what emanates from this country, whether by broadcast, or whether by speech or writing in whatever form, is the truth, then the influence of the written or spoken or reported word will have great weight in a great many places.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, raised the question of the negotiations with Russia. He will perhaps dispense me from arguing the particular question of principle with him, because on whichever side we might engage ourselves in that debate, that is, from his point of view unhappily, at the present time an academic question, inasmuch as the Government, after due deliberation, have

431
chosen their course, and obviously cannot depart from it. As he knows, the negotiations with the Soviet Government are about to be resumed in Moscow. Mr. Strang, the representative of the Foreign Office, left England this morning, and hopes to be in Moscow I think on Wednesday morning, and therefore it would obviously be neither profitable nor possible for me at this stage to enter into further details in regard to the matters that will then fall to be discussed.
I think I am also in part dispensed from answering the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, because my noble friend Lord Cecil did that for me at an earlier stage of the debate. I only add one observation to the general statement that Lord Cecil's observations seemed to indicate. Whether you like it or not, you have to recognise that in this year of grace, 1939, you are living in an era of power politics—force politics; and the question on which we have to make up our minds is, So long as force is placed in the position of arbiter, what are the purposes for which you wish to see force employed? Is your force to be used for the promotion or for the destruction of the things like justice and order and the like? For on these things, as I should believe and as I think all of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, should believe, human society depends. And if your view is, as I have no doubt it is, that you cannot afford to see those things disappear from the world, if you can prevent it, then you are surely bound to be prepared to meet force with force, and to see that the force that emerges dominant is the force that has as its purpose the promotion of the things on which human society ultimately depends. I cannot do more in regard to the specific point Lord Ponsonby raised than assure him and your Lordships that of course any engagements entered into by His Majesty's Government with other Governments will be made public, and if there is any demand, such as I think he put forward, for particular maps, I should be glad to consider the matter.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, contributed to the debate some observations in regard to policy concerning Colonies. I need not assure him, or assure any others, that I, and indeed I have no doubt all members of His Majesty's
432
Government, realise the full force of what Lord Stonehaven said. I can also, I think, truthfully say that none of the considerations that he mentioned are for a moment absent from our minds. No one who has looked at that problem with any care can fail to know the difficulties that it arouses—difficulties, I might add, that are not in any way diminished when the language employed to put the case forward is intemperate. And those difficulties are all the greater because everybody, or nearly everybody, has so far tended to think of treating the Colonial question through the single process of rendition of territory. That, of all the possible methods of treatment of it, is the most difficult. My noble friend will forgive me If, to-day, I say quite frankly that I am not prepared to add anything at this time to what has been said by His Majesty's Government in regard to that question.
My noble friend Lord Elton drew our attention specifically to the question of Danzig, and in doing so he rightly emphasized the complex nature and problem of Danzig which certainly, as all your Lordships will recognise, demands the utmost measure of patience and restraint if most serious and dangerous consequences are to be avoided. I do not think I can do better to-day than emphasize the attitude of His Majesty's Government as it was recently defined by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he used very carefully considered words. His words, if your Lordships remember, were these:
"Our assurances to Poland were clear and precise. Although we should be glad to see the differences between Poland and Germany amicably settled by discussion, and although we thought they could and ought to be so settled, if an attempt were made to change the situation by force in such a way as to threaten Polish independence, that would inevitably start a conflagration in which this country would be involved."
I pass for a few moments from Europe to the Far East. Far Eastern matters were referred to by the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Cecil) and my noble friend Lord Elibank. With regard to what fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, it is of course quite true, as he said, that in the Far Eastern arena we are witnessing a conflict of principle, involved in the whole question, as he said, of the right to resort to war. None of us need be under any illusions about that. In these circumstances, during the last two years, it has been the duty of His

433
Majesty's Government both in this country and at Geneva to consider what course of action was both incumbent on them and practical for them to adopt. In connection with that question they have, as the House knows, been parties to the passage of successive Resolutions by the Assembly and meetings of the Council—Resolutions which, I am well aware, have never gone as far as the representative of China thought it was desirable to go, but which have gone as far as those Powers particularly concerned in the Far East thought it practicable for them to go. There is no good in this matter, any more than in any other, refusing to face the practical realities of any question, and I am quite content to leave the conduct of this country in regard to that matter to be judged by those who have a full knowledge of the facts and who are able to form a judgment as to the manner in which this country has carried out the obligations that it has assumed at Geneva.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, gravely underrated the value of what it has been in the power of this country to do, not least by the action it took earlier this year in regard to the Chinese currency. There was a case in which it was quite possible to argue that British interests were deeply engaged and where we were not only serving the interests of China. That is quite true, but those who know best the problem of China would not have been unwilling to say that no form of help, valuable as it was for British interests, could also have been more helpful to China than that which enabled the Chinese to maintain at reasonable equilibrium that on which depended their economic strength.
My noble friend Lord Elibank has mentioned a very large number of cases of complaint regarding the treatment from which British interests in China are to-day suffering at the hands of Japan. It is a very formidable list indeed, and it reflects the extent of the British stake in China to which he directed our thoughts. That list includes complaints in regard to treatment, as he said, of British nationals, ships, trade, and other interests at Japanese hands as well as threats against the security of International Concessions and Settlements. I can assure my noble friend that His Majesty's Government have not been indifferent to any one of these threats in any one of these
434
directions. I am sure he appreciates the difficulty with which in this matter at this time His Majesty's Government are confronted, but I can assure him that there is no truth whatever in the rumour of withdrawal of troops from Shanghai, and, as regards ships, as he knows, the Commander-in-Chief of the China Station has full authority to move ships from place to place according to what may be the needs of the moment.
I know very well that the Japanese military authorities advance the plea of military necessity in justification of many of the acts which have resulted in thus limiting British rights and interests, but His Majesty's Government are not able to accept that plea, especially in the many places in which military operations have now ceased to take place, as any excuse for the impairment of rights which are secured to our nationals under solemn treaty provisions. Still less can we accept the unilateral modification of instruments entered into freely by ourselves and other Powers. All the matters of complaint which have been raised in this debate have been made the subject of representation—sometimes repeated, I regret to say—to the proper Japanese authorities, and His Majesty's Government will continue to exert their full efforts and influence to secure the maintenance of the right of British subjects to live and trade peacefully in China.
The noble Lord referred to the case of Colonel Spear, the military attaché, and in regard to his case I cannot speak fully until I have an account from himself. I can, however, say that his journey was entirely devoid of any ulterior purpose such as has been suggested by the Japanese, and whatever had been the Japanese suspicions, they should not have detained Colonel Spear once his identity was established. The noble Lord will have seen that Mr. Cooper, who was with Colonel Spear, has been set at liberty, and he reports that Colonel Spear is being properly treated at the present time. I have no reason to anticipate that matters in regard to Colonel Spear will not be satisfactorily settled. With regard to the trouble which ended in the death of Mr. Tinkler from bayonet wounds to which the noble Lord referred, the facts of the case have not as yet been fully established, but whatever were the precise facts of the incident itself under which

435
Mr. Tinkler received the wounds that unhappily led to his death, His Majesty's Government take a very unfavourable view of the events which happened between the time of his wounding and the time of his death, and His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo has been instructed to protest to the Japanese Foreign Office and to reserve all the rights of this country, as the noble Lord suggested, for any compensation, when the facts are established, there may be a right to claim.
That, I think, covers most of the specific questions that have been asked me in the course of the debate, and I only wish to make one or two quite short observations of a general kind before I conclude. I said a few minutes ago that I did not wish this afternoon to emphasize one part or another of what I said a few days ago in order to counter misrepresentations of its sense and purpose, for I have no doubt at all, as I think this debate has on the whole shown, it has been very well understood by those who have read it as a whole. I would venture, with respect, to say that it is a sign of some confused thinking to suggest or to argue that my speech implied any change whatever in British policy. On the contrary, it was a perfectly frank attempt to get people here and elsewhere to face the realities of the present situation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, expressed a view that while he was not, I think, generally in disagreement with what I had said, thereby sundering the old alliance between himself and Lord Davies, he was disposed to prefer the League system to the peace bloc. In particular he committed himself to the view that he thought if His Majesty's Government had put half the energy and half the courage and half the effort into the maintenance of the League of Nations that they had put into their recent efforts to create a peace front, the League would never have been in its present debilitated state. I beg leave to differ from him in that regard, as I do in the observation he made in the sense of saying that it would be more difficult in his view to reconstruct the League later than it would be were you to set to work to try to reconstruct the League at the present time. I really cannot bring myself to believe that the present
436
moment, when, as I said the other day, everybody is doing the utmost to provide against immediate dangers, is the moment to get all nations—and you want if you can all nations—to apply dispassionate thought to the problem of reconstruction of the international order. I tried, in what I had occasion the other day to say at Geneva, to make it plain that we did look forward to that task and that I certainly hoped that all Governments, or as many Governments as possible, would be brought to co-operate in it, but I am bound to say that I think the work that His Majesty's Government are trying to do now, so far from being antagonistic, is an essential preliminary to the larger work to which I certainly, with the noble Viscount opposite, look forward.
That leads me to say this. There are two things, as I see it, that British policy wants to make plain. The first thing is to make plain that British policy, while making no threats, and while concealing no ulterior designs, does want to make it quite clear to the world that if force is used to-day those who use it must now count upon force being met by force. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was profoundly right, if I may with respect say so, when, with great authority and opportunity of ascertaining and feeling the public sense in all parts of this country, he suggested that the spirit of the people in England and of these Islands to-day was far stronger and more robust and united than it was even in 1914. The one thing that the foreign machinery of propaganda always fails to mention—and the reason is obvious enough—is that no one of our engagements, as I said the other day, will ever function if there in fact exists nowhere any forcible disturber of the peace. That of course, as the noble Lord opposite realises much better than I have any right to do, is the principle on which the Covenant of the League is based.
That leads me to my second point, which is, as more than one of your Lordships has recognised, the other part of the policy that all will certainly wish to see kept clearly before the people of this country, and it is this, that if there is no attempt or intention to resort to force, then the whole influence of this country, which is not negligible, will be thrown, and in my judgment will be rightly thrown, as my noble friend Lord Harms-worth just now desired, on the side of

437
reaching fair settlements by negotiation. In saying that, I agree 100 per cent. with the noble Viscount opposite when he suggested that if you are to reach the point of negotiation you must mean the same thing. That would be an essential condition in my own mind for the success of any negotiation on which I should hope one day to see the nations of Europe prepared to enter. It is not always easy to judge accurately of intentions, and our judgment must largely depend upon the words spoken and the acts done by those who control the policy of other countries; but there are, as I see it, two alternatives at present standing for choice before the world, and I should be well content if I thought that this debate in your Lordships' House had had the effect of focussing the attention of all whom my words may reach on the incalculable advantage of exchanging the threatening, dangerous and sinister methods of arbitrarg force for the methods of negotiation and peaceful settlement.
7.29 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, without being in any way hypnotised by the two speeches of the noble Viscount I venture to thank him for them, and I think that the House will thank him also. Of course the immediate responsibility for this debate falls upon me, but I think I am right in saying that His Majesty's Government were not terribly surprised to see the Motion which stands on the Paper in my
438
name. With your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BRISTOL WATERWORKS BILL.
The Order made on the 8th instant appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill discharged.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL. [H.L.] COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL. MACCLESFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Effingham be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe: read, and agreed to.

PROCESSED MILK (IMPORT REGULATION) ORDER, 1939.
Order, dated 1st June, 1939, made by the Board of Trade under Section I of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.