Sitting of 2 March 1939

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

  IRISH EMPLOYÉS.
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that discrimination is exercised by employers in the London area and other parts of the country against Irishmen leading to their dismissal, as a result of recent happenings which are at present being investigated by the courts; and will he take steps to discourage such discrimination where it is brought to his notice?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have no information that such discrimination is being exercised.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that there are very many cases of Irish people being harried, and in some cases dismissed from employment, as a result of the unnecessary talk against the Irish in general, because of the trouble that has been created by a few Irishmen in particular, and will he take measures to see that every effort is made to prevent any discrimination against Irishmen in general?
  Mr. Brown: I have told the hon. Member that I have no information that such discrimination is being practised and if he has any evidence on the subject, apart from mere assertion, I shall be glad to look into it.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are many good Englishmen and good Scotsmen without a job in this country to-day?
  Sir Frank Sanderson: While it would be grossly unfair to suggest that employers have any prejudice against Irishmen, is it not a fact that as a result of
  1410
  recent happenings employers must inevitably exercise caution when engaging more Irishmen for the first time; and in view of this does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that any Irishmen who may be responsible for these happenings are doing a gross disservice to their fellow countrymen?
  Mr. Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend ascertain how many people who are not citizens of this country are on the unemployment registers?
  Mr. Brown: That would be a very difficult thing to do, because from the start of unemployment insurance the nationality of individuals has never been declared in terms of whether they are Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen or Irishmen.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING.
    Mr. Windsorasked the Minister of Labour the number of skilled engineers, boiler-makers, and those engaged in ship building and ship repairing, placed on the unemployment register since January, 1938?
    Mr. E. Brown: I will send the hon. Member particulars of the number of wholly unemployed workpeople in the engineering, boiler-making and shipbuilding industries who were registered for employment in certain specified occupations at the most recent dates for which statistical information is available.

    HULL.
    Mr. Windsorasked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed in Hull at the last available date; and how many of these have been unemployed for three months, six months, nine months, one year, two years, or more?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the reply:
    At 16th January, 1939, there were 17,940 unemployed persons aged 14 and over on the registers of the Hull Employment Exchange, including 16,281 aged 16 to 64 who were applicants for benefit or unemployment allowances.
    An analysis of these applicants according to the length of the current spell of unemployment is given below:

    Less than three months

    10,919

    Three months but less than six months

    1,697

    Six months but less than nine months

    657

    Nine months but less than 12 months

    476

    One year but less than two years

    1,095

    Two years or more

    1,437

    Of the persons who had been on the register for extended periods a proportion will have had one or more short spells of employment, lasting not more than three days each, during such periods.
    Corresponding particulars are not available in respect of unemployed persons who are not applicants for benefit or allowances.

    TRANSFERENCE.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour how many miners have been transferred under the Government scheme from Special Areas to the Kent coalfield; how many of these men were unemployed in January; and how many of them have been unemployed for six months or longer?
    Mr. E. Brown: From February, 1935, which is the earliest date for which statistics are available, to January, 1939, the number of men transferred under the Industrial Transference Scheme from the depressed areas to the Kent coalfield was 1,136, but the statistics do not show how many of these men came from the Special Areas. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I am afraid this information could not be obtained without a special survey, but it may help the hon. Member to know that on 16th January last the percentage of unemployment amongst miners in the Kent coalfield was 5.0.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that men have been transferred to the Kent coalfield, and after a short period of employment laid off, and in many cases have had to make their way back home as best they could?
    Mr. Brown: I am not aware of that. I have pointed out that this is the coalfield in which unemployment is very low indeed.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that in this particular coalfield it is very difficult to get continuous employment and that often men are laid off and have to make their way back home while other men are still coming in?
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether men sent from distressed areas to other parts of the country under the industrial transference scheme are given any guarantee of regular employment before transference takes place; and what percentage of men so transferred in the last five years are now in employment?
    Mr. Brown: No guarantee of regular employment can be given by the Department when placing applicants in employment, but transference facilities are not granted unless the employment in the new area is likely to last for a substantial period, or is in an area where further suitable employment is likely to be available if necessary. In certain cases the facilities may be granted when, although no actual work is immediately available, there are good prospects of employment being obtained within a reasonable period. I regret that the figures asked for in the latter part of the question are not available.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that there are many cases of men who have been transferred getting only a short period of employment and then having to make their way home? Will he not make arrangements so that they get a recognised period of employment, and if they are dismissed within a shorter period, see that they have facilities to return to their homes?
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept the general assertion made by the hon. Member. If he has any particular case I shall be glad to look into it. As he knows, every citizen of this country is entitled to the full facilities offered by the Employment Exchanges.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister agree that if they do not get a particular period of employment they should get their fare paid home?
    Mr. Brown: No, Sir, that has never been done.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons transferred

    1413
    from the depressed areas to the Metropolitan district of London for the 12 months ending the last convenient date; the number of these persons who were transferred to the borough of Southwark, giving comparable figures for the previous 12 months; and whether the persons in the latter category are still in the positions or employment which was originally found for them?
    Mr. Brown: I will see how far this information is available, and write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Day: Is any grant made for their transfer?
    Mr. Brown: They have to make the usual arrangements for their transfer.

    WEST HAM.
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board from the West Ham Public Assistance Committee on 1st April, 1937; the number of these cases then in receipt of public assistance that were investigated and rejected by the Board; the number of West Ham unemployed receiving unemployment assistance on 1st April, 1938, and on 1st October, 1938, or nearest convenient dates; and the number of them receiving help from the public assistance committee at the same dates?
    Mr. E. Brown: With regard to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question put to me by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on 26th May last, of which I will send the hon. Member a copy. As regards the remainder of the question, there were in the County Borough of West Ham on 7th October, last, which is the only date for which such figures are available in respect of the local authority area, approximately 2,100 persons in receipt of unemployment allowances, and I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that the average numbers of unemployed persons, excluding dependants, registering at Employment Exchanges who were in receipt of out-relief on account of unemployment during the months of April and October, 1938, were 526 and 306 respectively.
    Mr. Gardner: When are the Government going to keep their promise to take over all the unemployed?
    Mr. Brown: No such promise was ever given, and, therefore, the question does not arise.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women, respectively, registered as unemployed at the borough of West Ham Employment Exchanges during the last week in January, 1939, or the last convenient date.
    Mr. Brown: At 16th January last, 11,009 men and 2,207 women, aged 18 and over, were registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in the County Borough of West Ham.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Labour as on the last convenient date, the number of applications by the Unemployment Assistance Board for supple mentary allowance in respect of the waiting period in the borough of West Ham; and the number of cases in which such allowances have been granted?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that information relating to local government areas is not available, but I will forward to the hon. Member figures based on the Board's administrative areas which, I hope, will serve his purpose.

    EXCHANGE, NAB LANE, BLACKBURN.
    Sir Walter Smilesasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will have a committee appointed to inquire into the reason for the abnormal amount of sick leave at the Nab Lane; premises at Blackburn;
    (2) whether the Blackburn Employment Exchange at Nab Lane has been inspected by a medical officer at about 12 noon on a pay day, Thursday; if not, will he arrange to have such an inspection and report made?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have had inquiry made into the sick leave at Nab Lane, and find that over the last two years it compares favourably with that for the other men's premises in Blackburn and with the average for the division as a whole. In these circumstances there appears to be no justification for the suggested medical inspection of these premises.
    Sir W. Smiles: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter is urgent, and that the atmosphere in that room sometimes resembles that of the Black Hole of Calcutta?
    Mr. Brown: I could not accept that description of conditions in a room which has four windows on three sides of it and two on the fourth side, making a total of 14 windows, each of which is hinged and with an opening of 4 ft. by 2 ft.

    MAESTEG VALLEY.
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour whether the Commissioner of the Special Areas has considered the representations of the Maesteg Urban District Council for new industries in the Maesteg Valley to help the large number of unemployed persons; and what he proposes to do in the matter?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am in communication with the Commissioner and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Williams: Is it not the case that the Commissioner is concentrating largely upon filling the Treforest estate and neglecting other places like Maesteg and depressed areas in the valley?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member could not expect me to accept that statement. He will understand that the presence of a trading estate is a great magnet which must tend to help a particular area.
    Mr. Williams: Surely the Minister will agree that it should not work to the disadvantage of other depressed areas where there is substantial unemployment?
    Mr. Brown: I have not accepted the view taken by the hon. Member.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Minister bear in mind some depressed areas outside these valleys—in South Yorkshire?
    Mr. Brown: I have them constantly in mind. The hon. Member often reminds me of them, as did his colleague the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) the other day.

    SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the fact that the trading estate at Treforest has absorbed a considerable number of unemployed persons from the many special areas in South Wales and Monmouthshire, he will now consider with the Commissioner for Special Areas, the immediate clearance of sites, and the erection of standard factories in those districts which
    1416
    have not benefited from the Treforest estate?
    Mr. E. Brown: The Commissioner for the Special Areas is prepared in suitable circumstances to provide a factory and to afford other facilities to encourage the establishment of new industrial undertakings outside the trading estates but in general he is not prepared to consider the erection of factories or the immediate clearance of further sites in advance of requirements. I hope that the hon. Member will not overlook the advantage accruing to all areas by the testimony to South Wales which the success of the Trading Estate provides.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the production of coal in South Wales and Mon mouthshire in 1937 was 689,000 tons more than in 1931, with 22,161 fewer mineworkers; and whether he has any proposals to deal with this situation?
    Mr. Brown: The ability to obtain the same or larger output with a smaller direct employment of labour is not confined to the coal industry, and I have no power to restrict it, even if it were advisable to do so. It has in the past been accompanied by the development of new opportunities for employment and the encouragement of such a development is one of the ways in which the Government are endeavouring to help South Wales and Monmouthshire, in addition, of course, to taking all practicable measures to improve the market for coal.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who left the area covered by the employment ex changes in Crumlin, Abertillery, and Blaina during 1938, by obtaining employment themselves or with the assistance of the above exchanges?
    Mr. Brown: I am making inquiries to see what information is available and will write to the hon. Member.

    DURHAM COUNTY.
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Labour what steps the Government are now proposing to take in the Cockfield district of county Durham to give employment, seeing that 48 per cent. of the insured workers are unemployed, and in the Weardale and Teasdale districts of the same county where the incidence of unemployment is also very high?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the continued severe unemployment in these districts which I very much regret. The hon. Member will be aware that in part of the area at least the employment position is very largely governed by the position of the coal trade. As to the steps to deal with the unemployment, the Commissioner for the Special Areas is anxious and ready to assist in the establishment of new industrial undertakings by every means in his power and no opportunity has been or will be lost to bring to the notice of suitable inquirers such facilities as are available to persons contemplating setting up a new undertaking in this district.
    Mr. Sexton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that constructive proposals have been suggested, such as the manufacture of calcium carbide, afforestation and pit drainage, and that nothing has been done by His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Brown: I am aware that votes for calcium carbide were given by hon. Members on the other side that do not seem to conform with the question put.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Were those votes for calcium carbide in regard to this district?
    Mr. Brown: There were other districts concerned.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these districts were never concerned?
    Mr. Brown: I am talking about calcium carbide, and the House will gather that the point went home.
    Mr. Sexton: I am talking about southwest Durham.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the calcium carbide plant was promised to Durham, and that they got nothing?
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour the number of re-assessments made by the Horden, County Durham, Area Office in 1938; and whether these changes indicate increases or reductions in allowances?
    Mr. Brown: The number of allowances revised on review in the Unemployment Assistance Board's administrative area of
    1418
    Horden during the year 1938 was 5,564. I regret that information is not available to enable me to say in what proportion of cases the review resulted in an increase or a decrease compared with the previous assessment.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not important to have information as to whether there was an increase or a decrease arising from the re-assessment?
    Mr. Brown: My difficulty arises from the fact that, as the hon. Member knows, the allowances to the same applicant may be reviewed on several occasions during the year. The records are kept in such a form as to show "Revised Allowance Granted," "Nil Determination" or "No Change."
    Mr. Shinwell: Unless this information is available, how are we to determine whether the Unemployment Assistance Board is fulfilling its function?
    Mr. Brown: As the hon. Member knows, if any applicant to the Unemployment Assistance Board is dissatisfied with the decision, he has his right of appeal.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who are registered as unemployed at the Seaham, Horden, and Haswell offices of the Ministry; and whether he has any schemes in contemplation for providing these persons with suitable work?
    Mr. Brown: At 16th January, 1939, the numbers of the unemployed persons aged 18 and over, on the registers of the Seaham Harbour, Horden and Haswell Employment Exchanges, were 1,457, 845 and 403, representing approximately 10 per cent., 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. of the insured population of the same ages, respectively. Corresponding figures are not available in respect of juveniles under 18 years of age. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. Member is of course aware that employment in these districts derives from the coal industry, and I would remind him of the very close interest which the Government is taking in all the efforts to improve the coal trade.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the close attention given by the Government to the position of the coal industry, there is still

    1419
    a very large number of persons unemployed; and is it not quite clear that the efforts of the Government are not sufficient for the purpose?
    Mr. Brown: I am also aware that in Seaham in 1931, when the hon. Member was in office, the total was 3,002.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall who was the Prime Minister and represented Seaham at that time?
    Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Labour the number of young people who have been sent from the county of Durham to training centres outside of the county?
    Mr. Brown: It is estimated that the number who went to training centres outside the county of Durham during 1938 was between 3,000 and 4,000. Figures covering the whole period during which the Ministry of Labour Training Scheme has been in operation are not available.
    Mr. Leslie: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be advisable, rather than sending these young people away from home and home influence, to have training centres in the county, where over 60,000 persons are unemployed at the present time?
    Mr. Brown: It is always desirable to obtain employment as near home as possible, but the success or failure of a training centre will depend, not merely on the efficiency of its running, but on the possibilities of employment at the conclusion of the course, for those who have been trained. That must be an overriding factor.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that most young people, unfortunately, want to get away from home at 18?
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a considerable number of girls are leaving the county of Durham to take employment as domestic servants in the South of England; that frequently the work is found to be unsatisfactory and the girls are stranded; and what provision exists for the welfare of these girls during periods of unemployment?
    Mr. Brown: I am not aware of any cases of girls from Durham who, after
    1420
    taking domestic employment in the South, have become stranded. My Department is, however, responsible only for such transfers as are effected through official machinery, and in such cases every effort is made, before transfer, to see that the employment is satisfactory. Any girl who finds herself stranded owing to loss of employment should be advised to get into touch with the nearest Employment Exchange where every effort will be made to help her.
    Mr. Sexton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only the daughters of the workers who are exposed to these dangers?
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Labour the number of agricultural workers registered for unemployment at the last available date in the county of Durham?
    Mr. Brown: I am having the figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour the amount paid in unemployment assistance in the county of Durham and the number receiving such assistance?
    Mr. Brown: I am having the desired information extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the administrative county of Durham in cases where men have been in receipt of grants from the Unemployment Assistance Board and started work the Board have refused to grant allowances pending receipt of wages, on the ground that the men were in employment and that many men, able-bodied, have been obliged to apply to the public assistance committee for relief; and will he arrange for these men to be maintained out of national funds and not at the expense of the local ratepayers?
    Mr. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 30th June last to a similar question, a copy of which I will send to him, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for sending me certain particulars which I am having investigated.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men have been out of work for long periods and

    1421
    have no resources, and will he see that grants are made to them until they are in receipt of wages? Does he not agree that maintenance ought to be a national and not a local charge?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot commit myself to that general proposition.

    MINERS.
    Mr. Dunnasked the Minister of Labour how many partially disabled miners and miners suffering with miners' nystagmus and other scheduled industrial diseases whose compensation has been either reduced or discontinued are signing on at the Employment Exchanges, and are receiving benefits, either standard benefits or payments from the Unemployment Assistance Board, to the nearest available date; and why the numbers are increasing?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. Dunn: Is it not possible to get these statistics and to present them to the House?
    Mr. Brown: No, Sir, I understand that they do not exist.
    Mr. T. Williams: Would not the right hon. Gentleman make a further attempt to get them so that we can see what they are?
    Mr. Brown: I will have another look. I am always glad to help hon. Members, but my information is that they could not be got out without a great deal of trouble, in this form.
    Mr. Dunn: If I put a further question down in a week or a fortnight, could the right hon. Gentleman then give me the figures?
    Mr. Brown: I will tell the hon. Gentleman the result of my inquiries.

    BOYS AND GIRLS.
    Mr. Dunnasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the number of boys unemployed under 17 years of age has increased from 48,432 in December, 1938, to 67,422 on 16th February, 1939, an increase of 18,990 boys, and that during that same period and for the same ages, unemployment amongst girls has increased from 46,423 in December to 67,514 in February, an
    1422
    increase of 11,091, a combined increase of 30,061 in two months' time; what explanation has he to give, and what does he propose to do?
    Mr. E. Brown: The figures quoted by the hon. Member relate to the numbers of juveniles under 18 years of age unemployed at 12th December, 1938, and 16th January, 1939, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Between these dates there is normally a considerable increase in unemployment owing to a temporary slackening in activity after Christmas. This year the increase was accentuated by severe weather on the day of the January count. The increase in the number of unemployed juveniles in Great Britain included 25,541 boys and girls under 16 years of age, most of whom had registered as applicants for work upon reaching the school-leaving age at the end of the Christmas term; and a large proportion of these juveniles continue to attend whole-time at school. An increase in the juvenile unemployed register is normal after a school-leaving date and the majority of school-leavers experience little difficulty in finding employment within a short time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Could my right hon. Friend consider carefully the possibility of organising more of these unemployed youths in camps on the lines of the civilian conservation corps camps, which are very popular in the United States?
    Mr. Davidson: Would you go yourself? It would do you good.
    Mr. Brown: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the camps for youths over 18 years of age, but for youths under 18 there is, as a matter of fact, no need for them, because in many parts of the country there is a shortage of this kind of labour.
    Mr. Dunn: Do not the figures and the answer of the Minister prove the necessity of increasing the pensions at 65 years of age, in order to absorb the unemployed?

    INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRES.
    Miss Wilkinsonasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of young men who have refused to attend instructional classes; and what percentage this is of the total applicants for benefit eligible for such centres?
    Mr. E. Brown: Of a total of 54,600 young men, applicants for unemployment assistance, between the ages of 18 and 25 who were interviewed in 1938, about 43,000 or 79 per cent. were unwilling on various grounds to apply for admission to an instructional centre. About 14,700 of this total were men with dependants and I should like to make it clear that in a large number of cases the grounds advanced by the applicants were substantial. Similar figures are not available in the case of claimants to unemployment benefit.
    Miss Wilkinson: Does the Minister think that these figures justify attendance at the centres being made compulsory?
    Mr. Brown: I am not aware that there is any need for that, except in particular cases, and those who have advocated it have always made it clear that they realised that those cases were few and raised special difficulties.
    Miss Wilkinson: Are we to understand from that reply that there is no desire on the part of the Government to make these instructional centres compulsory?
    Mr. Brown: The centres have always been voluntary.
    Viscountess Astor: Would it not be best to deal with this matter by getting the Fisher Act into operation in its entirety?
    Mr. Lawson: Has there not been considerable propaganda in the Press on this matter?
    Mr. Brown: I take no account of propaganda in the Press.
    Sir Louis Smith: On a point of Order. Seeing that there are 190 Questions on the Paper, could you not use your discretion, Mr. Speaker, when many questions are put down to one Minister, and divide them over several days, according to their relative importance and urgency, instead of all the questions being taken on one day?
    Mr. Speaker: My duty is confined to seeing that the questions conform to the Rules which govern the putting of questions on the Paper. I am not concerned with their merits.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Labour how many workers in Scotland, under the age of 35, exhausted their unemployment benefit during last year?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. Kennedy: Can they not be made available?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think so.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been reached regarding the employment of men in Scotland in the construction of the camps to be built for war-time evacuation; whether he can state the areas in which the work will be carried out; and what distinction is drawn between the skilled and unskilled labour available for the work?
    Mr. Brown: As regards the second part of the question, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the possible sites for the camps proposed to be built in Scotland are being examined, but no decision on the matter has yet been taken. As regards the first and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Jenkins).
    Mr. Davidson: In regard to these camps, will the right hon. Gentleman depart from the past policy of placing camps many miles away from districts where the men can enjoy some of the amenities of civilisation?
    Mr. Brown: The camps already established are admirably sited for their purpose.
    Mr. Davidson: You ought to speak to the men about it.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Labour the number of skilled and unskilled labour in the county of Fife now registered as unemployed, and the number registered on the corresponding date of last year?
    Mr. Brown: I am having the available figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour how many men are engaged in tunnelling operations in the Orkneys; how many of these men have been brought from the midlands of Scotland, how many from England, how many are Orcadians who were previously

    1425
    resident locally and employed and unemployed, respectively, where the remainder came from; and how many were brought to the Orkneys by his Department?
    Mr. Brown: I have made detailed inquiries in this connection in consequence of a question asked by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), to whom I am sending a full reply. I will let the hon. Member have a copy of this reply, and if there still remain points on which he desires information I should be glad if he would let me know.
    Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to the last part of the question concerning his Department?
    Mr. Brown: I will let the hon. and learned Member have that information when I send him the answer after I have completed my inquiries.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Labour how many workers were employed in the coalmining and steel industries, respectively, in West Lothian, in January of each of the years 1937, 1938 and 1939; and how many were un employed in each of these industries at the same periods?
    Mr. Brown: I am having the available figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the Official Report.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Labour how many shale workers were employed in West Lothian and Midlothian in January, 1937, 1938 and 1939, respectively; and what was the amount of unemployment amongst shale workers in the two counties, separately, at the same periods?
    Mr. Brown: In the statistics relating to employment and unemployment among insured persons compiled by my Department, shale workers are not separately distinguished. I will see whether figures relating to the numbers of workers employed are available from other sources and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of registered unemployed persons in Scotland for the years ended January, 1933 and 1939, respectively?
    Mr. Brown: The average numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland for
    1426
    the years ended January, 1933, and January, 1939, were 380,799 and 254,958, respectively.
    Mr. Davidson: Does not the Minister think that the slight decrease in unemployment in Scotland, particularly when the Government have such a vast majority, shows the fallacy of their own policy?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not asking for information but giving his views.
    Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. I asked for the figures so that the Minister could indicate whether there has been an increase or a decrease in unemployment, and surely, on finding that there has been such a slight decrease, I am entitled to ask the reason, in view of the Government's majority?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member himself is stating a reason and not asking for one.
    Mr. Davidson: I was asking for the reason.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed men who have undergone training at Glenbranter camp; and the number who have been placed in employment as a result of such training?
    Mr. Brown: The total number of men who have completed training at Glenbranter Instructional Centre since the opening of the centre on 17th August, 1933; is 4,092. Of these, 338 have been placed in employment either during, or within a short period after, training at this centre and a considerable number of others have been transferred to other centres and have obtained employment from there.
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the fact that, of the 6,261 applicants for benefit or unemployment allowances in the Greenock area as at 16th January, 1939, over 17 per cent. had been unemployed for two years or more and over 11 per cent. for three years or more; how many of these were men and how many women; how many had been unemployed for three to five years and over five years,

    1427
    respectively; and if he can give any information regarding the type and causes of this long unemployment?
    Mr. Brown: I am having the available figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?
    Mr. Brown: I will send the information with the statement.
    Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Will my right hon. Friend take particular pains to see that when so many demands are made from the Opposition that large numbers of refugees should be imported into this country, the claims of our own people will come first?

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of the total unemployed registered on any convenient date in January, 1939, had been unemployed for more than three months?
    Mr. E. Brown: Among unemployed persons applying for benefit or unemployment allowances at 16th January, 1939, 36.8 per cent. had been continuously on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain for three months or more. A proportion of these will have had one or more short spells of employment lasting not more than three days each since they came on to the register. Corresponding figures are not available in respect of persons not applying for benefit or allowances.
    Mr. Montagueasked the Minister of Labour what are the proportions of unemployed in Great Britain who have been one month, two months, three months and six months and more, respectively, out of work?
    Mr. Brown: Figures in respect of some of the periods stated are not available, but of those applying for unemployment benefit or allowances in Great Britain at 16th January, 1939, 48.3 per cent. had been continuously on the registers for less than six weeks, 63.2 per cent. for less than three months, 76.5 per cent. for less than six months, and 23.5 per cent. for six months or more. Some of the persons
    1428
    who had been on the registers for extended periods will have had one or more short spells of employment, lasting not more than three days each, during those periods. Corresponding figures are not available for persons not applying for benefit or allowances.
    Mr. Montague: Does the right hon. Gentleman perceive that his figures show that the annual unemployment figure must be between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000?
    Mr. Brown: I would not like to give an off-hand answer on that point.
    Mr. Burke: Since the right hon. Gentleman has given the percentage for the whole country, could he not give the percentage for one town, as asked for in my question earlier? How does he arrive at the aggregate percentage?
    Mr. Brown: I explained that to the hon. Member on a previous question some time ago.
    Mr. Burke: I asked it this afternoon.
    Mr. Brown: It is not on the Order Paper to-day.

    COTTON INDUSTRY (BURNLEY).
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Labour how many cotton operatives were registered at Burnley Employment Exchanges as unemployed on the last convenient date in February, 1939; and how many of these had been unemployed for six months and 12 months, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 16th January, 1939, the latest date for which figures are available, 5,711 insured persons, aged 14–64, in the cotton industry were recorded as unemployed at the Burnley Employment Exchange. I regret that an analysis of this total according to duration of unemployment is not available for a later date than 8th June, 1936.
    Mr. Silverman: Do these figures take into account under-employment?

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any further statement as to what plans the Government has to establish industries in the derelict villages of the Special Areas?
    Mr. E. Brown: As has been made clear on a number of occasions, the Commissioner for the Special Areas is always prepared in suitable circumstances to provide a factory and to offer other facilities to industrialists who propose to establish new industrial undertakings in the Special Areas, and that the Government is most anxious that the fullest use will be made of these and the other loan facilities provided.
    Mr. Leslie: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many industries have been set up in these derelict villages?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will give him the information.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in his great enthusiasm for establishing various industries in distressed areas, bear in mind the fact that there are areas which are not scheduled as Special Areas but which are nevertheless distressed?

    NORTHUMBERLAND.
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour the number of un employed persons, under 21 years of age, who are undergoing training in Northumberland?
    Mr. E. Brown: The number of unemployed men under 21 years of age undergoing training in Northumberland was at the end of January 84, and the number of women and girls 44.

    TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE.
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour the amount provided by the Exchequer to the North-East Trading Estate Company?
    Mr. E. Brown: The present commitments of the Commissioner in respect of the Team Valley Trading Estate amount to £2,336,500, of which £1,560,000 have already been advanced to the Trading Estate Company. This company also provides factories outside the trading estate in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner. The advances to date for this purpose amount to £80,000.
    Mr. Shinwell: So far as Government expenditure on these estates is concerned, will a financial statement be made available to Members of the House?
    Mr. Brown: Statements have, of course, been made on that matter; I am constantly asked questions about it in this House.
    Mr. Shinwell: But can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as regards Government expenditure on these trading estates, there is presented annually to this House a financial statement on which we can make comments?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of that sum of money was devoted to providing work for a competitor of mine; and whether the number of men put into employment by my competitor is equal to the number thrown out of employment at my works?

    HOLLOWAY.
    Mr. Montagueasked the Minister of Labour how many men, juveniles, and women were registered as unemployed at the Holloway, North London, Employment Exchange, Medina Street, N., at the week-end, 25th February?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 16th January, 1939, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers of unemployed men, women and juveniles on the registers of the Holloway Employment Exchange were 6,085, 2,067 and 224 respectively.
    Mr. Montague: Is the Minister aware that the unemployed people using this exchange desire to make arrangements of their own for accommodation nearby; and will he assist them in this matter?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be very glad to discuss that matter with the hon. Member.

    TRAINING.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour particulars of any alterations that have taken place in the schedules for training the unemployed men or women during the previous 12 months; and how many openings have been found for men or women who have completed their training during that period?
    Mr. E. Brown: The courses of training given at Government training centres are varied from time to time to meet the varying demands of industry. Accordingly, during the last 12 months, the numbers of training places available for

    1431
    training for the building trades and certain miscellaneous trades have been to a certain extent diminished, and those for training for the engineering trades have been correspondingly increased. Certain new courses have also been started at a local training centre for training men for semi-skilled work in the aircraft industry, and an experiment is being made in giving women a general training to prepare them for factory work. Women's training has hitherto been virtually confined to domestic service. During the 12 months ended December, 1938, openings were found for 13,874 men and 2,926 women. Courses at other centres have remained unchanged.
    Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman contemplating augmenting the number of these training centres in the early future?
    Mr. Brown: We have enlarged them regularly in the last 15 years. It will depend entirely on our judgment as to the prospects of placing when the training is done.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour the nature of the proposals which the Government have under consideration as to forcing young unemployed men into training camps?
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour what alterations he proposes to make in the Government's policy regarding the treatment of young persons who are unemployed; and whether he proposes to make a statement to this House on the subject?
    Mr. Brown: There are no proposals such as are suggested by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). While, however, I am not yet in a position to amplify the statements made by the Prime Minister, it is clear that an indefinite continuance of unconditional assistance for young men who decline to do anything to equip themselves for employment is not in their interest or in that of the nation.
    Mr. Batey: Are we to understand from that reply that it is the intention of the Government to force these men into training camps?
    Mr. Brown: I have already answered that.
    Mr. Shinwell: Before the Minister goes further in this matter will he produce
    1432
    statistical evidence that young men are declining either to do useful work or to go into the training camps?
    Mr. Brown: The question is entirely hypothetical. I have already said that there are no proposals such as are suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it true that there is no statistical evidence available?
    Mrs. Hardieasked the Minister of Labour how many trainees attended the training centre in Springburn during 1938; from what area were they recruited; and how many were placed in jobs in Scotland and England, respectively?
    Mr. Brown: The number of men who attended the Glasgow Government training centre at Springburn during 1938 was 705, of whom 218 were in training at the beginning of the year, and 487 were admitted during the year. They were all recruited from areas within daily travelling distance of Springburn. Of the total of 425 who completed training during the year, 406 obtained employment, the very large majority in Scotland
    Miss Wilkinson: How many of those were chefs and waiters?
    Mr. Brown: None of them.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: How long do these men remain in the camps? Is the Minister aware that some trainees have been in the camps twice or thrice taking training and that they have then had a week's work and have afterwards been out of work again? Is this not merely wangling the unemployment figures?
    Mr. Brown: The majority of those who have attended training centres and have got jobs are only too glad to recommend their friends to do likewise.
    Mrs. Hardie: Why do such a small percentage of the men obtain situations in Scotland? Is it because the Scottish employers demand a higher degree of skill?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady must put it the other way round. There are great difficulties in this matter because we have always to have regard to the rights of the skilled craftsmen in the trades concerned.
    Miss Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he can put his trainees only in areas where there are no skilled men available?
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that a great many of these questions might have been put down as written questions?
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state if the training centre at Treforest is to be expanded in scope into a full-course training centre?
    Mr. Brown: It may be possible to increase the number of places at this centre, but as at present advised I do not think it would be advantageous to convert it into a full-course training centre.

    WAITERS AND CHEFS (NORTH-EASTERN TRADING ESTATES).
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour how many waiters and chefs travelled from London to be employed at the lunch on the Team Valley Trading Estate on Wednesday, 22nd February, 1939; how much did they cost; and why were not persons employed who reside in the North of England?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am informed by North-Eastern Trading Estates, Limited, that 45 waiters and chefs travelled from London to be employed at the luncheon in question, and that the cost of third-class return fares from London was £107 8s. 9d. I understand also that the estates' catering manager made unsuccessful efforts to obtain suitable men locally, and had travelled as far south as Liverpool for the purpose.
    Mr. Batey: What need was there to take 45 waiters and chefs all this way? Could they not be obtained from the North of England?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows that there has been in the north in the past a good deal of prejudice against this kind of occupation.
    Mr. Batey: Was any effort made to get them in the North of England?
    Mr. Brown: I said the catering manager "had travelled as far south as Liverpool" to get them.
    Mr. Batey: Liverpool is a long way from Gateshead.

    KING'S CROSS EXCHANGE.
    Mr. Cluseasked the Minister of Labour how many men, juveniles, and
    1434
    women were registered as unemployed at the King's Cross Employment Exchange at the week-end, 25th February, 1939; and the figures for the same comparabl date in 1938?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the Official Report.
    Following is the statement:
    Table showing the numbers of unemployed men, women and juveniles on the registers of the King's Cross Employment Exchange, at 16th January, 1939, the latest date for which figures are available, and the corresponding date in 1938.

    —

    16th January, 1939.

    17th January, 1938.

    Men, aged 18 and over

    6,423

    5,831

    Women, aged 18 and over.

    1,749

    1,795

    Juveniles, aged 14–17

    208

    99

    Total, aged 14 and over.

    8,380

    7,725

    PRINTING INDUSTRY, CITY OF LONDON.
    Mr. Cluseasked the Minister of Labour how many printing trade insured workers were registered as unemployed at the City of London Employment Exchange at the week-end, 25th February, 1939; and the figures for the same comparable date in 1938?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 16th January, 1939, the latest date for which figures are available, 2,731 insured persons, aged 14–64, in the printing, publishing and bookbinding industry classification, were recorded at the City of London Employment Exchange as unemployed; the corresponding figure for 17th January, 1938, was 1,986. Separate figures are not available in respect of the printing industry alone.
    Mr. Cluse: As the printing trade workers have a separate exchange, are they not separately registered?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will know that it is for the convenience of industry, where it can be managed, where there is great concentration of one particular trade, that those concerned should register at a particular exchange, as is done in the case of the docks.

    THORNE.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour how many persons are registered as unemployed in the Thorne area; how many are in receipt of unemployment assistance; and what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to provide work?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 16th January, 1939, there were 1,495 unemployed persons, aged 14 and over, on the registers of the Thorne employment exchange, of whom 727 aged 16 to 64 had applications authorised for the payment of unemployment allowances (exclusive of allowances in supplementation of insurance benefit). As regards the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the various statements of Government policy that have been made.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that all his statements on policy with regard to unemployment have not reduced the number of the unemployed in that area?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows that a great deal has been done with regard to the coal industry in that area, and he knows also that a good deal of the problem does not arise in this country, but outside.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister answer the question as to what the Government are doing to find these men employment?
    Mr. Brown: We do everything we can to facilitate their entry into jobs through the ordinary machinery of employment exchanges. This is not an area where it is found easy to get local development councils to work.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not in favour of restoring the seven-hour day in the industry?

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a programme entitled, "We can conquer unemployment"; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action to promote the schemes in that programme?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am the happy owner of an autographed copy of this programme. Before it could be seriously considered at the present tune it would need a good deal of bringing up to date.
    Mr. Williams: As the Minister happens to be one of the signatories of the booklet entitled "We can conquer unemployment," what are the Government and the right hon. Gentleman going to do to carry out the promises made in 1928?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will look at his copy he will find that his statement is inaccurate. One of the reasons for my answer is that a great deal of the programme, more especially in regard to housing, telephones, and things of that kind, has been done during the lifetime of this Government.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour what new proposals affecting unemployment and unemployment administration have been placed into operation since his tour of Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. Brown: As the hon. Member knows there is no single simple solution for unemployment but there have been developments in the activities of the Department in a number of directions during the past year. They will be detailed in the Annual Report of the Ministry shortly to be published.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the schemes that are to be detailed indicate the reason for the increase in unemployment?
    Mr. Brown: I have already made it clear in the official statement issued every month, and perhaps the hon. Member will wait until next month.
    Mr. Mander: Does it not all depend upon the weather?
    Mr. Montague: Are we to understand that everything has been done by the Government that can be done and still there is a huge increase in unemployment? Does not this show that Socialism is necessary?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): Why not ask the Trades Union Council?

    INSURANCE.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now decided to raise the standard of income for those entitled to be insured for unemployment?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have nothing to add at present to previous replies on this subject.

    DARTFORD, ERITH AND BEXLEY HEATH.
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number of young persons and women, respectively, unemployed in each of the Dartford, Erith, Crayford, and Bexley districts on the last ascertained returns; and the comparative numbers for the corresponding month last year;
    (2) the total number of men unemployed in each of the Dartford, Erith, Crayford, and Bexley districts on the last ascertained returns; and the comparative numbers for the corresponding month of last year?

    ——

    16th January, 1939.

    17th January, 1938.

    Dartford.

    Erith.

    Bexley Heath.

    Dartford.

    Erith.

    Bexley Heath.

    Men, aged 18 and over

    …

    961

    916

    828

    794

    699

    642

    Women, aged 18 and over

    …

    320

    208

    302

    213

    128

    193

    Boys, aged 14–17

    …

    74

    67

    102

    44

    49

    78

    Girls, aged 14–17

    …

    118

    84

    132

    82

    40

    92

    Total, aged 14 and over

    …

    1,473

    1,275

    1,364

    1,133

    916

    1,005

    ROTHERHAM.
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered at the Rotherham Employment Exchange during the last three months of 1937, and the number in the corresponding period of 1938; and the number who have been unemployed for three years, two years, and one year, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Table showing the numbers of unemployed persons, aged 14 and over, insured and uninsured, registered at the Rotherham Employment Exchange and Juvenile Employment Bureau at one date in each of the last three months of 1937 and 1938.

    Numbers on the Registers.

    Month.

    1937.

    1938.

    October

    …

    …

    6,451

    6,417

    November

    …

    …

    4,163

    7,138

    December

    …

    …

    4,160

    6,672

    The persons registered as unemployed on 12th December, 1938, included 5,197 applicants for insurance benefit or unemployment allowances, of whom 325 had been continuously on the registers for one year but less than two years, 170 for two
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The table below shows the numbers of unemployed men, women and juveniles on the registers of the Dartford, Erith and Bexley Heath Employment Exchanges at 16th January, 1939, and 17th January, 1938. There is no Employment Exchange at Crayford, and separate figures are not available for that area.
    years but less than three years and 499 for three years or more.
    Of the persons who had been on the registers for extended periods a proportion will have had one or more short spells of employment lasting not more than three days each, during such periods.
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Minister of Labour the number of women and girls signing at the Rotherham Employment Exchange in January, 1938, and the number for the corresponding month in 1939; and whether he has any scheme in hand to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Brown: At 17th January, 1938, 379 women, aged 18 and over, and 249 girls, aged under 18, were on the unemployed register of the Rotherham Employment Exchange. The corresponding figures for 16th January, 1939, were 499 women and 255 girls. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to discuss with me the possibility of schemes of training for women.
    Mr. Thurtle: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for this great increase of unemployment among women?
    Mr. Brown: Not on a question asking for statistics.

    TREFOREST TRADING ESTATE.
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Labour what number of factories on the Treforest Trading Estate come under the Trade Board rates for the payment of their employés; and will he enumerate the firms?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.
    Major Colfox: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for an hon. Member to ask a question without standing up?
    Mr. Speaker: The best way of asking questions is to stand up, and then I can see if the hon. Member is here.
    Mr. Thorne: On a point of Order. Is it not the fact that sometimes when we stand up you ask us to sit down?
    Mr. Pearson: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the importance of the foreign immigrant firms paying fair rates of wages?
    Mr. Brown: I have already said that I have not seen the report and that I am going to make inquiries and will let the hon. Member know.

    PONTYPRIDD.
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Labour what is the present staff establishment at Pontypridd Employment Exchange; how many are permanent and temporary, respectively; and what are the respective totals per week of men and women signing the unemployment register for the past quarter?
    Mr. E. Brown: The staff in post at Pontypridd Employment Exchange on 27th February, 1939, consisted of 39 permanent and 14 temporary officers. During the period referred to in the last part of the question the average weekly numbers signing the register were 4,427 men, 320 women and 540 juveniles.
    Mr. Pearson: In view of the considerable hard core of unemployment in this district, does not the Minister consider that the trading estate by itself will not be an adequate cure for unemployment in that district?

    UMPIRES' DECISIONS.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Minister of Labour what representations he has
    1440
    received with respect to the hardship caused by umpires' decisions in antedating cases, whereby applicants have been deprived of benefit due to genuine misunderstandings; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have received representations on this subject from three local employment committees in the North Western area. The Regulations allow the ante-dating of claims when the claimant shows that there was good cause for his delay in making a claim. I am not satisfied that this provision, as interpreted by the umpire, requires amendment.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Will the Minister consider these representations in the light of allowing the insurance officer to use his discretion rather than the rigid interpretation of the umpire, as these cases are constantly arising?
    Mr. Brown: I am considering these representations, and I will let the hon. Member know when I have concluded my considerations.

    FARNWORTH.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed at the Farnworth Employment Exchange on 31st January, 1939; and what were the corresponding figures on 31st January, 1938?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 16th January, 1939, there were 3,376 unemployed persons, aged 14 and over, on the registers of the Farnworth Employment Exchange; the corresponding figure for 17th January, 1938, was 3,183.

    WIGAN AND ST. HELENS.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonaldasked the Minister of Labour the number of females denied unemployment benefits in the areas controlled from the Wigan and St. Helens Employment Exchanges as a result of refusing work to which they were un accustomed, and as a result of unwilling ness to leave home, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: During last year 48 claims for benefit made by women were disallowed by the Wigan Court of Referees, and 52 by the St. Helens Court of Referees on the ground that the claimant had failed or refused to apply for or to accept a suitable situation. I

    1441
    am unable to give separate figures for the precise grounds of disallowance referred to by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that the treatment meted out to unemployed females in this area is causing great dissatisfaction?
    Mr. Macdonaldasked the Minister of Labour the number of boys registering as unemployed in the areas controlled from Wigan and St. Helens who have been placed in employment, and how many had to leave home to find employment during 1938?
    Mr. Brown: During the year 1938 the numbers of vacancies filled by boys, aged 14–17, registered at the Wigan and St. Helens Juvenile Employment Bureaux were 561 and 415, respectively. Of these eight from Wigan and one from St. Helens involved living away from home.
    Mr. Macdonaldasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed that have been subject to transference in the areas controlled from the Wigan and St. Helens Employment Exchanges; how many have returned home before completing the period for which they were sent; and in what percentage of such cases has unsuitable accommodation been the reason?
    Mr. Brown: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

    ROYSTON AND CUDWORTH.
    Mr. G. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour what number of men over 45 years of age are signing on at Royston and Cudworth Employment Exchanges; and whether he intends to do anything in this district?
    Mr. E. Brown: The information desired is not available for any date since 28th February, 1938. At that date out of 367 unemployed men, aged 21 and over, on the registers of the Royston Employment Exchange 183 were aged 45 and over. At 16th January, 1939, there were 465 unemployed men, aged 21 and over, on the registers of that Exchange. Separate figures are not available in respect of Cudworth. As regards measures for assisting the older unemployed workers, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the course of the Debate on Wednesday of last week.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last fortnight 85 men over 45 years of age have signed on at this Exchange, and will he do something to get these men some work?
    Mr. Brown: I will try.
    Mr. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants who are receiving the winter allowance both under statutory benefits and the Unemployment Assistance Board at the Royston and Cudworth Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that information relating to Employment Exchange areas is not available, but I will forward to the hon. Member figures based on the administrative areas of the Board which, I hope, will serve his purpose.

    CRADLEY HEATH AND BRIERLEY HILL, STAFFORDSHIRE.
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of unemployed persons in the Cradley Heath area of Staffordshire for January, 1938, and January, 1939, respectively;
    (2) the number of unemployed persons in the Brierley Hill area of Staffordshire for January, 1938, and January, 1939, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The following table shows the total numbers of unemployed persons, aged 14 and over, on the registers of the Cradley Heath and Brierley Hill Employment Exchanges at 17th January, 1938, and 16th January,1939:

    17th January, 1938.

    16th January, 1939.

    Cradley Heath

    2,676

    2,745

    Brierley Hill

    1,160

    1,405

    TEES-SIDE.
    Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the large increase in unemployment in the Tees-side area, particularly in the shipyards and iron works; and what proposals has he to deal with the situation?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret the present unsatisfactory position with regard to unemployment on Tees-side and I would

    1443
    refer the hon. Member to the statements which have been made with regard to the policy of the Government in the matter.
    Mr. Leslie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the situation has become so serious that a conference of local authorities was held recently and an application has been made to the right hon. Gentleman to receive a deputation?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made a statement and he has received representations from the shipping industry on this matter.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that the policy to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is a long-term policy? What is he doing now?

    TOTTENHAM.
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women, respectively, registered as unemployed at Tottenham Employment Exchange at the latest available date; and the corresponding figures for 1937 and 1938?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a Table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The following Table shows the numbers of unemployed men and women aged 18 and over, on the registers of the Tottenham Employment Exchange, at a date in January of the years 1937, 1938 and 1939:

    Date.

    Men.

    Women.

    25th January, 1937

    …

    3,864

    554

    17th January, 1938

    …

    4,670

    1,015

    16th January, 1939

    …

    5,378

    1,080

    MINE DRAINAGE, SOUTH-WEST DURHAM.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether any scheme is now in operation with a view to draining the waterlogged coal measures in Southwest Durham; and what progress has been made in the matter up to date?
    Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the question is No. As regards the second part, my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines explained to the hon. Member on 29th November that an effective scheme could be devised only with the co-operation of at least a majority of the coalowners concerned, and I have no
    1444
    information as to the result of the discussions which were then taking place.
    Mr. Lawson: Has not a committee been dealing with waterlogged mines? Has not the Commissioner for the Special Areas been dealing with the question for a long time now? Is nothing to be done?
    Mr. Brown: I should like to have notice about that.

    DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES.
    Mr. Jaggerasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the number of unemployed in the distributive trades has now reached nearly a quarter of a million; and what steps he proposes to take to bring about some change in the situation?
    Mr. Brown: The total number of insured persons aged 16–64 unemployed in the distributive trades in Great Britain at 16th January, 1939, was 214,340, or 10.5 per cent. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, there is normally a seasonal increase in unemployment in the distributive trades in January. The number unemployed at January, 1939, was, however, only slightly above those recorded at January, 1937 and 1938 and was considerably below those recorded at January, 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936.

    BENEFITS AND ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now considered the many representations made to him that benefits and allowances to the unemployed should be increased; and what action is it intended to take?
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the time has now arrived to increase the income of the unemployed of this country; and whether, seeing that the Government can afford to spend millions on defence, will he take steps, without delay, to give the unemployed more than a subsistence allowance?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would remind the hon. Members that changes in the rates of unemployment benefit depend on the Annual Reports of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee on the financial state of the Unemployment Fund. As regards unemployment assistance no changes are in contemplation at present.
    Mr. E. Smith: In view of our past experience in regard to the report of the Unemployment Statutory Committee would the right hon. Gentleman take a personal interest in this question in order that some benefit may accrue?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member, if he will have regard to the previous report of this Committee, will find that in nearly every case there have been substantial advantages for the unemployed.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Arising out of the reply to question 104, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it is a disgrace that we should be calmly prepared to spend so much money on defence, proving that we can afford to do it, while it is always being said that we cannot afford to increase unemployment benefit? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?

  MARITIME CONVENTIONS.
  Mr. James Hallasked the Minister of Labour what countries have ratified the Maritime Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference at Geneva, in October, 1936?
  Mr. E. Brown: With the hon. Member's permission I propose to circulate in the Official Report a table showing the countries which have ratified each of the Conventions referred to.
  Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to recommend that this country also should ratify the treaty?
  Mr. Brown: That, of course, is another question, and the answer is in a White Paper laid before the House.
  Following is the table:
  Officers' Competency Certificates Convention, 1936. Ratified by Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Estonia, New Zealand, Norway, United States of America.
  Holidays with Pay (Sea) Convention, 1936. Ratified by Belgium, United States of America.
  Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936. Ratified by Belgium, United States of America.
  Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936.
  Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention, 1936. Ratified by Australia, Belgium, *Sweden, United States of America.
  Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1936. Ratified by Belgium, Sweden, Brazil, Norway, United States of America.
  1446
  * The ratification by Sweden of this Convention is subject to the reservation that it will only enter into force as regards Sweden when the Convention has already entered into force as regards Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  Mr. J. Hallasked the Minister of Labour whether he has completed his inquiries regarding seamen's welfare in ports; and what steps have been taken to give effect to the seamen's welfare in ports recommendation adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1936?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir. The inquiries which I have initiated in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade will necessarily take some little time, owing to the number of ports which it is desirable to visit in order that a really comprehensive picture of the situation may be available. As regards the second part of the question, the purpose of the inquiry is to assist in showing what steps may be necessary.
  Mr. Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this inaction on the part of the Government is unfair to seamen, and that a Convention of this sort is long overdue?
  Mr. Brown: I do not agree. The ports covered by the inquiry are Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, Newcastle, South Shields, Hull, Liverpool, Belfast, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Leith and London, and the House will realise that that will take some little time.
  Mr. Davidson: Can the Minister indicate what he means by "some little time"?
  Mr. Brown: No, it is a general indication.
  Mr. R. Gibson: Will the Minister see that Greenock is added to that list?
  Mr. Brown: Not at the moment. It would take longer if Greenock were added.
  Mr. J. Hallasked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to ascertain the views of the Governments of Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding the ratification of the Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention, which will become effective in Sweden at such time as it also becomes effective in Great Britain and the five other countries already mentioned?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir. The reasons why His Majesty's Government do not propose to ratify this Convention were set out in a White Paper (Cmd. 5745), presented to the House in May of last year, and remain unaltered.
  Mr. Hall: Has there not been unwillingness on the part of the Government to make very necessary improvements in the scheme?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir, I do not think so. I agree with the White Paper, which says:
  "His Majesty's Government do not propose to ratify this Convention as it would entail a variation of voluntary agreements recently made by the industry itself and also entail the laying down of maximum working hours for ships' officers, who occupy highly responsible positions."
  Mr. Shinwell: In spite of the voluntary agreements to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is it not the case that seamen are not yet satisfied with the manning provisions?
  Mr. Brown: That may be so, but that does not invalidate the conclusions of the White Paper.

  EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS (FOREIGN COMPANIES, GREAT BRITAIN).
  Mr. Lathanasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the difficulty which has arisen owing to the action of the Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, Limited, of High Holborn, London, whose headquarters are situated in Zurich, Switzerland, making it a condition of employment that no member of the staff shall join a British trade union; and whether he will make it obligatory upon all persons of foreign nationality establishing businesses or branches of business in Great Britain to give undertakings that they will observe the labour conditions obtaining amongst similar firms of good repute in Great Britain and not seek to encroach upon the civil rights and liberties of British subjects?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am in communication with the company in regard to these matters and will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the company in a case like this that they must conform to
  1448
  the conditions which prevail in this country?
  Mr. Brown: I have no power to do that, but I am in communication with them about the facts, and perhaps we can discuss it further.
  Mr. Davies: Has not the right hon. Gentleman power to compel a foreign company employing labour in this country to conform to the conditions which prevail in this country?
  Mr. Brown: My answer is accurate in that respect.
  Mr. Thorne: What is the Minister going to do if the answer is unsatisfactory?
  Mr. Brown: We will wait and see about that.

  FILM INDUSTRY (EMPLOYÉS' CONDITIONS).
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour the reasons supplied to him for the relay in negotiating agreements between the cinematograph exhibitors and the employes for those areas in which agreements have not yet been completed; and what action he now proposes to take following the inquiry held by his Department into the working conditions and hours of person employed in the cinematograph industry?
  Mr. E. Brown: As regards the first part of the question, I am not aware of any avoidable delay in negotiating agreements of the kind referred to. It will obviously be a matter of time to reach agreements covering all districts, and my information is that steady progress is being made. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 2nd February.
  Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many small exhibitors endeavour to avoid entering into agreements, so as to avoid paying trade union rates of wages?
  Mr. T. Williams: Has any agreement yet been reached in Manchester; and, if not, what action or help has the right hon. Gentleman's Department given to produce it?
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will give him an answer.
  Mrs. Adamsonasked the Minister of Labour how many agreements have been made between employers and the trade unions affecting the conditions and wages of attendants in the cinema industry?
  Mr. Brown: The number of agreements known to my Department is 25.

  FUEL RESEARCH.
  Mr. Chorltonasked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether any research experiments are being conducted with the gas turbine using coal-dust as fuel, in view of the national importance of increasing the use of coal?
  The Paymaster-General (Earl Winterton): My Noble Friend is aware of the attention that has been directed towards the possibility of developing a form of turbine engine driven by coal-dust. In particular, general consideration has been given to this problem at the Fuel Research Station, but, as I informed my hon. Friend in reply to his question of 17th November last, the station is concentrating, in the first instance, on the basic problems encountered in the use of powdered coal in an engine. When sufficient information has been obtained about these basic problems it will be possible to consider more closely the application of such knowledge to the development of a turbine. The replies which I have previously given to my hon. Friend will have indicated that considerable progress has already been made in this fundamental research.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anthracite coal-dust is now being used in substitution for oil?
  Earl Winterton: The body which is investigating the matter fully appreciate the importance of that. I hope that within a short time it will be possible to report the results of its investigations.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE (PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE).
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information as to when the Committee for Public Works appointed by the International Labour Office will hold its first meeting?
  Mr. E. Brown: A preliminary meeting was held in June last. It will be for the Governing Body of the International Labour Office to decide when the next meeting is to be convened.
  Mr. Lawson: Has a representative of the Department been appointed to this committee yet?
  Mr. Brown: There was a representative at the original meeting, and there will be at the next.
  Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked this question last week and could not get an answer?
  Mr. Brown: A representative of His Majesty's Government was present at the original meeting, and, of course, we do not appoint a particular person until we receive notice when the next meeting is to be held, and then we shall do so.

  DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES (EMPLOYÉS CONDITIONS).
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether the report submitted to him on conditions of employment in the distributive trades, by the committee representing employers and employed, will be published and made available to hon. Members of this House?
  Mr. E. Brown: I propose to make the report available to hon. Members in a convenient form.
  Mr. Flemingasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a report of the joint conference of employers' and employees' organisations of the distributive and allied trades; and what action he intends to take in order to implement any of the recommendations contained therein?
  Mr. Jaggerasked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to take steps to implement the recommendations contained in the memorandum submitted to him by the Committee on the Regulation of Wages and Conditions of Labour in the Distributive Trade?
  Mr. Brown: The report has been received only within the last few days and I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the recommendations.
  Mr. Fleming: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity to discuss this report?
  Mr. Brown: I cannot say until I have concluded my consideration of this very valuable document.
  Miss Wilkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the report is likely to be in the hands of hon. Members?
  Mr. Brown: I cannot say.

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an estimate of the number of family allowances being paid in industry?
  Mr. E. Brown: I regret that the information which my hon. Friend desires is not available.
  Mr. Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend try to get the figures?
  Mr. Brown: I am not sure that they exist, but I will inquire from the federation whether they have any information?
  Mr. Pilkington: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend has had a very good innings this afternoon against very erratic bowling?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for next week, and for what purpose he proposes to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The business for next week will be:
Monday.—Third Reading of the Defence Loans Bill; Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates beginning with Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum; Prisons, England and Wales; Fishery Board for Scotland; India and Burma Services, and other Votes; Consideration of

Division No. 49.]

AYES.

[3.51 p.m.

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

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

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Albary, Sir Irving

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

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

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

Bernays, R. H.

Bull, B. B.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Blair, Sir R.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Bossom, A. C.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton

Boulton, W. W.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

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

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Balniel, Lord

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Cary, R. A.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

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

Government of India and Burma Draft Orders in Council.
Tuesday.—Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for Diplomatic and Consular Services, and the Foreign Office, and consideration of other outstanding Estimates in Committee and on Report.
Wednesday.—Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Army Estimates, 1939, and Committee stage of Votes A, 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and Ordnance Factories, and of Army Supplementary Estimates, 1938.
Thursday.—Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Air Estimates, 1939, and Committee stage of Votes A, 1, 4, 3 and 8, and of Air Supplementary Estimates, 1938.
Friday.—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
During the week, as opportunity offers, other Orders may be taken, including the Report and Third Reading of the Cancer Bill.
Mr. Attlee: With regard to the business on Monday and Tuesday, there are a large number of Supplementary Estimates, and I assume that it is not the intention of the Prime Minister to ask the House to enter upon the consideration of any important business at a late hour.
The Prime Minister: It will be necessary to see how we get on before I commit myself finally.
Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that we should sit late to-night?
The Prime Minister: I hope not.
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, 233; Nose, 107.

Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

Higgs, W. F.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Hopkinson, A.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

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

Horsbrugh, Florence

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Channon, H.

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

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

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

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Hulbert, N. J.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hunloke, H. P.

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Hunter, T.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Colfox, Major W. P.

Hutchinson, G. C.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

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

Russell, Sir Alexander

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

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwan)

Craven-Ellis, W.

Keeling, E. H.

Salmon, Sir I

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Salt, E. W.

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Karr, H. W. (Oldham)

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

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

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Samuel, M. R. A.

Crossley, A. C.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Kimball, L.

Sandys, E. D

Culverwell, C. T.

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

Scott, Lord William

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Selley, H. R.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

De Chair, S. S.

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Simmonds, O. E.

De la Bère, R.

Latham, Sir P.

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

Denman, Hon. R, D.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Danville, Alfred

Lees-Jones, J.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

Donner, P. W.

Lewis, O.

Snadden, W. McN.

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

Lindsay, K. M.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

Lipson, D. L.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Drewe, C.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

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

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Lloyd, G. W.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Storey, S.

Dunglass, Lord

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Eckersley, P. T.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

McKie, J. H.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Maitland, Sir Adam

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Ellis, Sir G.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Tate, Mavis C.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

Thomas, J. P. L.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Markham, S. F.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Everard, Sir William Lindsay

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Touche, G. C.

Fildes, Sir H.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Train, Sir J.

Fleming, E. L.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Earn

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)

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

Furness, S. N.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

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

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Warrender, Sir V.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

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

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Goldie, N. B.

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

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Wells, Sir Sydney

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Patrick, C. M.

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

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Peaks, O.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Grimston, R. V.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Pilkington, R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Hambro, A. V.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Hannah, I. C.

Porritt, R. W.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

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

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

York, C.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Procter, Major H. A.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Radford, E. A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Ramsbotham, H.

Captain Hope and Mr. Munro.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Bromfield, W.

Dobbie, W.

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

Burke, W. A.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Adamson, W. M.

Cape, T.

Ede, J. C.

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

Chater, D.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Cluse, W. S.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Collindridge, F.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Banfield, J. W.

Cove, W. G.

Gallacher, W.

Barr, J

Daggar, G.

Gardner, B. W.

Batey, J.

Dalton, H.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Bellenger, F. J.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Benson, G.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Bevan, A.

Day, H.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

1454

1455

Grenfell, D. R.

Mathers, G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

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

Maxton, J.

Stephen, C

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Masser, F.

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

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Milner, Major J.

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

Hardie, Agnes

Montague, F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Harris, Sir P. A.

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

Thorne, W.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

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

Thurtle, E.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Muff, G

Tinker, J. J.

Jagger, J.

Paling, W.

Tomlinson, G.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Parker, J.

Viant, S. P.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Parkinson, J. A.

Walkden, A. G.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Pearson, A.

Watson, W. McL.

Kirkwood, D.

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

Welsh, J. C.

Lathan, G.

Ridley, G.

Westwood, J.

Lawson, J. J.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Wilkinson, Ellen

Leach, W.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Leslie, J. R.

Sanders, W. S.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Logan, D. G.

Sexton, T. M.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Shinwell, E.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

McGhee, H. G.

Silverman, S. S.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Maclean, N.

Simpson, F. B.

MacNeill Weir, L.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mander, G. le M.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

Marshall, F.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

BILLS REPORTED.

  EXETER EXTENSION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.
  WLLLENHALL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

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

BREAKING UP OF STREETS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.
Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [28th February] as relates to the time and place of meeting of the Joint Committee on the Breaking up of Streets by Statutory Undertakers be now considered.—[Mr. James Stuart.]
So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Mr. James Stuart.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1938.
      Class I.

        PRIVY SEAL OFFICE.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,942, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expense of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
        4.0 p.m.
        The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The Debate yesterday showed two things. It showed quite clearly that in considering this novel subject hon. Members were determined to examine it in all its details, for although all the speeches ran to unusual length I do not think there was a complaint from any side that the speeches were too long in view of the importance of the subject. It is true that the speeches of yesterday showed how vast is the field which we have to review. So, without more ado I shall come straight to examination of the problems which have been entrusted to me and my Department. In the first place, I should like to say that the whole plan of Civil Defence rests on the regional organisation. The Ministry of Health's activities are intimately bound up with local government, and these new developments touch both the Ministry and the local authorities at a great number of points. The Ministry of Health, therefore, plays a considerable part in the regional emergency organisation.
        It was intimated yesterday again by the Lord Privy Seal that the country is being divided into 12 regions, to each of which a commissioner and a deputy-commissioner will be appointed. Each of these regions will have an office and staff, and we at the Ministry will provide a number of officers who will serve on the staff of the commissioner. In war time, of course, the regional commissioners will be responsible for co-ordinating the emergency services of the several departments. But
        1498
        so long as communications are maintained with Whitehall the regional commissioners will not be responsible for the execution of those services, that is to say, things will run on normal lines unless and until communications are interrupted. Each department will have its own regional office and regional staff for the conduct of the services for which it is responsible. The regional staffs will look to their parent offices for instructions. Of course, in the event of a breakdown of communications the regional commissioner takes over full responsibility for all such services. That is to say, he acts in the region as the Government would act if it was still in communication with the region.
        In peace time it will be the duty of the regional commissioner to establish touch with the local authorities in his region, and with that object a regional council, under the chairmanship of the commissioner, will be set up in each region. The council will consist of representatives of the county councils and the county borough councils in the region, and of the regional staffs of the Government Departments concerned. The Ministry of Health, like the other Departments, will have a regional office and regional staff for emergency purposes in each of these regions. We have already offices adequate for the purpose. Some of these offices are now being improved.
        The Committee may like to hear the lay-out of the Ministry's staff, because that indicates the lay-out of other similar staffs at the headquarters of the regional commissioner. We shall have a senior regional officer, who will in each case be a senior administrative officer of our Department, that is to say a civil servant. He will be in general charge of the regional staff. He will be assisted by a deputy, who will act also as establishment officer, a medical staff, and officers representing such departments as water and sewerage, engineering, housing, evacuation and finance. He will represent, so to speak, the medical services and certain branches of civil engineering services in the regions. I think it is desirable to emphasise that there is nothing in that organisation which can be said to be at variance with our normal practice. In an emergency central control is inevitable, but under the proposed organisation, there

        1499
        will be full co-operation with local authorities, for instance, in the councils which the regional commissioners are to set up. The function of the regional officers of the Ministry will primarily be that of assisting and advising local authorities in any difficulties which they may encounter. That is a function, after all, to which officials of the Department are accustomed. As Minister of Health, whose previous title was that of President of the Local Government Board, I am very jealous of the status of local authorities in this matter. We are keenly desirous that their importance in this scheme should not in any way be minimised, and right hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite will be reassured in understanding that that is the approach which we make to this great problem from the local government side.
        In health questions the regional medical staff will be concerned both with the normal peace-time public health and national health insurance services and also with the treatment of casualties. I do not want to elaborate that point now, for I will have to speak on it in some detail later. But the regional staffs will have other work. They will be seriously concerned with the reconstruction side of housing for instance. In an intensive series of air bombardments one must expect an extensive destruction of the housing of the people, and it is very desirable to have an organisation capable of dealing with that.
        A plan has been prepared for this purpose and its final details are now being worked out. The aim of our plan is to secure that damaged housing accommodation which is occupied and still must be occupied will be immediately rendered reasonably habitable by repairs of a temporary nature, and that subsequently, when time is available, repairs of a more permanent character will be carried out. It is contemplated that that work will be carried out under the control of the housing authority, and that they will use as their agents such building staff as they possess, together with locally organised units of the building industry. We are in touch, through the Lord Privy Seal, with the building industry, and both labour and employers have indicated their willingness to render public service to the full extent of their capacity. They
        1500
        have worked out elaborate plans for dealing with this difficulty. The locally organised effort will find expert assistance at its disposal both at Whitehall and in the regions which we are setting up. We shall also have here in London a team of people skilled in building administration who will be available to strengthen our representatives in any hard-pressed regions. Suppose that some region were heavily bombed and a great deal of destruction were done. We can send down from here a team which will assist the local authorities and the building trades in their efforts to get essential shelter reestablished as soon as possible.
        In view of the present activity in the building industry it is unlikely that there will be a demand for ordinary building materials which could not be met. There is an adequacy of ordinary building materials; but of course, for emergency repairing substances, such as corrugated iron or roofing felt, it may well be that there will be some shortage. We are examining the available supplies of these materials in the light of possible demands, and if a shortage is disclosed we shall take the necessary steps to see that it is made good at the earliest possible moment.
        Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will desire evidence that advantage is not being taken of these national needs in order to profiteer. The case of cement was mentioned last week. It has not been mentioned in these Debates, but it might be desirable to refer to the very natural anxiety which was evinced by some hon. Members. The present position is that a strong committee exists under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hillsborough Division (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Hicks) also sit on the committee. That committee has investigated the case of cement, and it recommended that I should go into the question with the manufacturers. That is being done. It is obiously undesirable, therefore, that I should go into the matter further now, except to say that, comparing the end of 1935, when admittedly there was no great amount of Government activity in this direction, with the end of 1938, cement showed a rise of five points. I looked into the figures relating to other building materials. There was a rise in the case of building

        1501
        lime of 10 points, in the case of joinery timber of 11 points, in the case of carcassing timber of 18 points, and in the case of common bricks of one point. There was, as will be seen, undoubtedly a rise in the price of cement during that time, but in other building materials there has been a rise in some cases greater, and in some cases less. Facing bricks show a rise of four points.
        Major Milner: Does not the fact that the Committee suggested that the matter should be gone into with the manufacturers indicate dissatisfaction with the position?
        Mr. Elliot: I think the Committee were right. There was a rise and we intend to go into it with the manufacturers.
        Mr. Duncan: When was the report received?
        Mr. Elliot: I received the report just before Christmas.
        So much for the housing activities. Of course, the Committee is very greatly interested in the provision of medical services—a matter which may touch any of us very greatly indeed. The medical services for which the Ministry's regional medical staff will be responsible fall into two sections. The first will be the maintenance of the public health services, and the second the treatment of casualties. The treatment of casualties is, for the moment, under the control of the Ministry's hospital officers. There is one in each region, and he has been posted to the region for several months past, working in the closest consultation with the local authorities and the voluntary hospitals. The Parliamentary Secretary and I have visited several regions and had conferences with the hospital authorities and officers in those regions. It has been intended for some time that we should regionalise our medical staff, that it should not be concentrated in Whitehall, but that the officers should go into the regions and live there. That scheme is now being put into operation, and the hospital officers will become part of our medical organisation, whether there is an emergency or not.
        We envisage further that a principal regional medical officer should be appointed in each region to supervise the medical administrative work. He will
        1502
        work hand in hand with the local emergency committees representing the medical profession which, as hon. Members know, have been set up to regulate the supply of medical personnel. A remarkable piece of self-organisation has been done by the medical profession, starting with the register, which covers 95 per cent. of the doctors, and now completed by the regional organisation which covers every part of the country and practically all the effective medical personnel. The principal regional medical officer should be aware of any sudden drafts of doctors which might deplete the ranks of the general practitioners, for, of course, the general practitioners would still play an essential part in health insurance work and general practice. But the main emergency activity of the principal regional medical officer will undoubtedly be that of superintending the arrangements for the reception and treatment of casualties. He will work through the hospital officers.
        I come now to the hospital organisation which we have drawn up in recent months to meet these very distasteful possibilities.
        Mr. Messer: Are we to take it that the regional medical officer will supplant the county medical officer?
        Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. The region is very much larger than the county. The regional medical officer will merely be the representative in the region of the Ministry, to whom the county medical officer will normally apply. Instead of being in Whitehall, the regional medical officer will be in, say, Cambridge or Bristol. It will be more convenient. He will not in any way supplant the county medical officer or the borough medical officer. In case of emergency, the county and borough medical officers will be able to get access more easily to the regional medical officer, and if there is no emergency, their inquiries will be more expeditiously answered.
        Mr. Lipson: Will the regional medical officer be one of the medical officers at present living in the region who will be appointed to this office by the Ministry of Health?
        Mr. Elliot: No, he will be a permanent officer from the Department who will go down to the regions. I was about to deal with our hospital organisation. The

        1503
        problem which our hospital organisation must be designed to meet is the problem of a very large number of casualties coming very suddenly and tending to taper off. Such, we are assured by the Defence Ministries, is the most probable outline of the curve of casualties in hostilities which would be involved by air warfare over Great Britain. To deal with this problem, we propose to work, as far as possible, through the existing hospitals and the existing hospital organisations of this country, both municipal and voluntary. Within the regions which I have already outlined, the local government units form the basis of an existing structure. There is one great exception to this, however—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney(Mr. H. Morrison) will realise—and that is Greater London. The problem of Greater London requires special treatment, and a special organisation has been worked out with that in view.
        The general picture may be summed up as follows. There are at present 500,000 institutional beds in England and Wales; 130,000 of these are in mental hospitals. Our intention is that this great number should be organised into a co-ordinated single system which will receive casualties occurring amongst either the civilian population or the Fighting Services. It would manifestly be absurd, if a bomb fell at the end of Westminster Bridge and wounded a passing sailor, an airman, two members of the anti-aircraft gun crew and half a dozen civilians, that ambulances should come and remove these four different categories of persons to four different sets of hospitals. The major principle upon which we are going is that a casualty is a wounded person, either civil or military, and that until the stage of convalescence, he or she will be treated primarily from the point of view of injury and not of occupation.
        Mr. R. C. Morrison: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that there are 130,000 spare beds?
        Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. The figure of 500,000 is the total number of beds in our institutions, occupied and unoccupied. That is the basis from which we start to build the organisation which we intend to set up to deal with any possible further claims upon those beds as a result of
        1504
        enemy action over our country. This great hospital system contains, of course, a proportion of spare beds, and a considerable number of persons who are convalescent and on the point of leaving. We carried out a careful survey last year with a view to finding out what proportion could be made immediately available by making use of those two facts. It is estimated—and this estimate has been carefully checked—that by using the accommodation at present existing and that which can be released by sending home those who are fit to go, approximately 120,000 hospital beds could be made available in England and Wales within 24 hours of the receipt of warning. In a number of cases, it will be necessary to transfer patients from evacuation areas to reception areas, but, as the Committee will perceive, this does not, of course, make available additional beds.
        The next stage is to increase the actual bed accommodation of the country. This will be done in two stages. In the first place, arrangements are being made to introduce additional beds into certain hospitals and institutions. For this 80,000 extra beds, with bedding, have been provided, and arrangements for distributing these beds and bedding are well advanced. These also will be available in the first 24 hours. In addition to all this, room can, if necessary, be made within the existing hospital system for the accommodation of a further 100,000 beds by taking in ancillary buildings. To sum up, therefore, 300,000 beds could be made available for casualties within the existing hospital system, and 200,000 of these would be available within the first 24 hours of the development of an emergency.
        Two big problems now have to be faced: first, the actual detailed organisation under which the scheme will work—for these are merely gross figures—and, secondly, the problems of staffing this enormous expansion. Originally, the emergency hospital organisation was conceived in terms of casualty clearing stations and base hospitals, and it was thought that local authorities could properly be expected to initiate proposals for the casualty clearing stations, provided that the Government undertook full responsibility for the base hospitals. On consideration, however, it became clear that under air-raid conditions, the distinction would not be entirely applicable,

        1505
        as there can be no fixed front line. Accordingly, any hospital might at any time be called upon either to treat casualties arising locally or to receive for prolonged treatment casualties transferred from other hospitals. For this reason, it was decided that the local authorities should be relieved of all their direct responsibility for the organisation of hospital accommodation, and that the Government should undertake the whole of this service, with assistance from the authorities. At the same time, as I think the Committee will agree, the idea of casualty clearing and base hospitals cannot be entirely abandoned, since it must be assumed that certain areas are more likely to be subjected to intensive attack than others. Consequently, we base our general organisation on the assumption that arrangements must be made to move casualties from the presumed danger areas, with as little delay as possible, to the rural and semi-rural areas which must be presumed to be comparatively safer.
        I do not need now to go into the details of the hospitals organisation we have adopted. It is fully explained in the Emergency Medical Services Memorandum No. 2, recently issued from the Ministry. One of the most important features of the emergency scheme is a proposal to link up casualty hospitals in the danger areas both to each other and to selected hospitals in the outer areas. The object is partly to enable arrangements to be made in advance of an emergency for spreading the medical and nursing personnel—naturally, one does not wish to concentrate them in the highly dangerous areas—and the equipment, which in peace-time are mainly concentrated in a comparatively small number of hospitals, situated in the larger towns; and partly that the evacuation of patients from the danger areas to the hospitals outside may, as far as possible, be pre-arranged. The Committee will realise that some of the hospitals in the rural areas which are to act as base hospitals for the larger towns have at present neither staff nor surgical equipment on the scale necessary for undertaking heavy casualty work, and it will be necessary to send out to them some of the equipment and personnel, both for the purpose of starting these hospitals, and for the purpose of removing that equipment and personnel from the more dangerous areas in the heart of great cities.
        1506
        The Department's hospital officers are at present consulting with the hospital authorities and working out these affiliation schemes. The most important of all these is the great problem of London. The London region presents, of course, an entirely special problem. The mere local government of London makes it a special problem itself. Therefore, we had to work out an affiliation scheme in some detail. It is not intended that casualties should be retained for treatment in London, and we want to take them out as soon as possible. There are 50,000 existing hospital beds in the County of London, most of them first-class surgical beds, and accordingly, it is considered not only that there is no necessity for increasing the number of these beds in an emergency, but that only a proportion of the beds in the larger general hospitals should be kept in commission for casualties. This means that only a proportion of the medical and nursing staff need be retained. With this in mind, we have worked out an administrative scheme for London of a somewhat novel kind. We envisage the London police area. The term "Greater London" has many meanings, but I will call it Greater London for convenience.
        Mr. Herbert Morrison: Police London is Greater London.
        Mr. Elliot: The scheme will go outside Greater London. We have divided the London region into ten sectors radiating from Charing Cross, each having at its apex one or more of the great teaching hospitals. These hospitals, together with the municipal and other hospitals in the same sector, are being linked to hospitals and institutions out in the Home Counties, which can be expanded into base hospitals. In the event of air raids over London, the casualties received in the inner hospitals would be evacuated outwards along each sector to the institutions outside. These institutions will be staffed and equipped as far as practicable from the inner hospitals where the occupied beds are, as already explained, to be substantially reduced.
        It is plain that detailed plans will have to be worked out for each of these groups of hospitals. The sectors are, in effect, 10 new synthetic cities and we have to get some sort of group officer who will take a whole sector as his charge. We

        1507
        have now appointed, in consultation with the 12 London teaching hospitals, representatives who will be designated as "group officers," and whose responsibility it will be, each for his own sector, to work out the plan for the sector in advance of an emergency, in collaboration with the Chief Medical Officer of the London County Council and the medical officers of health of the hospital authorities outside. We have undertaken to pay fees to the group officers in consideration of the expense to which they would be put in working out their schemes. I have here a list of those officers. I do not know whether the Committee would be interested to hear their names. They are:

        Sector A: Sir Girling Ball, F.R.C.S., and C. A. Joll, Esq., F.R.C.S.

        Sector B: Norman Lake, Esq., F.R.C.S., and W. J. Pearson, Esq., D.S.O., M.C., F.R.C.P.

        Sector C: E. Rock Carling, Esq., F.R.C.S., and C. H. S. Frankau, Esq., C.B.E., D.S.O., F.R.C.S.

        Hon. Members: Who?
        Mr. Elliot: I can reassure hon. Members. The name is spelt differently from that which they have in mind. The others are:

        Sectors D and E: Russell Howard, Esq., C.B.E., F.R.C.S.

        Sector F: Professor T. B. Johnston, M.D.

        Sector G: C. Max Page, Esq., D.S.O., F.R.C.S.

        Sector H: H. E. A. Boldero, Esq., F.R.C.P.

        Sector I: Sir Charles Wilson, M.C., F.R.C.P.

        Sector J: John Hunter, Esq., M.C., F.R.C.S.

        In the list there are three members of the Distinguished Service Order and three holders of the Military Cross, and I think that practically every man jack of them is a Fellow either of the Royal College of Surgeons or the Royal College of Physicians. I think we are very fortunate to have 12 such distinguished gentlemen to assume this responsibility. They have all accepted nomination, and so, I am able to say that the London hospital plan is drawn up and will be operated on lines approved by the leaders of the profession, and that those who are to be in charge in war, are in charge now. They will, as I have said, work in collaboration with Sir Frederick Menzies, K.B.E., M.D., F.R.C.P., K.H.P., the Chief Medical Officer of the London County Council.
        1508
        As for the structural precautions to be taken for the protection of hospital buildings, these are of great importance, and I propose to go into that question in some detail later in my remarks.
        Mr. Simmonds: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of London organisation, would he say whether any of these sectors run very much to the East of a North-South line through London?
        Mr. Elliot: They overlap the Home Counties in each direction, but not to any great extent. They run up to 50 miles outside London all round, so that if some important institution is just outside the administrative boundary of Greater London, it shall not by reason of that fact alone, be entirely ruled out of consideration in the event of a possible emergency arising in the centre.
        Sir Francis Fremantle: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of group medical officers for London. Is there a group representative of the Ministry of Health for each of the regions, or will the Ministry be represented merely as it is at present, centrally?
        Mr. Ellis Smith: London is not the whole of Great Britain.
        Mr. Elliot: I am discussing the London plan now. Nobody suggests that London is the whole of Great Britain. Since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney is not in his place now, that blasphemous observation may be allowed to pass and we will agree that it is not the whole of Great Britain. But surely that remark is not relevant. I am discussing at present the exact organisation of London and the regions immediately adjacent to London. The organisation of Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Dundee or Glasgow is quite a separate matter from this. I am merely saying that a special organisation is required for Greater London, which presents problems of a special kind owing both to the complexity of its administration and its enormous size. Now I turn to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). The answer is "No." The Ministry's organisation is, of course, centred in London and it is not necessary to have a Ministry officer for each group, although we shall, of course,

        1509
        have more or less an "opposite number," that is, a Ministry officer for the London region with officers working under him.
        Mr. Aneurin Bevan: In the course of the Debate yesterday some hon. Members expressed anxiety about whether women and children were to be evacuated along the line likely to be taken by aircraft coming over, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any of the spokes of the wheel which he has described go out to the East or the North-East.
        Mr. Elliot: Certainly.
        Mr. Bevan: How far do they reach out?
        Mr. Elliot: I would point out that the question of evacuation is quite a separate one, to which I shall come later. The spokes of the wheel, as they have been described, reach out beyond the confines of Greater London to bring in institutions which might be just over the border.
        Mr. Bevan: Eastwards and North-eastwards?
        Mr. Elliot: Eastwards and north-eastwards and in every direction. The essence of the air-raid problem is not the question of direction. A person might be very much safer in a rural part of Essex than in, say, the centre of Cardiff, although Cardiff is further west than Essex. As I say, I shall come to the question of evacuation later, but I would point out that we must not conclude that the pilots of aeroplanes will always take the shortest way. This is a comparatively small island; you can fly across it in 20minutes, and you can fly from end to end of it in a couple of hours, and none of us can assume that a place will be safe simply because it lies in a particular direction from London. I was only indicating, however, that as distinct from other areas, where we are making use of the mosaic of the existing local government units for organisation purposes, in the case of Greater London, a different kind of organisation is necessary, because the mosaic of the local government units of London is inappropriate to the kind of problem which we are considering. I am anxious to make it clear to the Committee that in the case of London we are operating on a different plan from that on which we are operating for the rest of the country.
        1510
        I turn now to the problem of hospital personnel. It has already been explained that the combined medical staff of the groups of affiliated hospitals should be organised on a plan worked out in peace time under the aegis of the group officers—that is, the group officers for all parts of the country, and not merely for London alone. Surgical teams would be assigned to the appropriate hospitals in the group, and mobile surgical teams would also be organised to deal with exceptional pressure at any hospital or elsewhere. If additional personnel is required, this would be supplied from the medical register of 45,000 doctors which has been established by the central emergency committees set up by the British Medical Association at the Government's request. Local sections of this register are being held by local emergency committees so as to make sure that doctors can be easily allocated. We intend to allot individual doctors to particular hospitals or groups of hospitals in advance of an emergency and, in addition, arrangements are being made for the central committee to reserve a number of practitioners who could be called upon to reinforce the staff of any hospital if necessary. The local emergency committees and the central emergency committee are the sole channels through which medical personnel will be drawn upon, for the medical needs of this country. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I recently met a delegate meeting of the medical profession representing the whole Kingdom and they passed the following resolution:
        "This meeting, consisting of representatives of local emergency committees, members of the central emergency committees, and members of the Council of the British Medical Association, assures the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland of the cordial and continuous support of the medical profession in their heavy task of organising the medical services of the country in preparation for a possible emergency."
        So I am now in a position to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans on 2nd February, 1939:
        "Whether the general effect is satisfactory to those chief divisional surgeons who will have to carry out these duties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1939; col. 375, Vol. 343.]
        I think I may say that the answer is "Yes."

        1511
        I come now to the question of nurses. Trained nurses, like doctors, are limited in number. There are about 100,000 in the country. A register of these is being compiled by the central emergency committee of the nursing profession. That committee which is operating locally through medical officers of health, supported by local emergency committees, is arranging to augment the trained personnel by the recruitment and training of women as nursing auxiliaries. The training includes giving practical experience in the hospitals and a number of hospitals have already offered to make available facilities for training. These arrangements for the nursing profession are estimated to cost the Exchequer about £50,000 a year covering the regional organisation, clerical staff, maintenance of register and provision for training of auxiliaries. I think it will reply to a question which was put to the Lord Privy Seal yesterday, if I say that similar arrangements have been made for other professions. The Pharmaceutical Society, for example, have set up an emergency committee; there is a similar committee for the dental profession, and I am arranging for the appointment of a committee for opticians.
        Mr. Dunn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the figure of£50,000 a year is right?
        Mr. Elliot: That is for keeping the register, training auxiliaries, and so on.
        Sir Gifford Fox: Are these new nurses to be paid or are they, like the members of the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance Brigade, to pay for their own training?
        Mr. Elliot: The committee is about to put out its proposals for training and I had better not anticipate what those proposals will be. As there will be on the committee representatives of the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross, I think we may trust it to see that these various arrangements do not get out of step with each other.
        I should like now to say a word about first-aid posts. I did not take over responsibility for approving local authorities' schemes for first-aid posts until last December. We sent out a circular in January indicating the lines on which local authorities should proceed. It was
        1512
        pointed out that it was desirable to use these first-aid posts to intercept the walking wounded who did not require hospital treatment and that for that purpose the attendance of a doctor at each first-aid post would be necessary. Moreover, any patients affected by gas would be treated at these posts. We want a great number of aid posts which will be capable of functioning at short notice and that will be most easily effected by utilising buildings which are already in use for medical purposes. We would not use the very small hospitals for the treatment of casualties, but they would make admirable first-aid posts. We want fixed-aid posts to be reinforced by mobile units consisting of a motor vehicle which would carry first-aid equipment, a doctor, and a nurse.
        A great many schemes have been submitted by local authorities for first-aid posts on these lines. Medical officers of health have welcomed the proposal to use medical premises, and I think we may say that we are working in harmony with the profession. I am sending out a circular within the next fortnight giving certain instructions as to what the mobile unit will contain and other things. The circular will also contain a complete list of the medical and surgical supplies which are considered to be necessary at aid posts, including mobile units. The cost of reserves of these supplies will be borne wholly by the Exchequer. It is reckoned at £100 per post, of which £34 is in respect of drugs and dressings. We at present contemplate 2,000 of these first-aid posts, at £100 apiece.
        Local authorities are being asked to allocate doctors to first-aid posts, with the assistance of the local emergency committees, and these doctors may be paid in peace-time a retaining fee. That is being settled in consultation with the British Medical Association. We want them to give collective training to the auxiliary personnel attached to each post. We want if possible to make a crew which really knows its premises and will be assembled there in case of war, and I attach great importance to medical training as a unit as well as to first-aid training such as is given in classes and so on. The local authorities are making good progress with the recruitment and even with the preliminary training of this auxiliary personnel.
        Captain Alan Graham: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these first-aid posts are all to be above ground, or are they in fact to be relatively bombproof underground posts, similar to those which some of us have seen in Paris?
        Mr. Elliot: I shall come to the question of protection very shortly. As a matter of fact, I sent over to Paris in January my chief hospital officer and the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry to see what was being done there, but the Paris proposals are quite different. The physical structure of the two cities is quite different, and their organisation also is quite different.
        Just a word about ambulances. There are two types, the large ambulances, which will be used for transferring cases from one hospital to another, and the smaller ambulances, which will be used for picking up casualties in the streets. Arrangements have been made in every region for the conversion of a very large number of buses and vans at a few hours' notice, and the hospital officers are working out operation orders with the bus companies so that ambulance transport will be available at all hospitals from which patients have to be transferred as soon as an emergency has developed. Time presses, and I cannot go very far into the question of the organisation of ambulances. The smaller ambulances are the responsibility of local authorities.
        The Committee may be interested in the question of supplies. We have now bought 50,000 bedsteads and mattresses, and ordered another 50,000. We have ordered 350,000 blankets for use in hospitals and first-aid posts, and another 200,000 are being ordered. We have bought 125,000 stretchers, and distributed them, and another 100,000 are being ordered. Arrangements are being made to buy centrally the surgical equipment, drugs, and dressings for the hospitals, first-aid parties, and first-aid posts, and in this connection we have decided to seek the assistance of the biggest hospital authority in the world, the London County Council, who are, of course, very large actual purchasers of these goods. I should like to take this opportunity of recording our great indebtedness to the Council for the ready way in which, when they were approached, they undertook to allow their chief officer of supplies, Mr. Wilson, with the assistance of their
        1514
        Supplies Department, to act as agent on behalf of the A.R.P. Department, the Department of Health for Scotland, and the Ministry of Health. The orders for dressings have already been placed, and they include nearly 12,000,000 bandages, over 5,000,000 dressings, some 13,000,000 yards of gauze, 204 tons of lint, 425 tons of cotton wool, and 1,500,000 yards of adhesive plaster. Practically all of these are to be delivered by the end of June, and the total cost, including that of the beds and bedding, is estimated at over £1,000,000.
        In regard to structural precautions, we have, as I say, issued a Memorandum of Advice. Circumstances differ in every case, and it has to be remembered that many of our most valuable hospitals were built long before air raids were ever thought of. That is why we are concentrating on the provision of additional hospital accommodation in the outer areas. But we propose to protect windows and doors on the ground floors against splinters, to reinforce the structure, where practicable, against collapse, to protect roofs against incendiary bombs and shrapnel, to protect operating theatres by bricking-up and sandbagging windows and, if necessary, moving the theatres to the ground floor, where protection is easier, and to reinforce basement ceilings, so that these will provide a safe shelter. We shall in addition have to envisage the provision of a certain number of what I would call armoured wards.
        As for providing a great number of deep dug-out hospitals in which operations are to go on during an air raid, I think that idea is based upon a wrong conception of what any of us would do ourselves if a very heavy air raid were actually in progress. Those of my fellow Members who remember the Pyres salient during a heavy strafe will recall that you did not go out into the street during a heavy strafe. You could not do it. You did not send out picked men to add to your casualties, but as soon as the strafe was over you cleared the dead from the street and hurried the patients out of the area as fast as you could. Therefore, I think we ought to be careful of reversing the policy of dispersal and concentrating patients instead of dispersing them. The safest thing is to get the patients away from the danger area as quickly as possible. It must also be remembered

        1515
        that any large number of deep dug-outs for the treatment of casualties is subject to very difficult, limiting, engineering and other factors. For instance, you would need a ramp of one in seven at the end of each building and that it would be very difficult to deal with more than 30 patients an hour. I do not wish to go into the question at length, but I wish the Committee to keep in mind the great dangers that would arise if we relied on deep dug-outs for tackling the enormous problem of dealing with the large number of casualties that you would expect to arise from an air raid. On the question of accommodation in Paris, I asked my officers—and I think I have offered the Air-Raid Committee of the House conferences with my officers—to go over and see in greater detail the actual conditions in Paris.
        Mr. T. Johnston: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information at his disposal as to the experiments made in this matter at Zurich in Switzerland?
        Mr. Elliot: I have not at the moment, but I think the officers of my Department have been in touch with all the main sources of knowledge on this subject. As I say, the difficulties in connection with deep underground dug-outs, the long inclined access down which people would have to be carried by hand and up which they would afterwards have to be removed by hand, are almost insuperable. As for shelters above ground, it may well be that considerable use might be made of them.
        Mr. E. Smith: Is there an Air-Raid Committee of this House?
        Mr. Elliot: I do not know that there is an Air-Raid Committee of the House as such. There are, I understand, groups of Members in various parties who are specially interested in these problems, and I am always very willing to address them, whether they are groups of Members on one side or on the other. If any hon. Members opposite are specially interested, I shall be most happy to meet them, if they will get into touch with me.
        I was asked about first-aid posts. The first-aid posts that I have in mind would be sandbagged and otherwise strengthened against damage from bombs or shrapnel. A very important point is that the major
        1516
        proportion of the cost of protecting hospitals and first-aid posts is to be borne by the Government and is expected to involve Exchequer expenditure of about £1,500,000 in the coming financial year. I am glad to say that we have agreed both with the local authorities and with the voluntary hospitals as to the proportions which they should bear. In no case will a voluntary hospital bear more than 30 per cent. of the cost, and this is subject to an overriding limit of £1 per bed, which is a very moderate figure. In the case of local authority hospitals, the cost to local authorities will be nothing more than the produce of a rate of one-tenth of a penny. I have here a sketch of the actual working of these arrangements, with which, however, I think it is undesirable to delay the Committee, because I am anxious to discuss other problems, such as that of evacuation, but I think it is desirable to say that so far I have only been speaking of the work in England and Wales.
        In Scotland the same tasks have been entrusted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he authorises me to say that the work in Scotland has proceeded generally on the same lines as in England. As the House knows, Scotland is a separate region under the regional organisation, and this region has been sub-divided into five districts. A hospital officer of the Department of Health for Scotland has been at work in each of the districts, and plans for the organisation of the emergency hospital service corresponding to those made in England have been worked out. Under these plans some 16,000 beds would be set free for casualties within a few days from the beginning of an emergency, and a further 2,500 beds would be provided by using three of the large mental institutions. There; is room in ancillary hospital buildings for another 2,000 beds.
        With regard to the medical personnel, the Department for Scotland are working in close contact with the Scottish Emergency Committee of the British Medical Association in dealing with the allocation of the services of the 5,000 doctors on the Scottish register. There are separate Scottish emergency committees dealing with nurses, dentists and pharmacists, and these are already at work. The responsibility for first-aid posts was taken over last December. The fittings for

        1517
        the conversion of 75 buses into improvised ambulances for transport between hospitals have been made and stored, and the supply of hospital equipment which has been purchased contains an appropriate allocation for Scotland. I mentioned 100,000 beds and mattresses bought or ordered. Of these, Scotland's share is 12,500, of which 3,000 have already been distributed, and arrangements will be completed shortly for distributing a further 3,000. With regard to the 37,500 blankets, which is Scotland's quota of the order, delivery is about to begin. The Department for Scotland joined with the Ministry in publishing the memorandum on structural precautions in hospitals to which I have referred, and the agreements with the local authorities and the voluntary hospitals which I mentioned as regards the cost of these precautions also cover Scotland.
        Mr. Ammon: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for coming in late and not having heard all that he has said, but may I ask him whether he has anything to say about a resolution passed on the 14th of this month by the medical officers of health of the Various Metropolitan boroughs condemning the arrangements made as insufficient?
        Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I have not. I have gone over a considerable amount of detail of plans which we have worked out with the London County Council and the great voluntary hospitals. It would be a pity if I went back to that subject now.
        Mr. Ammon: If all the medical officers of the Metropolitan boroughs have expressed themselves as believing that these arrangements are not good, surely that is an important matter that should be dealt with.
        Mr. Elliot: If the hon. Gentleman had heard the whole of my speech he would have realised that many of the details I have given were worked out only in the last few days, and it may well be that on surveying the whole of these arrangements the medical officers would not wish to pass that resolution again. This organisation is rapidly advancing and are solution passed on the 14th may be inappropriate on the 2nd of the next month. A great deal of water has passed under the bridges since the 14th.
        1518
        We have been asked to undertake the task of the detailed plans for evacuation in co-ordination with the Lord Privy Seal and under his leadership. A policy of planned evacuation from the large crowded targets is one means of minimising the most serious effects of air attack and reducing the number of casualties, against which the Ministry of Health are making provision. Our policy is based on the general principles laid down in the report made by the committee which sat under the chairmanship of the Lord Privy Seal. The committee contained representatives of all three parties. It is well to remind ourselves of that fact. In addition to the Lord Privy Seal, it contained the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland), the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), and the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris).
        Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Was there anyone to represent the country districts?
        Mr. Elliot: I was speaking of the rather interesting fact that it was found possible, first, to get representatives of the three parties to serve on this committee, and, second, for them to issue a unanimous report. It is not often we can get three parties to be unanimous in a report. It is true that on this committee there were no representatives from the rural areas, but extensive conferences have been held with the rural districts since that time.
        Mr. Dunn: What consultations have taken place with the big cities other than London, such, for example, as Sheffield and Leeds, as well as the rural areas and the urban districts?
        Mr. Elliot: There have been the most extensive conferences. At the Ministry of Health I have held conferences with representatives of the great cities, and I have toured the country and had conferences upon the spot. I am going to Newcastle in a week or two to hold a further conference. It is the business of my Ministry to keep in touch with the local authorities, and I do not think that in this case we have been remiss in that task. I will quote a paragraph from the report of the committee which is of great importance because it sets out the point we must always keep in mind, the point of density:

        1519
        "So far as concerns actual physical danger people will be much safer in rural districts or in small country towns than in the heart of London. Even if a country district is bombed, the risks to life and limb will obviously be much less in a rural district where the houses are so dispersed that the density of population is 200 to the square mile, than in a Metropolitan borough where the density is 80,000 to the square mile."
        That is really the key sentence of the report. It is the key to all our consideration of the plans which we have made. Although people may say that such and such a place is on the line of the bombers going home, or is close to an aerodrome, or next door to some important feature which might afford a guiding line to aeroplanes, nothing can get away from the fact that a population of 200 to the square mile will always be safer than a population of 80,000. The objective of securing a greater measure of dispersal is, therefore, a primary objective of an evacuation plan, and it is to secure that objective that the Government plans are being directed. Last September emergency plans to this end were prepared, and when, after the crisis, the position was reviewed, directions were given that plans should be worked out in greater detail. The Anderson Committee itself said that these plans needed to be worked out in great detail. That is the answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green who said he had met a number of headmasters who were critical because several months had elapsed since the drawing up of the plans and yet they were no further on. I am now dealing particularly with the problem of the reception areas. Their difficulty is very great. I have had conferences with Sheffield, Cardiff, Bristol, Leeds, and other cities, and without them it would have been impossible to proceed with the survey of the reception areas which is now completed, and about which I shall have a word to say before I sit down.
        The conclusion of the all-party Committee was that occupied houses would need to be used, that we could not deal with the problem merely by the use of unoccupied houses and camps, and that it would be necessary to have a system of billeting. That was one of the principles with which the Government expressed their willingness when they adopted the report. The Government are seeking to supplement by camps the amount of accommodation which can be
        1520
        made available. This will require legislation and there will be another opportunity for discussing these proposals. Quite apart from any question of the adequacy of supply which could physically be made available in this way, camps alone would not, in the judgment of many competent to give an opinion, be the most suitable form of all-weather provision for all the groups, for example, young children, who come within the Government plans for evacuation. Whatever may be the possible development of camps—and it is our intention to press on with them—they can for this purpose form only a supplementary provision. It will be necessary to rely for the main provision on accommodation in houses where people already are.
        It is the scale of the problem which goes to the root of the difficulty. When I came to look at the problem, first we tried to see how we could apply in practice the tripartite division of the country into evacuable, neutral and reception areas. To take the example of the London area, one does not move directly from the crowded Metropolitan boroughs to the open conditions of the countryside. There are intermediate areas which, though not having the same need for evacuation, would not be suitable for reception areas. We have to leave the crowded areas and run the evacuees right through the neutral areas into the areas in the countryside where they can be dispersed. This is a small and crowded island, and the ideal division is not possible. No one will deny that there will be great risks for the civilian population which it will be impossible to obviate. While the division into evacuable, neutral and reception areas is easy enough in theory, it is not so easy to apply in practice; the boundary between one area and another must be drawn somewhere, and I am aware that not every district thinks it has been drawn at the right point. Every district thinks that there are special features with regard to it which makes it clear that the Ministry was not considering its particular problems when it drew that line. I shall give careful consideration to the representations which have been made by individual districts, but I must, like all of us, be bounded by the laws of arithmetic.
        Miss Wilkinson: No.
        Mr. Elliot: I know the hon. Lady is not bounded by the laws of arithmetic, but Ministers cannot get over them. I have to review the reception areas as a whole to find the number of persons who can be accommodated, and the evacuable areas to find the number of persons they desire to send away. This brings out the importance of a careful survey. The object of it has been to ascertain the accommodation available and the number of school children who can be accommodated under voluntary arrangements. When the survey is complete I shall review the whole position and see how far and by what methods it may be practicable to attain the ideal, which is that all who have work to do should remain in vulnerable areas and others should go to less vulnerable areas.
        Mr. Bevan: As the survey has been done by voluntary workers will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the figures are unreliable because the workers were not furnished with the answers to some of the questions, which were not clear to everybody?
        Mr. Elliot: Although they may not have been clear to some people, they have been to the average man and woman. The Anderson Committee estimated the proportion of the population for whom evacuation might be required at one-third. They added, however:
        "We believe that accommodation will, in fact, prove to be the limiting factor in the sense that there will not be room in the relatively safe areas for all who could theoretically be spared from the vulnerable industrial areas."
        The indications at present available from the report of the survey go to support that opinion. On the provisional allocation which has been made, the total population of the evacuable areas is about 11,000,000, spread over the London area and 18 other large congested industrial cities and towns. The total population of the neutral areas is about 13,000,000 and of the reception areas about 16,000,000. Within the evacuable areas the population of what may be called the priority classes, for whose evacuation plans are being prepared, represents something between 20 and 25 per cent. Their evacuation would, therefore, result in an average addition of something like 15 to 20 per cent. to the population of the reception areas. It will be seen that
        1522
        the rate of increase in mind is substantial, but not unmanageable. I was asked yesterday to take note of the dangers of the overloading of water supplies, and so on. It will be agreed that the expansion of 15 to 20 per cent. is not by any means an unmanageable expansion. I can go into this question in greater detail if it is desired, but I am anxious not to do more than to say that this problem has not been neglected by us. We shall do our best to avoid billeting in areas where a strain of this kind will occur. A great many rural authorities have water supplies adequate for the not unmanageable increase in numbers which is suggested.
        Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Has the Minister thought of the case of the Lincoldshire Wolds, where, on the whole of one side, there is a good water supply and on the other side there is not, and will he consider giving a grant to improve the supplies on the side where it is necessary?
        Mr. Elliot: A good many authorities in various places have indicated that this is an admirable opportunity for carrying through schemes which have long been dear to their hearts; but taking the places by and large, it is true to say that water supply is not an insoluble problem. The difficulties have been taken into account and they can be overcome. I should like to make it clear that when we speak of evacuation we do not mean an indiscriminate movement of all sorts of adults, but the orderly evacuation of groups selected in advance, and in the van of the groups are, of course, the children. The evacuation movement in the first place is predominantly to be a movement of children, and the priority classes of which I spoke are school children, young children and the mothers of young children. The Anderson Committee recommended that plans should be prepared for the transfer of children of school age school by school, and we adopted that suggestion also. It has been a basic feature of the plans now being worked out, and a fundamental object of the inquiry, and we had to ask the rather difficult question whether households would be willing to take children unaccompanied by their parents and to give them board and lodging. While in some cases, no doubt, that

        1523
        would make things easier, in other cases probably it would create a difficult problem.
        About two years ago the housing authorities made surveys to find out the measure of overcrowding in working-class houses, and on that we were working last September, when estimates were made, necessarily hasty estimates, of the amount of surplus accommodation available. The standard adopted was one person per habitable room. We were told, and quite rightly so, by the committee and by others, that mere generalisations were not enough, and that we must have a careful house-to-house survey throughout the receiving areas; and so, after a number of conferences with local authorities and with persons competent to advise us, a Circular was drawn up and was issued on 5th January asking local authorities to carry out a house-to-house survey and to submit a report to the Ministry by 28th February. I should like to pay a high tribute to the response of the local authorities to that request and to the competent way in which they carried out their work. It has been one of the biggest feats of national service, one of the big feats of democracy carried through in this country, done at very short notice. It was carried out by 100,000 people who were not mere amateurs, but people responsible to local authorities, in many cases highly trained people, sanitary officers and others. Those people have knocked at the doors of 5,000,000 houses, have made inquiries affecting the lives of 16,000,000 people, the inhabitants of those houses. By 28th February they had concluded their work, and the returns are beginning to flow into us very rapidly.
        For the convenience of the House I took out rather carefully the first 20 surveys which we received, and it so happens that they are a very representative cross-section of the country. Mostly they are the smaller towns, because it is the smaller places that would be used as reception areas. The first 20 included Lydd, New Romney, Marlow and Newbury from the Home Counties; Dorchester, Taunton, Dawlish, Salcombe and Liskeard, from the West Country; Aberdare Mountain Ash, Caerleon and Knighton, from Wales; Alderley Edge, from Cheshire; Higham Ferrers, from
        1524
        Northamptonshire; Leiston-cum-Sizewell, from Suffolk; Darwen and Rawtenstall, from Lancashire; Appleby and Kendal, from the North Country. I will give the results shortly. To provide accommodation for the schoolchildren in the whole country we wanted offers of board and lodging for a number equivalent to about 10 per cent, of the present population of the receiving areas. The present population of the 20 districts I have mentioned is about 250,000, and the offers required would therefore be about 25,000. We have got voluntary offers from the people of those districts for 33,000.
        The scheme may not be clear to many onlookers, but it is clear enough in Mountain Ash and Aberdare. The difficulties may appear insuperable to many correspondents, both public and private, but in Darwen and Rawtenstall they thought they could get over them all right—the strain on the good will of our people, of allowing for the extra pots and pans, the disciplining of Johnny and Jenny, new feet on the stairs, the racket, the worry, the wear and tear may seem heavy, but Marlow, Newbury, Dorchester, Higham Ferrers and Leiston-cum-Sizewell say, "Stand it, of course we'll stand it." That is the spirit of the country. These are not scrofulous and verminous children, as some people have suggested. These are the bud of the nation, the children of the men who are working in the food ships or charging the metal into the blast furnaces. The people know that, and they have come forward, from the Royal Family to cottagers, with offers of accommodation.
        I give only one example of the spirit in which the work has been carried out. The report sent by the borough of Higham Ferrers includes a letter signed by all the voluntary visitors who carried out this survey under the leadership of the Mayoress stating:
        "Every house in the borough has been visited, and in only two cases has the required information been withheld. Everyone has been very anxious to be helpful and to do all that is in their power."
        We are entitled to regard that as a practical example of National Service of which the districts concerned and the whole country can be proud.
        These surveys enable us to form a picture of the accommodation available for the other groups. The returns from

        1525
        the first 20 show that private arrangements have been made by individual householders to reserve accommodation for 21,000 persons, and there is, in addition, accommodation for another 12,000. The latter figure by itself, if it represented an average cross-section of the country, would not be fully adequate to provide for the whole of the younger children with their mothers, in the whole of the evacuable areas, but I think we are entitled to assume that a substantial proportion of the private arrangements which have been made will, in fact, be in respect of mothers and young children from the evacuable areas. If only half of these private arrangements are in respect of these mother-and-children groups the figures will admit the maximum estimated.
        The Anderson Committee expressed the view that compulsory powers would have to be taken for the purposes of billeting, and when the Government approved the recommendations of the committee the Government expressed their concurrence in this view. In the event of an emergency the Government would require to have at their disposal general compulsory powers in relation to available shelter and accommodation. The survey which has been carried out and the response which has been made to it give us reason to hope that there will be little, if any, need for the exercise of such powers in order to secure safer homes for those who have to be moved from the dangers of the crowded cities. I have no doubt that the example set by the country as a whole will move others whose imaginations have not so speedily grasped the difference to us as a nation and to us individually between the conditions of peace and war—the fact that we shall none of us be as comfortable in war time as in peace time—to follow that example and volunteer their readiness to take their part. Urgent considerations of National Defence would make it necessary for the Government to be equipped with the requisite powers in the event of war. If these powers have to be invoked all proper consideration will be given to the circumstances of individual cases, but unwillingness alone could not be taken as an adequate reason for exempting an individual householder from his share in a task which had been so readily shouldered by so many others.
        Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the figures which he has given to
        1526
        us? I understood him to say that in those 20 areas he had 33,000 vacant places for people under the scheme. Then I understood that there were 21,000 additional places, in respect of which voluntary arrangements have been made, and there was a figure of 12,000. Are they additional, or do the 21,000 and the 12,000 represent the original 33,000?
        Mr. Elliot: We have had 33,000 firm offers for unaccompanied school children. The people said, "We have arranged ourselves for 21,000 places," for, as far as I can understand, relations and old and infirm people whom they would quite legitimately be taking in. In some Welsh valleys, where a big proportion of their people had left, there would be returning relatives. In addition, there were 12,000 more places. I am allowing for the moment a certain proportion of that 21,000 being people who would quite legitimately be evacuated, and if I allow for them I can then accommodate within the figures given the whole of the priority classes, the children and the mothers with young children.
        Mr. Ede: Does it mean 66,000 places or only 33,000?
        Mr. Elliot: Thirty-three thousand, not all of which places we shall need, 21,000 people have made arrangements themselves, and there is a possible 12,000 places over and above those.
        Mr. Noel-Baker: A total of 55,000?
        Mr. Elliot: The total available capacity is 66,000. It will be remembered that I said that the reception areas cover 16,000,000 persons and the 20 surveys which I have mentioned cover, of course, only a small proportion of the people, some 250,000. The returns are, however, now coming in pretty rapidly. By the end of last week we had received returns covering 1,000,000 people. By Monday we had returns bringing the figure up to 2,000,000. Last night we had returns running up to 7,000,000 and to-day we are up to practically 8,000,000. That is a great feat of voluntary organisation, of which the House and the country may very well be proud. In that 8,000,000 we wanted 10 per cent., that is, 800,000 places, for unaccompanied school children, and the country has voluntarily offered 1,110,000 places for these children. In addition there are 565,000 places which the people in the reception areas have privately

        1527
        arranged to fill themselves. There is also a considerable number of places—722,000—estimated to be available for other priority classes than school children, and 150,000 places where, it is estimated, they would receive teachers and helpers. If that same proportion is borne out throughout the whole of our survey, it seems that the people themselves, by their own arrangements, have organised the evacuation of something like 1,000,000 people. In addition, we shall receive places for all, and more than all, the school children we want, and we shall have a handsome slice of accommodation available to take in the teachers and helpers, and I hope the mothers and the young children as well.
        The same may be said to hold good for Scotland where 190 authorities were asked to carry out the survey and 150 sent in results up to yesterday. We have not had time to analyse the figures, but they show that the offers to take school children provide for 230,000 children, that 23,000 rooms are available for teachers and other helpers and that there are 114,000 rooms available for others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is confident that the response from the local authorities, voluntary workers and general public, has been such as to secure the success of the plan. On that, we may say that in two months the householders of the country have, without compulsion, enabled us to say that the most difficult part of the problem, the housing of unaccompanied school children, is solved. That is a piece of National Service work which we all recognise, and I intend to have a little window card printed for those who have undertaken this work with the words "National Service" printed on the top. I do not know any higher or nobler form of National Service that could be undertaken. We recognise what these people have done, and they should have some tangible proof of it which they can display, and proudly display, in trying to be of real service to the nation.
        Mr. Charles Williams: Is my right hon. Friend making a further survey of the considerable number of big houses scattered about the country so that we may know which are most suitable for hospitals and for other purposes?
        Mr. Elliot: We are making a further survey and taking careful notes of the
        1528
        larger premises which can be used for the accommodation of schools as units or in certain cases as hospitals. These are being included in the general survey of housing accommodation upon which we are now entering. It is important to keep all the facts that I have given Sully objective; it is not time yet either for self-congratulation or rhetorical statement, because there are many other tasks before us. We may say that the nation is entering upon its task in a resolute mood and the figures which I have given speak for themselves. They show that we are doing our best by increasing the purview of our administration, and they show more than anything else that we are capable of tackling any of the tasks that this curious and stormy new century may have in store for us.
        5.34 p.m.
        Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
        Let me say from this side of the House that we share the right hon. Gentleman's pleasure at the great response that the people of this country have made for those who may, unfortunately, become the victims of war circumstances. I have always believed that the people of this country could be relied upon to take into their hearts and bosoms the people who were placed in more difficult circumstances than themselves. That is a matter for general congratulation from all sides of the House. No one can say that we have not been supplied in the course of these two days' Debates with a good deal of information; in fact, I feel weighted down under a wealth of detail which I am afraid it will take us some time fully to assimilate. There has been a tendency for the Committee to get lost in a maze of words and rather to forget some of the more important principles with which we ought to deal to-day. I move this reduction in order to bring the Debate back to a consideration of the principle on which this expenditure ought to be based.
        No one who has given consideration to this matter will deny the difficulties of dealing effectively with the problems of Civil Defence under modern war conditions, more especially in an industrialised country. My first criticism is that Supplementary Estimates of this kind have been delayed so long and declares the dilatoriness of the Government in this

        1529
        matter for three years or more. The Government have murmured the mystic letters "A.R.P." as though this were some form of incantation, but the Government did next to nothing. The Lord Privy Seal is one of the victims of this waste of time. Notwithstanding that for a long time the nation has recognised the existence of this problem, the Government did not face the issue, and hardly even scratched the surface of the problem. That was a very grave dereliction of duty. In this matter I am saying nothing about the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, who was a pioneer in this direction and might well have been supported more strongly by Members of the Government.
        My second criticism is that, although the Government have embarked upon a vital piece of national work, they have not yet given to the House of Commons answers to the fundamental questions on which policy and action really ought to be based. The Lord Privy Seal has devoted himself with great energy to the matter, egged on with unseemly haste now by the Government, which has a very bad conscience on the matter but, in all the explanations he has given us, he has not yet proved that he has a coherent and comprehensive plan. He started with one little hutment, and he has gone on from hutment to hutment until his scheme now looks rather like a village on a mountain side, without coherence or unity of design. So little did the right hon. Gentleman comprehend his task that three months ago he did not visualise the necessity for any legislation. He was astonished at the suggestion that legislation would be needed. Everything was to be done by administration and gentleman's agreements.
        The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): On National Service.
        Mr. Greenwood: No, it was not confined to National Service; it was the whole plan.
        Sir J. Anderson Sir J. Anderson indicated dissent.
        Mr. Greenwood: Then the right hon. Gentleman did not make himself very clear, because in the first Debate on this subject I expressed my surprise. The right hon. Gentleman then did not make it clear that he contemplated any kind of legislation. Yesterday we were given three references in his speech to contemplated legislation. The first was in the
        1530
        early part of his speech and was a very cryptic utterance which I will read to the Committee. Within the first minute of his speech—which occupied a good many many minutes, although the Committee is not complaining of that—he said:
        "I shall not be in a position to say anything about the work of my Department in relation to proposals which are being embodied in a Bill that I hope to introduce at a fairly early date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1939; col. 1288, Vol. 344.]
        I do not know what that Bill is about, although I may make a reference to a possible subject matter of it a little later. He admitted that there would be legislation to deal with camps in England and Wales, and, later, legislation to deal with Scotland; not merely subsidiary legislation, but because he was dealing with the problem in Scotland upon an entirely different principle from that on which he was dealing with it in England. I mention this because if the right hon. Gentleman had contemplated legislation of any kind, whether confined to National Service or not—it is not clear that he might not have to do it in regard to National Service—he ought to have informed the House. It was within recollection that at the time when he made his first statement and in the course of the Debates on the 6th and 20th December, I think it was, he had not then realised the magnitude, scope and necessities of the problem. It is not at all certain that the proposed legislation which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned yesterday will see the end of legislative action in this matter.
        To prove how woolly the Government's mind has been on this subject I would recall the occasions when they have wavered upon a number of issues. After the crisis last autumn, when gas masks were found in dustbins and were being used by ladies as shopping baskets, the Government hesitated what to do about it. Gas masks became a joke in London. They were made into playthings and were put to better use by ladies going about their shopping. The Government did not know what to do about it. For weeks they dawdled over the question of those half-dug and hastily-constructed trenches which had been allowed to become neglected, waterlogged and derelict. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman informed the Committee that the Government had not yet made

        1531
        up their mind on the question of deep shelters. He asked for time, and he boldly said to the Committee that he was not going to be rushed into a premature decision. His words were:
        "I certainly am not going to be stampeded into a premature decision on this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1939; col. 1312, Vol. 344.]
        This question has been before the Government for three years and ought to have been before the Government for more than three years. It must have been under the very active consideration of the Lord Privy Seal and of the Government for some months, but all that we got yesterday was a long list of reasons why it appeared that deep shelters were not practicable, and a statement that the Government have not yet made up their mind on the matter. Certain local authorities have made up their minds upon it. I am not committed to the Finsbury scheme. I am not in a position to be able to judge of its adequacy; but Finsbury, at least, has made up its mind. Finsbury has done something. I saw in the Press this morning that the largest local authority in this country, after the London County Council, has already decided to spend £1,000,000 on deep shelters. It is clear that there is now impatience on the part of many local authorities and among a number of public-spirited people at the delay of the Government in making up their mind upon this question of first-rate importance.
        The Lord Privy Seal may be right or may be wrong, but, after the inordinate delay which put the people of the country into a panic last September because nothing had been done, we are entitled, six months afterwards, to ask the Government to make up their minds speedily on an important matter of principle. It seems to me that the Government have not yet settled major principles, but have muddled into decisions which have implied the acceptance of principles without having thought the matter out. I am the more confident that that is so after having heard the Minister of Health this afternoon. One of the only statements of real policy that we have had is the Memorandum of the Home Secretary covering the report of the Committee on Evacuation of which the Lord Privy Seal was the chairman. The Home Secretary said,
        1532
        in approving the recommendations of the Committee:
        "The Government in particular express their concurrence in the following principles."
        The first is the matter of evacuation on a voluntary basis, and as to the second he says:
        "For the purpose of supporting the national war effort and supplying essential civilian needs, production in the large industrial towns must be maintained, but it is desirable to provide organised facilities for the evacuation of substantial numbers of people from certain industrial areas."
        How far exactly are the Government standing by this view? It may be that in certain vulnerable areas, subject probably, or at any rate possibly, to repeated air attack, industrial production might be interfered with to a dangerous extent, and the Government have to face the question whether they are prepared to take this risk. In the last 2½ years there have been concentrated attacks on certain ports and towns in Spain, not merely day by day, but hour by hour. Supposing that that kind of thing were to happen in this capital city, or in some of our great centres where all kinds of products for use in war and in peace were being made, would it be possible in such circumstances to carry on production on the scale essential for fulfilling the national needs? I do not know, but the Government are assuming that it is. I was shocked this afternoon when I heard the figures that were given by the Minister of Health. He is not thinking of the scale of evacuation in the same terms as I am. I will, however, come to that point presently. Whether the Government have done this after consideration of the principles involved, I do not know; I doubt it; but, according to the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's figures, they are still going to permit industrial production to be concentrated, as it is now, in these big areas, many of which are peculiarly vulnerable to attack.
        The right hon. Gentleman told us that it is possible to fly across Britain in 20 minutes, so that in that case all areas are equally vulnerable, apart from the possibility of anti-aircraft and similar defence. In point of time, in this small country, distance has now become almost negligible. The question is—and one has seen it becoming intensified in certain towns—are the Government prepared to

        1533
        permit new industrial developments haphazard, anywhere, without regard to defence as well as without regard to social considerations? Ought not steps to be taken now to avoid this? The larger our big towns become, the greater the danger to which the civilian population is exposed, and this problem of the newer industries spreading to the outskirts of London and big towns in the Midlands is going to make their difficulties greater should war break out. I am aware that in certain areas, which are more immune from air attack than others, there have been very substantial industrial developments for war-time purposes within the last year or so, and I would ask the Government whether they have accepted it as a principle that the future distribution of industrial work essential for war production should be so arranged as to give the maximum immunity against air attack and against interference with continuity of production. That seems to me to be a question of considerable importance.
        A further question, on which we have had no real guidance from the Government, but which is one of substantial importance—and it is no use waiting till the time comes to settle it—is, what is to be done with industries and enterprises which are not essential in time of war? Are they to be closed down, or are they to be converted to war purposes? That is an important question from the point of view of the scale of evacuation. If such industries are to be closed down, you do not want the people there, and must arrange for their going elsewhere; and to that extent your evacuation problem is larger. If, on the other hand, the works in question are to be converted for other purposes, to that extent the problem of maintaining the safety of the people who remain behind is all the greater.
        There is still another question that I should like to put. I am not wanting to make trouble in the Committee, but am only asking for enlightenment. Do the Government still regard these areas for evacuation—the reception areas, the so-called neutral districts—as final? For example, would the South and South-West of England, which according to the right hon. Gentleman have nobly responded to the requests made to them in regard to the billeting of people, be safe in the event of war should there be air attacks
        1534
        from Franco Spain? Are we to regard all these attacks as necessarily coming from the East? May they not come from allies to the South of this country? In that case, the South of England and South Wales cannot be regarded as any more safe than London or big centres on the East coast. I am not certain that the country can be divided into areas which are vulnerable and areas which are relatively safe, and if the Government are not satisfied that they can maintain the safety of these regions—and I think the facts are against it—some change of policy is called for.
        Doubts have already been expressed as to the wisdom of the classification which the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have made. I was looking at a map this morning and I find densely populated areas as good as in a war zone, which are outside the area that is regarded as the evacuation area. I do not believe that the problem can be dealt with in that particular way. The right hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that there is a population density of 80,000 per square mile in one part and 200 in an other, so that bombing the latter could not do as much damage as bombing the former. That seems to be an outstanding example of the right hon. Gentleman's common sense and knowledge of the fundamentals of this problem. I should have thought it was an obvious and self-evident truth. But there are areas in the London region which fall below the average density because they happen to include, say, a large park like Richmond Park, but where there are also town ships the population density of which is far greater than that of many other districts, perhaps, in certain parts of the West End of London. That principle, therefore, seems to me to require looking into again. Until all these questions are settled, it is impossible to determine the scale on which evacuation will be necessary, and therefore it is also impossible to settle the scale and even the kind of protection that will be needed for the population remaining in the towns. The right hon. Gentleman, on my calculation of his figures, is assuming the evacuation of about 2¾ million people——
        Mr. Elliot: In these classes. We are assuming a certain number of classes, which I gave to the House—young children, mothers and pre-school children.

        1535
        The Anderson Committee said, and I agree with them, that the limiting factor would probably be that of accommodation, but we are, in fact, envisaging the evacuation of all these classes.
        Mr. Greenwood: I should have thought that these figures for evacuation are probably under-stated, but, however that may be, a considerable proportion of the population must be in centres subject to attack. The glorified salmon-tins which are being supplied—I have not yet seen one of these new structures myself—though they may serve some useful purpose, will be of no value for tenement and flat-dwellers or people who live in houses without gardens, and, although they may be some contribution, they are not adequate, nor are they satisfactory. The trenches which have been dug in certain places may serve a useful purpose, but obviously they cannot be made adequate in extent or accommodation for the people who might need them. The reinforcement of basements, where that is practicable, may provide some measure of protection. But, with all these devices, there still remains, in my view, the necessity for the provision of deep shelters.
        Yesterday the Lord Privy Seal put forward a number of doubts and objections on this matter, and it must have been exercising the minds of the Government. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman had two major arguments against it. The first was that new bombs might be devised which would penetrate deeper into the ground, and that the deep shelters provided might not be deep enough. Before the Great War, armament manufacturers made fortunes by inventing armour plate which could not be pierced by shells, and then inventing shells which could pierce the new armour plate. That was called scientific progress. It happens to-day, with regard to the air, that attack is much stronger than defence. That is undeniable; indeed, Lord Baldwin put it even more strongly, when he said that there was no effective defence against aircraft. Attack is still ahead of defence in the matter of the air service, and I think we are driven to consider the possibility of deep shelters. I do not discount to the same extent as the right hon. Gentleman the experience of deep shelters abroad. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not want
        1536
        to embark on these, because of the cost. If they are an appropriate method of preserving the spirit of our people and saving them from terror, there can be no question of the cost. Expenditure on civilian defence is as essential as expenditure on the instruments of destruction. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind to the possibility of deep shelters. I hate to think of people being driven underground, and I hate particularly to think of that as being a normal mode of life, but, in the circumstances, I think deep shelters are worth more sympathetic consideration than they have received from the right hon. Gentleman up till now.
        The right hon. Gentleman referred to evacuation. He looks at this problem on a scale smaller than that which I personally—it may be wrongly—have visualised. I do not believe that evacuation will be confined to women and children, and so on. I think we shall have to visualise the possibility of evacuation on a scale from this city alone which would account for nearly all the number which the right hon. Gentleman has thought of. There may be difficulties about forcing people to evacuate. That problem was met in Madrid, and has been for two and a half years. On the other hand, whatever may be the true figure—and that, in the last resort, depends on broad national policy—itis going to be on a pretty considerable scale. The right hon. Gentleman gave us very comforting, very encouraging, very gratifying figures as to the response there has been in certain areas. I can understand places like Dawlish, which live on visitors, having plenty of accommodation, but there are many places in this country which cannot face this problem. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has obtained a fair sample; on the other hand, it may be that he has not. The large country houses may be used for other purposes, as schools, hospitals and convalescent homes, but I imagine that not many of them are to be available for ordinary billeting purposes. I doubt whether, without reducing many of our country villages to more disgraceful overcrowding than we have there now, we can, without some sort of new accommodation, house more people in them. Therefore, I think we shall have to fall back on the provision of camps. But however this problem of evacuation may be tackled, there

        1537
        are certain other questions which come in the train of the problem of evacuation. The right hon. Gentleman said airly, "An increase of 15 or 20 per cent. in a rural area is a manageable population." How many rural areas to-day have enough water supply for their present population?
        Mr. Elliot: There are plenty of parishes with a pipe water supply.
        Mr. Greenwood: But I am saying that it is not adequate. And if you add 15 or 20 per cent. to their populations—which I regard as the very minimum—it will confront them with a difficult problem. It is not a problem merely of water, but of all the apparatus of social life, and it will present them with many difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the problem of reconstructing houses. He assured us that there may be many difficulties, but that roofing felt would be all right. It would be better if he had looked at the problem from the point of view of the people who are going to be evacuated, not after they have been bombed, but before. The Lord Privy Seal referred yesterday to the work of the President of the Board of Trade. I understand that considerable progress has been made, but it is perfectly clear that the dispersal of the population would create considerable difficulties in regard to the distribution of food and other essentials of life, which involve transport as well as other things. I would like to know whether the Government are satisfied with the situation in this respect. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might have referred to it yesterday. What have the Government done in regard to arrangements for the protection of workers at work during an air raid? That presents problems rather different from the problem of the ordinary civilian population in their homes. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to answer this at the moment, but it is a problem with which the trade unions are concerned. How far have the Government gone regarding terms and allowances and compensation for death or injury for those engaged on National Service? I am not pressing the right hon. Gentleman unduly. I wondered whether he was in a position at this stage to say anything about any conclusions that have been reached.
        The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health referred to cement, and he
        1538
        seemed to think we had profiteering very much in mind. We have profiteering very much in mind. Past experience has led us to a position where we can never neglect the possibility of profiteering, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will face the question of the elimination of profiteering out of the necessary preparations for war. I think everybody in the Committee will agree that everything should be done, not merely in the dread circumstances of war but in times of peace, to strengthen the morale, the spirit, of the people. I do not expect all hon. Members opposite to accept my implication, but in my view that implies a steady improvement of social and economic conditions at home and, above all, some attempt on the problem of the 2,000,000 unemployed, whose services are rejected now, in peace time, but who would be called upon to make sacrifices in the event of war. Should the worst come to the worst, any war will be settled as much by the spirit of the people at home as by the bravery of the people in the armed forces, and, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's view, the primary object of the collective defence of the civilian population is to maintain its morale. I hope the various right hon. Gentlemen who are grappling with various sides of this problem will bear that in mind, and remember that preparation for that is possible in peace time when it may not be in time of war. I would express the hope that, for once, at any rate—I am not really a person who likes to ask unnecessary questions, but I find myself never receiving answers from that side—when I put simple questions the Government will give answers to those questions, which to-day are honestly put in the national interest.
        6.14 p.m.
        Mr. Ernest Evans: This Debate has ranged over such wide issues that even a humble Member like myself might be tempted to follow the example of the Members of the Government and make a long speech, but I know there are other Members anxious to take part in the Debate, and, therefore, I shall try to compress my remarks into a short space of time. It is a question affecting general policy. The Lord Privy Seal has persuaded the Government to adopt a voluntary scheme as the basis of Civil Defence in this country. I think it is

        1539
        wise, but it must have required all his force of character and persuasive powers to have got them to agree to it. But having done so he must at least give it a fair chance. I suggest that something more should be done in order to enable the people of this country to do what, I think, they want to do, namely, to play their part in this great scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. The right hon. Gentleman sits for a University constituency, and probably is not used to the ordinary play of political forces in this country, but even he cannot be ignorant of the fact that when an election takes place the political parties take part in canvassing. If you can take part in canvassing in order to win an election, you can take part in canvassing in order to win a war or in order to win a peace. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman can do much more than he is doing at the present time in order to persuade the people of this country that there is a part which they can play, and to tell them what part they can play in Civil Defence at the present time. Wherever I go—and I go about the country a good deal—I hear constant complaints from people who are anxious to help, and who say, "We would offer our services, but we do not know exactly what it is we are called upon to do."
        Apart from the question of the larger principle there are one or two matters of detail to which I wish to refer. There is a good deal of uneasiness in the country based upon a fear, which may be quite unjustified, that the Government themselves are not quite clear as to their policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour very properly said last night, that one of the great things which impressed itself upon the attention of the Government during the crisis in September was the need for making latent enthusiasm effective. That was a very excellent idea, but I do not think they are doing that now. There is plenty of latent enthusiasm in the country. Why do not the Government make the best use of it? Why are they lacking in giving the opportunity to the country of making what, in another part of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman called a very big drive in the direction of Civil Defence? One of the reasons is that the people are not quite sure that the Government know what they want. I use as an illustration the question of
        1540
        shelters. Frankly, I do not know anything about it to be able to decide one way or another. There are many people who are not sure whether the Government know which policy to adopt with regard to shelters. Are the Government satisfied with the shelters which they are introducing in my neighbourhood in South Kensington, and in Islington, and which are being used apparently, or will be, for all sorts of purposes from bicycle shelters to baths? I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal how many orders were given for the provision of these shelters before they had been tested?
        Sir J. Anderson: None.
        Mr. Evans: There was a test?
        Sir J. Andersons: There was a demonstration of a test.
        Mr. Evans: Were tests made with high explosives, and were they efficient tests? There is a great deal of anxiety in the country, and I am only putting what is in the minds of a very large number of people. There is a widespread suspicion that these shelters were not put to an effective test before they were ordered. I am not saying this in a reckless spirit at all.
        Sir J. Anderson: I am very reluctant to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but I did say in the course of my speech yesterday that the shelters had been subjected to rigorous tests, and had answered those tests. It was merely a matter of common prudence, before ordering anything of this kind on a very large scale, that really rigorous tests should have been applied. As a matter of fact, I had intended, had there been time, to give particulars to the Committee of the sequence of events in regard to the decision to order these shelters and the subsequent action. The tests in question were arranged at Woolwich. They were most exhaustive. They covered tests at varying distances and under varying conditions. They were carried out by the appropriate authorities of the Government in conjunction with my own technical advisers. All that was done before the final specification was accepted. The specification was altered in some respects as a result of the tests. The actual specification was finally settled with the authority of three engineers specially nominated by the

        1541
        president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, who had before them all the data that were considered relevant to the final decision. It was not until the advisers of my Department were entirely satisfied that the shelters would serve the purpose in view that the first order was placed. What happened at Shoeburyness was not a test designed to inform the Government as to whether the shelters were satisfactory, but a demonstration for the purpose of reassuring the public.
        Mr. Evans: I think that perhaps I have made the most valuable contribution in this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman has made a most valuable statement which will be welcomed throughout the country when it is read to-morrow. Perhaps I may trespass on the right hon. Gentleman's kindness for another statement. One of the things which is oppressing the minds of the people, particularly in London, is the question of gas attacks. I understand it is not pretended that these shelters are gas-proof at all. I also understand that the first 11 in the series of public lectures which are being delivered under the auspices of the Government in different parts of the country in regard to what should be done in the event of a war are confined to questions of gas attacks; that there are two other lectures also concerned with gas attacks, and four of the lectures directed to first-aid services, whereas there is only one lecture out of the whole series of 24 concerned with the effect of high explosive bombing.
        Sir J. Anderson: Is that the new syllabus, may I ask?
        Mr. Evans: It is the last syllabus I have seen, and it is not very old. It is within the last few weeks, anyhow. I mention this fact because it is impressing itself on the minds of the people in the country, and especially in London and other big cities. There seems to be a lack of proportion in this matter.
        I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is not present, because another question is that of evacuation. It was referred to yesterday by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), who called attention to the great stress which would be put upon the railways of this country in the event of the evacuation of London being necessary. I feel very strongly about this matter. The railways cannot
        1542
        evacuate London alone. We have also to depend upon the roads. During the crisis in September, as a matter of interest, I went to Paddington Station to see what was happening. I found the trains absolutely packed with passengers; many people, including small children, had to wait as many as three hours and then were only able to obtain standing room. It may be that things have improved since then, but we shall never evacuate even the children of London if we are to be dependent merely upon the railways. What has happened in regard to the roads round London? Millions of pounds have been spent in building circular roads or by-pass roads, or roads definitely meant for motor traffic, and then we have allowed speculative builders to build on both sides of them. It is entirely due to the fact that the Government are afraid of landlords and of speculative builders, and of putting into operation the very simple system of the taxation or the rating of site values. The result is that roads which were built originally in order to relieve the traffic through the suburbs of London and to protect the lives of the people, are even greater death-traps than the roads which they were meant to supplement. If, therefore, we have to depend on the roads we shall, unless there is a very good scheme in hand, meet with further difficulties.
        The Lord Privy Seal has based his whole idea on the voluntary system. I have, however, heard complaints from people who are anxious to help that they have made application, either direct to the Government Department or to voluntary organisations, saying that they are willing to serve in certain categories, and they have heard nothing since sending in their applications. The right hon. Gentleman said that there must be a gap between the application and the acceptance, but the gap must not be too long. Even if a reply cannot be sent saying that the application has been accepted or rejected, at least it ought to be acknowledged. There is nothing that could be more damning to the enthusiasm of a volunteer than to feel that his or her application has been overlooked by those to whom it has been addressed.
        6.32 p.m.
        Sir Paul Latham: I came prepared to criticise the Government, but we have had a comprehensive statement from the

        1543
        Minister of Health, which I and other hon. Members must appreciate. I should, however, like to say that the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him in the Government seem to me to make this problem far more difficult and complicated than it really is. We talk about evacuation and reception areas and we use long words, although we are really dealing with a very old problem, the problem of flight and of refuge, two of the oldest problems known to every country in the world. What we should do, therefore, is to look for a simple plan. Is there a simple plan? I believe there is. In the old days if one wanted refuge one went to the church or to the lord of the manor. To-day, we ought to do exactly and precisely the same thing.
        We have in all our villages what is known as the big house. The big house is far the best place to be used for the school and the central kitchen. We should then use the smaller houses and the cottages in the vicinity of the big house in order to accommodate the children. We should ask the villagers in the houses nearest to the big house to take the smaller children, so that they would have the least distance to walk to the school and the kitchen. In the other houses we could put the slightly older children. We should then simply ask the villagers to provide rooms for the children, to see that they get up in the morning and go to school and to their meal. Most of us have been brought up to have a walk first thing in the morning before breakfast, and it would not do the children any harm to walk to the big house for their breakfast. When they got there they would stay for the whole day. The big house would have an area suitable for games. After the children had been provided with their supper, they would go to the cottages, and the cottagers would then see that they went to bed. They would also be asked to dry the clothes of the children if they happened to have got wet. This is a simple plan for the evacuation of school children and could be carried out with a minimum of upset in the villages.
        Exactly the same principles could be applied in the towns. Most of the places to which children are to be evacuated are either holiday resorts at the seaside or holiday resorts inland. At those places there are a great number of hotels. Use the hotel in exactly the same way that
        1544
        you would use the big house in the village as the school and central kitchen. At the hotel there would be accommodation for a school and there would be kitchen accommodation and staff available. Then we could ask the townspeople living in the vicinity of the hotel to take in the children, and their responsibilities would be exactly the same as the villagers, namely, to see that the children get up in the morning, go to the hotel school and kitchen, and when they come back at night to see that they go to bed and that their clothes are dried if they have got wet.
        The right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) seemed to think that the most unwilling people to receive children are those who live in the big houses. I believe that to be contrary to the real truth. Most owners of large houses understand only too well that once a war has broken out, if it continues for some little time, there will be no hope of their living in those large houses again in the same conditions as in the past. They understand that if they live there at all again it will be because the house is a place of national interest and they are there partly as caretakers and partly as museum pieces. I have only come across two cases of refusal. One was that of a Noble Lord, whose action has been much noticed in the Press; but the Noble Lord only asked to be satisfied on several important questions. He did not refuse the use of his house, and he has not caused much trouble in the village by his action. Another case was that of a young married woman who, in reply to the A.R.P. officer who asked whether she would accommodate children replied: "Not likely. I come from the East End, and I know what they are saying. They are saying: 'We will get rid of our children, who will be more comfortable than ever before, and we will go into munition factories and make lots of money.'" That was a much more difficult case to deal with than that of the Noble Lord. Another case was caused by the action of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan). The following letter has come to my notice:
        "As Mrs. X has promised to support the hon. Member for Stourbridge, Mr. R. Morgan, M.P., in upholding the giving of equal pay for men and women of the A.R.P., she regrets that until this question is settled, she wishes her name to be removed from the list of local A.R.P. workers."
        Mrs. Tate: Hear, hear.
        Sir P. Latham: The hon. Lady seems pleased. If she thinks that that point, however important it may be to her, is more important than National Service, I am sorry for her.
        Mrs. Tate: I do not think anything of the sort, but I think it is a good thing that one woman at least has brought that fact to the hon. Member's notice.
        Sir P. Latham: I am afraid that it has been brought to my notice fairly often. It seems to me that this problem of evacuation is not very difficult in regard to the schoolchildren. The next problem is to provide accommodation for mothers, with young children. On the whole the lodging houses and boarding houses in the towns, and in the villages, the cottages and houses furthest from the big house, can provide suitable accommodation. As soon as that accommodation has been found we should know exactly what number could be evacuated to the villages and the towns and what accommodation would be available for other refugees.
        I should like to put a question to the Minister of Health in regard to hospitals. He gave details of the various categories with which he was dealing, but I should like to know what accommodation he is arranging in the villages and towns for small children if there should be an epidemic.
        Mr. Elliot: It is because of the children coming into the reception areas that we are making special arrangements not to take over any infectious diseases hospitals in those areas. If there should be an epidemic we should need to reserve all that accommodation for possible use by the population.
        Sir P. Latham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. That answer disposes of my point, and I am sure the House and the country will be glad to hear it. One further point seems to have escaped the Minister, and that is that in providing a central place to which the children can go for dispersal in the villages it would be well to consider using the churches. The churches are not cold buildings; they have hot water boilers and are well lit, and they would make extremely good central places from which the children could be distributed throughout the
        1546
        villages. The purpose of the Christian church has long been to help those who are in distress.
        My next point is in regard to camps. I hope the Government will remember that there are many existing camps which are in a very poor financial way, and here is an opportunity to help them. I have one camp near my home, a boys' camp at Pevensey, which has been carried on for 18 years and has dealt with the poorest boys and young men from the East End. The site on which that camp has been placed has come into the market and a very large sum is asked for it, not an enormous sum but large compared with the rent paid in former years. I hope the Government will consider helping a camp of that sort, and by that means help these boys. There is plenty of raw material available and the boys could be assisted in building a type of camp which would be more suitable for winter. I also hope that the Government will look to some of the camps under canvas at the present time, providing for boys and girls, which would be the raw materials from which very suitable camps could be made, and that they will provide instructors to teach the boys and girls to make the camps more comfortable for the winter. That would relieve unemployment to some extent and it would teach the boys a trade, benefit their health, and provide camps in the cheapest possible way.
        Mr. Gallacher: Would the hon. Mem-pay the regular wage?
        Sir P. Latham: What regular wage?
        Mr. Gallacher: The trade union wage.
        Sir P. Latham: No, I would not. I would pay them and I would give them training free, which would cost a lot of money, but they would get training. It would be a jolly good life for them and they would be much better off than they are at the present time. [An HON. Member: "Would you like it?"] I would not mind. Perhaps it would be better than sitting here. I do hope that in regard to the villages the Government will try to provide some simple plan from headquarters instead of sending down to the local areas so many alternative plans until everybody is bewildered at the things they have to do. Let them take the big house as the school and kitchen, put a

        1547
        staff there, billet the children near by, and they will solve most of the problems of evacuation.
        6.43 p.m.
        Major Milner: I am afraid that the problem of evacuation is hardly as simple as that envisaged by my hon. Friend. I can conceive a great number of difficulties which would arise under his so-called simple plan. He has, however, raised a rather important point and one which I have not heard before. Those who have acted as billeting officers know that it is the duty of such an officer to make the best arrangements possible in the area allotted to his charge, either for the soldiers or, in this case, the evacuees for whom accommodation is required. We have not heard anything from the right hon. Gentleman as to who would, in fact, have the allocation of accommodation in the villages referred to by the hon. Member. Will there be billeting officers? Will it be a matter for the clerk of the local authority or the schoolmaster in charge of the children to have the responsibility?
        Mr. Elliot: The clerk of the local authority will have billeting officers under him.
        Major Milner: If that be so, then the end desired by the hon. Member would be achieved, in that the best accommodation would be allotted according to the circumstances, so as to make the best use of the accommodation, bearing in mind the number for whom, accommodation has to be found.
        The more one listens to the Debate the more one recognises the great difficulties that have to be faced in A.R.P., evacuation trenches, shelters and the rest of it. For the first time I have felt that a start is being made now in the right direction. I am sure that the man-in-the-street has considered that in a number of these matters the Government have been very lacking up to date. He has felt that hitherto the Government have had to be forced step by step, first, as to the necessity for doing anything at all in the direction of A.R.P.; secondly, as to the necessity for getting a move on; and, thirdly, as to the necessity for making appropriate financial arrangements. For many months the Government have been haggling with local authorities over the
        1548
        financial arrangements, and essential decisions have been delayed, for which the ordinary individual can see no reason. I am sure the man-in-the-street has felt that up to the present the Government have seemed to take the cheapest and frequently, therefore, the least effective way, and that it is only under pressure they have adopted other and more effective methods.
        I have also felt that in some of these matters, particularly in the question of National Service, the psychological aspect has not been considered at all. It seems to me to be quite wrong to put the question of National Service under the Minister of Labour, who has to deal with the unemployed and the means test. In fact, the impression has been given that the Government are complacent, easy-going, and have not meant business in these matters until quite recently. I do not desire to refer to personal questions and I will only mention one—the appointment of a food controller living in Brussels. It is that kind of incident which gives a wrong impression, an almost fatal impression when you are asking thinking people to give voluntary service. I do not for a moment think that war is necessarily inevitable, but I think that if war is even a possibility that with the dreadful consequences which would follow, expenditure on Civil Defence is just as necessary as expenditure on battleships and submarines, or the Army or any of the normal methods of defence. It is nearly two years ago that I tried to impress on the Government the necessity for some of the measures which are only being taken to-day. If the job has to be done at all, then we on this side want it to be done efficiently. If time does not unfortunately permit the completion of the programme, let us do as much as we can in the time available.
        There are one or two detailed criticisms which I should like to ventilate. In the first place, I emphatically disagree with the hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) that the people are oppressed by a fear of gas. It is the Government who for two years have been oppressed by the fear of gas. In the public mind now the question of gas is relegated almost to the background, and the Government almost seem to have forgotten about it. On the question of evacuation I am strongly of the opinion

        1549
        that the possibility of many people wanting to be evacuated is very much exaggerated. I believe that the majority of those who are working in our cities and towns will prefer their wives and children to stay with them or near at hand, and that there will not be that rush, at any rate from the provincial towns, which the Government appear to expect. If the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman are followed up throughout the whole country it does appear that the problem is very largely solved.
        But there are one or two things in the matter of evacuation I do not regard as satisfactory. In my view, it is absurd to evacuate, as is proposed, the population from Leeds 100 miles away to Horncastle in Lincolnshire. It is a perfectly absurd arrangement when there are hundreds and thousands of acres of vacant land in the East, the West and the North Ridings of Yorkshire, suitable accommodation much nearer at hand. It seems to me that no consideration at all has been given in the case of London or in the case of Leeds to the accommodation which is available in the suburbs. In the suburbs of all large provincial towns there are better-class houses which have ample accommodation, large gardens, and are reasonably handy so that evacuation to them could take place quickly. The people will be just as safe in these suburbs with cellars as shelters as if they were evacuated 100 miles away. I see the Minister of Transport smiling.
        The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I do not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member in his argument, but what occurred to me was that if it is the aggregation of population in a given urban area which makes the target, I do not see why he should think that an evacuation from the centre to the suburbs is any more safe than from the suburbs to the centre.
        Major Milner: Surely it will be much safer at Wimbledon in the houses along the Common than in the East End of London. That must be obvious. The houses on the side of the Common have large gardens, many of them have cellars, and they would be safer there than in houses in the East End of London bolstered up by some form of steel framework. Surely the accommodation is better and the chances of injury far less
        1550
        than they are in a crowded congested area such as the East End of London. I suggest that consideration should be given not merely to villages in outlying districts but to the suburban districts where there are large houses with large gardens, and frequently ample cellar accommodation. However, I am of the opinion that the numbers who will be willing to be evacuated will not be as large as is supposed, and that the real essential thing is to have protection at the home, or near at hand.
        In that matter there has really been gross delay. It was not until the crisis arose that any consideration at all seems to have been given to the problem, and the suggestion then—probably a natural suggestion—was that they should dig trenches. The trenches were dug, the emergency passed, and nothing has been done with them. Even to-day local authorities have not been instructed or given authority to have the trenches properly concreted in order to make them permanent. In my own city tenders were accepted over a month ago, but so far no authority has been forthcoming from the Government Department. Surely a matter of that sort could have been dealt with by return of post. If a responsible local authority accepts a tender, presumably the lowest tender, then the Government Department should be able to approve that expenditure by return of post.
        The Government then evolved their shelter policy. My information is that they ordered thousands of them without any inquiry or survey, and that it was only when the shelters were on the point of being delivered that local authorities were asked to make a survey. They had to return their survey at very short notice, sometimes a matter of three days. The Government were certainly much to blame for not having considered the question of a survey and given local authorities a reasonable time to make a return. Is it intended that the people who receive one of these shelters shall be responsible for their erection? I understand that they are not altogether easy for the ordinary individual to erect, and that the Government have informed local authorities that they may erect them. Who is to pay? In Leeds there will probably be 50,000 of these shelters, and it will cost £150,000. Are the Government prepared to allow

        1551
        this sum to rank for grant under their present arrangements? It is a very important matter which will have to be settled with the local authorities.
        The Lord Privy Seal did say something to reassure us to-day, but I am still doubtful whether the best pattern of shelter has been accepted. I have seen pictures in the newspapers of these shelters full of water. I took it upon myself a long time ago to give the Lord Privy Seal the pattern of a shelter which had a steel base which could be made watertight and a steel side which could be made watertight. It is not possible to do that with the Government type because it has no base, and I can see great difficulty indeed in regard to water. I think the only safeguard is the deep shelter. For some reason which I cannot understand the Lord Privy Seal fights shy of the deep shelter. For some time, I understand, his objection was the great cost; but deep shelters would provide adequate protection. Some of my friends and I have been to Spain and experienced an air raid. The people in the factories, or in the area, would hear the sirens, come out and crowd round the entrances to the shelter. They would hear the planes and probably some bombs being dropped in another part of the city, and the moment they got near everybody would bolt into the shelter. The moment the planes pass away everyone comes out. It is only a matter of a quarter or half an hour at the most. There appears to me no question of these shelters being death traps, and I do not see why they should be so in this country.
        The ordinary man cannot understand why the Government cannot approve schemes which have been submitted to them for underground roads or garages, or any other form of underground construction which could be made remunerative and worth while in ordinary times. In Leeds over a month ago proposals were submitted for a system whereby an underground tube would be driven from North to South and from East to West. As far as I know, no agreement or disagreement has been forthcoming from the Government. In the opinion of many people such a project would be self-supporting, and the garages would be equally self-supporting. Whether the Government carry out the whole policy
        1552
        of deep shelters or not, there seems no reason why they should not give authority for schemes such as that. In congested areas, such as the East End of London, and in industrial areas such as I represent, it is essential that the Government should build some of these deep shelters. I do not think they should be large. They should hold 200, 300 or 400 people and be within reasonable distance of houses. I do not think that the people, certainly in areas like that, will be satisfied unless something of that sort is done.
        May I say one word on the matter of National Service? The figures that the Minister of Labour quoted last night were impressive, but I wonder how many of the people represented in them were really fit for National Service. I am told of one case where no fewer than25 deaf and dumb individuals were put forward for registration, and I am told that hundreds of people over 75 are being registered, and they are presumably included in the figures that were quoted. The usual thing is, If in doubt put him on the reserve, and those reserve figures have been used to bolster up the various returns that we read about. I hope that may not be the case but I am afraid, at any rate in my experience, that the National Service campaign has not been anything like as successful as it ought to have been. In some districts I believe it is a flop, and it is due to the way in which it has been approached by the Government. The handbook, for example, was far too full and detailed, and the list of reserved occupations almost killed the scheme to begin with. I am sure that a mistake was made in issuing it in that form.
        At the same time, there has been a substantial response. I did not quite appreciate why the Lord Privy Seal should say that no real drive had yet been made and that it was not intended, in the first instance, that it should be made. I should have thought that, if the emergency is as urgent as is represented in some quarters, the essential thing was to get the drive moving as soon as possible and not adopt it in the complacent way that the Lord Privy Seal seemed to indicate has been done. The success of all these schemes, in my judgment, depends entirely on the Government indicating that they mean business. They must have regard to the psychological factor. There is no fear amongst the people, I believe, of the

        1553
        result of any war, but there is a great fear as to whether the Government have the courage and the resolution to carry forward these and all other matters submitted to their charge in the way that I believe the people want them to be carried forward. There is a direct responsibility on the Government to make it clear that nothing shall be lacking to make these schemes complete and, above all, efficient.
        7.6 p.m.
        Major Sir George Davies: I could not help comparing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) with the well-informed, critically constructive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) which we heard with such concentrated interest yesterday. I could not help feeling that many of the half criticisms, and in some cases full criticisms, that the former was making had failed to appreciate—and I think that, has run through a great many speeches yesterday and to-day—the central policy which has obviously been decided upon in connection with this whole approach to dealing with possible air raid attacks, and that is the policy of dispersal. It is clear that that runs through everything. There are two criticisms that I should like to make of the Lord Privy Seal and the approach to this matter for which he is responsible. The first is that there are a very large number of people up and down the country who have felt that this policy of National Service, as it has been launched, savours too much of a funk-hole policy, too much of the business of all rushing to cover like a lot of frightened rabbits. We may not go so far as to say that attack in the air is infinitely superior to defence, but if anything like that is true, we are giving the impression that we are not going to give full protection to our people by preaching the doctrine that everyone must scuttle to ground. There is a much more virile form of air-raid precaution, and there are hundreds of thousands of people who would like a more definite appreciation of that and a greater appeal to the country to come out and do their bit in that connection, instead of what I call the funk-hole business.
        The other criticism is this. It was voiced first, I believe, in a maiden
        1554
        speech by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett), who said that if this appeal for National Service was to be launched, it had to be launched with something that gripped and appealed to the imagination of the country. The Lord Privy Seal said that he did not want to do that, and that that appeal to the reserves of the country would be made after the terrible zero hour, which we all hope may never come, and meanwhile the appeal was only for what was needed to carry on in peace time. But the risk in that kind of appeal is the possibility of watering down the enthusiasm of the people which is ready to be roused, and it seems to me that it would have been better to launch such a movement with all the fireworks, the elephants and the circuses—an appeal which would have aroused imagination and got people to say, "After all, I am needed." There are a good many people who say, "I am not quite sure whether I am needed or not and, if I am, I shall get a definite lead and a definite instruction in connection with it."
        Reverting to the question of dispersal, I am quite satisfied that it is the right policy. It runs through so many things which are part of the whole question of air-raid precautions. Take the vexed question of deep bomb-proof shelters. Thinking back over my own experience in the Great War, when on occasions I had the privilege of going down into some of these deep shelters, which had been carefully arranged for us by the enemy—we did not have to construct them ourselves—I found, for myself, and largely for the men, that it was not a very good thing for morale to get right down underground. I always found that I was in a bigger funk than ever when I came up to the surface and I much preferred to be under a single sheet of corrugated iron with one sandbag on top, knowing that if I got a direct hit I was out of luck, but otherwise I was ready to pop out, look round and see what was going on and get on with my job. That is increased 100 per cent, when it is a question of getting hundreds of people down through what must, after all, be narrow entrances and exits, with the possibility of panic and the other objections that have been mentioned. I am sure that the decision is sound to concentrate on dispersal rather than congregation, and it is because of that that I think these shelters

        1555
        which are being put up where it is possible to put them are a much sounder thing than deep bomb-proof—if they can be made so—funk-holes. I believe that dispersal is the right policy to follow. There is a great deal of misapprehension on the part of those who say, "How foolish to evacuate people from area A into area B when area B is quite as vulnerable a place and is likely to be bombed by any aircraft," the answer obviously being that by the very fact of dispersal we are lessening the danger from bombing.
        I remember that during the War we felt that a narrow, easily accessible shell slit for just a few people gave a sense of security, except from a direct hit, which was much more satisfactory than any of these large, concentrated underground shelters for large masses of people. One thing that struck me very much in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney was his warning against the idea of trying to use air-raid precautions for killing two birds with one stone. The first thing to bear in mind is that what we want is air-raid precautions and not building new roads or making underground garages or providing camps, useful though they may be for wives and children in the summer time. The thing to concentrate on is the policy of air-raid precautions, and we should be very careful about letting our minds be diverted too much to ancillary conditions which may be important but at the moment are quite secondary.
        There is a question in connection with this which causes some of us a certain amount of apprehension. The response that has already been made shows that under our free and democratic system we can get in peace time a response which shows the keenness of our people to do their share without compulsion. There was a hint in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney that we were going to find that even in peace time mere freedom of selection would possibly not be enough but some form—he used the word "coercion," but some form of enthusiastic persuasion, shall I say, would have to be used. I have found in all strata of society high, low, rich and poor, the feeling that if only a lead was given to tell them definitely in case of evacuation, "You will take in one, two, three or
        1556
        four children or adults," it would set their minds very much at rest. They would be able to make provision knowing that this had been decided upon as being the most useful thing they could do.
        I believe that the idea of building camps is wrong, for it would be concentration, instead of dispersal. I know that it is more difficult to take a number of children or adults and put them in a large number of houses and cottages scattered about the countryside than it is to build camps and say, "We have got over our responsibility there." But it would be much more efficacious to follow the principle of dispersal. All of us hope that these precautions, which are costing huge sums of money, will never have to be put into operation. We have all over the country plenty of bricks and mortar, and it does not seem to be common sense to build a great deal more bricks and mortar accommodation for an emergency which may never come, when we could, in the event of an emergency coming, use what we have.
        However, I understand to a certain extent the feeling which some people have about a lot of strangers, whether adults or children, suddenly being wished on to them in their households. I am the father of a good many children, and I am the grandfather of a good many grandchildren, and knowing them as I do, if I were not their father or grandfather I should be appalled at the thought of having to take them in and look after them, because I know exactly what they would be up to. Many people have that sort of feeling, and it is quite a reasonable feeling; and I do not think that, except in a case here and there, it is any reflection upon our people's determination, whether they be in palaces or cottages, to do their share. I believe it would help if, in addition to the register of people who would take in those who are evacuated, there could be a form of semi-compulsion such as was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney yesterday, by which people were told, "We are not going to conscript you now, but when zero hour comes, you will be expected to do such and such a thing."
        I want to apply my argument to another thing which is also connected directly with the question of dispersal or concentration, and it is the question of food

        1557
        storage in private houses. We have a great many depots for food, at our ports and harbours and in other places, where great concentration of essential foodstuffs can be made and, as we have been told, is being made; but what a potential reserve there is up and down the country in the larders of the housewives! In 1914, after the outbreak of War, it was, quite properly, an offence to hoard food, and it would be so again if there were a war, but in peace time a policy of that sort could be followed without upsetting the markets or preventing others from getting necessary foodstuffs, as is not the case when the country is at war. It seems to me that in the case of food supplies, as in the case of the evacuation of children or adults in two's and three's to cottages scattered about the countryside, the policy of dispersal should be followed, and that gradually—I agree, according to financial circumstances—housewives could quite properly lay in extra stocks of food.
        It may be asked why should those who are better off in this world's goods be allowed to line their stomachs in time of war better than the rest of the community. I would not have that for a moment. I think that the ration officers should be able to control this matter. But it would be a great advantage if, in some houses, instead of having half a sack of flour, they had two or three sacks, which had gradually been built up as a reserve stock, so that they would not need to come on to the rations of the country for a considerable time, because of the hump which they had to live on. As soon as they had finished that stock, they could come under the rationing provisions of the State. I think that this would be a development of the policy of dispersal which runs through the whole policy on which the Government have decided. I am sure it is a right policy, and I am sure that the policy of concentration, either of human beings or foodstuffs is wrong. I believe that if the Government find that their policy is in any way hindered and that they would like to have a limited power of compulsion in this matter, the country would welcome the exercise of such a power.
        7.20 p.m.
        Sir Arthur Salter: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies) has referred to the question of food supplies in war-time, because that is a matter to which I wanted to draw
        1558
        the urgent attention of the Committee. I am very much inclined to agree with the hon. and gallant Member that, subject to certain conditions, it would be a good thing if, in addition to proper provision by the Government, people would lay in, gradually and quietly, in peace-time, some non-perishable food stores. I believe this could be done in such a way as not to increase prices or in any way upset the economy of the country, and such storage would represent a supplementary reserve to stocks laid in by the Government. In fact, subject to conditions to which I will refer, I would like to see a slogan to the effect, "To buy more than you need in war-time is hoarding and a civic crime; but to buy more than you need in peace-time is storing and a civic virtue." I say that subject not only to the condition which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned, that those stores, in case of need, should be available if there is a shortage elsewhere, but subject also to the vital condition that provision of that kind does not encourage the Government to continue their present policy of complete inaction with regard to food reserves for a shortage in the event of a long conflict.
        I may be told that, after all, the Government did make some purchases of foodstuffs last year and that they have made a small provision this year. In other circumstances, I should have felt it necessary to argue that expenditure reckoned in terms of an annual cost in the neighbourhood of £500,000, compared with our imports of food and feeding-stuffs alone of £1,000,000 a day, was an utterly insufficient contribution to this problem which has been pressed upon the Government for several years by practically everybody who is really qualified to speak. But after the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on Monday last, I need not argue that, because he told us quite explicitly that the stores that are now being accumulated are
        "merely for the purpose of enabling any temporary dislocation in the early period of a war to occur without causing suffering."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1939; col. 1033, Vol. 344.]
        That is to say, the stocks are being provided—and this alone is sufficient to explain what would otherwise be the utter inadequacy of the quantities—only

        1559
        with a view to the first period of dislocation. That is not at all the problem which has been, for some years past, the subject of representations to the Government.
        That problem arises from the fact that even though we retain, as I presume we shall, command of the seas—and it can certainly not be more complete than it was in the last War—and even though we increase our home production, we must expect that in along conflict there will be a shortage of supplies unless we supplement them. The Government have done literally nothing up to now to help in that direction, since the stocks which are being accumulated are for another purpose. Indeed a question by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) a few days ago brought out the fact, that we are actually discouraging the importation of frozen meat at the present time. We have done nothing whatever with regard to this historic weakness of our island position. As has been so frequently urged, a provision of £5,000,000 a year, including in that sum interest upon the initial capital cost of the first purchases, would be enough to give us reasonable security in the event of even a long war.
        Why has this not been done? My view is that the reason is not that the Government or any Minister, after deliberately weighing one need against the other, has decided that it is not worth while, that it is not necessary to make provision of this sort. The reason is simpler. There never has been a Minister in control of an executive department who has felt a direct and primary responsibility for dealing with this problem. We have had a series of answers from the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade—and we had from the Lord Privy Seal yesterday an answer that was not very different—to the effect that—I quote the Prime Minister's answer given in December, 1937:
        "Since food storage is really a part of the larger subject of National Defence, any questions upon the policy of food storage should be addressed to the Minister for the Coordination of Defence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1937; col. 1158, Vol. 330.]
        Are not battleships, aeroplanes, and Army corps part of the larger subject of National Defence? Of course they are,
        1560
        but in each case there is a Minister in charge of an executive department whose job it is to see that in these matters we have what the nation requires. That is what the Government always do when they really want a job carried through. By all means, co-ordinate when the demands of different executive departments compete or conflict, but there must be primary responsibility, there must be an executive department whose demands have to be co-ordinated. We have never had that in respect of this vital problem of food reserves. I do not know now where the responsibility lies. Is it with Lord Chatfield, inheriting from the late Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence? I gathered from the Lord Privy Seal's speech yesterday that the responsibility is rather more with him than anybody else. Is it with the Board of Trade? The speech of the Lord Privy Seal gave a shade more responsibility to that Department than previous answers by the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister had done—but only a shade more. I thought for a moment that perhaps the responsibility was with the third of the co-ordinators, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Supply; but I think the last answer eliminates him. I should like myself the responsibilities to be with the Lord Privy Seal, because he knows what the problem is from his experience in the last War, but on one essential condition, that he has direct control of an Executive Department dealing with this question, as he has in the matter of Air Raid Precautions. For I am quite convinced that unless there is some department whose definite responsibility it is to consider whether or not we have enough food reserves, and to carry through the policy, the problem will never be dealt with. Up to the present, it has been left practically untouched. I do not think I overstate the case when I say that the Food (Defence Plans) Department has never dealt with anything more than the problem of the distribution of food in this country—and possibly, with the provision of extra reserves for the first weeks of dislocation. It has never faced the much more serious and difficult problem, it has certainly never done anything to solve the problem, of meeting a deficiency, due to the reduction of imports which we must anticipate and

        1561
        which will be, I fear, on a more serious scale in a future war than it was in the last War.
        Before passing from this subject I wish to put certain points to the appropriate Minister—I do not know whether it is the Lord Privy Seal or some other Minister who is not now present. First, would he inform himself as to the period for which the wheat supply now in Germany would suffice and compare that period with the period for which the wheat supply now in this country would suffice? I will not give the proportion but I ask the Minister to inform himself on that point and to consider the consequences. Secondly, I ask the appropriate Minister to consider whether it is not possible to arrange for a greater storage of flour of the more durable quality. Flour can be stored dispersedly all over the country, through bakers and by other methods. In that case it would be where it is wanted and we should be relieved of one great danger by the fact that the wheat would not have to be taken to the mills which are nearly all concentrated in vulnerable dock areas but would be ready for immediate consumption. Thirdly, I ask the appropriate Minister to consider the great opportunity that is now offered to him, an opportunity that was offered in 1933 and was not then taken but has now recurred, of a wheat surplus and low prices of wheat. We have made changes in personnel and in function and I seriously urge the Government to see that there is unambiguous and definite personal responsibility allotted to a Minister with executive control of a department, for dealing with this matter.
        The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I think it has already been stated by the Lord Privy Seal that this matter does not come under his control. We must confine the Debate to what is in the Supplementary Vote.
        Mr. Johnston: May I suggest with great respect that it is of vital importance to other speakers who may follow to know the exact scope of the Debate and that as the Lord Privy Seal has announced a policy of camps, for which food supplies will be required, it is appropriate on this occasion to discuss food reserves in that connection.
        Sir A. Salter: I do not wish to pursue the point any further. I only remark,
        1562
        in passing, that I did follow with great care what was said by the Lord Privy Seal and although it is true that he said that a greater responsibility in this matter rested upon Lord Chatfield than upon himself, he certainly included in his own sphere some responsibility in relation to the maintenance of food supplies. However, Colonel Clifton Brown, I accept your Ruling, and I now pass on from that subject to a completely different one, namely, air-raid precautions.
        I am going to suggest that in certain respects the policy outlined by the Lord Privy Seal yesterday and by the Minister of Health to-day is not entirely adequate. At the same time I say quite genuinely that the progress described in those two speeches is, in some ways, remarkable. During the last four months the Lord Privy Seal has done a great deal more than his predecessors did in as many years. If the same rate of progress had been visible during the tenure of office of his predecessor, and still more in the term of office of his predecessor's predecessor, I think we should have solved this problem.
        Nevertheless there are certain matters on which I would like to press my right hon. Friend. I am not one of those who believe that we want deep shelters for everyone in this country. I think the Lord Privy Seal's policy of steel shelters with the strengthening of basements, if—but it is rather a big "if"—the basements can be adequately strengthened quickly enough, will (when we add to the people who are to be so protected, the considerable number whose danger in any case will not be very great) reduce the risk to tolerable dimensions for the majority of people in this country. But there is a considerable minority for whom additional protection is required and I will suggest shortly the class of cases in which deep shelter protection is wanted. We have to consider first the position in evacuable areas and in the most dangerous zones within those areas. Incidentally, one of the things which is most urgently wanted—perhaps it falls within the scope of the Minister of Health—is that, starting with the present classification which is on wide lines, he should proceed to a detailed zoning classification within the different areas of the most dangerous parts. For example, I was rather disturbed by an interjection made by the Minister of Transport in answer

        1563
        to a point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). The right hon. Gentleman suggested that when dealing with an area like London one part was as dangerous as another. It seems reasonable to say that the Lord Privy Seal's protection will reduce the risk to tolerable dimensions in a suburb like Wimbledon.
        Mr. Ede: Wimbledon does not think so.
        Sir A. Salter: Perhaps not, but Wimbledon is in fact in a very different position from that of, let us say, the East End of London, from the docks and along both sides of the river to perhaps Victoria. I suggest that in such a zone as this the proportion of people to be evacuated would be much higher than in other parts of London. I think it is altogether inadequate to contemplate the evacuation from such specially dangerous zones only of the children and mothers, invalids or elderly people, or even people who are now engaged in ordinary useful activities which need not necessarily be carried on there, I do not think that the Anderson Committee's estimate of one-third is an adequate proportion for a zone like that. For such zones what you want to do is to see what industries in them must go on there, because they are essential and because their plant is situated there. You must see what number of people will be compelled to remain there, either as workers in those industries, or as engaged in attendant services such as transport, the provision of food and so on. Then I think all the other people should be encouraged to arrange to go out from a zone so dangerous. For that purpose, the Government ought not to leave the initiative to the different businesses—many of whom are already making their own arrangements—but they ought to communicate definitely with the people who own those businesses and ask them to arrange to go elsewhere. And for those who remain, we want additional protection which, in large measure, I believe would have to be deep shelter protection.
        There was one argument used by the Lord Privy Seal in deprecating the extension of deep shelters which rather alarmed me. He said, with truth, that people might be bombed on the way to the shelter and that panic rushes might
        1564
        ensue. That is a consideration which must be taken into account in any calculations. But, he added the further consideration that it was not only the number of casualties that mattered but the manner in which they were caused. He said it would have a worse effect on the public mind if a given number of people were killed in one place, particularly in a place recommended by the Government, than if the same number were killed dispersedly. I agree that there is some truth in that. But I think it is a very dangerous idea for an administrator to allow to enter into his mind as a determining consideration. The duty of the Government is to adopt whatever practicable system will reduce casualties to the minimum. May I recall an analogy which I hope will appeal to my right hon. Friend because of the experience which he and I shared during the last War? It will be remembered that the convoy system saved us from the submarine peril. It will also be remembered that there was a very long and very costly delay before the Admiralty agreed to the convoy system. Now the convoy system may be compared to the communal shelter system and the system which it replaced may be compared to the dispersal system. I do not press the analogy in relation to the two forms of protection. My point is that one of the reasons why the Admiralty delayed so long about adopting the convoy system was that they felt that while they had a general responsibility for protecting vessels everywhere on the high seas and while it was unfortunate that ships were being destroyed one after another here and there, it would be much more serious if the ships were destroyed all at once, bunched together in a convoy arranged by the Admiralty themselves.
        I earnestly hope that the Government will keep steadily in mind the single criterion of what is the most practicable method of reducing casualties to the minimum. In that connection there was one other remark by the Lord Privy Seal which rather alarmed me. He said that it was a tremendous decision to take whether to have deep shelters or not, because if you adopted that system it would have to be made universal and practically simultaneous for all people sharing more or less similar risks. I suggest that in view of varying local conditions as to soil and so on, this is

        1565
        a matter in which we ought to experiment here and there. The Lord Privy Seal said it was not a matter in which we could experiment but I think it would be better to make a few experiments in different localities than to wait a long time before making any start at all. I think that, roughly, deep shelters are wanted in very dangerous zones such as those to which I have referred, in the neighbourhood of docks, in streets which remain very busy, even when there has been a measure of evacuation, in munitions areas and for certain medical and other vital public services. For all those cases some deep shelters will be required. I would make one further comment in regard to busy streets. Whether the shelters are deep or not, it is of the utmost importance that they should be numerous enough to take all the people who are likely to be in a given region at any moment. They should be so arranged that it will be possible to have permanent notices in the streets telling people, if caught in an air raid in that street, to go to such-and-such a shelter. Otherwise there is grave danger of panic rushes to any shelter which may occur to the mind of the individual who first starts to run and I do not think that police measures by themselves will be adequate in those circumstances.
        May I say something now about air-raid wardens and workers? We have all been impressed by the extent to which there has been volunteering for A.R.P. work as indicated yesterday by the Minister of Labour. There is still, however, a great deal to be done. I believe that the Lord Privy Seal will get all the people he wants, if the public feel that his scheme is a really good scheme. I believe that he needs not to change his scheme fundamentally but to supplement it. I hope he will not give a blank refusal to those who urge the deep shelter policy. If he supplemented his present policy by having deep shelters in certain cases, I believe he would get a greater response to his appeal. And he will be able to ensure a better response to his appeal if he makes the fullest possible use of what is one of the greatest sources of strength of this country, and that is the capacity of our people to form and to make alive and vital, local voluntary organisations of all kinds, such as friendly societies, rotary clubs, and so on. It often seems difficult, from the point of view of a
        1566
        Government office, to work through such societies. Their variety is so great, their methods seem so strange, and they overlap so much. The approach needs to be skilful and varied. But it can be done as the right hon. Gentleman will remember from his experience of National Health Insurance. I am sure that if these societies were appealed to properly to recruit from their own membership they would constitute an invaluable help to him. I would also refer to the new Air-Raid Defence League. It is a completely non-political body, and it really is intended, as far as it can, to help the Government in carrying out its policy, where we agree that it is a good policy, while at the same time remaining independent and pressing such further suggestions on the Government as have been made to-day.
        I will conclude by saying that I think the Lord Privy Seal, as all of us, may find inspiration and incentive for pressing on with the task in which he is engaged in this reflection. If he will accelerate and extend his plans, we may not only eliminate the possibility that we might be defeated in war by a knock-out blow, but, what is almost equally necessary, we may eliminate from the mind of any possible aggressor the belief, even if it be a delusion, that such a thing would be possible. If that were done, the danger of war would be immensely less. Secondly, it is not beyond practicable hope, with a combination of combatant defence measures and passive civilian defence as an essential counterpart, that we can make the loss inflicted less than the loss to the attacking force, so that civilian bombardment will no longer be worth the cost. We may then return, by a longer and more painful route, to the goal, to which there seemed some years ago a shorter and pleasanter route, no longer open, of eliminating from the world this great menace to modern civilisation.
        7.48 p.m.
        Mr. Duncan: With the concluding words of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) I think we can all agree. My object in rising is to applaud the recent action of the Lord Privy Seal; and if I appear critical of certain omissions which have so far been observed, it is due to my own anxiety as a London Member of Parliament to see that all possible

        1567
        precautions are taken, and that they are taken at the earliest possible moment. The first one that I want to mention—and these are all small but practical points—is the question of district nursing. The Minister of Health this afternoon talked about nursing, but I think in that connection he has thought in terms of hospital nursing. What will happen to district nurses in an emergency? Are they to carry on with their normal work, or are they to be drafted off to assist in casualty hospitals or first-aid posts? My right hon. Friend knows that there are district nurses scattered up and down the country. I am chairman of the Kensington District Nursing Association, which employs 17 nurses at the present time, and we who are interested in this matter want to know what we are to do.
        In that connection, are the district nurses going to have protective clothing, and, if so, why not straight away? In the last emergency, if there had been a war in September, the district nurses would have had to go out nursing their ordinary cases and any casualties that occurred, without any protection whatever. This protective clothing is surely essential, because I presume that they will be continuing to carry on their normal work, even if they have to take on additional work as well at a first-aid post. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health whether he will see that this protective clothing is issued to them straight away. I did make inquiries at my local town hall, to see whether this was possible, and I was told by the medical officer of health for Kensington that the local authority had no power to issue the articles in question, but he offered to store them himself, through the borough organisation, if we were not in a position to do so. However, in our case we could do so, but I think it would be of great value to know what the position of district nurses will be in an emergency.
        With regard to shelters, I have every confidence in the steel shelters that are being distributed now, and I am not going to be critical of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, because I am convinced that he has thoroughly tested these shelters and that they will effectually do what they are supposed to do, namely, protect the people who are in the shelters from splinters, blast and falling debris. But, of course, there are many houses,
        1568
        particularly in London, where these shelters will not be suitable, and another way of dealing with houses of this sort would be to strengthen and strut the basements. I have been asking questions on this point for some time, and I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say something about it, but I am most anxious that this basement question should be got on with, because although I was promised a circular to local authorities this month, the local authorities, so far as I know, have not yet got it. We want to get on with this work. I do not think any particular survey that would be required would take long. We want to see effective protection provided against splinters, blast and debris wherever a basement can be made fit, protection that provides not only for the roof of the basement, but for the side of the basement as well.
        There is another class of house or building where perhaps there is no basement and where, if there is a basement, it is not suitable. I refer to large blocks of flats. The London County Council, for instance, own a very large number of large blocks of flats without basements. I have large blocks of flats in my constituency, not under the London County Council, but under a housing association, and the people living in these flats want to know how they are to be dealt with. I think these are practical points. There is no basement, and the buildings are not constructed strongly enough for the ground floor to be able to withstand falling debris without a very considerable amount of strutting. If a bomb falls fairly near them, it will blow in, or rather blow out, the sides through the vacuum created, and, therefore, I do not see that there is any way of protecting these five and six-storey blocks of flats from blast or splinters. What is to be done in those cases? I should like my right hon. Friend to give some answer to that question if he can, and if he cannot do it to-night, I hope that he will do it as soon as he can, because, in my submission, this is one of the exceptional cases, where you have to go underground fairly deep to protect these great collections of 6,000 and 7,000 people living together in great blocks of flats.
        There is one other point with regard to shelter protection, and that is in reference to domestic servants living in the richer parts of the country or the town. Let me give my own case as an illustration of

        1569
        what I mean. Before Christmas, in response to questions by me in the House, the Lord Privy Seal said that it was the duty of every householder and employer to protect his staff. I asked him specifically whether that meant that every householder with a domestic servant would be responsible for that servant's protection, and he said, "Yes." I wrote to the town hall in the City of Westminster, and I was informed that I could have two booklets on the subject, but that there was no possibility of getting any advice other than that contained in those two booklets. The town clerk suggested that I should employ an architect. I consulted my architect, and I found that he had never erected a shelter. He does not know anything about it. Therefore, I am in this position—and thousands of others are in the same position as myself—that we are advised to consult architects who do not know anything about it, and that we shall not get any official help or advice beyond that contained in the booklets circulated by the Lord Privy Seal's Department.
        I think the architects will soon learn, because they are professional people, who know all about strains and stresses, and they need only a short period of training or booklets of advice on technical lines in order to be able to do the work. But I want to make this suggestion, in the interests of domestic servants who might be bombed, that employers should not be allowed to put up structural protection in their own houses except on lines approved by the local authority. It may well be that some householders may go in for cheap, inefficient methods of protection, which would be very dangerous in an emergency, and I suggest that the only way to meet that contingency at the present time, when people know so little about these problems, is that the local authorities' approval of the plans should be required in every case.
        Now one or two words about evacuation. I am very glad to hear that it has been arranged that evacuation shall be voluntary in every case, but I think that a problem will arise with the mothers. In the last emergency a very large proportion, over 90 per cent., of the mothers in London allowed their children to go away from their homes to the country with their teachers. I think it was a very fine thing for the mothers to risk their children with strangers in
        1570
        a strange land in a time of emergency, and stay in the danger zone themselves. It may be an interesting problem in the future, whether a mother will stay with her husband, cook his food, look after him, and share the risk of staying, rather than go away with the children somewhere in safety. I am, however, delighted that evacuation is to remain voluntary, because I think that anything of compulsion in that connection would be a very bad thing. I hope that the teachers will be among the priority classes that were referred to on more than one occasion by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health this afternoon. He talked about young children, older children, and their mothers, but he left out the teachers. In my opinion, in the vast majority of cases the teachers ought to be on the priority list and, wherever possible, go with the children.
        I am glad to hear that the billeting arrangements have been successful as far as they have gone, but I think that there may be some error in the figures which the right hon. Gentleman read this afternoon. One reason may be that which was given by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), that in some cases the figures were obtained by volunteers and not by officials of local authorities. Another is that in some areas the calculations were made on the basis of one person per habitable room. In working it out in practice I am sure that this is not the right standard. I raised this matter by means of Question and Answer a fortnight ago. What is far more important than the question whether there is bedroom accommodation, is whether there is cooking and washing accommodation. I hope that now the preliminary survey is over, a further survey will be made to ensure that houses which have been earmarked have sufficient domestic arrangements so that the children will be adequately looked after. Another practical point is how we are to get the sand into the sand bags and the filled bags into position.
        Mr. George Griffiths: Fill them with a shovel.
        Mr. Duncan: The Minister of Health has ordered thousands of millions of sandbags. I do not know where they are or whether they are to be, as I expect, sent to the distributing centres of the local authorities. Will it be the obligation of the local authority to deliver the sand-

        1571
        bags ready filled in an emergency? If so, it should be clearly laid down that the local authorities should make arrangements for storing the bags with the sand nearby, and that considerable transport arrangements will have to be made for distributing the sandbags. That is a considerable business, which many of us who were in the last War will remember. Added to that, the local authorities should know the number of sand bags and their destinations house by house. A particular case which I would like to bring to the notice of the Committee is that of my nursing association's nurses' home. We have an elaborate plan, which has the unofficial approval of my borough council, and it envisages the use of sandbags, We have no storage accommodation and do not know when or from where we are going to get them. If it could be clearly laid down that the local authority is responsible for the distribution in their own area, and, if possible, for erecting them, and clearly understood by all concerned what is to be done, it will be a great advantage.
        On the question of profiteering, the Minister of Health mentioned the price of cement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) made a great point of it. I am a member of the Select Committee on Estimates and am interested in this question of profiteering, as, indeed, is the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is also on the Committee. I hope that we shall have an opportunity later in the Committee to consider the price of cement and other materials. I understand that the Building Materials Committee reported before Christmas to the Minister of Health, and that the Minister is now negotiating with the manufacturers of cement to see whether the rise of 10 per cent. in price since 1935 is justifiable. I hope that when the question comes to us in the Select Committee we shall have the result of the Minister's conversations with the associations concerned. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will, at the same time, take note of the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates with regard to fire hose. A position which was far from satisfactory was disclosed, but since then it may have been put right. There are many things that I could say on the question of civil defence, but as other hon. Gentlemen
        1572
        want to speak I will say no more than this. As a London Member I am deeply interested in this subject. I believe that we are making real progress now, and if I have been critical to-night it is because of my earnest desire to see my constituents and my Capital, the Capital of the greatest Empire in the world, made as safe as possible.
        8.8 p.m.
        Mr. Price: This Debate has shown that a hard-and-fast policy in dealing with the defence of the civil population is impossible, and that we must take each case as we find it, each area as we find it, and deal with the specific problems in different ways. For instance, in some districts dispersal is necessary, in other districts cover or deep shelters are necessary, and in others both are necessary. Many of these problems are due to the fact that industry has been allowed to congregate in a few centres on too large a scale. The question of the dispersal of industry will have to be dealt with. A Commission on the Location of Industry is now sitting, and we ought to get an interim report so that something could be done as early as possible, although I am afraid it will be many years before a complete reversal of this trend will be possible. In the West of England we are still somewhat in the dark as to why certain districts which are regarded as neutral areas and others which are regarded as receiving areas should not be arranged as we think they should be. There are districts round Gloucester Docks and a canal leading from Berkeley and Sharpness to Gloucester, which I think are very vulnerable areas, and yet they will still be receiving areas. The City of Gloucester is supposed to be receiving children and persons who are to be evacuated from the Midlands. I think that the diagrams which have been issued should be revised and that there should not as yet be any hard-and-fast line drawn.
        In the rural parts of my constituency progress in regard to the evacuation census is going on very well and is almost finished, but I would like to call attention to the fact that we shall be dependent to a large extent upon the work of local care committees as to how smoothly the evacuated children get to their places and are looked after when they get there. Are we to rely entirely upon these committees? A circular issued by the Minister

        1573
        of Health some time ago seemed to indicate that the local care committees would play a large role in looking after the children, seeing to the supply of mattresses and blankets, the mending of clothes, and so on. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the necessity for using the big country houses. I do not think that is an adequate policy. They should be used whenever possible, of course, but in a great many villages there are no big country houses, and it is a question of dispersing into small cottages where there are very few rooms. I know many cottages where there is not enough room for the existing family, and in many places it is a question of only one or two at the outside being taken in.
        Dispersal in the rural areas will not meet the position altogether, and the question of camps will have to be considered. One hon. Member seemed to think that camps would be a considerable danger and a target for the enemy. I agree that in certain districts they would be. If camps were in the Midlands or the home counties, or anywhere near big industrial centres, they would be targets. There are in the West of England, and particularly in my constituency, the Forest of Dean, very excellent places, concealed in wooded valleys, to which large numbers of evacuated people could be sent. Incidentally, the Forest of Dean is shortly to become a national forest park. I understand that the Forestry Commission, are looking out for suitable sites for holiday camps for the public in time of peace, with the object of attracting holiday-makers, and it would be desirable to use such camps for the civil population dispersed from the denser areas in time of war. I have recently been in communication privately with the Lord Privy Seal upon this matter, and I will hope he will give it consideration in due course, because I am convinced that it is one of the means by which the problem may be dealt with.
        One other point, I wish to raise a point concerning air-raid wardens in rural areas. In the area where I am an air-raid warden we were asked, six months ago, to recruit 127 persons. In a short time we had secured 84 and were on the way to getting the remainder. Classes were held, and certificates were issued to those who passed the examination. All of a sudden we have been informed that equipment
        1574
        will be provided for only 42 persons and there has been, in consequence, a considerable "flop" in enthusiasm. All the time we were working on this most of us had the feeling that lectures and instructions on how to deal with mustard gas were not a very practical course for a remote rural area, and that the number of workers we were asked to get was a high one. However, we did what we were told. I am not surprised that remote rural areas are now asked rather to stand down in favour of more vulnerable areas, but my complaint is that this ought to have been decided upon before. The Department concerned should have realised that to ask for a very large number of workers and then suddenly cut them down was scarcely the way to keep up the enthusiasm in the rural areas, and although I think the right thing is now being done I hope that similar happenings will not take place in the future because it would have a serious effect upon the desire to render service which I know prevails among the people in order that this country may be ready to meet any danger which may threaten it.
        8.18 p.m.
        Mrs. Tate: I think the whole Committee and the whole country will be impressed by the figures which the Minister gave showing the response he has had to the requests to billet children in the rural areas, but I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) and say that, magnificent though the response has been, and impressive as the figures are, I doubt whether they do in every instance give a quite accurate picture and whether we ought really to rely in every case upon finding accommodation for the number of children we shall expect to billet when we hear the number of rooms which are supposed to be available for them. In the West Country people have been going round making exhaustive surveys of the houses, the numbers of rooms and the number of children who could be taken. In villages such as Pease down and Mells, which can be regarded as fairly safe from air attack, and may be valuable centres for children, the water shortage was so acute last year that the children already living there had to be taken away in order to be washed, and there was an inadequate supply of drinking water. If we are

        1575
        counting rooms in those villages as available for extra children it is not a practical calculation. I realise that the Minister of Health must at this time receive many requests from local authorities who, as he said, put forward schemes which are very dear to their hearts and it is true that in Somerset there are many villages which have felt for a long time that the water supply question has been disgracefully neglected. Naturally, they put forward that question now, but it is not a case of putting forward a scheme which is dear to the heart of a local authority, but a question of supplying a need, and unless it is met we have no right to put one extra child into those villages. Therefore, I say, the water supply question is one to be gravely considered.
        There is one other question. There are in the West Country a large number of medium-sized houses whose occupants have volunteered to take a certain number of children. I would ask the Minister whether arrangements have been made as to who is to do the housework, the cooking and the washing for these children, because a great many houses are, of necessity, staffed by foreign labour at the present time, British labour not being available. Will that foreign labour be there in the event of war? Will even the British labour which is there at present be there in the event of war? Will not some of those who are at present engaged in domestic labour be volunteering for some other form of National Service which will be quite as valuable? We should make quite certain that in any village where a large number of children are to be billeted there will be an adequate number of people to undertake those essential services. We are recruiting a Women's Land Army, and I am certain that it would be easy to recruit a household army, or whatever it might be called, for this purpose. These are practical problems to be faced when considering the billeting of children in the country.
        Something has been said with regard to camps. A very extraordinary case has been brought to my notice, possibly it is not an isolated case, which I think shows a spirit of unreality on the part of the Ministry of Health. A certain woman in Hertfordshire had the job of going round a village to find out what accommodation there was for the billeting of children.
        1576
        She found that very little accommodation was available because, as an hon. Member opposite said, the houses were already quite full. This woman owned 15 cottages which had been put into a Demolition Order under the slum clearance scheme. She consulted an exceedingly capable architect, who said that those cottages could be made perfectly sound, and she wrote to the Ministry and offered to have that work done at her own expense, and to billet children in them free of any charge whatsoever. The number of people who could have been placed in those 15 cottages was between 70 and 80, but she has been told that unless she destroys the cottages within a month the council will do it and that she will be charged for the destruction of them. It was in the crisis that she wrote offering these cottages. The moment the crisis was over the Ministry wrote to her, "The crisis is over, and we shall now have no need of your cottages." When we are trying to find accommodation in the country for children from the towns the refusal of an offer like that makes people feel that there is in some Government Departments a lack of appreciation of the real problem.
        Mr. Gallacher: Get rid of the Government.
        Mrs. Tate: Things would be a great deal worse if the hon. Member's side had anything to do with it. If they had been in charge we should have been at war long ago. I should like to continue my speech without interruptions from Russia, and would say a word or two about the women's work under Air-Raid Precautions services. I am well aware that a great deal of that work will be of a very heavy nature such as is not suitable for women. I, therefore, do not ask for equal scales of pay or allowance for men and women throughout their service. The Minister very rightly said yesterday that the scale which is to be paid is to be regarded not as pay but as an allowance.
        I am certain that not one Member of this House or one thinking member of the public would approve that where men and women are being given an allowance in war-time for absolutely identical work the women should receive only two-thirds of the allowance paid to the men. There is the work at first-aid posts by the first-aid nurses provided for those posts, drivers of ambulances and those who give

        1577
        professional services such as radiologists and dispensers. I disapprove of the unequal rates of pay between men and women in the Civil Service, but in no case is there a difference of more than one-fifth. Under the scale which the Government are going to allow, a man is to be paid a flat rate of 60s. a week and a women a flat rate of 40s. a week. I ask the Minister for some explanation of that difference. It is impossible to pretend that a woman driving an ambulance from morning till night will be doing less work than a man who is giving exactly the same service. She certainly will not need less food. She will not find the driving of that ambulance less of a strain, and she certainly will have to pay quite as much for lodgings. Probably she will find it more difficult to get suitable lodgings. I ask why this difference is proposed?
        When I said, "Hear, hear" because one woman had said that she withdrew her name as a person who would take children for billeting, because of the inequality of the pay, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir P. Latham) said that I was unpatriotic. The whole House and the country knows that whether you treat women justly or not they will give their service freely and unstintingly in time of war when the nation calls for it, and that they will think not of themselves or of their sex but only of their country; but it does not do the country or the Government credit that there should be this wholly indefensible difference in the allowances paid to men and women.
        I would say a word upon a subject touched upon by the last speaker, that of air-raid wardens in the country districts. In the little town of Frome in my constituency a very capable organisation of air-raid wardens has been built up. They have had the same sort of irritation that has been the experience of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) and I would ask that in cases where the chief air-raid warden has been put to considerable expense for clerical staff, an allowance should be made for the initial building up of the service. I hope that if the Minister cannot put forward any defence he will at least attempt to tell me on what grounds the extraordinary discrimination is proposed between the allowances for men and women in time of war.
        8.30 p.m.
        Mr. Woods: These Debates have brought out very clearly that, whatever war may have been in the past, it will be, if it should unfortunately occur, something totally different in the future. In the past most of the preparations for war were a matter for the armies concerned, but now every Department will have responsibility and, what will be a very novel feature, local authorities will have more responsible and exacting duties than they have ever had before. Many of the problems may be foreseen and anticipated, and I expect that the Minister, when he listened to the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir P. Latham) wished that the problems were as simple as the hon. Member seemed to indicate. One thing which was profoundly true in his speech was that in a democratic country like this we should rely much more than we have done in the past upon the local authorities, who know the problems of their localities, the local people and the local resources, and have had years of administrative experience in their localities.
        I am afraid that the desirability of co-operation between the central organisation and the local authorities of this country has not been fully appreciated and acted upon. The experience that we have had in Finsbury has brought out this point very clearly. Finsbury is in the heart of London, and it suffered very heavily in the last War, being located between two of the largest London railway termini and near other important centres. Finsbury attempted to go into the matter in order to make its preparations, and I am delighted that the borough has done its job well. It has not taken a great length of time to do it. I was in Spain 12 months ago, and when I came back I found to my amazement that the present Government, although not with the same personnel in the Departments responsible, was talking in terms of buckets of sand and spades. To those who had come straight back from devastated Barcelona this talk seemed worse than lunacy; it was criminal insanity. To try to persuade the population of this country, especially of large towns, that any hope of safety lay in such measures, was fantastic in the extreme.
        Fortunately for the Government, the public have short memories. Buckets of

        1579
        sand and spades have receded into the background. In Finsbury we discussed what were likely to be the results in modern warfare. From what I and others have seen in Barcelona it was obvious that something drastic was necessary if there were to be any degree of security guaranteed to the civilian population. In a very thorough way we looked at the problem from every angle. We considered the problem was one of evacuation, but, unfortunately, there were only limited possibilities in the borough, because many of the population are occupied in necessary work in the vicinity. The day-time population is several times the number of the actual inhabiting population of the borough. Whatever happens, therefore, with regard to evacuation, it would leave us with a considerable population for whom to provide shelter.
        As regards the question of trenches, a survey of the borough was made to ascertain the possibilities, but, unfortunately, there is very little open space for trenches, so there is no possibility, even if trenches prove satisfactory, of making adequate provision in that way. I noticed that the Lord Privy Seal stressed particularly the question of strengthening basements. A complete survey was made of the cellars and basements in the borough, but there again we had to face the problem that much of the property in the borough is over 100 years old, and that the really modern buildings with basements which could be made secure in the event of air raids are very restricted in number. We were, therefore, driven back upon the provision of deep bombproof shelters. We obtained the best advice we could, and produced the best scheme we could.
        We got very little help from the Government or Government Departments. If there had been a spirit of willing cooperation, probably our scheme would have been a better one, but we have been driven to use our own resources and consult the best people we could. We made applications to Government Departments for information as to the strengths of concrete and so forth necessary to withstand the possible explosive power of the bombs that might be used, but we got no information at all. The only reply we have had is, "Prepare your scheme and submit it, and we will tell you whether we approve of it or not." I
        1580
        think, therefore, that it is highly commendable that, in spite of the smallness of the encouragement, a scheme has been produced which at any rate we hope will be improved upon by the Government. We do not stand, and I do not think that any local authority in this matter, in which we are all so much novices, can stand, on any pinacle. Our scheme is not offered as a challenge; it is just our humble attempt to present a scheme might offer security to the population of whom we have to take charge.
        I do not want to go into the criticisms that have been made. One hon. Member opposite referred to the policy of "funk holes," which he repudiated as being unworthy of the great British population. He advocated dispersal, which, after all, might be described as flight. To those who have been in modern air raids, and have seen the aeroplanes overhead, it is appalling to feel how utterly impotent one is, and if a flight of aeroplanes breaks up, then it is a question of where one is to go. We do not presume to know how far the experience in Spain is likely to be reproduced here. Heaven save us from it. But the idea of dispersal does not meet the situation to any extent. When I was in Spain last year and at the beginning of this year—I came back just before Barcelona fell—whole villages had been completely blotted out. In a previous discussion one hon. Member asked why these refugees fled. The obvious reason was that their village had been blown to pieces, they themselves had been machine-gunned, and they were just terror-stricken and fled.
        The position in the rural parts is quite different from that of the towns. I have seen villages in Spain where the actual objectives—factories and so forth—have been hit with amazing precision. It is impossible, practically speaking, in a country district, to make provision for anti-aircraft defence. Where a town has adequate provision for anti-aircraft defence, the tendency is for the invading airman to give it a wide miss, but where he knows that there is very little in the way of effective anti-aircraft defence, he can come down with impunity to a fairly low level and aim with amazing precision, with the result that a whole village is speedily destroyed. I am not going into the question of dispersal or funk holes, but I suggest that it does not help to say, when there seems to be no way of

        1581
        securing adequate protection except by deep bomb-proof shelters, that that is unpatriotic. It seems to me to be the most sensible thing under the sun. The remarks of the Lord Privy Seal yesterday were rather vaguely phrased, but they seemed to indicate that he thought that to propose deep bomb-proof shelters created in some way a defeatist mentality. I hope he did not mean that, because I do not see how it can be maintained.
        The Minister of Health gave to-day a long list of the orders that have already been placed for miles of bandages, millions of yards of adhesive tape, tons of cotton wool, and so forth, and, as I listened, I felt that at least we were making provision for the casualties. I am convinced, however, that the whole country is behind those who say in regard to this matter, "Prevention is better than cure." It is far better to have a small percentage hit than a large expenditure on bandages and adhesive tape. The whole of the objections raised seem to take it for granted that, in regard to the provision of deep bomb-proof shelters, science has somehow or other suddenly become dumb—that we have no real capacity for building such shelters as will be immune from high explosive bombs. We do not take that attitude when we are building warships; we assess the danger and make provision against it. Whatever provision may have been made in the scheme submitted by my borough, I can say that, if the protection it affords should prove to be inadequate, arrangements have been made so that it can be augmented to meet an even greater danger.
        Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Would the hon. Member tell us the depth of the shelters provided in the Finsbury scheme?
        Mr. Woods: They are of various depths; they can be made of almost any depth on this system of construction. If any hon. Members are interested in the matter, and would like information about it, I am sure that the borough surveyor and engineer will be pleased to let them have it. I do not, however, put this scheme forward as a solution applicable to the country as a whole. We do not say that it is a universal panacea. But we do say that we have surveyed our problem as a community in the heart of
        1582
        London, we have looked at the possibilities, and we feel that here at least is the only thing that we, as a responsible administrative body, can recommend as promising any degree of security for the population for whom we are responsible. It seems to me that that is quite legitimate and commendable.
        I am doubtful whether the Government have the information which the local authorities need. Out in Spain I made inquiries as to whether the British Government had inspected their deep shelters, and a very fantastic story was told me—I do not know whether it was true—to the effect that the British Government sent out one engineer, who did not speak (Spanish, who stayed three days, who did not make any official contacts, but went and saw one shelter and came back. If that is anywhere near the truth, it is no use making references, as the Minister did, to Barcelona. I would like to say, in connection with Barcelona and the experience of the war in Spain, that, while I personally feel that the small metal shelters will be useful as against blast, falling debris and shrapnel from anti-aircraft guns, they will be quite useless in proximity to a large building, for the people will be suffocated by the vast volume of material that will fall upon them. I think the Minister appreciates that. But they are quite useless against anything like direct hits. What impressed me in the parts of Spain to which I went was that there were many refugios, as they call them, above ground level, with vast piles of sand or sandbags around them; they had been so dangerous to the people who flocked into them that they had been all removed, and the people were frantically going on with the task of providing deep shelters.
        The question of time has been mentioned. Very careful estimates have been made, as far as it is possible to make estimates, and we consider that within eight months the whole scheme will be completed. It would occupy, apart from skilled engineers and others, about 5,000 unskilled workers for that eight months. We shall never get decisions if we wait for the perfect thing. Finsbury is anxious to profit by the experience of other boroughs, but we want the work to be got on with at the earliest moment. We are definitely held up, and every borough is held up, by the fact that there is no power to requisition sites, and special

        1583
        powers will be needed by many boroughs, especially in London, to go down to the depth required. So while we are putting our scheme to the Government for their help in elaborating a better scheme, we suggest that the urgency must be considered, and that we must go forward immediately. That was the point on which the officials who visited us placed their whole emphasis. We are quite prepared to go ahead with the scheme as it is or to receive the benefit of Government advice, but we are anxious that people should go on living whole and not have to have recourse to the tons of cotton wool and bandages which have been mentioned.
        8.48 p.m.
        Mr. Bull: There are, I know, still several hon. Members who wish to speak and I shall be very brief—although I think that when a Member says that he intends to be brief and then lapses into a 35 or 40 minutes speech there should be some collective action on non-party lines taken against him for raising false hopes. We have all admired the thorough manner in which the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of Health dealt with this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) and the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) were concerned for a short time in their speeches in apportioning blame. Apart from that, no blame has been apportioned in this Debate, either yesterday or to-day. I think they will still need all their time and eloquence to persuade the country that our defences in general or air-raid precautions in particular would be in a more advanced stage if their party had been in power. I am glad the right hon. Member for South Hackney recognised what an able and painstaking Minister we have in the Lord Privy Seal, but I would like to ask for some further information about the evacuation scheme for London. I fully realise the difficulty of extending this scheme until the Lord Privy Seal knows more from his survey about the numbers which can be taken into the receiving areas, but it seems to me that there are very crowded areas in Greater London which are also definite target areas and are yet classified as neutral zones, whereas some of the areas included in the London evacuation scheme are not targets.
        1584
        The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) said yesterday that some people were amazed—or words to that effect—at North Tottenham being classified as an evacuation area. The people in the division I represent are most dissatisfied that Eastern Enfield has been classified as a neutral area, and I wonder what the Lord Privy Seal would think if I suggest an exchange by which he could take North Tottenham out of the list of evacuation areas and put Eastern Enfield in. Further, the Minister of Health said that he must be bound by the laws of arithmetic; but that will not interfere with the laws of arithmetic. It seems to me that enemy bombers will always go for target areas, as they did in the last War, rather than for London in general, especially as these target areas in Greater London are also very crowded. I do not wish to particularise unduly, but in the division I represent there are over 100 factories, including the Royal Small Arms factory, and close by, in the division represented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter), are the Royal Powder Mills, which, if they were hit, would blow up half of North London. Therefore, I cannot see why this area should not be included in the evacuation scheme. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that there is already one German Zeppelin burial ground in my division, and the people there naturally do not want another. They are, therefore, rightly apprehensive about this area not being classified as an evacuation one. I would ask the Minister of Transport whether he can say anything further about the re-classification of these crowded target areas in Greater London as evacuation areas.
        8.54 p.m.
        Mr. Vernon Bartlett: All who listened to the Lord Privy Seal yesterday and to the Minister of Health to-day must have been very impressed by the magnitude of the task they have undertaken, and the progress they have made. It was perhaps not surprising that the Lord Privy Seal's speech was approaching in length, although fortunately not in manner of delivery, to those of Herr Hitler. I do not want to encourage him, but there was once a dictator, Kemal Ataturk, who made a speech lasting four days. The point of these speeches is to indicate that if we cannot protect the whole population

        1585
        we should keep our casualties down, but, above all, keep our moral up, or, better still, show the world that we are so united that there will not be casualties, because there will not be a war. It seems to me that we should approach the problem by saying, "Let us get as much good out of evil as we possibly can." Many of the old fetishes about the Gold Standard, for example, have been swept out of existence in the last few weeks by the immense expenditure on armaments. I believe that it is a good thing. We shall learn, as a result of this tremendous difficulty of Civil Defence and the expenditure involved, the great truth that the strength of a nation depends not on the amount of gold in the vaults of its banks, but on the brains and muscles of its people.
        I am sorry that there has been so little reference in this Debate to the question of the unemployed. The best way of approaching this problem, if we admit that we cannot avoid casualties altogether, is to see that we get as much good out of the evil as possible. If we say that, as part of this problem of destroying unemployment we are as far as is possible diminishing the risks in the event of war, we are doing something to unite the nation. If we put it the other way round and say that, in the processes of building dug-outs, we may bring some men back into work, we shall encourage that defeatist, that funk-hole attitude, to which various speakers have referred. The same consideration should apply to this question of deep dug-outs. It seems to me obvious that, sooner or later, we must have underground roads in some places and underground garages, and while I have been very impressed by many of the arguments put forward in favour of or against deep dug-outs, we should keep also in mind, as part of the strategic question, the fact that sooner or later we shall need these garages and underground roads and we should go ahead and build them as far as possible now. In that way we would be strengthening the nation and should wipe out the feeling, which to my mind is one of the causes of this defeatist attitude, that people are merely being called upon to make a stupendous sacrifice in the slight hope that they will stand some chance of coming through an inevitable war as a nominal victor. It is that feeling—that it is not worth doing all this if war is inevitable in the long
        1586
        run—which has a very serious deterrent effect on our Civil Defence programme.
        There is one last and very brief point I wish to make. The Lord Privy Seal quite rightly insisted that this principle of Civil Defence should not be looked upon in any way form a party or political point of view. I sincerely agree, but I have also the feeling that there is still a considerable distrust on that point in the country. Believing as I do that the efficacy of our civil defence arrangements should be one of the principal safeguards against war, I want to see the distrust of these arrangements removed. I have here two documents. One is a memorandum from the daughter of a village parson, not in my constituency, who is very strongly against any question of compulsory billeting. She quotes in the memorandum that she has drawn up various remarks made by people in the village, and one of these remarks is, "It cannot be done. It would be a revolution." The other document I have is a letter from the area representative—I will not give the name—of the Women's Voluntary Service for Civilian Defence. That lady states that this memorandum against compulsory billeting has been passed on by her to the Ministry of Health, which deals with the evacuation scheme. She goes on to say:
        "Unfortunately it could not stop there, as any signed paper which mentions violence and revolution must be shown to the Home Office."
        The letter goes on:
        "I am sure that you did not realise the seriousness of signing such a paper,"
        and it continues by saying that it is a pity that this lady who protests against compulsory billeting
        "should embark upon inciting a small portion of her village to sign such a paper, which shows a great lack of faith in Mr. Chamberlain and his Government."
        I should not have mentioned this incident if it were not for this reason. I certainly do not uphold in the least the views of the lady who is opposed to compulsory billeting. I deplore these views and I have no doubt that the other lady, this fairly prominent official who writes this rather menacing and intimidating letter—and it certainly was intimidating because the lady who came to see me was almost in a state of nervous breakdown—was filled with good intentions. But I have a feeling that there are quite a

        1587
        number of cases like that in the country and I really believe that it would be useful if a responsible Minister would consider whether it could not be possible to issue some warning likely to diminish the number of cases of this sort of case. Otherwise I rather fear that we shall not get that whole-hearted co-operation from this side of the Committee, which I for one would very much like to see established.
        9.2 p.m.
        Mr. Roland Robinson: I like the point which was made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) with regard to underground roads and garages. I feel that it is a matter in particular for the Ministry of Transport. In these days, when we are embarking on vast expenditure, most of which will be unproductive in the event of war, it is only wise to see that wherever expenditure can be made productive it should be. I do not, therefore, propose to follow the point further as it has already been made, but I wish to deal with a few questions on evacuation and billeting. I represent a most important town in one of the reception areas. It is a large holiday resort, which has a great knowledge of the problems of reception. We have suggestions which we should like to make from time to time, and I feel sure that the Minister will realise that the suggestions and points we make are intended definitely to be constructive. I would like a little guidance on one particular point. The holiday resorts in Great Britain may be faced with the position that war may break out at the height of the holiday season, as happened in 1914. When War started on 4th August, 1914, it was the week of the Bank Holiday, and at that time we had to cope not only with our normal civilian population, but with hundreds of thousands of visitors as well. In such circumstances we might find a great deal of dislocation and disorganisation in transport facilities, in billeting and in our general problems.
        I hope that the Minister will give some special attention to this matter, because it is an unusual problem which does not occur very much in other places. Can the Minister say what is to be done with regard to billeting in the case of empty houses? There are a large number of empty houses which could well be taken over and used as dormitories for children.
        1588
        Will he tell us whether it is proposed to take over such houses immediately on the outbreak of war? Has he also considered the use of Sunday schools? Such schools are generally well warmed, properly ventilated, with water and sanitary arrangements, and in many cases they are not used during weekdays but only on Sundays. These schools could well be used, and the normal Sunday school service could be held in the churches in the event of war. From the point of view of holiday resorts, the case of boarding-houses occurs to one. There has been a lot of extraordinary talk during the last few weeks about the intimidation of the Government by the boarding-house keepers, and many ill-informed speeches have been made in another place on the subject. I want to say here and now that, so far as boarding-house keepers are concerned, intimidation does not and cannot arise.
        This is the industry of the little man, and it would be absurd to think that he was in a position to threaten the Government in this matter. He is only trying to put his views and to be helpful. Certainly, the very people who criticise the boarding house people for speaking are those representatives of big industries who if complaints were made about their own industries would regard the matter very differently. If it was a case if the iron and steel industry we should be told that the interests of the nation were at stake; if it were road transport, it would be a great fight for justice, and if it were the railways, it would be a demand for a square deal. When our people, the small men, ask for something, their case ought to be considered in a fair and friendly spirit. I suggest that the Government should take them more into their confidence in their billeting plans and say what is wanted, in the same way that they do when they are dealing with industry.
        It would have been most helpful if the Minister of Heatlh could have met the representatives of our residential hotels, boarding house and apartment house keepers, told them what was wanted, agreed with them on an economic price and arranged for the filling of their houses in the event of war. The price of billeting must play some part, because the people who rent boarding houses are not in the same position as the ordinary householder. The boarding house is rented and rated as a business. If these people had their

        1589
        houses filled with children at the rates that are being offered they would inevitably lose money and be forced into bankruptcy. I am sure that would not be the wish of the Government. These houses were used a great deal in the last War for billeting soldiers. The rate paid at the beginning of the War was 15s. 9d., when prices were low, and 19s. 3d. when they were high. Those figures compare with 10s. and 8s. 6d. offered to-day. If only the Minister of Health would talk over these problems with these people he would find a body of people who would help him. If he would agree with them on an economic price he would find that their local associations would go out to canvass for him, and provide him with schedules of accommodation which would be most helpful to him in the work he is doing. We have all this accommodation and the Government ought to use it on proper terms.
        I am a little disturbed that instead of these consultations there has been the proposal to erect camps all over the country. In such a case you get concentration rather than dispersal. Like the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), I take the view that in time of war the enemy will not be too squeamish, and whenever he sees an object he will be liable to go for it, whatever it is. Therefore, I feel that these camps are not a good thing, because they are tending to the dangers of concentration. The proposal itself is an expensive one. It is estimated that it would cost a million pounds to deal with 17,500 in camps, or £57 per child, plus upkeep. On the ground of expense the scheme is bad. In September it was deemed necessary to evacuate 500,000 children from London alone. When the whole country is taken into account the problem will be proportionally larger. The "Economist" made a conservative estimate that 2,000,000 would have to be removed, and other estimates put it two or three times as high. The Anderson Committee thought that the number would be between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000. If camps were to be regarded as a solution of this problem the cost would be phenomenal. If we were to house, say, only 2,000,000 people in camps, the Government would have to pay £100,000,000, plus upkeep. To accommodate one million we should have a bill of £50,000,000 to meet before we
        1590
        began to pay for upkeep. It is far more sensible for the Government to be prepared to pay a little higher rate for billeting and to use all the available accommodation that we have in the country at the present time.
        The Minister of Health this afternoon gave a most encouraging statement of the progress that was being made with the billeting scheme. If the results for the whole country come up to the sample result we can say that the people have shown a most wonderful response when the call was made to them. I was particularly interested in one point that he made, and I took down his words. He said: "The housing of unaccompanied school children is solved." If it is solved, why the proposal to bring in camps as well? It may well be that if the billeting is going to prove sufficient, as was promised by the Minister of Health, then the expensive programme of camps, which is a dangerous project in some ways, might easily be abandoned.
        I make one last appeal to the Minister of Health. I ask him to beware of the people who are urging these camps upon him for some completely different reasons, such as camps for holidays-with-pay workers, or for some other pet scheme of their own. If it is considered to be vital to have these camps as a supplement to billeting because there is not enough billeting accommodation, I would ask my right hon. Friend to state clearly that their purpose is for evacuation and that in any event they will not be competitive with the ordinary holiday industry in time of peace. We should most strenously—I am quite frank about it—resist any scheme to introduce State camps in connection with the holidays-with-pay movement. It is entirely ill-informed to suggest that this is necessary, because with a proper spread-over of holidays and with normal expansion we can cater for everybody. It has been stated in reply to questions that these camps will not be near the resorts. I do hope that if we are to have them their peace-time use will be confined entirely to education purposes for school children who are removed en masse to continue their schooling under more congenial surroundings. They might also be used as training centres for the unemployed.
        From the point of view of a representative of a reception area I appeal to

        1591
        the Minister of Health to use all the available accommodation there is at first, find out what it is, in close co-operation with those who are concerned, and I can assure him that he will find a loyal and patriotic people who are anxious to render every possible service to their country.
        9.12 p.m.
        Mr. G. Griffiths: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) on the way in which he has put his case. If he had gone a little further he might have convinced the Lord Privy Seal that there must not be a war at any time, because it will not suit Blackpool.
        Mr. Robinson: We do not want a war.
        Mr. Griffiths: I only hope that Hitler and Mussolini will read the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, and then they will take care not to have the war on August Bank Holiday, because Blackpool will be crowded out.
        Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member sometimes comes to Blackpool for his holidays. We are not concerned about ourselves but for the 500,000 or more people who will be there for a short time. We have a responsibility to look after them, and to look after the hon. Member when he visits us.
        Mr. Griffiths: I know the hon. Member was speaking very sympathetically about me. I have been for my holidays once to Blackpool. I should like to go a little further. We must not have the war when Blackpool has its illuminations. If there was a war during the illuminations, the bombs would not drop anywhere else but on Blackpool, because the illuminations would show where Blackpool was. Then the war must not come at Christmas, because at Christmas time Blackpool is almost as full as at any other season. [An HON. Member: "What about the Tower?"] One of my hon. Friends says, "What about the Tower?" The Tower is a very good target for the enemy. However, the hon. Member has spoken up very well for Blackpool.
        I want to put the point of view of other black areas—not Blackpool. Anyone sitting during these Debates for the last two days would think that there was no other place in the world but London. There are some industrial centres almost
        1592
        as important as London, and I want to say to the Lord Privy Seal that I do not think he has given a square deal to the urban councils of this country. I put a question to him last night while he was speaking. The urban councils are one of the most important bodies in the country, as important as the county councils or the municipal authorities. They cover a tremendous number of people and are playing an important part in carrying on the business of the country. I will leave it at that.
        What are the Government doing with regard to burning pit-heaps? They are as bad as Blackpool, though perhaps not quite so black. Hon. Members on these benches, without any assistance from anybody else, have been putting the point of view for the last five years that something should be done with these burning pit-heaps. One reason is that in the event of war a burning pit-heap is a better and bigger target for the enemy than even Blackpool. Around the burning pit-heap is the industry. In the last War the Germans came over the pit where I was working and dropped a bomb about a quarter of a mile from the pit-shaft. There were 1,500 men working down that pit-shaft. If a bomb is dropped on a pit-shaft it is a very bad lookout for the men. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will give some consideration to this question and have these burning pit-heaps put out. Some time ago I made a statement that some of them could be seen for a distance of 200 miles. Some hon. Members laughed, but you have burning pit-heaps in Yorkshire almost as big as this building. There is one big pit-heap near my home which has been burning for 25 years and is burning to-night. If any foreign aircraft come over they will easily find it.
        There has been a lot of talk about underground shelters. I believe in them. I have not much faith in these salmontin shelters. I do not think they are going to be of much value. I am expressing my opinion—I may not be right, but I am not always wrong. We can supply all the men that are necessary to make these underground shelters by taking the unemployed and letting them do the work. The latest figures are that there are 129,340 mineworkers out of work; and they know this job. If you set them to build your underground shelters they

        1593
        will build them in the right way. They know how to dig them and how to timber them, and they will be delighted to do the job. In addition, they do not need any training. They have been trained to do this work for a quarter of a century. I asked the Minister of Labour a question to-day as to how many men there were at the employment exchanges at Royston and Cudworth over 45 years of age who were unemployed, and he gave me the numbers of one exchange but not of the other. These are able-bodied men, fit for the work. They are practical and experienced men, yet the Government are paying 10s. a week unemployment pay to a single man, and 27s. or 24s. a week to a married man with a wife and no children. He gets 24s. from the Unemployment Assistance Board or 27s. if he is on statutory benefit. They are losing their self-respect, losing their very soul. They could do the work of building these underground shelters.
        The Clerk to the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire made a very damning statement against the Government yesterday. He said that they were preparing underground shelters and the Ministry had said "No, we do not agree." But, he says they are going on with them; and if there is any body of men who understand how to build underground shelters it is the men who sit on the West Riding County Council. I hope they will get on with their underground shelters, and never mind these salmontin shelters at the side of a house. Then I want to say a word about profits. I believe in repeating a thing. If you repeat it often enough there is the possibility of it getting into the mind even of a Cabinet Minister. The profiteering in the crisis last September was abominable. The price of sandbags in the West Riding of Yorkshire in one day rose from 1½d. at 9 o'clock in the morning to 11d. at 9 o'clock at night. That will not stand looking at, and I am hoping that the Government will put a stiff hand on anything like this and bring these people to book. I do not intend going on because there are other colleagues of mine who want to bat. I will go into the pavilion.
        9.23 p.m.
        Sir M. Sueter: The more one listens to this Debate the more one realises the many problems with which the Lord Privy Seal is faced. I think he has done
        1594
        wonderfully well during the short time he has been in his office. I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) about the evacuation of women and children into his constituency. He has a small arms factory in his division, and in my division there is the Waltham Cross Cordite Factory. These are targets which are open to aerial bombardment, and many of my constituents living in the Cheshunt area are anxious about their position. They think that it should be an evacuation area—not a reception area. I would ask the Lord Privy Seal to look into this point carefully when he is making a survey of the accommodation which is required.
        I put a question to the Lord Privy Seal the other day about the provision of small shelters to a man with over £250 a year. I asked him if he could not raise that to £400 in the interest of the black-coated worker. Since I put my question I have had dozens of letters from all parts of the country asking me to press it again. The black-coated worker who has a salary of from £260 to £400 has a very hard deal indeed. Could not the right hon. Gentleman look into the question again and raise the limit so that these men can get cheap shelters? I believe these shelters are good. I have been connected with explosives for a large part of my life. I know the effect of explosive charges on land, under water and in the air, and I can assure the hon. Member who spoke last that these shelters will provide protection against glass splinters, debris, and so on, and may be the means of saving thousands of lives if a bombardment occurs. I do not think it is a good thing even to talk about tin-can shelters, because it undermines confidence, and we want to get confidence in the people.
        The Lord Privy Seal yesterday said that the railways were the backbone of internal transport, and he also said that the dispersal policy holds the field. The Minister of Health said to-day that the Government were looking into the evacuation plans in great detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) has very kindly given me these figures. He is a very reliable Member, and I think they can be taken as right. He says that in an emergency 1,250,000 children and mothers would have to be evacuated. This would mean fully-loaded trains at the rate of 100 per hour leaving London for 17 consecutive hours. The

        1595
        hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans) told us that during the crisis he was at Paddington Station and all the trains were crowded and certain difficulties arose in getting them off. I was there when we were going away for the Christmas Recess. I had to go only 42 miles, but my train was two hours late. Every quarter of an hour the loud speaker uttered the apologies of the company for the disorganisation of the service, which they said was due to fog and to a fire that they had had. If they were so disorganised by a fire in a signal box, what would it be if they had a bomb dropped on the station? You have all these railway heads represented by our chief stations—Paddington, Victoria, Waterloo, Liverpool Street, King's Cross, St. Pancras and so on. If anything happens to our chief stations, have we any secondary railway heads where the whole of the traffic can concentrate and be sent away? I do not believe this has been gone into. I have not heard very much about it, and I do not think Paddington has. We ought to have secondary railway heads in case the chief railway heads are knocked out, and they should be connected with them by good road and tunnel services. The hon. Member who spoke last told us there was a tremendous amount of mining labour available. It would be very much better if they used some of it to construct tunnels for a secondary service than that miners should be singing outside Selfridge's shop, as I saw half a dozen to-day. You have the labour, and it ought to be used.
        I am very pleased to hear that the Lord Privy Seal is soft pedalling on these deep shelters, because I do not think it is worth expending money on them merely for the sake of being deep shelters. You ought to put it into tunnels to relieve the traffic in peace time and also to afford shelter in war time, and if anything happened to the large railway stations you could get the people away by these tunnels. It seems to me a waste of money to build deep shelters simply to house people. You ought to make use of your workers, and it could be done by building these traffic relief tunnels. The only tunnel recommended in the Bressey Report that I can see was one from Paddington to Kensington, and the reason was that they did not want to cut up Kensington Gardens by a road.
        1596
        If you can advocate a tunnel to preserve the amenities of Kensington Gardens, surely you can build tunnels in order to relieve traffic and to provide shelter in time of emergency. I think the Bressey Report recommended that £120,000,000 should be expended in order to facilitate traffic. You can build a good many tunnels for £120,000,000. A tunnel 40 feet in diameter, lined with iron sheeting, properly concreted, might work out at £250,000 a mile, so you could have a good mileage of tunnels to relieve traffic in London and also help to shelter people in time of emergency for £120,000,000.
        I understand that a portion of Liverpool Street Station is being re-designed. Has any Defence Department been asked how the station should be re-designed? All the Service Departments are interested in the efficiency of our great railway stations, because in war time they have to send drafts and so on, and I want to ask if anything is done to consult the Committee of Imperial Defence, or any of the Service Departments. In Germany, all the great roads are designed to have a strategic value, and I think the whole question of our railway stations, their construction and the road and tunnel services to them, ought to be considered carefully from the point of view of their position in war time. I hope that the Minister of Transport will deal with this question and the other points I have made.
        9.36 p.m.
        Mr. E. Smith: I wish to make a few observations on my own behalf and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), who would have liked to take part in this Debate, but has been called away to the Continent. This afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said that the interest taken in the Debates yesterday and to-day is an indication of the determination of Parliament to deal with the subject we are considering. I hope that is true, but unless the Government are prepared to consider the subject in a more comprehensive way than they have done so far, and to embark on amore comprehensive scheme, I do not think we shall be able adequately to safeguard the people of this country if we should be involved in a war. The key to an understanding of this situation is, in my opinion, to be found in the Home Office booklet that

        1597
        was distributed to every household in the country. In a preface to that booklet, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said:
        "If this country were ever at war, the target of the enemy bombers would be the staunchness of the people at home."
        If that be correct—and I consider that it is—it indicates the seriousness of the situation with which we may be faced. When one remembers the ruthless people who are now handling certain countries and when one considers the whole background of these people, one is forced to be concerned about the situation as it is. I have taken an interest in the development of the Air Force, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Air Force as a whole is probably as efficient as the air forces of most other countries. The same thing applies to the Navy and the mechanised Army. I have some knowledge of mechanical apparatus and the perfecting of mechanical appliances, and I have no hesitation in saying that the mechanised Army is as perfect and as efficient as it is possible to make it. Whether the Forces at the disposal of the country are sufficient is another matter. All that I am saying is that these three Forces are very efficient.
        What we have to do now is to see that Civil Defence is made as perfect and as efficient as the armed Forces. What has taken place in Spain and in China provides us with some evidence of the need for adequate Civil Defence. I hope that the Minister of Transport would be good enough to note my words when I say that the local authorities, the municipalities and public opinion in this country are far in advance of the Government on this subject. More and more, public opinion is demanding that adequate Civil Defence should be provided. I suggest that the time has arrived when the Government should embark upon a deep-shelter policy. Throughout the country the municipalities and the county councils are crying out for this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) have indicated, the municipalities are embarking on Civil Defence on their own. I submit that it is most unfair that this should be left to the local authorities, for the provision of adequate Civil Defence is a national responsibility. In the district which I represent, the people are as good
        1598
        as any other people in the country, but a penny rate in that district produces only £4,000; let hon. Members compare that position with the position in Bournemouth, East Bourne and the South Coast resorts. I maintain that this question should be dealt with nationally. The financial responsibility ought to be a national one, and it ought not to be left to the local authorities.
        The President of the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade workers speaking at the union's annual conference, made a statement of such a serious character, in which he analysed the development of the international situation so clearly, that all the branches of that union have been very much concerned, and the result is that the policy of the union now is that adequate safeguards should be provided. The National Federation of Building Trades Operatives are prepared to co-operate with the local authorities and the Government in the provision of these deep shelters. The members of that union are so concerned about the position that one letter after another is reaching the general office of the union urging the executive and members of Parliament to bring pressure to bear on the Government with a view to getting something done to provide efficient Civil Defence. I have in my hand a copy of a trade journal, in which it is stated that there is agreement in the building industry, both on the employers' and the employés' side, that the time has arrived when the Government ought to embark on a policy of this description.
        We have had evidence of the modern technique of warfare in Spain and in China, and the flames of Guernica and towns in China are throwing a horrible light on what happens to open towns and villages that are not adequately protected. Some of us remember also what happened in the East End of London and at Bolton and a number of towns on the North-east Coast, during the last War. From what has happened in Spain and China, we know that generally it is the poorer section of the population which suffers from an aerial bombardment. It is the industrial centres which suffer most. Consequently, one can understand the anxiety of the organised trade union movement of this country, representing the industrial population, and one can understand that anxiety expressing itself

        1599
        in resolutions forwarded to the executive of the union.
        I know that huge supplies of efficient anti-aircraft guns are coming in, but it will not be possible to cover the whole country with them. We know that with the modern technique of warfare, particularly when it is directed by the ruthless and unscrupulous people whom we know will be directing certain countries, orders would be given, in the event of adequate anti-aircraft guns protecting certain parts of the country, for the airmen to do as they have done in Spain in China, that is, to shoot and bomb thousands of women and children leaving the industrial areas. We say that the only adequate method of dealing with the problem is that of deep shelters constructed on the lines on which the building industry has now agreed. It is for that I am pleading tonight. I remember coming to this House one Friday morning in September last. I have never seen Waterloo Station busier than it was on that occasion. I saw more women with fur coats, more people getting out of huge cars, attended by chauffeurs and footmen, than I had ever seen before in my life. The well-placed people were hurriedly getting away, from anything that might happen in London. That is an indication of what will take place on another occasion should we be faced with a serious emergency.
        We would not be doing our duty to the people whom we represent if we did not demand here that the Government should, as soon as possible, embark on a policy of providing adequate safeguards for our people, particularly in the industrial and in the poor areas. We demand that deep bomb-proof shelters should be proceeded with as quickly as possible. The other day I came across a document headed "Take Cover" in which certain companies offer to provide well-off people with adequate safeguards in their own homes and gardens. There are pictures showing what can be done in this way for people who can afford to pay. I find from reading papers and books that a large number of people who can afford to pay for deep shelters and other forms of protection, are already doing so. But, generally speaking, those whom we represent cannot afford to pay for these precautions. If the Government wish to
        1600
        carry out the desire of the country they will, without delay, embark on a policy such as I have indicated.
        The appeal of the building trade operatives which I voice to-night in this Debate is that deep shelters should be provided. These need not be used only for protection from air raids. They can be constructed in such a way as to be available for many other purposes, in accordance with the needs of the locality in which they are situated. For example, they could be used to provide underground passages. They could be used as underground baths such as are seen in some seaside resorts. They could be used as underground roads in places where there are serious traffic problems. They could be used as underground car-parks and garages where there is a local demand for such things. They could be used as underground offices and canteens. They could be used as underground cinemas, as underground stores and warehouses, according to the localities in which they are constructed. If we look at the problem scientifically we are bound to come to the conclusion that, with modern methods of building construction and having regard to the needs of various areas of the country, there is no reason why adequate deep shelters should not be provided for our people on those lines.
        We have heard a great deal from certain hon. Members about the efficiency of the totalitarian States. It is no greater than the efficiency of this country. Indeed, it is largely a fiction. Certainly the efficiency of industry in this country is as high as that of any other country in the capitalist world. It is all a question of policy. When the Government decide upon a policy and give instructions to local authorities and to industries in this country, those local authorities and industries will carry out that policy as efficiently as it could be carried out in any other country in the world. We have just had concrete evidence of this fact. There has recently been built at Chorley one of the largest buildings of its kind in the world and that building was constructed as efficiently as, and more quickly than, a similar building could have been constructed anywhere else in the world. The same remark applies to our mechanised Army and to our aircraft production. What I ask is that the same drive which has taken place in other

        1601
        directions should take place also in the provision of shelters for the people. I appeal to the Government to treat this matter as one of urgency. My hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich in his journal uses these words:
        "The A.R.P. measures hitherto adopted by the Government are, in the light of the known facts, pitifully inadequate and farcical."
        Members of the Government know that my hon. Friend would not use those words unless he had evidence of the need for doing so. He goes on to say:
        "More and more it is being recognised that our highly complex, crowded industrial communities call for the construction of deep bomb-proof shelters and systems of underground tunnelling to provide safety for our people. The excellent plan prepared for the Finsbury Borough Council is indicative of what is required in regard to the protection of our industries, transport and other vital services and ensuring the unceasing repair of the damage that would be wrought by aircraft to factories, workshops, waterworks, etc., upon all of which the continued existence of human life, as we understand it depends. It can justly be said that hardly a beginning has been made. There must be much more hard thinking and greater decisive action in respect of A.R.P."
        If we are involved in a struggle, it will be a life and death struggle and the standard of conduct and morality we may assume will be similar to that which has been displayed in Abyssinia, Spain and China. We in this country place a higher value on human life than the people responsible for the ruthless policy pursued in those countries. Therefore, we appeal to the Government to-night on behalf of the people who are the cream of this nation. They have been prepared to co-operate in the provision of the necessary armed forces and in other respects and it is now the responsibility of the Government to provide them with protection should we be faced with an emergency such as we all hope may be avoided. I know the Government are examining the problem, but I ask them to treat it as a matter of urgency; to decide upon a policy as soon as possible and to send out their instructions accordingly. I ask them to remember that public opinion is ready to back a policy such as I have indicated and that the whole of the building industry is ready to co-operate in it.
        As for the suggestion about the provision of camps for unemployed, let me say this to every Member in this Committee whether he is on this side or on the other, whether he is on our Front Bench or on the Front Bench opposite. As far
        1602
        as the organised workpeople of this country are concerned, in no circumstances will they stand for the sending of our sons and daughters into camps of the kind that have been seen on the Continent—the kind of camps which many hon. Members have in mind when they talk about the unemployed. There is no need to deal with the unemployed in that way. Already there are 125,000 unemployed miners who would be ready to co-operate with the Government in constructing these air-raid shelters, once the Government have decided upon that policy. As an indication of that I recall what happened last September, when 150 miners were brought from Wigan into Manchester and dug the trenches in one day that the people of that district thought would take three days to dig, and as they were finishing that bit of work, hundreds of men surrounded them, including many men who were responsible for managerial and administrative work in a number of factories in that district, lost in admiration of their work. That is the spirit of the people of this country. If only the Government would decide upon a policy based upon a scientific analysis of the international situation and of the needs arising out of that situation, I am convinced that, as a result, having armed ourselves efficiently, if only we would embark upon a policy of the kind that the building trade operatives are appealing for, we could bring about that greater degree of confidence in the country which is so much required at the present time.
        9.56 p.m.
        Mr. Johnston: The longer I live and the more I listen to A.R.P. Debates, the more certain I am that there is only one final and effective air-raid precaution, and that is an international tribunal of equity, an international police force, and disarmament in the air. We have not got such a tribunal of equity, and the temper of the world at the moment is, alas, not conducive to our securing one. We live in bleak and dismal international relationships. There is a sense of hush before a storm, broken only, sometimes, by the shrieks and yells of the cave men; and those who think as I do have to ask ourselves a few searching questions. We may regard the present international situation as sheer lunacy, with nations spending their last shilling, and indeed shillings they have not got, in piling up debts which will never be repaid to the lenders

        1603
        and in preparing feverishly for mutual murder. But in the midst of it all, we must ask ourselves first, whatever our views may be, however determinedly pacifist we may be. Shall we refuse to give harbourage and comfort to children from our danger zones? Do we object to taking measures in advance to prevent glass falling from roofs of workshops on workmen engaged in their ordinary occupations when a bomb may burst a quarter of a mile away and the concussion shatters a factory roof? Are we in favour of siren warnings? Do we object to water and food supplies being safeguarded? Are we in favour of adequate ambulances? What shall we do with the sick, the aged, with our hospitals and our infirmaries? I take it that there is general concurrence that, so far as it is humanly possible, we should all share in the social effort necessary to make human life secure, to enable its continuance to preserve whatever Christian virtues still remain in our land.
        If that is so, we are entitled, in all parts of the House, to ask that air-raid precautions should be taken speedily and efficiently. There have been "years that the locust hath eaten," years that have gone beyond recall, heritages left to the present Lord Privy Seal by previous Home Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries, the heroes of Manchuquo and the Hoare-Laval Treaties. But the heritage is here. When I first met the Lord Privy Seal, I was sitting in his chair, and he was a very distinguished civil servant. I remember pressing upon him to secure a speedy report upon the question of the extraction of oil from coal. The right hon. Gentleman struck me as being a man of great executive ability, but who had been rather spoiled by a long training in the Civil Service, which teaches a man, fundamentally, to say "No." The civil servant is trained to say "No." He is taught to examine documents and find reasons against any and every positive proposal in those documents. But I will say this for the Lord Privy Seal, that since he has taken over his present command, so far as we on these benches can see, air-raid precautions have moved at a very much more rapid rate than they did before he took office.
        The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport is to wind up this Debate, and I want to put one or two aspects of the problem before him with which he
        1604
        is particularly concerned. In the first place, will he tell us what precautions he is taking to ensure that our electric lighting system does not disappear in a night by bomb or by sabotage? Those who have read Captain Basil Hall's account of the exploits of his band of saboteurs in Russia at the time when Bruce-Lockhart was still our British Agent in Moscow will remember that sabotage attempts were well organised and were repeatedly made against the Russian Government. The methods taken there were to destroy the Soviet gas works and their railway system, to paralyse in every way their transport and their lighting. What a chance the Minister of Transport has, in the present temper of this country, to secure a unification, a linking-up, of the multifarious and indefensible groups of electrical supply corporations that we have in our midst. In my country, in Scotland, we have areas where the unit price charged for lighting is 1s., and we have other areas where the unit price charged is ¾d. How can you ever have a dispersal of industry from the home counties to more rural parts of the country if you have your power and your lighting run on a system such as that? With the present temper of the people of this country, as evidenced by the Minister of Health in his statistics to-day, now is the Minister's chance to get rid of dozens, of hundreds, of little local jealousies, and to unite these electrical systems into regional, if not national, systems at uniform prices.
        I should also like to ask the Minister of Transport, although it comes more within the competence of the President of the Board of Trade, what arrangements he has made to ensure our food supplies against air raiders? We have 2,000 fewer merchant ships to-day under the British flag than we had prior to the outbreak of War in 1914. We have 5,000,000 more mouths to feed. Compared with 1913 our Mercantile fleet is 1,500,000 tons short. The late Food Controller, my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes), told me that the most dangerous period in the last War was the period in 1917 when our food supplies were down to six weeks. When our ships were being sunk as fast as the German submarines could get at them, when 700 trawlers and drifters and 2,479 merchant vessels had been sunk, we were six weeks away from famine.

        1605
        While we might not have been defeated as a nation in Flanders, we might well have gone under from hunger and famine. The President of the Board of Trade is asked week after week why so many shipowners should be sending abroad to Germany and Holland to have their boats built, and why our ships should be sold as scrap for the benefit of German munition factories. I am told that one of the reasons is that the totalitarian States are subsidising their shipbuilding. I have tried to get the figures and have been promised them. Whether it is because of the subsidy or some other reason. I say that in the present state of the world, in the present dangers with which we are faced, it is sheer and unmitigated treason either for the Government or for the shipowning class to be supplying German armament manufacturers with our merchant vessels and to be building ships in German yards at a time when we are running perilously short of the means of transport of the vital food requirements of this nation. By 1st November, 1916, the retail price of foodstuffs in this country had risen by 78 per cent. A fortnight afterwards a member of the present Government, who was then in the Administration, and an important member at that, stood in this House and used these words:
        "We have been driven bit by bit against our will … to suspend the easy flow of purely voluntary action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1916; col. 862, Vol. 87.]
        That was said by the present Lord President of the Council, who was responsible for permitting this increase in the cost of living by 78 per cent. and boasted that they had struggled to do their best to prevent remedial and effective action being taken. This nation will not stand too much of the Sir Reginald Ford or Sir Auckland Geddes business now. I understand the Lord Privy Seal is responsible for his advisers and that one of his advisers is Sir Auckland Geddes.
        Sir J. Anderson Sir J. Anderson indicated dissent.
        Mr. Johnston: Has he any office or any responsibility at all?
        Sir J. Anderson Sir J. Anderson indicated dissent.
        Mr. Johnston: Is the Board of Trade responsible for them?
        The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley)The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley) indicated dissent.
        Sir J. Anderson: Sir Auckland Geddes disavowed publicly that he had any official position.
        Mr. Johnston: Has he no position in the Government at all? Has all the Press been hoaxing the British public when they have published his statements? There is one statement in which Sir Auckland Geddes gives a food warning, and we were informed in the Press that he had something to do with the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
        Sir J. Anderson: I think I might make the position quite clear. As I told the House when I made my first statement on the subject of National Service, Sir Auckland Geddes said he was willing and ready to give any assistance he could in connection with the National Service campaign. He has done so by addressing meetings in various parts of the country as many others have done. He has never at any time had any position as adviser or in any other connection with my Department in matters of Civil Defence.
        Mr. Johnston: Has the Lord Privy Seal seen his statements?
        Sir J. Anderson: I have seen the contradictions.
        Mr. Johnston: I have never seen the contradictions, but I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there have been contradictions. At any rate, this highly-placed gentleman has been reported as saying that he is an adviser to the Minister of Civil Defence, and in his first speech he invited the British public to store foodstuffs against an emergency; and two of the foodstuffs he invited the working classes to store were tinned sardines and tinned pilchards. If the right hon. Gentleman disavows Sir Auckland Geddes I need not pursue that subject any further, but I repeat that the feeling of the people of this country is such that they will not stand too much of the Reginald-Ford-living-in-Belgium stuff or the Auckland Geddes stuff. The matter is much too serious.
        The speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) was a most impressive one, and in view of his experience, his knowledge and his ability I suggest that the Government should take adequate notice of his challenge that we have not sufficient foodstuffs in this land to-night; that whatever stocks may

        1607
        be held in Germany, we here have only sufficient to tide us over a very sudden emergency. I do not know whether it would be injudicious on my part to specify any commodities, but I should like the Minister of Transport to tell us whether it is the case that we have only a fortnight's supply of bacon. Will he also tell us—he is responsible for this, I think—whether the refrigerator space in this country during the past two years has been steadily decreasing? Will he tell us whether it is the case that the Great Western Railway Company's refrigerator space at Cardiff has been completely closed? Will he tell us whether it is the case that the Government are unable to guarantee sufficient fats to ensure the people of this country against more than a month's trouble? Those are specific questions, and I hope that we shall be able to get an answer to them.
        Next I should like to put some questions about our water supplies. The position is serious. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) raised the same point to-day, and, as I understood, he was told by the Minister of Health that in most districts of the country we could afford to expand our population and had sufficient water supplies in those rural areas. Most certainly that is not the case in Scotland.
        Mrs. Tate: Nor is it the case in the west.
        Mr. Johnston: I am coming to the hon. Lady's statement in a moment. I listened to her with great attention and without any interruption. In a report from a Government Committee upon the position in Scotland we were told that there are many large urban areas working upon a small margin of safety, that there are a number of rural areas in which the supplies are inadequate, that there are many hundreds of separate water undertakings in Scotland and that while many of them co-operate with one another many do not, that there is a wasteful duplication of pipe lines, which often run alongside each other for miles. I know that in my own constituency there are areas which would be incapable of taking children from the evacuated areas in the summer time, because the people living there now get their water out of puddles in the fields.
        1608
        I suggest in the national interest that immediate steps should be taken to deal with the matter, not an hour to be lost. Let us link up the existing water supplies, running connecting pipes with meters on them. Engineers have given their reports. The facts are all available. I am told that in Scotland the whole job could be done for £2,250,000. That would not be the cost to the Treasury. The amount would be reduced by one-half at once by the savings on unemployment benefit—the difference between the Employment Exchange payments and the normal wage of £3. Then the Chancellor would gain, because the wages would be spent on excisable commodities like tea, tobacco and beer. We should gain in Income Tax, in health and in finding employment for our people. It is absurd at this time of day for the Minister of Labour or anyone else to come dancing here with any amount of statistics and dots and figures to prove that after all there are not 2,000,000 unemployed but only about 300,000, and that everybody is happy. There are colliers unemployed to-night who could do this job. It is urgently necessary to do it, and it is of vital importance to the nation that it should be done. It is necessary in the interests of public health, and there is no use in going on with air-raid precautions if in Scotland, Somerset, Wales and any number of rural areas there is an insufficient water supply for drinking or for taking away the drainage. If this problem has been brought to the attention of the Government by engineers I submit that the time has come to deal with it, and that not another hour should be lost.
        I do not want to impinge upon the time of the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply, but I want to say a word about evacuation. I represent a reception area and I share the gratification and pride that were evident in the tones and the words of the Minister of Health when he gave his figures to-day of the response made by the rural areas to the request for billeting space. We ought to be proud of that response. A nation that can do that upon a voluntary basis and without any threat of compulsion or of dog-whipping is not one that will go under. I would ask the Minister who is in charge of these billeting arrangements to consider this matter not merely as one

        1609
        of floor space. Even apart from questions of water and drainage it is more than a matter of floor space. In certain parts of the country it is, for example, no use sending Catholic children into Protestant homes, and vice versa. You have to take into account a whole lot of psychological factors: Is the mother aged and infirm? Is the mother able to cook and are there cooking facilities in the home? All sorts of little things like that have to be taken into account.
        I stress again that if you allow householders in reception areas to pick and choose, where they can, relatives and friends, and children particularly, from the dangerous and vulnerable areas, you will kill two birds, so to speak, with one stone; you will have the children happy that they are going to relatives to be looked after and you will have the housewives in the receiving areas a little more happy that they have got to look after children of whom they know something. The Government should narrow their problem as far as they can. I believe that in evacuation and in dispersal from the vulnerable areas lies our major hope, and you will need the good will of the rural districts. A good deal depends upon what notice we are to have of air raids. I am told that there will be seven minutes' notice in London, and if that is so, there is no use in digging trenches in Hyde Park and other places far away from where the working classes live. Obviously your defences must be within the limits of what can be done in those seven minutes. What are you going to do with the tenements? The right hon. Gentleman said that he proposed to strengthen basements; is he going to evacuate the people from the bottom flats and take them somewhere? I do not know where he will put them, but he is going to take them away. Then, I understand, the people from the upper storeys are to come down into the bottom flats when there is an air raid. That is one policy, and it may be partially successful if the bottom flats can be buttressed, but more than that must be done, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to face up to it. He must go in for deep sheltering in some districts.
        I spoke the other day to members of a deputation from the Corporation of Glasgow, who had been going round Europe examining the sheltering systems that they have there against air raids,
        1610
        and they have come back, I understand, unanimously of the opinion that the most satisfactory system they have seen is the underground sheltering system at Zürich, in Switzerland. I have no technical knowledge on the matter, but I have seen underground car parks, at Hastings, for example. Does the right hon. Gentleman know anything about the cost of these? Is the corporation's underground car park at Hastings a paying proposition? An hon. Member speaking from these benches last night said it was vitally important that we should have underground parking arrangements in London, if for nothing else than for storing records—marriage lines, birth certificates and the rest. Then some provision underground is required for casualty stations in some areas. You cannot have your infirmary and your hospital offering a great target, as is the case in Glasgow to-night. If we cannot get peace and disarmament in the air, we shall need to provide adequate protection beneath the soil.
        May I say a word about camps? The camp proposals are inadequate. The proposal that there shall be 50 camps, with 350 human beings to a camp—that is to say, accommodation for 17,500 human beings is not looking at the problem at all. If it is to be an experiment, if it is to be a matter of trial and error, we are all for it, but do not let anyone in the House of Commons or outside believe that the Government's proposals for accommodating 17,500 persons in camps are going to look at the problem at all. Moreover, in connection with these proposals, have the Government taken thought to vest Lord Portal or Viscount Traprain, as the case may be, with powers to take land? They have not done it. The Special Areas Housing Association have about £1,000,000 worth of housing contracts out, but cannot get on because it is nobody's duty to get the land. The local authorities will not buy it, because they do not want to quarrel with the local landowners. It is nobody's duty. These powers need to be in the hands of people who are prepared to face up to the landowning class in this country if these camps are to be built at all.
        I am sorry I have taken up so much time, but I would conclude by reminding the Government of what happened during the last War. The other day I

        1611
        was looking at Lord Riddell's diary, and, under the date 17th February, 1916, I found that he wrote this:
        "L.G. said to me, 'The Government had a bad knock last night in the air-raid defence Debate. Had a Division been taken, they would probably have been defeated'."
        It is less than 30 years since Bleriot flew the Channel. To-night we are in danger of destruction and death because of the misuse to which the aeroplane has been put, and it is our duty to-night in this Committee, if ever we had a duty, to see that the Government are compelled, as fast as they can, to use their unemployed labour to build deep shelters, and, as fast as they can, to provide the necessary organising skill to secure our food supplies, so that the people of this country shall not go down in terror and despair before the menace of the skies.
        10.31 p.m.
        Mr. Burgin: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) is always interesting; to-night he has been both interesting and eloquent, and, with that first sentence of his, in which he said how much he would have liked to look forward to some measure of disarmament in the air, I and others sitting with me would most cordially agree. We are reaching the closing stages of a Debate which certainly has rivalled in width any which I can remember in this House in recent times. In the two days during which we have discussed Civil Defence there has been hardly an aspect of that problem which has not been canvassed. The subject has been discussed in the best of good temper, suggestions and criticisms have been put forward, information and plans and policies have been revealed, and the end of the Debate must mean that the Committee, and through the Committee the wider public outside, are better informed on all this question of Civil Defence.
        To induce 45,000,000 people living in this Island, peace-loving people, none of them having had any experience of invasion at all, to become Civil Defence-conscious naturally took some time, and while, quite naturally, hon. and right hon. Members have from time to time allowed to come into their speeches suggestions that there has, been delay here and slowness there, the Committee and the country know that the interest in air-raid precautions, which is now apparent in the
        1612
        country would not have been possible 12 months ago. The great addition to national advantage that has been made by the Debate, and by all the study that has gone to the holding of the Debate, has been the realisation that a danger known is a danger lessened. One of the consequences of the outbreak of war is that an element of mystery enters into the people's lives. The initiative passes to the attacker. One does not know where a bomb is going to fall, where an attack is going to be made. There is an element of the mysterious, of the unknown, of uncertainty. The more these matters of Civil Defence are discussed, the more the general public becomes conscious that it is necessary to take precautions, and the more they understand that it is necessary for them to take part in defence, the greater will be the response, and in time of bombardment what a contentment it is to have a job to do. How many of us know that.
        A number of questions have been put to me; I am going to endeavour to answer some at once. All the points that have been raised will be taken into close consideration by the Departments concerned, and I hope that no hon. Member will feel that because I am not able at a moment's notice to deal with every question, as I should have liked to do, his questions have been raised in vain. Those questions will all be dealt with.
        Sir M. Sueter: Will the right hon. Gentleman send us the answers?
        Mr. Burgin: I will give my hon. and gallant Friend his answer here. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling asked a number of questions about electricity, for instance. He told me of the advantage to the country that would come if there were some lessening of the number of separate distribution units. I cordially agree, and I am in great hopes that the different interests may be brought together and that it may be possible to introduce some measure embodying substantial agreement. The right hon. Gentleman asked about shipbuilding abroad. I think that if he will pursue his inquiry, he will find that most of these vessels are not cargo ships at all. A great number of them are tankers, and, while there is no definite information in my possession, I believe it to be the fact that there are only two cargo ships being built to-night in foreign yards for

        1613
        British owners. Wherever they may be built, they will come on to the register immediately they are constructed.
        Mr. Johnston: They do not always come on to the British register. Sometimes they go on to the Greek register, and come back to the British register when it pays them to do so.
        Mr. Burgin: That is not my information, and I do not think that it is the fact.
        Mr. Johnston: It is.
        Mr. Burgin: I believe, broadly speaking, that when British interests have vessels built in foreign yards—and I am not for a moment to be taken to approve of that policy—thosevessels as a rule come on to our register. The right hon. Gentleman asked about bacon, and refrigerator space. Bacon is not a suitable article for storage at all. With regard to refrigerator space, while it may be true that there is some diminution in public refrigerator space, it is the custom now, more than it was a few years ago, for individual householders to keep their own perishables, and my information is that the total of refrigerator space is greater than it was before. [Interruption.] No, I think that, in the aggregate, nation-wide, it is an increase of refrigerator space.
        The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) asked what was to happen in non-essential industries, and whether they were to continue producing? I am afraid none of us can forecast the course of a war, and it is quite impossible for anybody to speculate what would happen to what he called non-essential industries. I was also asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield whether arrangements had been made for transport in connection with evacuation, and whether I would say something about A.R.P. in connection with industry, and whether legislation would be necessary? I hope in a few moments to reveal something of the plans which have been made in connection with transport, which will, I think, cover these points. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) also raised a number of questions relating to transport, and I hope to answer them in the general review I am proposing to make of transport facilities in connection
        1614
        with Civil Defence in a few moments. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) suggested that some of the people who have enrolled are over 75. I do not understand that, because the form in connection with the National Service Handbook has a specific paragraph dealing with the age of the applicant. I think that he must have been misinformed. He asked whether, if a municipal authority incurred expense in helping householders to erect their shelters, such expenditure would rank for grant. The answer is, "Yes."
        The Junior Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter)—and I concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling that the concluding passages of the hon. Member's speech were most impressive, and I entirely agree with them—asked about food storage and where the responsibility lay? I think that his object was to ascertain how much of that responsibility lay with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. The answer is that distribution and rationing in connection with Civil Defence must be the responsibility of the Lord Privy Seal. The executive responsibility for food storage in a general sense is the matter of the Board of Trade, and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is, of course, the co-ordinating authority.
        Sir A. Salter: Is there any Minister who has the direct responsibility for considering what food reserves we should have? Has that Minister an executive department under his control in respect of that subject? Is there any Minister who has similar responsibility in that regard as that which attaches to the Air Minister in respect of aeroplanes, whose work may be co-ordinated, but who nevertheless has a direct personal and primary responsibility?
        Mr. Burgin: I did understand the hon. Member. It is the President of the Board of Trade, the Food Storage Department, which is an integral part of the Board of Trade, that has the executive responsibility for food storage. He works in association with the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.
        Sir A. Salter: As I understand it, that is a change of policy compared with the statement made by the Prime Minister some time ago. I rejoice if that is the case.
        Mr. Burgin: I have every reason to believe that the answer that I have given is absolutely accurate. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) raised a question about underground roads and garages. That is much too big a question for me to deal with now. It is a very big problem and I hope there will be an opportunity of dealing with it in debate. It is impossible now in the concluding stage of a two days' Debate to deal with it.
        Mr. G. Griffiths: It is the most important part of the Debate.
        Mr. Burgin: I know that it is a most important part of the Debate, and it is because it is so important that I cannot deal with it now. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) raised a question directly relating to my Department. He asked particularly with regard to evacuation, whether it was intended to use the main line railway stations. The answer is, no. Evacuation will not take place from main line terminal stations. Stations on the periphery will be used for that purpose. Whether in the rebuilding of main line stations the particular interests of defence are to be taken into account, is a big question. I certainly should be prepared to allow defence considerations to enter into my purview in dealing with the rebuilding of any one of the London termini.
        Sir M. Sueter: The right hon. Gentleman was asked about the rebuilding of Liverpool Street Station, which I understand is going on now.
        Mr. Burgin: Yes; I have been praying for it for years. I would remind the House that the system on which this Debate has been conducted has been that there should be four separate Ministers dealing with four different aspects of the main problem. The Lord Privy Seal surveyed the whole problem, the Minister of Labour dealt with the National Service side, the Minister of Health surveyed the regional organisation, hospitals, ambulances and evacuation, and it was thought that it would be appropriate that, as all these organisations make calls upon transport and the transport facilities of the country, I should give some of the information at my disposal connected with everything that comes under the word "mobility." In time of peace mobility
        1616
        is important but only relatively important; in time of emergency, in time of war, mobility is absolutely essential. The first thing that happens in an emergency, mobilisation, means that large numbers of men, stores and material must be transported from wherever they are to the naval ports and dockyards. The Army must be served, the Air Force must be served and, in addition, there is all the tremendous organisation of the movement of population by evacuation, the movement of munitions and fuel, the transfer of food, besides the carrying on of the essential business of the country. It will be a tremendous demand that will be made on the transport facilities of the country of all kinds when the emergency occurs.
        So much attention has been given to-night, and rightly, to the important question of feeding the people, that perhaps I might begin by giving a short summary of what has been done in transport by referring to what is occurring at the docks. There are 285 separate docks and harbours in this country, but for the purposes of emergency some 45 of them have been treated as the principal docks and harbours, and in every one of these 45 docks there has been working for a long time past a port and harbour transit emergency committee dealing with the great problem that a port, the point of arrival and departure of vessels, is owing to its geographical situation a bottleneck. Anyone who has had any experience of ports at all knows that the difficulty is the possibility of congestion. Congestion is like influenza, once it starts it spreads, and the great thing to do is to prevent a port ever getting congested. That means that you must have cranage, hauling facilities, and that when you have carried your cargo from the vessel to the warehouse along the dockside, you must have other storage in which to put it in order to make room for the next vessel which comes in.
        The problem connected with the ports is not merely one of supplies and material, but of storage, and of storage away from the docks. A task of that kind is a difficult one, but it is made all the more difficult when you add to your troubles, not merely the risk of congestion, not merely the pressure of storage, not that you are over-working certain ports and giving them two and four times as much work

        1617
        as they would do in peace time, but that all the time you may be subject to attacks from the air or the open sea. The reason why I am telling the Committee about the arrangements made in connection with the ports is because it is the first of the public utility services about which I want to tell the Committee.
        What has been done is this. Ports, like every other employer of labour, must carry out what is known as good employer obligations. Briefly an employer has a moral obligation to do something for the protection of his workpeople in time of emergency, and it is proposed by the Government that this moral obligation shall be converted into a legal obligation, and measures for that purpose will be introduced to the House shortly. But when you come to a port it is not sufficient merely to deal with the good employer obligation. It may be necessary to take steps not merely to protect the people but to ensure that the essential services of the port remain operative. That may necessitate additional material and construction. A vast amount of work of that kind has been done and financial arrangements made for assistance for this work. I will not weary the Committee by giving details as these will be laid before the House when the necessary legislation is introduced to give them sanction.
        At the back of the port organisation is, of course, electricity. Electricity is valuable in many respects. The right hon. Member for West Stirling asked me whether I could assure the Committee that arrangements had been made to prevent the electricity supply being cut off in the night. Yes, but not by linking them up with each other; but by separating them from one another. The best way, in the opinion of experts, to deal with public utilities is to see that wherever there is the possibility of attack on a particular kind of apparatus which it is hard to replace, there should be a pool of that kind of apparatus, whether it be switch-gear or transformers or other apparatus. With the electricity supplies of the country what we have arranged is that there should be a national pool of the essential switch-gear, transformer and other material so that, in the event of a generating station being put out of action, by the introduction of switch-gear from this pool you may link up the affected region with another generating station. That system of the supply of a pool
        1618
        of what is required to enable a public utility service to be carried on is an arrangement which runs through the negotiations that I have carried on with different public utilities. Canals and inland waterways are not being overlooked and the necessary measures for protecting vulnerable points are being taken.
        Obviously the most important public utilities in which the Committee will be interested are railways and roads, and I want to devote the remainder of my time to giving some idea of the steps that have been taken to keep the iron backbone of the country available for the tremendous strain to which it will be subjected immediately there is an outbreak of war. [Interruption.] It is not the time to talk about a square deal. I hope the interests of railways, roads and traders will all have the good sense to reach some agreement of a kind which I can implement by legislation and bring to the House at an early date. I am very glad to know that progress has been made so far. I hope that the Transport Advisory Council will send me their report on the draft agreement before them, and that I may be able to come to the House with something in the nature of an agreed Bill.
        But that is not the topic to which I wish to attract attention to-night. I want the Committee to realise that the railways not doing too well, as all the Committee know, are faced, in connection with a national emergency, with the obligation to spend millions of pounds to protect what is recognised by every member of the Committee as an essential part of the defence of the country. I have been conducting negotiations with them with a view, first of all, to arranging for the work to be put in hand and arguing how it is to be paid for afterwards. The work has been put in hand. A tremendous amount of work has been done in connection with a pool of breakdown trains, in connection with the provision of a vast deposit of spares of one kind and another in case vulnerable places are touched. That has been done. The railways have set up a committee. The committee work in with my officials, and the closest liaison occurs, and I am very satisfied with the work that is being done by the railways, including, of course, the London Passenger Transport Board. Similar arrangements have been made by them.

        1619
        Just as these arrangements have been made for railways so have arrangements been made for goods transport by road. Hon. Members who have studied the road transport industry know that there are something like 500,000 vehicles and 200,000 owners. Imagine the task of trying to co-ordinate that into some workable institution which will stand the strain of an emergency. What we have done is to divide the country into regions, make the Chairmen of the Traffic Commissioners the chairmen of those regions, divide those regions into districts and sub-districts and arrange for groups of different vehicles to be formed in each of these sub-districts.
        What is the measure of control? It is all very well to make paper drawings of districts and sub-districts, but what is the measure of control? It is this. Unlike the railways, which have unlimited supplies of coal at their back, unlike the railways, which have the knowledge that nothing can stop them short of a complete breakdown caused by enemy action, the road is completely at the mercy of imported fuel. That imported fuel will, in all probability, be severely rationed. It is quite certain there will not be imported sufficient fuel for it to be available to all and sundry, and a certain method of inducing members of the road transport industry to come into the groups is to make it quite clear that the rationed fuel will go to those in the groups and not to those outside. I have obtained a very satisfactory response to the arrangements that we have desired to make for bringing this great industry into a proper perspective in connection with the nation's requirements. I express my indebtedness to all the members of the different committees, and in particular to the operators, who are showing such a fine sense of responsibility in responding to this call. [Interruption.] It does not do any harm to know a little about business negotiation. Perhaps hon. Members would like me to tell them something else.
        Mr. E. Smith: The right hon. Gentlemen has not mentioned the union negotiations.
        Mr. Burgin: I ought to express my thanks to the different unions concerned for their part in concurring. I had intended my thanks to be general, and I
        1620
        was merely driving hard against time. Just as with electricity and the ports one of the essential things is to have a pool, a reserve, of supplies, so in connection with the roads is it necessary to have a supply of bridge material to strengthen essential bridges and to have adequate supplies of all types of what is called "fill" in engineering language to rebuild parapets and roadways damaged by shell or bomb. All arrangements of that kind have been made. The general impression which I desire to leave with hon. Members is that the public utility services of this country will continue, that arrangements have been made to protect these essential services from attack, and that I am confident that all will play their part. Civil Defence is a job in which everyone of us can take a part. The response is general, the interest of the country is aroused, and I subscribe to the view uttered by so many hon. Members—give the country a clear lead and it is quite sure that the country will follow. Let the response to this request for National Service prove once and for all that the advice tendered to certain leaders of foreign States that this country is decadent has no truth in it, and by the measure of our response to this call, let us remove any invitation to attack us.
        Mr. Johnston: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, would he mind saying something about a matter to which about 20 speakers have drawn attention, namely, the water supplies in the rural areas?
        Mr. Burgin: I should hardly have thought that water supplies fell within my category, except to the extent that water is a public utility service. The question of the supply of water to areas in which there are evacuated persons must naturally be a matter for the Ministry of Health.
        Mr. Johnston: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman was replying, not as Minister of Transport but as representative of the Government? He was replying on behalf of the Government to a challenge. I submit we ought to have a statement from the Government as to what preparations are being made to supply water in districts to which it is proposed to evacuate children from vulnerable areas.
        Mr. Burgin: The right hon. Gentleman and the Committee shall have it. I hope the Committee will understand that none of these areas have been finally drawn, and if there is a difficulty about water supply in a particular area it is possible that the areas will be altered.
        11.0 p.m.
        Mr. Ede: I am sure the protest of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) is one that ought to be made. For the greater part of this Debate to-day the questions directed to the Treasury Bench have been concerned with evacuation, and, speaking on behalf of one of the great industrial areas of the country, I want to say that we are exceedingly dissatisfied with the provisions which have been made up to the present. The Minister of Health said this afternoon that he was bounded in these matters by the rules of arithmetic, and he rather made fun of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) when she asked him why. My own opinion is that the right hon. Gentleman is bounded by his own un-skilful use of the rules of arithmetic. As I understand it, the basis for evacuation is simply a use of long division. The right hon. Gentleman's Department takes the number of acres in any local government district and divides the population by the acreage. If the quotient is over 50, the area is to be evacuated. If it is under 50 the area is not to be evacuated. That really means that the Local Government Act, 1929, and the action of various county councils in reviewing county districts determine whether an area is to be evacuated or not.
        One has only to consider the case of Tyneside to see how it works out. In my own constituency the right hon. Gentleman's Department takes into consideration half the width of the River Tyne, three miles of foreshore, nearly the whole of the area of the Tyne Dock—thegreatest coal exporting dock in the world—and the whole of the railway lines and they divide the whole area into the population. They include in the acreage areas that have been added under various borough extensions. Newcastle-on-Tyne has been trying for years to swallow the urban district of Gosforth and because they have not succeeded, the area of that district is not added to the acreage for Newcastle-on-Tyne. Had they succeeded Newcastle would not be an evacuable
        1622
        area either. That method of determining whether an area should be evacuated or not is an abuse of the rules of arithmetic. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the crowded parts of my constituency, where 120,000 people are crowded on to a few hundred acres, he will find that that area is not any less susceptible to bombardment because there is a great length of foreshore somewhere near it. The right hon. Gentleman says that where there are 80,000 to the square mile, bombing is more likely to do damage than where there are only 200to the square mile. That is true, but you may have within a square mile a substantial population, and because the whole of the square mile is included in a particular local government area, it will not be included in the evacuable areas.
        The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) mentioned Wimbledon. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), when he was talking about Wimbledon, really meant Putney, which is within the London County Council area and will therefore be evacuated. But take the three or four boroughs that most nearly adjoin London on that side—Barnes, Richmond, Wimbledon, and Mitcham. Each of these boroughs includes very large areas of common or of Richmond Park. More than half Richmond Park is within the borough of Barnes. Mitcham includes a very large acreage of common; I believe that more than half the acreage of Mitcham is common, but on the rest of Mitcham you have congregated about 70,000 people in these days, and they are in fact more crowded than the borough of Wands worth, which is just across a few dots on the map and is within the county of London. No one can say that it is logical to evacuate Roehampton and not Barnes, Wimbledon, or Mitcham. I bring these facts to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman because it is clear that the basis on which this evacuation has been made is one that has no relation to the actualities of the population. I can only hope that in considering the problem he is better informed than the Home Office were last September, when they requested the Surrey County Council to arrange for the billeting of thousands of children in the three rural districts of Epsom, Farnham, and Reigate, each of which had been abolished

        1623
        by the Surrey County Council Review Order of 1933. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that a very large number of people indeed are seriously concerned about the basis of his evacuation scheme.
        I am not sure whether the Minister of Health or the President of the Board of Education is responsible for what I am about to mention. It has been decided that the so-called public schools and the private proprietary schools, where they are to be evacuated, may "marry" with a school in the reception area. That does not mean that a boys' school is to be linked up with a girls' school, but I understand that a certain school that ranks as a public school in the borough of Hammersmith is to be "married" to Marlborough, and that that school already knows that it will be moved to Marlborough in the event of an emergency, but the municipal secondary and the public elementary schools are not to be given that privilege. They do not know, and I understand they will not know until the day when they have to move, where they are going. I suggest that where there is misgiving in the rural districts—and the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave us to-day indicated that an ex-Lord Chancellor and other people who can command large type in the "Times" are by no means representative of the rural population in their attitude towards evacuation—where there is misgiving, and even where there is not, it would be a very good thing if a district knew where the children were coming from who were to be billeted on it in the event of evacuation.
        I am sure a good deal of the misgiving would be removed if the householders in
        the receiving areas could see the children who were likely to be coming to them, and I have no doubt that arrangements could be made during the summer time or at holiday times for visits to be paid. I venture to say to the President of the Board of Trade that from his experience at the Board of Education he will agree that those people who have been writing about the modern elementary school child as if it is bound to be suffering from scabies and is unable to behave with ordinary decency, have no knowledge at all of the kind of children who are likely to be sent to them. If before the emergency arose there could be real contacts between persons to be billeted and those who are to receive them, the transition when the time came could be made with a great deal more ease than it otherwise would be. I suggest to the Minister of Health, if he is responsible, that he should try and see that the same arrangement that has already been made for the public and proprietary schools should be extended to the secondary and public elementary schools. In that way I am sure he would remove a good many of the difficulties that now confront him. I ask him seriously to consider whether the arithmetical rules which at present bind him have been skilfully used. I have respect for arithmetic, but only when it is skilfully used; and I suggest that while his calculations may have been perfect, they have not been made with very great skill.
        Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,842, be granted for the said Service."
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 213.

        McGhee, H. G.

        Ridley, G.

        Tinker, J. J.

        MacLaren, A.

        Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

        Tomlinson, G.

        Maclean, N.

        Sexton, T. M.

        Viant, S. P.

        MacNeill Weir, L.

        Shinwell, E.

        Walkden, A. G.

        Marshall, F.

        Silkin, L.

        Watson, W. McL.

        Milner, Major J.

        Silverman, S. S.

        Welsh, J. C.

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

        Simpson, F. B.

        Westwood, J.

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

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

        Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

        Nathan, Colonel H. L.

        Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

        Wilkinson, Ellen

        Noel-Baker, P. J.

        Smith, E. (Stoke)

        Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

        Paling, W.

        Smith, T. (Normanton)

        Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

        Parker, J.

        Sorensen, R. W.

        Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

        Parkinson, J. A.

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

        Young, Sir R. (Newton)

        Pearson, A.

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

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

        Summerskill, Dr. Edith

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

        Price, M. P.

        Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

        Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

        Pritt, D. N.

        Thurtle, E.

        NOES.

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

        Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

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

        Ellis, Sir G.

        Markham, S. F.

        Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

        Elliston, Capt. G. S.

        Marsden, Commander A.

        Albery, Sir Irving

        Emery, J. F.

        Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

        Emmott, C. E. G. C.

        Medlicott, F.

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

        Emrys-Evans P. V.

        Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

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

        Entwistle, Sir C. F.

        Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

        Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

        Errington, E.

        Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

        Apsley, Lord

        Fildes, Sir K.

        Moreing, A. C.

        Asks, Sir R. W.

        Fleming, E. L.

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

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

        Fox, Sir G. W. G.

        Munro, P.

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

        Fremantle, Sir F. E.

        Nall, Sir J.

        Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

        Furness, S. N.

        Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

        Fyfe, D. P. M.

        O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

        Bait, Sir A. L.

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

        Palmer, G. E. H.

        Bernays, R. H.

        Gledhill, G.

        Peake, O.

        Boulton, W. W.

        Gluckstein, L. H.

        Perkins, W. R. D.

        Bower, Comdr. R. T.

        Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

        Pilkington, R.

        Bracken, B.

        Goldie, N. B.

        Porritt, R W.

        Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

        Gower, Sir R. V.

        Procter, Major H. A.

        Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

        Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

        Ramsbotham, H.

        Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.)

        Grant-Ferris, R.

        Rankin, Sir R.

        Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

        Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

        Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

        Grimston, R. V.

        Rayner, Major R. H.

        Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Newbury)

        Bull, B. B.

        Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

        Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

        Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

        Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

        Reid, A. C. (Exeter)

        Butcher, H. W.

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

        Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

        Campbell, Sir E. T.

        Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

        Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

        Cartland, J. R. H.

        Hambro, A. V.

        Ropner, Colonel L.

        Cary, R. A.

        Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

        Rosbotham, Sir T.

        Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

        Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

        Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

        Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

        Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

        Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

        Channon, H.

        Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

        Russell, Sir Alexander

        Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

        Herbert, Major J. A. (Moonmouth)

        Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

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

        Higgs, W. F.

        Salmon, Sir I.

        Clydesdale, Marquess of

        Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

        Salt, E. W.

        Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

        Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

        Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

        Colfox, Major W. P.

        Holmes, J. S.

        Sandeman, Sir N. S.

        Colman, N. C. D.

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

        Sandys, E. D.

        Colville, Rt. Hon. John

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

        Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

        Conant, Captain R. J. E.

        Hunter, T.

        Scott, Lord William

        Cox, H. B. Trevor

        Hurd, Sir P. A.

        Selley, H. R.

        Craven-Ellis, W.

        Hutchinson, G. C.

        Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

        Critchley, A.

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

        Simmonds, O. E.

        Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

        James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

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

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

        Joel, D. J. B.

        Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

        Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

        Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

        Cross, R. H.

        Kimball, L.

        Semerville, A. A. (Windsor)

        Crossley, A. C.

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

        Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

        Crowder, J. F. E.

        Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

        Cruddas, Col. B

        Latham, Sir P.

        Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

        Culverwell, C. T.

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

        Storey, S.

        Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

        Leech, Sir J. W.

        Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

        De Chair, S. S.

        Leighton, Major B. E. P.

        Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

        De la Bère, R.

        Lewis, O.

        Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

        Denman, Hon. R. D.

        Lipson, D. L.

        Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

        Denville, Alfred

        Llewellin, Colonel Sir J. J.

        Tasker, Sir R. I.

        Donner, P. W.

        Lloyd, G. W.

        Tate, Mavis C.

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

        Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

        Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

        MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

        Thomas, J. P. L.

        Duncan, J. A. L.

        McCorquodale, M. S.

        Titchfield, Marques of

        Dunglass, Lord

        Macdonald, Capt. P (Isle of Wight)

        Touche, G. C.

        Eastwood, J. F.

        McKie, J. H.

        Tree, A. R. L. F.

        Eckersley, P. T.

        Maclay, Hon. J. P.

        Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

        Edmondson, Major Sir J.

        Maitland, Sir Adam

        Wakefield, W. W.

        1626

        1627

        Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

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

        Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

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

        Williams, C. (Torquay)

        York, C.

        Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

        Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

        Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

        Warrender, Sir V.

        Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

        Waterhouse, Captain C.

        Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

        Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

        Wise, A. R.

        Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.

        Wedderburn, H. J. S.

        Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

        Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

        Wragg, H.

        Original Question put, and agreed to.
        Resolved,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,942, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."

      Class III.

        AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONARY SERVICES.
        Resolved,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £790,020, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1939, for air-raid precautionary services, including grants to local authorities."

      Class V.

        MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
        Resolved,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of unemployment insurance, Employment Exchange and other services; grant-in-aid of the National Council of Social Service; expenses of transfer and resettlement; expenses of training of unemployed persons and, on behalf of the Army Council and Air Council, of soldiers and airmen for employment; contribution towards the expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); expenses of the Industrial Court; expenses in connection with national service; and sundry services."
        Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  DEFENCE LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

  DEFENCE LOANS BILL.

    Clause 1.—(Increase of amount to be provided and extension to other services.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    11.24 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: While not proposing to detain the Committee, I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question on which I have failed hitherto to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Member of the Government, an explanation of the grounds on which the sum of £400,000,000 was chosen, which we are increasing by this Bill. I do not believe there was a reason why that figure was selected; the only explanation I can get is on the principle of thinking of a number and doubling it. The Government thought of £400,000,000, and are now proposing to double it. If there is any other explanation I should be very glad to have it from the Minister who is to reply on this Clause.
    11.25 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to extract any explanation of this figure from the much more distinguished representatives of the Government who have addressed the House on various stages of the Bill. It now falls to me to rush in where angels have previously feared to tread, and to tell the Committee that the figure of £400,000,000 is admittedly not the result of any precise calculation. I do not say that it is simply a case of taking a number and doubling it, but the real fact is that our future borrowing needs in connection with the defence programme depend on two things—first, the future rate of our expenditure on defence, and secondly, the yield of the revenue in the years to come. It is impossible to forecast either of those figures at all closely, and I think the Committee will realise that to forecast the result of both together could only be done within a very wide margin of error. For that reason it seemed best to my right hon. Friend to take what is admittedly a somewhat arbitrary figure and simply double what was provided for in the Act of 1937, with the very object of not appearing to give a precise basis to the new figure which would not actually exist in fact. It is for that reason alone that

    1629
    we have simply doubled the 1937 figure. If it should be true, as has been suggested, that we may have to come back for more money next year, my right hon. Friend will at any rate give Members in all parts of the House further opportunity of submitting once more to a critical, but I hope friendly, examination our very large defence expenditure and the admittedly novel methods by which we are meeting it.
    As the Chancellor has reminded hon. Members, the defence programme is in essence flexible; it can be accelerated or it can be curtailed. I believe the whole Committee will join with me in the fervent hope that, before we have to come back to borrow more money under this procedure there will have been a beneficial change in the international situation which will enable curtailment of the programme to take place.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes before Twelve o'Clock

  WEAVERS' WAGES (LANCASHIRE).
  WEAVERS' WAGES (LANCASHIRE).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  NORMANTON, CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT.
  NORMANTON, CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT.
  HEATHWAY, ESSEX (MR. DOWNHAM).
  HEATHWAY, ESSEX (MR. DOWNHAM).
  VOCATIONAL FILMS.
  VOCATIONAL FILMS.
  TRAINING CENTRES.
  TRAINING CENTRES.
  COSELEY.
  COSELEY.
  DURHAM CITY.
  DURHAM CITY.
  NORTH-EAST TRADING ESTATE.
  NORTH-EAST TRADING ESTATE.
  MINERS, CANNOCK CHASE.
  MINERS, CANNOCK CHASE.
  BENEFIT (HOLIDAYS).
  BENEFIT (HOLIDAYS).
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, STAFFORDSHIRE.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, STAFFORDSHIRE.
  LIVERPOOL.
  LIVERPOOL.
  WOOLWICH.
  WOOLWICH.
  FELLING.
  FELLING.
  MUSICIANS.
  MUSICIANS.
  GWENDRAETH VALLEY, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  GWENDRAETH VALLEY, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  LIFEBOATMEN.
  LIFEBOATMEN.
  GREENOCK.
  GREENOCK.
  NEATH (MR. EVAN DAVID).
  NEATH (MR. EVAN DAVID).
  PONTADAWE.
  PONTADAWE.
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY (AEROPLANE ACCIDENTS).
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY (AEROPLANE ACCIDENTS).
  VOLUNTARY NATIONAL SERVICE.
  VOLUNTARY NATIONAL SERVICE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES AND RECORDERS (WOMEN).
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES AND RECORDERS (WOMEN).
  PROBATION OFFICERS (PETTY SESSIONS).
  PROBATION OFFICERS (PETTY SESSIONS).
  PRISON INMATES (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  PRISON INMATES (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE CLERICAL GRADES.
  CIVIL SERVICE CLERICAL GRADES.
  SIAM (WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION ORDERS).
  SIAM (WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION ORDERS).
EDUCATION.
  MEALS IN SCHOOLS.
  MEALS IN SCHOOLS.
  SPREAD-OVER HOLIDAYS.
  SPREAD-OVER HOLIDAYS.
  SPENS COMMITTEE REPORT.
  SPENS COMMITTEE REPORT.
  MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.
  MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.
HOUSING.
  BUILDING MATERIALS COMMITTEE (CEMENT PRICES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS COMMITTEE (CEMENT PRICES).
  RENT CHARGES.
  RENT CHARGES.
  CLEARANCE ORDERS.
  CLEARANCE ORDERS.
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION RECIPIENTS.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION RECIPIENTS.
  WIDOW PENSIONERS.
  WIDOW PENSIONERS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  EVACUATION.
  EVACUATION.
  BLANKETS.
  BLANKETS.
  PORT HEALTH AUTHORITIES (PROSECUTIONS, 1937).
  PORT HEALTH AUTHORITIES (PROSECUTIONS, 1937).
  PORT MEDICAL OFFICERS (DEFECTIVE VESSELS).
  PORT MEDICAL OFFICERS (DEFECTIVE VESSELS).
  COUNTY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  COUNTY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION.
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION.
  SCHIZOPHRENIA.
  SCHIZOPHRENIA.
  VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  NURSING SERVICES.
  NURSING SERVICES.
  BLIND CHILDREN (STATISTICS).
  BLIND CHILDREN (STATISTICS).
CIVIL AVIATION.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
  MUNICIPAL AERODROMES (FLYING TRAINING).
  MUNICIPAL AERODROMES (FLYING TRAINING).
  DE-ICING APPARATUS.
  DE-ICING APPARATUS.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  BUILDING CONTRACTS (TRANSPORT OF MATERIALS).
  BUILDING CONTRACTS (TRANSPORT OF MATERIALS).
  RINGWOLDE FARM, WALLOP (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).
  RINGWOLDE FARM, WALLOP (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).
  ACCIDENTS AND FORCED LANDINGS.
  ACCIDENTS AND FORCED LANDINGS.
AGRICULTURE.
  GWENDRAETH VALLEY DRAINAGE.
  GWENDRAETH VALLEY DRAINAGE.
  FLAX-GROWING.
  FLAX-GROWING.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  POTATO MARKETING.
  POTATO MARKETING.
  LAND DRAINAGE ACT, 1931.
  LAND DRAINAGE ACT, 1931.
  COAL INDUSTRY (OIL EXTRACTION).
  COAL INDUSTRY (OIL EXTRACTION).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (MUNITION WORK).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (MUNITION WORK).
  WAR DEPARTMENT (INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES).
  WAR DEPARTMENT (INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES).
BRITISH ARMY.
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCES, LONDON AREA.
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCES, LONDON AREA.
  TANK RANGE, PEMBROKESHIRE.
  TANK RANGE, PEMBROKESHIRE.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY CAMPS.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY CAMPS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  RESERVISTS (PENSIONER WRITERS).
  RESERVISTS (PENSIONER WRITERS).
  ADMIRALTY ESTABLISHMENTS, PORTSMOUTH (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  ADMIRALTY ESTABLISHMENTS, PORTSMOUTH (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  ARMAMENT WORK, DURHAM.
  ARMAMENT WORK, DURHAM.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CLUBS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I hope it will not be necessary for me to make a very heavy demand upon the time of the House. In the first place the general facts of the club question are known, and in the second place there is considerable agreement both as to the necessity for an amendment of the law and as to the main lines upon which the remedy should be applied. I ought to make clear at the outset that those who press for amending legislation in regard to clubs do so with the full recognition that the club as an institution has an essential place in our national life. The purpose of this Bill is not to hinder in any way the development of legitimate clubs; it is to provide that measure of effective control which will prevent those practices resulting in drunkenness and breaches of the law which admittedly occur under the present system in a large number of clubs.
Before I proceed very briefly to explain the provisions of the Bill there are one or two preliminary matters to which I should like to call the attention of the House. When I sat upon a previous Licensing Commission which reported forty years ago, in the year 1899, the club question had not reached its present serious dimensions. We did, however, receive a certain amount of evidence even then in regard to club developments, and we made certain recommendations as a Commission. I am interested to note that some of the recommendations which that Commission made forty years ago are included in this Bill to-day. I now come to say something about the steady continuous growth in clubs during the past thirty years. I will not weary the House with details, but let me call your Lordships' attention to one or two figures. We will begin with the year 1905. The number of registered clubs in England
1024
and Wales in 1905 was 6,589. Twenty years later, in 1925, the number was 11,780. In 1937, the last year for which we have statistics, the number was 16,563. In other words, your Lordships will see that during the last thirty years or so the number of clubs in England and Wales has practically trebled.
There are one or two points in connection with this expansion of clubs which I should like the House to note. The first is that, as a result of this steady, continuous expansion of clubs, the number of clubs to-day has reached a considerable proportion of the licensed premises of the country. Take the year 1937 again. The number of on-licences in England and Wales was 74,326 and the number of registered clubs was 16,563. Thirty years ago the number of clubs in relation to on-licences was one club for every fifteen on-licences. To-day they are more than one to five. The on-licences, as the House knows, are subject to all the conditions of the licensing laws, and the clubs are virtually free from all restriction. That is the first point. The second point is that under present conditions there is nothing to hinder an infinite extension of registered clubs with a consequent aggravation of the defects and abuses which are inherent in the present position.
As the House knows, the only condition necessary for registration is the payment of a nominal fee of a few shillings and the submission to the clerk to the justices of certain points in regard to numbers, membership and rules. During the last thirty years this very considerable extension of clubs throughout the country has led to a development which has caused considerable concern to those who are responsible for the administration of the licensing laws. I have a large amount of evidence here, drawn from the proceedings of police courts throughout the country, to show both the gravity and the frequency of offences in connection with clubs. I am not going to weary the House with details of this evidence, but I think I can make the position sufficiently clear by stating that these offences can be classed under three principal heads: (1) persistent disregard of permitted hours; (2) frequent drunkenness and disorder; and (3) gambling. In view of these developments it has for some time been clear that some change in the law relating to clubs is required. Further,

1025
it is required, I think, in two main directions: firstly, a more effective control over initial registration; and secondly, more adequate supervision.
Behind this very general demand for amendment of the law in relation to clubs there is, as I have on more than one occasion previously pointed out, a support of public opinion exceptional in weight and in character. May I just mention two or three facts showing the strength of the case for the Bill from the standpoint of responsible public opinion? I will begin with the statements made in many centres in the country by Chief Constables. I have a great many statements here, but I will read only one to your Lordships' House—namely, the statement made by the Chief Constable of Cardiff. At the annual meeting of the Cardiff Licensing Authority, held on February 3 of this year, the Chairman said that the Chief Constable's report showed that there was an alarming increase in drunkenness, and that the clubs were to blame. The Chief Constable, in his report, goes on to say:
"For many years I have reiterated to the justices my opinion that there are too many clubs in existence, and I do so again this year. The control which the law gives to the police over registered clubs is"—
I should like the House to mark these words—
"of a most meagre and unsatisfactory character."
I could add to that similar statements made by Chief Constables all over the country.
May I now call the attention of the House to other evidence to which I personally attach considerable weight? It is the view of the Magistrates' Association. That Association represents the licensing justices, and those justices are responsible for the administration of the licensing law. This Association is presided over, as the House knows, by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, the Lord Chancellor. It has for many years urged with great force the necessity for a great change in the law, and the views of the Association are in substantial agreement with the provisions of this Bill. Then I would take another point—namely, the support for some change and amendment in the law relating to clubs which is given by a considerable section of those
1026
interested in the liquor trade. It is felt that the position as between licensed premises on the one hand and unlicensed clubs on the other is unfair and calls for adjustment. Lastly, I do not think I would be rightly estimating the strength of public opinion in support of change in the law with regard to clubs if I did not call the attention of the House to the fact that the Churches throughout the country take a very deep interest in this question. The Churches have, from time to time, made strong representations to the Home Secretary upon the matter, and I feel certain that the Home Secretary recognises the weight that should be attached to those representations.
And lastly, on the point of evidence in support of the Bill, I come to the recommendations on the club question of the recent Licensing Commission, and as this Bill incorporates these recommendations may I just say one or two words as to the Commission? First of all the Chairman of the Commission is a member of this House, my noble friend Lord Amulree. By common consent he fully sustained the high traditions of that position, and rendered, I am sure, a signal public service in the way in which he conducted this important inquiry. Let me also call attention to the very representative character of the Commission. There were representatives on this Commission of labour and the co-operative societies, and also representatives of the drink traffic, of the business community, of the teaching profession, and of the Churches. This Commission so constituted, having heard the evidence from all sides upon the question of clubs, made certain recommendations. These recommendations were absolutely unanimous and without a single reservation.
Here, if I may, I should like to quote the central declaration of the Commission upon the question of clubs. The Commission say:
"The club movement at its best, … is, in our opinion, a most valuable element in the structure of our society. The expansion of the movement amongst the industrial classes of recent years is, we think, particularly significant. We have wished, therefore"—
I would ask the House to mark these words—
"to make no proposals which will tend to hamper that movement. We are, however, satisfied that substantial changes in the law are

1027
indispensable; and that the law as so altered should be applicable indifferently to the best and to the worst."
Before I proceed very briefly to set before the House the principal recommendations of the Committee, I wish to make a short reference to the Parliamentary position of this Bill. Manifestly this is a Bill which ought to be introduced by the Government, and let me explain why I am to-day on my own responsibility moving its Second Reading. Ever since the publication of the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission on this question frequent representations have been made to the Government pressing them to introduce the required legislation, and there is one important statement made three years ago by the then Home Secretary in another place which I should like to quote. On March 6, 1936, upon a debate in the other House on a Clubs Bill, the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, made this statement:
"I am able to say that it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to deal with the evils of bogus clubs. We cannot do so this Session, but I am prepared to carry my assurance further and to say that we intend to promote that legislation next Session."
Perfectly explicit and definite. Accordingly, when the King's Speech appeared in November, 1936, a Clubs Bill was mentioned in the Speech; but no Clubs Bill was introduced during the Session.
A year passed and we come to the King's Speech of November, 1937. Again a Clubs Bill was mentioned in the King's Speech, but no Bill was introduced during the Session. I come to last Session. Some of your Lordships may remember that last Session I asked no fewer than four Questions of the Government upon this point. The first reply was given by the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, on behalf of the Government, and it was to the effect that it was the definite purpose of the Government to introduce a Clubs Bill that Session and that preparation of the Bill was actively proceeding. In reply to a second Question the noble Earl, Lord Munster, reaffirmed the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill. In reply to my third Question the statement was that the date of the introduction of the Bill was under consideration. And the reply to my fourth Question was that, owing to the
1028
claims on the time of Parliament, it would not be possible to introduce a Bill that Session. And, as the House knows, no Clubs Bill was mentioned in the King's Speech at the beginning of this Session.
I have had a considerable experience of the ways of Parliament and of the fate of Government Bills, but it is impossible for me not to express the acute and widespread disappointment which has been caused by the failure of the Government to fulfil their definite pledges on this question. I know that difficulties may arise, but if I may express my personal opinion, in view of the strength of the support behind an amendment of the law in this respect, in view of the urgency of dealing with it at an early date, and in view of the very large majority which the Government still command, I am, I must confess, at a loss to understand the delay which has taken place in the introduction of the Bill.
Now I will very briefly refer to the principal recommendations of the Royal Commission and indicate the clauses in the Bill in which they are embodied. Recommendation 1: That there should be constituted a committee of justices acting in the division for the purpose of controlling the registration of clubs. That is in Clause 1 of the Bill. Recommendation 2: The Royal Commission stated:
"We are convinced that a system of discretionary registration, to be renewed annually, is necessary."
The procedure in reference to applications for new clubs as recommended by the Commission is set out in Clauses 2, 3, and 4 of the Bill, and the essential conditions for registration are enumerated in Clauses 3 and 6. These are suitability of premises, promotion for legitimate ends, good management, the number of members to be not less than fifty, or twenty-five under certain circumstances, the absence of a tie, and the control of members over the supply of liquor. I move on to Recommendation 3. The Commission said:
"We would give the right of objection (1) to the police, (2) to the local authority, and (3) to any person owning or inhabiting a house in the immediate neighbourhood."
That is Clause 5 of the Bill. Recommendation 4: The grounds of objection to renewal of registration of clubs, should, in the opinion of the Commission, be frequent departure of persons in a state of

1029
drunkenness, disorderly conduct, offences against the licensing laws and the non-fulfilment of the requirements set out in Clause 6 of the Bill. These recommendations are embodied in Clause 7 of the Bill. Here I may point out that an appeal is allowed in the Bill to Quarter Sessions, both in respect of the initial application and also in respect of renewal of registration. That is in Clause 10 of the Bill.
I now move to a very important question in regard to police entry. The conclusion of the Commission was as follows:
"We consider it indispensable that the power of entry into registered clubs should be exercised by suitable officers acting on the written authorisation, given expressly for each occasion, of a Chief Constable or deputy appointed by him for the purpose."
I would like, if I may, to point out the very precise limitations which the Royal Commission attach to that power of entry. This recommendation is provided for in Clause 16 of the Bill. Recommendation 6: The Commission recommended that there should be no supply of intoxicants for "off" consumption. That is in Clause 13. Recommendation 7 was that dislicensed premises should be disqualified for five years. That is in Clause 11. Recommendation 8 as to the hours of liquor supply was that the hours in clubs should be the same as those fixed for licensed premises in the Bill. That is provided for in Clause 13. Lastly, Recommendation 9: That no person under 18 years of age should be a member of a club. That is in Clause 13 (4).
There is one further recommendation which relates to Wales, to which I wish to make just a short reference. About sixty years ago the Welsh Sunday Closing Act was passed, and I may perhaps be permitted to explain my rather special interest in this measure because it was my father who, as a private Member in another place, was responsible for that Act. Whatever be the difference of view as to Sunday closing elsewhere, there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales continue firmly attached to the Act. Well, during recent years clubs have been set up in Wales, and I think the House will see that the setting up of clubs brings about a situation, in places where you have the licensed premises closed on Sundays and the clubs open, which is palpably inequitable. Evidence was placed before the Royal Commission upon that point, and
1030
as a result the recommendation of the Commission was that the supply of intoxicants in clubs in Wales on Sundays should be generally prohibited. This provision also is incorporated in the Bill.
I come to the end of my task in expounding this Bill. I have stated the main grounds upon which amending legislation is urgently required, and I have endeavoured to show the exceptional strength of the case for the Bill. I must of course await the reply of the noble Earl who is going to speak for the Government to learn what the views of the Government may be in regard to this Bill, but upon every ground it seems to me advantage would accrue if an opportunity were provided for a detailed discussion of the provisions of this Bill on the Committee stage. In any case I venture to express the hope that the House will be allowed to give a free vote when the Division comes this evening on the Second Reading of the Bill. I believe that the foundations of the Bill are well and truly laid in the unanimous conclusions of the Licensing Commission, and therefore, with some confidence, I submit the measure to the favourable judgment of the House. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD BAYFORDhad given Notice that, on the Motion for the Second Reading, he would move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the rejection of this Bill I have no complaint whatever to make as to the way in which it has been introduced by the noble Lord opposite, for he made, I think, quite a moderate statement and stated his case very fairly. With one part of his speech I most earnestly agree—that is, I consider this subject is one that ought to be dealt with by the Government and ought not to be left in the hands of a private Member in either House. One part of his speech particularly impressed me, and that was the statement he made as to the increase in the number of working-class clubs. What does that show? Surely it shows that there is a great demand among the working classes for this particular form of institution. I do not regret it. It is a very much better thing, in my opinion, that a man should have his club to go to rather than that

1031
he should go to a public-house to find society. What the noble Lord has said as to the very great increase in the number of clubs is quite true.
I may say that, in moving the rejection of this Bill, I am speaking for those who represent the Working Men's Club and Institute Union and the National Golf Clubs Protection Association in addition to the body with which I am most particularly associated—that is, the Association of Conservative Clubs. Altogether these bodies have a membership of 1,600,000, so that when the noble Lord speaks of public opinion being behind him, he must also remember that there is very strong public opinion on the other side. I am quite as anxious as the noble Lord to do all that can be done to stop bogus clubs, but it does not seem to me that this Bill would have very much effect in that way. What it will do—and this is the reason why I am opposing it—is this. While there seems to be very little provision that will make it easier for the police to interfere with bogus clubs, it does impose a lot of harassing restrictions on perfectly innocent bona-fide working men's clubs.
I am fond of clubs myself. Many of us in this House are. The club for all classes in the country fulfils a very useful purpose in life. For those who do not live in luxurious surroundings, it provides very often a degree of comfort that they do not get at home. They meet their friends there, and meet them on the pleasantest of terms. The one advantage of a club, it always seems to me, is that you do meet your friends there, and more than in other places you are not likely to meet people you do not want to meet. The friends you meet there exchange ideas. They gossip—no harm in that. They play games, and one of the things that the Association of Conservative Clubs does is to see about giving prizes for darts and the various other games they play in these working men's clubs. I have been speaking on behalf of clubs that are engaged in political work, and they are a valuable political asset. The cry that is raised against them is almost entirely on the subject of the liquor trade. I cannot speak for the big towns; I do not know what the state of things there is; but one thing that has struck
1032
me in the last fifty years, since I first began to know anything about such things, is the tremendous decrease in the amount of drunkenness in the country. When I was first on the bench one used to go often a considerable distance to attend petty sessions, and on getting there found that the cases probably consisted of six drunks and a bastardy case. It was only the licensing business in those days that kept the benches going at all. Nowadays it is absolutely the reverse. On the bench on which I sit we have not had a single case of drunkenness in the last twelve months, and in the year before we had only one, and then the defendant was a stranger who had tramped into the neighbourhood. That, for the country districts at all events, rather ruins the argument as to drunkenness.
Now I will deal with a few of the details of this Bill. It is a Second Reading debate, and I have no wish to go into matters too closely, but I do want to point out one or two which raise profund distrust in the minds of those who belong to the large number of clubs for which I am speaking. They object strongly to the local bench of magistrates being the registration authority. In some parts of the country they feel that there is political bias on the part of the magistrates. There is this curious feature about it, that when licensing sessions are held all those who have interests of any sort in public-houses, even a landlord who happens to have a house on his property, is debarred from sitting, while, on the other hand, the most rabid teetotallers in the neighbourhood may all come and sit there if they happen to be members of the bench. That is a thing which is very much resented indeed. The next matter of detail is that club men object very much to the idea that they should have to fight for their existence every year. Under this Bill power is given to the police, to the local authority, and to any neighbours to object to the renewal of the licence of a club. For a working men's club to have to employ counsel in court to fight a battle for existence is an expensive thing. Members resent it and they would feel very much injured if such a provision should be passed.
Then there is the provision under which a return has to be made of the money which is spent on drink. How far is that to go? Is every club in London, is the

1033
Athenaeum or the Reform Club, to send in a return as to the amount that is spent there on drink? I have been making some inquiries, and I find that even in a big London club the profit on drink comes to something like a quarter of the amount received in subscriptions. That just makes the difference in keeping a club going. If you are to take away that from the Athenaeum their subscriptions would have to be raised, causing great hardship to the members. The revenue derived from this source is considerable, and without it no doubt it would be necessary to raise the subscriptions in the clubs. There is the same consideration to be borne in mind if you apply it to the national revenue. What should we do for the national revenue if we did not tax drink? It is one of the principal sources of revenue in the country, and we should have to find the money from some other source if the drink trade were suppressed.
The next thing which would be objected to very much is that the Home Secretary is to make rules for clubs. Why should the Home Secretary have to make rules for the clubs? Surely the clubs are quite capable of making their own rules, and I should very much doubt whether the Home Secretary's office was capable of making rules that would apply equitably to every club in the country. The next matter is as to hours. Hours, as we know, are restricted all over the country. The only place where there is no restriction upon the hours during which drinks can be obtained is just down the Lobby away from this House. But why should clubs, granted the total of the hours is similar, be restricted to the same hours as public-houses? The golf club is the most outstanding illustration. At a golf club they have the power now of fixing the hours at times which are most convenient to the members. Surely that is common sense, and to abolish that is going straight against common sense. Then there is a tiresome and annoying provision about prohibiting supply for consumption away from the club. If a man is going out for the day and he wants to fill a flask at any club, why on earth should he not be allowed to do so? It seems to me to be a most unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the subject.
Then there is this other question. I am not a Welshman and I do not want
1034
to pronounce too strong an opinion about Wales and Monmouthshire, but I can only say that what I do fear is that clubs in that part of the world would be exceedingly annoyed if any such restrictions were put on them after they have enjoyed this privilege for a great many years. It would really be a direct invitation to shebeening in that part of the world. Lastly, there is the right of police entry. There is a tremendous feeling against that, and it does raise what seems to me rather a strong constitutional question. The proposal is to give the power of allowing police entry into a club, not to the justices who are the judicial authority, but to the chief of police, a purely executive authority. On what is a judicial question, that seems to me to be absolutely contrary to all the rules by which our jurisprudence has usually been bound. For all these reasons, I feel that this is not a Bill to which your Lordships ought to give a Second Reading, and I beg to leave out the word "now" in order to insert at the end "this day six months."
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Bayford.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I feel that no one can complain of the extremely courteous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has stated his case. For myself I believe in club life. I spent nine years of my life regularly visiting the clubs of the working classes of London, and I feel absolutely sure that what Lord Bayford says is quite right, that the working classes ought to have clubs, and that they want clubs more than we do. We have better homes than they have. Clubs are very exciting places, especially big clubs. In discussions there the Church is being disestablished night after night, and the House of Lords swept away like driftwood, and no one is a penny the worse. My friends in Conservative and other clubs say that there are certain bogus clubs which bring the genuine clubs into disrepute, and they want them dealt with. No one wishes to attack the genuine clubs for which the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, speaks.
I think on this matter I can speak in my humble capacity as representing the whole of Christian London. I have made

1035
it my pleasure to unite together in London all Christian denominations. Instead of fighting one another, we are now working shoulder to shoulder. When I tell your Lordships that the Vice-Chairman is a Roman Catholic and that every denomination is represented—the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will be glad to hear that some of the best supporters are of his religious persuasion—your Lordships will realise that I really speak to-day on behalf of a very large number of people. Let us have the other side. Let us have the facts which induced the Royal Commission to be unanimous on this point.
This is the sort of thing they say:
"Mr. R. A. J. Walling, Chairman of the Plymouth Licensing Justices, stated that in 1928 the Rifleman's Arms beerhouse, King Street, Plymouth, was closed as redundant on the decision of the justices. No less than £5,200 was paid as compensation to the licensee. There were ten other public-houses within two hundred yards of the Rifleman's Arms. The case was strong, therefore, for the extinction of this beer-house licence. Five days after the licence expired, the premises were reopened by the former licensee as the Rifleman's Social Club. The legal requirements were merely formal; the former licensee as promoter of the club, had only to deposit with the clerk to the justices a few written particulars and 5s. as registration fee. Thus, without the considered review or consent of any public authority, he was able to defeat completely the purpose of the justices in extinguishing the public-house licence…. On the financial side, the National Exchequer lost £23 10s. per annum as licence duty; the local compensation fund lost the annual contribution heretofore received from the beer-house, and was also seriously depleted by the futile expenditure of £5,200."
You shut up a public house at a cost of £5,200 and five days later it is opened as a drinking club!
That is merely one instance. I have several instances here, which of course convinced the Royal Commission of the need for dealing with the question. I will quote one more. This comes from Mr. J. H. Hudson, from Bradford:
"On New Year's Eve, 1929, a beer-house known as the Albert Hotel was closed as redundant. Compensation amounting to no less than £5,800 was paid to the parties interested. Two days later, on January 2, 1930, the same building was registered and opened as a club, with the son of the former publican as the club secretary."
Therefore the effect of the old Licensing Act in closing redundant houses has been
1036
defeated. The same place was opened in two days as a drinking club! Therefore the Royal Commission said:
"We are satisfied that substantial changes in the law are indispensable; and that the law as so altered should be applicable indifferently to the best and to the worst. It is our hope that our proposals will, if applied, effect the elimination or the regeneration of undesirable clubs without proving any source of embarrassment to the many whose conduct is beyond reproach."
Of course, all clubs must come under this Bill. I hope the police will look in at the Athenaeum. What are your Lordships doing in your clubs if you are afraid of policemen looking in? I would have every club under the same supervision. Another point which we should realise is that it is unfair to the licensed victualler. I have always made great friends of the publicans in my district. I called on them when I was rector and made them feel that they were part of the parish. Let me read something concerning a club in the district of Upper Heeley, Sheffield. This is what is said about that club:
"In the five weeks ending December 31, 1931, the balance sheet of the club shows that there was received in subscriptions £5 15s., in entrance fees £23 2s. and for bar takings the astounding sum of £560 17s. 3d."
Obviously that is a pure drinking club. As the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, has dealt so well with that part of club life I will leave his speech to stand without any addition. He has put the case in regard to drinking clubs and the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has put very well the criticisms on the other side. I still believe that we ought to have the policemen coming in, because only in that way can we remedy the evil.
There is however, another aspect of the case which has not been touched upon yet. I refer to those horrible night clubs in the West End of London which we have been unable to touch. Unless there is some legislation we cannot touch them at all. Every last Thursday in the month we sit to try and deal with the morality of London. I will give your Lordships a little history. In 1915 this became such a terrible question that I wrote a letter to The Times. I will not quote it, but the point was that these so-called clubs were a danger to the capital of an Empire at war. I said in that letter that Lord Kitchener had impressed upon men of the Expeditionary Force the importance

1037
of avoiding the particular temptations found in those night clubs. Following the accumulation of evidence on this subject, Sir John Simon introduced the Clubs (Temporary Provisions) Bill and this is what he said:
"These institutions are the resort of every kind of swindler and harpy and of a number of young men, some of them serving in His Majesty's Forces, who either from folly or inexperience, fail to recognise the real character of those whom they meet there."
In the House of Lords, Lord Curzon, who always weighed his words, is reported to have said:
"It was designed to put an end to a great scandal by arresting the growth of night clubs which were really haunts of temptation and dens of iniquity in our great towns. These institutions were not clubs in the proper sense of the term, places of legitimate social intercourse. They were snares which were provided by bad characters to trap unwary men. Open as these places were throughout the night and in the early hours of the morning, there were in them scenes of drinking, gambling and immorality. He had read the reports submitted by the military authorities with regard to a large number of young officers who had been tempted into these places, swindled of their money, drugged and sometimes turned out into the streets, and who had been blackmailed in order to avoid exposure."
That no doubt led Sir John Simon, who was then Home Secretary, to make another speech in 1936. He then stated that it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to deal with the evil of bogus clubs in the next Session, and the King's Speech opening that Session announced the Club's Bill.
Now, in order that your Lordships may realise what sort of clubs these are, I will read some opinions, first of magistrates and then of Chief Constables. On December 4, 1935, a magistrate described a club as a "social pest, demoralising the neighbourhood." On February 17, 1937, a Recorder said:
"We have had to listen to an unpleasant case which arises out of an affray at one of those vile and horrible places that exist in the West End under the title of club."
On December 6, 1936, at Marlborough Street, the magistrate said:
"This is one of the most revolting cases I have ever listened to."
Then there are descriptions of children eight years of age having their hair dyed and being used to entertain in night clubs. The Recorder of London, Sir Holman Gregory, is reported as saying that he considered it as one of the outstanding
1038
scandals of London at the present time that, at nearly every session at the Central Criminal Court, some crime was alleged to have been committed in premises stated to have been conducted as a club, when it was evident from the evidence before the Court that in truth the premises were being conducted as a drinking den of the worst class where all kinds of iniquities took place and were encouraged.
I will leave out the evidence of about six other magistrates who say the same thing, and get on to the Chief Constables. The Chief Constable of Bradford says:
"The fact that twenty ill-conducted clubs were closed during one year points to the conclusion that a not inconsiderable number of clubs in the City are not conducted in good faith and are little better than drinking dens set up solely for the purpose of supplying intoxicating liquor."
The Chief Constables of Liverpool and Leeds say much the same. Then I will get on to the remarks of a certain member of our House whom I think I saw come in just now—Viscount Trenchard. On December 31, 1934, he said:
"The total number of registered clubs was 2,574, an increase of 180 over the previous year…. The present easy system of registration under which there is no power to refuse registration, even when incorrect particulars are supplied to the court, is largely responsible for the continued increase of the low type of proprietary club which is nothing more than a drinking den, and generally breaks the law upon its inception…. It is usually impossible to obtain evidence of irregularities in such clubs unless a police officer associates with the prostitutes and thieves who use them. In other types of club a police officer has to obtain entry as a guest or member, and to spend money which is not his own…An adequate system of registration and inspection by the registration authority should suffice to put an end to bogus and ill-conducted clubs."
That was from Lord Trenchard, when he was head of the police.
Sir Philip Game, the present head of the police, says the same thing:
"These clubs are, as a rule, well conducted and give the police very little trouble. The same cannot be said of clubs classified as 'Social.' To a great extent the increase in this type of club is due to the registration of proprietary clubs which are nothing but unlicensed public-houses and often break the law from inception. I referred in my last Report to the difficulties which confront the police in handling these commercial ventures, which not infrequently spring up overnight and go out of existence just as quickly, either from failure to show a profit to the proprietor or by reason of police attention. Most of the police proceedings relate to these clubs, in

1039
which offences can only be detected by securing the admission of police officers under the most undesirable conditions."
I have pages more of evidence, but I have said quite enough.
What I feel is that Lord Bayford in his reply did not really consider the question of who is going to deal with these clubs. At present these clubs are, as all these people say, an open sore in London: you cannot deal with them unless the unfortunate policeman is made to go there in mufti, pretend to be a bad character himself and drink in them; then his evidence is taken. It seems to me monstrous, in a Christian country like this, that that should be necessary. When I think over why the Government are hesitating, I believe that their hesitation is first of all due to the great unpopularity of these matters. I do think, however, that we ought as a democracy to have a little more backbone. When I went to the late Home Secretary, Sir John Gilmour, I put twenty filthy publications before him and asked "How are you going to deal with this?" One of the deputation behind me said, "Are we to wait for Hitler to come and deal with this? I thought this was the business of a National Government." Sir John was struck with this remark and was very much pleased at the result of prosecuting in one case: he said he had got £500 fine in one of them. As a democracy—and I am all for democracy—we must show ourselves braver and have more backbone than we sometimes do. We ought to face an unpopular thing like this for the sake of the souls of the people who are being injured by it.
The second point is the position of the policeman. I fully agree that many clubs might not be content to have policemen looking in at any moment, but that is not proposed; no policeman can enter except by leave of the Chief Constable. We should never be afraid that our own clubs should be inspected, because it is for the good of the whole nation that they should be. I know the difficulty about finding the time. With half Europe in an uproar and the world in the state in which it is, I can perfectly sympathise with a Government who try to keep the peace of the world. I believe that this is the time to take action. I well remember during the last War, being asked by the military
1040
authorities and the Government to go down to Aldershot and try to stop the drinking shambles that existed there during the first week of the War. I went down and the drunkenness at the beginning of the War was terrible. The Prime Minister said: "We are fighting three enemies: Germany, Austria and the drink, and the most dangerous is the drink." I feel that just when we are starting a Keep Fit Campaign and are trying to get all the young men of the nation together to be ready for another war—if we have to have one—that is the time to come in. I hope the Government will take up this Bill, amend it in small details in order to satisfy Lord Bayford's criticisms, and make it their own. In any case I pray very much that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading without dissent.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I rise only for the purpose of trying to explain the attitude of my Party towards the general principles of this Bill. We have no Party attitude in regard to clubs as such, but in common with the rest of the community we desire that clubs should be well conducted and that they should be really conducted for the purpose for which clubs are designed: that of social intercourse and of political activity, or social helpfulness in one form or another. Therefore we are not in the least concerned to back up any lawlessness that may take place under the cover of the word "club," and we are not disposed to deny that such clubs may exist, or that regulation may be desirable to protect the public from some of their results. It is possible that under the cover of the word "club" any set of men may be able to secure certain immunities and privileges which were intended for bona-fide representative persons. There is no doubt evidence that the purpose of the Acts governing club life has been and is being abused and that the good name and traditions of the club movement are being or may be abused.
But we feel at the same time that we must be excessively careful that we do not in our zeal injure the bona-fide clubs in the country. I heard a comment made this afternoon that the number of clubs during the last generation had greatly increased. I am not convinced that that is an evil. Remember always that during the last forty years the habit of associated living has greatly increased. In all forms of life we congregate together

1041
in tiny communities with those who are kin with us in ideas or other things. The habit of associated living has grown, and the club movement has grown in conjunction with it. I have been associated with the club movement nearly all my adult life, though I do not think I ever had a drink in any club to which I have belonged, and I want to pay my humble testimony to the general good conduct of the properly representative working men's clubs. The Working Men's Club and Institute Union has within its compass some 2,820 clubs, each one of which has been very carefully examined before it has been admitted to membership. It does not follow, of course, that individual clubs have not done wrong here and there; but as a rule these clubs have served a socially useful purpose, and I would remind the critics of them that for a long period, especially in our London life, they were the only vehicles of political organisation and expression for a certain section of the community.
The old Metropolitan Radical Clubs represented the voice of advanced Liberalism forty years ago, and I think that not only were those clubs of benefit to the individuals who belonged to them, but they were of great benefit to the community. I do not know that any club is the better for any lecture that I ever gave in it, but I have given many scores of lectures in many clubs in London and elsewhere. These clubs provide the opportunity for people who want to meet together to do so without being forced to drink, and they provide opportunities for self-education and for getting information about the affairs of the world.
As to the increase in club life, I would like to make this observation, that to the best of my belief there is far less drunkenness in London, to-day, than there was forty years ago. I am sure the right reverend Prelate will be inclined to agree with me that forty years ago, when he was at Oxford House—when I first knew him—there was immensely more degraded drunkenness in London than there is to-day. I think it must be weeks since I saw a drunken man reeling in the streets of London. That improvement has gone on parallel with club life, and I would just like to say this for my Party, that we shall never consent to any method of inspection of clubs which is discriminatory—which is limited to working men's
1042
clubs. If inspection is provided, it must be for the Carlton Club as well as for any other club—
A NOBLE LORD: And the Athenaeum.
LORD SNELL:—and personally I should like to be the inspector of the Carlton Club. I should very much like to know what goes on there.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: Will not the noble Lord become a member?
LORD SNELL: Having said what I have, I would add that I think the measure which the noble Lord has introduced is one of considerable importance, and that it should be examined. The Government, over and over again, promised to deal with this question, but this promise, like so many of their promises, has not been fulfilled. This Bill is really a Government Default Bill, and ought to be so named. I ask your Lordships to believe that my Party has nothing to gain from a nation which is not sober—indeed, we have every interest in promoting sobriety—but while we say that, we do not want any injury to be done to institutions which are bona-fide institutions and perform a certain purpose. If your Lordships give to this Bill a Second Reading, its provisions should be very carefully examined in the Committee stage.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I will intervene for a very few moments in order to state my reasons for supporting the Second Reading of my noble friend's Bill. When I observed that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Bayford, was going to move its rejection, knowing how long and important his experience has been, both in holding high office, and still more in his knowledge of the conduct of local affairs, I felt sure that any expression of opinion which he gave would receive, and ought to receive, earnest attention from your Lordships' House. I think, however, it is fair to say that the intention of my noble friend's Bill is simply and entirely to deal with the evil of clubs some of which are called bogus clubs, and others which are not absolutely bogus but still badly conducted. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who leads the Opposition that there is nothing to regret in the large multiplication of clubs, especially working men's clubs. There is nothing whatever to

1043
regret in the fact itself, but my noble friend is of opinion, and his opinion is backed up by a great deal of evidence, that too large a proportion of the vast increase in clubs is composed of clubs which had better be done away with, and which, it may be added, compete very unfairly with well-conducted licensed houses.
Lord Bayford does not think that the provisions of the Bill as it has been brought in will seriously deal with the evil of bogus and ill-conducted clubs, while on the other hand some of those provisions, in his opinion, may interfere seriously with the comfort of well-conducted clubs. Take, for instance, the question of examining the proportions of various articles consumed in different clubs. Lord Bayford was seriously concerned lest, when the annual report of the Athenaeum Club was issued, it should be found that the proportion of alcoholic drink, compared with that of solid nourishment, almost compared with the famous figures so well known as stated by Sir John Falstaff. There are various other matters including police entry and what the actual composition of the Committee should be—all these in the noble Lord's opinion are likely to work out unfairly to legitimate clubs. Whether that is so or not, this appears to me to be a complete reason for giving this Bill a Second Reading, because every one of those points might be, and certainly would be, carefully examined in Committee, and if the case as put by Lord Bayford was shown to be proved by the vote of the majority of your Lordships' House those particular provisions would be rejected. So far as I am able to judge this measure has been drawn with very great care to avoid grievances of that kind.
What is the actual view of His Majesty's Government regarding the Second Reading of this Bill? I have no idea, but I think it would be fair to ask whether, if this oft-predicted measure should be introduced by His Majesty's Government, it would contain provisions very different from this one. This Bill is founded upon the recommendations of the Licensing Commission and those recommendations, as I understand the matter, have been scrupulously adhered to. It would be interesting to know whether in the view of
1044
His Majesty's Government the purpose of the Bill is not really so important as some of us think, and as the right reverend Prelate has stated that he believes it to be, and that therefore it is really not worth while to cumber up the present Session, or indeed one might say the present Parliament, with any attempt to legislate upon the subject. If that is so, all I can say is that I greatly regret it and therefore, when my noble friend behind me goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill seemed to think that it was aimed at working men's clubs. The Bill is not directed against working men's clubs. It is really for the encouragement of working men's clubs. What the Bill is directed against is undesirable and bogus clubs. As far as I have been able to gather, the number of undesirable and bogus clubs on the register is something like 4,000. Against those 4,000 clubs this Bill is directed. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill stated that he spoke as representing the Association of Conservative Clubs and also the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. We had a considerable amount of evidence before the Licensing Commission from both those bodies and from other similar bodies, and the conclusion we reached was that all those clubs were reasonably well conducted and required no special provision. And when we came to consider our Report we endeavoured as far as we could to draw a line between well-conducted clubs and undesirable clubs so as to provide a working plan for legislation which might apply to the one and not to the other, but it was found impracticable to do so. Accordingly we had to adopt the scheme suggested in this Bill of applying the same law to all clubs.
The problem of dealing with undesirable clubs is no new thing. It was because of undesirable clubs that legislation was first introduced in the Act of 1902. Within two years of the passing of that Act it was found that there were so many loopholes in it that the law was evaded, and the great increase in these bogus clubs from that time to this is attributable to the fact that cunning and unscrupulous persons were able to get

1045
round the law. Between 1905 to the time of the outbreak of the War in 1914, something like five Bills were introduced in another place to amend the law in this respect—not Bills sponsored by any one political Party, but by various sections of the House of Commons—in order to strengthen the law with regard to clubs. After the War the question was raised again, not only in regard to undesirable clubs but also in regard to the general administration of the licensing laws. There was criticism that some licensing benches were taking a too restricted view of their duties in not permitting improvements in public-houses; others complained that licensing benches were not exercising their power to remove redundant houses; others again complained that the whole notion of the public-house was misconceived, that it should not be a drinking shop but a place where one could go and get a meal or get non-alcoholic refreshment, and there were other matters of complaint.
During those years from 1919 to 1929, when the Commission was appointed, numerous Bills were introduced which sought to amend the law in various ways. So much so that it was given out, if I remember correctly, by the respective Leaders of the three political Parties that in the event of their Party being returned to office at the General Election of 1929 a thorough inquiry would be made into the whole subject. After the General Election the Labour Government took office. They at once fulfilled their promise, and the Licensing Commission was appointed. We had before that Commission voluminous evidence on the subject of clubs. The conclusion was that the vast majority of clubs were well-conducted and required no special legislation, but there was a large proportion which really made the law a laughing stock. The idea that this Bill, which is founded on the recommendations of the Licensing Commission, is directed against working men's clubs is a great mistake. It has nothing to do with them. It is directed against persons who have plenty of money and who squander it in these disgusting clubs.
The record of the Government in regard to this matter is not very happy. My noble friend Lord Clwyd pointed out that the Government had intimated some two or three years ago that if a Private Member's Bill was withdrawn they would
1046
introduce a Bill the following Session. Those who shared the noble Lord's views have been repeatedly disillusioned, and I think the noble Lord did the right thing in introducing this Bill. The Government having failed in this respect, the noble Lord was entitled as a private member to take the matter into his own hands. As I read this Bill, it contains three main propositions. First of all, it sets up a new registration authority. Secondly, it provides that the application for the registration of a new club should be made by persons of good character, that the club premises should be suitable for the purposes of a club, and that the objects of the club should be legitimate. Thirdly, it provides for a restricted right of entry on the part of the police. With regard to the registration authority, as your Lordships know, the registration of a club to-day, whether the club is desirable or undesirable, honest or bogus, is purely formal. Some persons may send in a list of names stating they want to form a club, they fill in further particulars that are purely formal, pay a sum of 5s., and the club is registered. The view which the Licensing Commission took, and in my opinion it is a wise view, was that there must be some discretion exercised with regard to registration. It considered that some neutral body should be set up as the registration authority.
We considered that it was undesirable to put such a duty on the local authority because it might raise awkward questions. We thought of the County Court Judge, and it occurred to us that most of these registration duties would have to be dealt with in the large towns, and we had information to the effect that already the County Court Judges in large towns were overburdened with work. We considered every possible means of setting up an independent registration authority, and we came to the conclusion that the only way was to enable justices—not necessarily licensing justices, but justices in general—to appoint a small committee of their own number, not less than three or more than five, to act as registration authority. In county boroughs the registration authority would be appointed by the justices of the borough, and in other than county boroughs it would be appointed by Quarter Sessions. It seems to me that that would give us a wholly impartial body. If your Lordships can

1047
suggest any alternative neutral authority, I am sure the promoter of the Bill would be pleased to accept the suggestion.
Next with regard to the original application of the club for registration. At the present time anyone—it does not matter how bad his character—may apply for registration, and his application cannot be refused. The justices' clerk, who is the registration authority, may know perfectly well that the applicant is a person of indifferent character, and yet he can do nothing. He may also know that the premises to be used as a club are quite unsuitable, but again he can do nothing. The club must be registered. It seems to me that that is very undesirable. What we proposed, therefore, and what the Bill proposes, is that persons applying must be of good character, that the premises in question must be suitable for the purposes of a club, and that the object of the club should be a legitimate object, that, for example, it will not be used merely as a drinking den or anything of that kind. I need not go into the suitability of premises. Under the present law a club may be located in a cellar or in a garret. I remember a case in which the premises were immediately under the roof. It was a smallish room, and the only furniture was a table, a few chairs, and a barrel of beer in the corner. There was lavatory accommodation, but there was no door to it. The membership of the club consisted of men and women, and when the police entered there were men and women there. Accommodation like that is surely most undesirable. Is there any reason why that should not be put a stop to?
I come to the third and perhaps the most difficult point, and it may well be that some means might be suggested other than giving a right of entry to the police. But first let me point out that the entry is a most restricted one. First of all, the Chief Constable must have his suspicions about the club; there must be something wrong. It does not mean that this power of entry is to be used generally. It is only to be used in regard to undesirable clubs. Where the Chief Constable has these suspicions or information, he appoints an officer not under the rank of inspector to go and visit the club. This authorisation under the Bill, and as the Royal Commission recommended, will name the club and the
1048
day and the hours between which entry may take place. If the entry does not take place within those hours that particular authorisation becomes null and void. Compare that with the right of entry during the War. Then any officer not under the rank of inspector could enter any club premises at any time—by force if need be—during the day or during the night. That provision was in force for four years during the War, and there was no complaint about it.
These, briefly, are the three main propositions in the Bill. There is only one other point I may mention. When the Act of 1902 was passed it was the apparent intention of Parliament that there should be an interval of twelve months between the closing of the public-house and its being opened as a registered club. But the Act of 1902 did not carry out that intention. What it did say was, in effect, twelve months from the refusal of the renewal of the licence. A public-house is not closed when the renewal is refused on the ground of redundancy. If a renewal is refused in these circumstances, the publican is entitled to get a provisional licence to run until such time as compensation has been paid, and it sometimes takes a long time to settle these compensation questions. The result is that in no case is there an interval of twelve months and the house may remain open for a year or more, and the day after it is closed as a public-house it can be opened as a club. Cases have occurred where compensation has been paid and the house opened next day as a registered club. That is a grave injustice to other licence holders who contribute to the funds of the pool out of which this compensation is paid. They expect, when the compensation is paid and the public-house is closed, that they will get some part of the trade that went to that particular house. There is injustice there. A period of five years, as proposed by the Bill, would be better. With regard to the other portions of the Bill these are matters that might be dealt with in Committee. It seems to me that the Bill is well founded, it is reasonable, and should commend itself to the House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, there is little to be said after this very interesting

1049
discussion. On two points, I imagine, there is complete agreement in your Lordships' House. The one is the reality, the extent, and the gravity of the evil with which this Bill proposes to deal, and the other is the necessity for some effective legislation. I do not think anyone really can dispute these two propositions. I am not going to weary your Lordships by giving any more instances than those which were so fully put before you by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill and the Bishop of London, though I have, like them, a great mass of evidence at my disposal. I would rather call attention to two general proofs of the extent of the evil and of the necessity for legislation.
The one, of course, is the recommendations of the Royal Commission which was so ably presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who has just spoken, and I think his words must carry very great weight with your Lordships' House. You will notice that the Commission received evidence from every part of the country, and from all those admirable unions of working men, including the Conservative Clubs, on behalf of which the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, was speaking, and, therefore, everything they have had to say was said fully and completely before the Commission. It is worth noting that the total number of the members belonging to the clubs affiliated with these various admirable unions was only about half of the total number of members of registered clubs. But it was after hearing everything that could be said, and rightly said, on behalf of the whole club movement, that the Royal Commissioners were impelled by the evidence they received to come to the conclusion that the evil was so great that only special legislation of this kind could deal with it. Those of your Lordships who remember the history of most Licensing Commissions and Committees must be astonished that unanimity was possible upon this subject. There was nothing but unanimity on the part of the Committee, and I submit that that ought to be regarded as almost conclusive proof that the evil is great, and that drastic legislation is necessary to deal with it.
The other evidence I will take from His Majesty's Government themselves. As your Lordships have been reminded—and I do not want to rehearse the various
1050
episodes in the—shall I say?—not too glorious record of the Government in this matter—no fewer than three times since 1936 a Bill to deal with this evil has been in the King's Speech, and over and over again it has been postponed. I have only two observations to make about that. The first is that it is conclusive proof that His Majesty's Government recognise that there is this evil and that legislation must be and ought to be introduced. The other observation is that I fully understand the difficulty of the Government finding time in another place for a Bill which certainly would have some opposition and would require very great scrutiny. We all know and sympathise with the immense burden which is laid upon the Government at the present time, but I venture to say that there is considerable danger lest our very natural preoccupation with the necessities of defence should result in neglect of many matters that vitally affect the social welfare of the whole people. We must be continually on our guard lest this necessary care for defence should result in withholding the legislation which is proved to be necessary. I agree with what was said by the Bishop of London. Anxious as we are to defend what we call our democratic liberties, it is of almost equal importance to see that nothing grows up in our midst which would sap the moral and physical strength of our people, and I think it is manifest that over a very wide area these bogus clubs are having precisely that effect.
Now I do not propose to say much that I might otherwise have said, especially after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who is much more entitled to your Lordships' attention on this matter than I am. Perhaps, however, before I pass from my remarks about the Government I ought to say this. Granted that the Government find it very difficult to find time for this purpose, that seems to be no reason why we in your Lordships' House, who have a greater command of time than His Majesty's Government in another place, should not make an attempt to construct out of the material which is available a workable Bill. That would only assist the Government if they see fit to take up the legislation themselves, and at any rate it would be a proof that Parliament was not disposed to allow this matter to drift further.

1051
I have been asking myself where the opposition comes from to a case which, as it seems to me, is very manifest. I know it does not come from the licensed victuallers, as many might suppose, because they keenly resent the unfair competition to which they are exposed on the part of persons who are not subject to restrictions as regards premises, character, hours and the like to which they have to submit. The Royal Commission make it plain that the evidence was quite clear that the licensed victuallers felt that they had not a ground for opposing this measure, but every ground for supporting it. Nor can I bring myself to think that there is any opposition on the side of the great brewing industry. I know that the Royal Commission did venture to say—I think I had better use their words:
"We have received conclusive evidence that some sections of the brewing industry have…. by means more or less direct, lent financial or other assistance towards the formation…. of clubs in which their wares may find an outlet"—
but I cannot believe that the brewing industry as a whole would wish to be associated with such methods of promoting their sales.
The real opposition, as we have heard this afternoon, comes from those who are keenly interested in working men's clubs. Like the Bishop of London I have been associated with working men's clubs of one kind or another for the greater part of my life, and I entirely agree with every word that was said by Lord Amulree on that matter. I hope that, whatever happens to the Second Reading this afternoon, it will be made known that those who support the Second Reading of this Bill are in no sense antagonistic to or suspicious of the movement of working men's clubs. With Lord Snell I think that movement is a very good thing. The number of clubs has increased, and I think he is right in saying that there is more sense of community in our midst than there used to be. Like Lord Amulree I belong to a club which has been mentioned more than once with a certain degree of—shall I say?—caustic humour, the Athenaeum, but I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord has been very fortunate in his own clubs if he only finds there the persons he always wishes to meet.
But when the noble Lord says that the working man in his club is entitled to
1052
enjoy society of a different kind from that which he would have in the public-house, I have to remind him that in the clubs with which this Bill would seek to deal the working men often find precisely the sort of society which would not be permitted inside any public-house, society of the very lowest. It is such clubs as those about which we are concerned. The noble Lord objected to the clause about the extension of hours. No doubt in the clubs about which he is thinking there is no great reason why members should not be able to refresh themselves when they think it necessary and convenient. But we have to deal with cases like these. I take one at random. In 1934 certain clubs in Maidenhead were raided by the police, and it was established in evidence that drink was supplied there evening after evening long after midnight, that drink was sold more cheaply than in the neighbouring public-houses and during longer hours. These are the difficulties we have to meet.
The noble Lord quite naturally finds some difficulty about allowing the police to have entry for purposes of inspection. May I say that I very much hope I may be at the Athenaeum when the noble Lord, Lord Snell, comes to inspect us in due course? But on this point I would call attention to what was said by two heads of the London police force. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said of the kind of club with which this Bill deals:
"It is usually impossible to obtain evidence of irregularities in such clubs unless a police officer associates with the prostitutes and thieves who use them…. An adequate system of registration and inspection by the registration authority"—
precisely what is provided for in this Bill—
"should suffice to put an end to bogus and ill-conducted clubs."
Sir Phillip Game said in 1936:
"I referred in my last Report to the difficulties which confront the police in handling these commercial ventures…. Most of the police proceedings relate to these clubs, in which offences can only be detected by securing the admission of police officers under the most undesirable conditions."
Indeed, we are all familiar with the ignominy placed upon the members of the police force in being compelled to find means of entry to many of these most undesirable clubs. The Royal Commission made it plain that we cannot find any

1053
method of dealing with the bogus club except by general registration. The genuine working men's club has nothing to fear from restrictions, if they are restrictions imposed by this Bill.
The noble Lord spoke of the possibility of working men's club having perhaps to employ counsel in an application for renewal. He must be very nervous about some of these clubs if he thinks that is a reasonable prospect. It would be a purely automatic business in the case of clubs which, your Lordships will agree, are a very useful feature of our social life. What I suggest is that while these clubs have nothing to fear from registration, they have more to fear lest they should be regarded as supporting clubs of the undesirable kind. All good working men's clubs should be willing to accept some restrictions that may be irksome but which cannot possibly be deleterious, in order to rid the country of an evil which over and over again has been shown to be almost intolerable. I hope that by voting for the Second Reading of this Bill your Lordships will at least record your conviction that it is an evil, long continued, which can be remedied, and which ought to be remedied without delay.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I shall say only a very few words about this Bill. In the first place I must thank Lord Clwyd for having brought it to the notice of your Lordships' House. I well know how persistent he has been in this matter, and I think that the debate to-day must hearten him a great deal in his efforts. I see the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in his place and I am sorry that he has not taken part in the debate, because it is exactly three years ago, in March, 1936, that he initiated a similar discussion in your Lordships' House. On that occasion a Resolution was come to that
"this House is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should take measures for controlling the promotion and spread of undesirable drinking clubs."
In order to make my own position clear I should explain to your Lordships that I have been a magistrate for more years than I like to remember in London, and that for five or six years I was chairman in one of the most important divisions of London—Hanover Square—in which position I have been happily succeeded by my noble friend Viscount Mersey. One of the great troubles about
1054
these clubs is that the only possible occasions you can get hold of them is when, as they sometimes do, they venture to apply for an extension for supper. It is very hard in London itself, after spending nearly £5,000,000 in getting rid of redundant houses, to find that very often the same premises are opened as clubs. My noble friend who moved the rejection of the Bill has been accused of thinking that the Conservative clubs and other clubs for working men fear this Bill. They have a fear in one sense, that they do not like the idea of the police entering the club. I think if this Bill does go forward there will be a great deal of opposition from many people to that proposal. It must be remembered that the Royal Commission sat ten years ago.
I venture to suggest to those interested in the matter that they should read the report of the debate which took place on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, to which I have referred. The noble Lord, Lord Askwith, brought to the notice of the House the procedure in Scotland where this evil does not exist. It is of a very simple character. Two magistrates have to vouch for the club and there are other rules about the formation of the club. If there is any objection, it has to come for final decision to the Sheriff. It is suggested that in this country instead of the Sheriff either the County Court Judge, or in London possibly the Metropolitan Police Magistrate, should be substituted as the court of appeal. There is a great deal of objection to registration by the justices. In this Bill it is not clear whether the whole of the enormous bench of Quarter Sessions is going to decide the question.
I do not want to say more than to express the hope that the Government will bring in a Bill of their own, because I am perfectly certain that even if this Bill passes your Lordships' House it will not get through the House of Commons in its present form. I am confident that we are all desirous of getting rid of this evil, and I appeal to the Government to make some pronouncement this afternoon, either that they will modify this Bill—although I doubt whether in some respects it is capable of modification—or will bring in a Bill of their own. If they ask their supporters to reject this Bill I hope that they will make it perfectly clear that they will introduce a Bill this Session without further delay

1055
and really get it through. It is an awful evil, and affects not only London, though London has been held up; but if you read the evidence you find that these unlicensed clubs also abound in Liverpool, Cardiff, and all our big towns. I quite agree that no well-conducted club need fear, but I feel that there are a lot of reasons, with all due deference to the noble Lord who explained the recommendations of the Royal Commission to-night, why it would be far safer not to attempt to get those recommendations through if we are really determined to stamp out the evil which we all desire to eradicate.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, when I listened to the noble Lord who moved the rejection, I was wondering why he was asking us to support him in trying to kill this Bill. When the noble Lord, Lord Snell, spoke there was a great measure of support on the Government side, judging by the applause which he got, and it seemed to me that he stated the case very fairly and very truly. He indicated what most of the speakers seem to have agreed—namely, that the overwhelming number of clubs are perfectly sound and satisfactory, whether they be athletic, social or political. Nobody wants to touch them. As far as I can see, if this Bill were to go through it would not seriously inconvenience them. I confess that, after listening to the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and to the most reverend Primate who has just spoken, I am amazed that this morning the Government should have sent round a Whip urging their supporters to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford. As the noble Marquess said, if the Government carry out their oft-promised pledge to deal with clubs, any Bill they bring in cannot possibly differ in any great substance from that which is now before your Lordships' House. The obvious course is to let this Bill have a Second Reading. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, very carefully, and it struck me that most of his objections were of a kind which could be dealt with in Committee and that he was not objecting to the fundamental principles of the Bill.
I am perfectly certain that no members of the ordinary working men's clubs need have any fear, any more than the members of the Athenaeum, the Carlton, or any of the other clubs, that they will be
1056
seriously inconvenienced if this Bill is passed, even in its present shape. But although the overwhelming number of clubs are perfectly sound and respectable in every way, we are bound to admit that there are a certain number of undesirables, and it is in the interests of the sound and the good clubs to have legislation passed which will induce the authorities to deal with these bogus, undesirable institutions. The noble Lord who has just spoken said that the Royal Commission sat some years ago. That is quite true. He suggested that the evidence submitted to them might be out-of-date. If there had been no evidence since 1929, or whenever it was that the Commission sat, he would be justified in making that objection; but it would be possible, were it not so late in the day, to quote overwhelming up-to-date evidence—opinions this year, last year, from magistrates, from Chief Constables, indicating that the problem still exists. This is not a temperance question; it is a social problem.
LORD JESSEL: If the noble Lord will excuse me for interrupting: I do not in the least disagree with what he has said about the evil; nor did I say that I did not agree that the evil existed. What I said was about the machinery of 1929 that is advocated. It is the machinery; that is the reason.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I beg pardon; I apologise to the noble Lord if I have misunderstood what he was saying. If the machinery in this Bill is not up-to-date, surely we can deal with that matter in Committee. If the Government were to bring in a Bill next week, it could not be—if it were at all a reasonable Bill—drafted on substantially different lines from the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. Most of the objections have been dealt with by noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion before me. I wish the Government would stand up a little more vigorously to these ultimatums. It is so easy to get an organised interest to pass a resolution—particularly at a delegate conference, when the ordinary members do not know the true nature of the problem on which their representatives are asked to pass an opinion.
We have been told that there are 400,000 members of the working men's

1057
clubs, 480,000 members of the Conservative clubs, and 250,000 members of golf clubs, and that the whole of these 1,130,000, or whatever the exact total may be, have considered this problem and are to a hundred per cent. agreed that this measure ought to be opposed. I am perfectly certain that if the ordinary members of all these clubs—and it is my privilege to be a member, not only of some of the London clubs, but also of working-class clubs and others in the country, both in cities and in country districts—had an opportunity of hearing the right reverend Prelate's speech just now, of hearing the case stated impartially, a large number would support some proposal on these lines. I refuse to believe that they are not just as ready to put up with slight inconvenience, if inconvenience be necessary, in order to deal with a social problem.
Once again, I hope that the Government will not be deflected by these ultimatums. We had an illustration only a few weeks ago. Your Lordships know, and anybody who has studied the question knows, that every year there are some 2,000 deaths from bovine tuberculosis and 5,000 or 6,000 new cases. An ultimatum is presented when the Government propose to bring in a measure which would give us safer milk, and the Bill is withdrawn. It would be a great relief if, on this occasion and at this opportunity here to-day, the Government would show that they are not to be deflected from what they consider to be the right course. Your Lordships have heard, and we know, that on several occasions in recent years they have given undertakings, they have admitted that there is a problem which ought to be dealt with; and I think that they ought to carry out at least this undertaking.
We are all, whether we are travellers, Income Tax payers or anything else, obliged to put up with inconvenience for the public good. I am perfectly certain that the attitude of the general members of clubs, whatever their nature may be, will depend upon the way in which the case is presented to them. If they are asked to vote on a resolution which assumes that a Bill is to be brought in containing an unwarrantable interference with their rights or their liberties, or which gives no indication of the existence
1058
of a problem, of course the representatives of those clubs, at a delegate conference, would vote in favour of a particular proposal against the measure. But, I am equally convinced that if the real social need were put before them, and if they were asked to make some slight contribution, and to put up with some slight inconvenience, the clubs, even if they consisted of 100 per cent. Colonel Blimps, would be prepared to support sound legislation. I know enough of the working classes to know that they would give support to a reasonable measure to deal with what is admitted to be a real social evil.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I feel that I ought to say a few words on this Bill, because, as I have told your Lordships before, I am an acting and active chairman of the largest bench in London which suffers from this evil, the central part of Westminster. Your Lordships' House, on the opening of a new Parliament, takes as its first business, in the enforcement of your undoubted privileges, a Bill for the regulation of select vestries, and I would like to suggest to the Leader of the House that in future instead of passing a Bill for the first time for the regulation of select vestries, we should instead pass a Bill for the regulation of bogus clubs. I do not know whether the noble Earl who is going to answer on behalf of the Government is going to stand up in a white sheet, and if he is I think it must be a really old one, but I hope he is going to tell us that the Government intend to do something.
This afternoon, we have had on one side the Leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Liberal Party, we have had the Primate, we have had the Bishop of London and the Chairman of the Licensing Commission, and also a large public benefactor like the noble Viscount who has just spoken. Surely that list must suggest to your Lordships that the best sense of the House is in favour of some kind of legislation being initiated very soon. One recognises, of course, that at this moment the Government are heavily overloaded with much more important work, and I think my noble friend, by introducing this Bill, has spiked their guns—perhaps they do not very much mind—in regard to introducing another Bill. But I understand there is a Bill in another place, and perhaps they will be willing to amend that Bill or this

1059
Bill, so that something effective can be done. I know it is a difficult problem, but there are real evils which ought to be dealt with, and dealt with soon. It is quite a mistake to pretend that this Bill is directed against clubs. It is not directed against clubs in any sense. This Bill is only directed against bogus clubs. There are not a great many of such clubs, but in a bad area such as Westminster there are a considerable number of bad clubs, which are in competition, and very unfair competition, with licensed houses.
I will just give statistics as to the areas which I know best. In my own division of Hanover Square (St. George's) there are 152 licensed premises, restaurants and public houses, and 123 clubs. In the adjacent division of St. James's, which includes the whole of Soho, there are 187 licensed premises and 223 clubs. Your Lordships can therefore see what a poor chance the licensed victualler has in carrying on his business. Clubs pay no compensation, and are subject to no supervision, and they only appear before the licensing justices if they come to apply for a supper licence. I think my own views were adequately expressed by Lord Snell. I am not particularly in love with this Bill, and I have not seen the Bill in another place, but I shall be amply satisfied if the spokesman for the Government can tell us, to-day, that the Government really do mean to implement a promise which is now so old.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the discussion on this Bill, but I feel that I should like to remind your Lordships how far the extraordinary degree of unanimity with regard to supporting either this Bill or something like it has gone. I do not say that I can speak for the Bench of Bishops. Perhaps some of you think that the Bench of Bishops are rather prejudiced on this particular question, but I am quite sure that however differing the views of the Bishops are on a great number of other questions, they are unanimous on this particular subject of debate. The Archbishop of York and a great many other Bishops have written to me on the subject. The Archbishop of York says he is so sorry that he cannot be in the House of Lords but that I am fully at liberty to say, if I like, how
1060
eager he would have been to urge that Lord Clwyd's Bill should go forward. I would also ask your Lordships to remember how unanimous was the report of the Royal Commission. Sixteen to three were the numbers of those who supported the Report and its recommendation as a whole, while all nineteen voted for this particular portion dealing with clubs.
It was my privilege a few weeks ago to head a deputation to the Home Secretary with regard to this question. I suppose there must have been fifty men there, from all parts of England and Wales, representing the Anglican, Roman, Presbyterian Congregational, Baptist and Methodist Churches, the Salvation Army and the Friends. They were unanimous, as very few gatherings of various Churches have ever been in the past, in their desire that something should be done, as men who know what damage has been caused by bogus clubs. There you have at any rate three sets of people, all of them distinctly opposed to the present state of affairs with regard to bogus clubs. But these are not all. It is not merely the Bishops and the Churches and the Royal Commission, but the Brewers' Journal says:
"We are determined that the public scandal of the clubs shall not go unremedied."
And again, "Legislation is bound to come." The Morning Advertiser, the trade daily, also in its leaders, has admitted, over and over again, the need for legislation. Why? Because it knows perfectly well that these bogus clubs are detrimental to their business and a discredit to the trade.
As if that were not enough we have the licensed victuallers on our side, for they regard the clubs as grossly unfair competitors. This is what they say in the organ of the National Consultative Council of the Retail Liquor Trade on the clubs question:
"The existing position with regard to permitted hours in clubs is profoundly unsatisfactory to the retail liquor trade. The permitted hours in licensed premises are fixed by the licensing justices for the district. Clubs can within the statutory limits fix their own hours."
We have that on one side. And the licensing magistrates are, so far as I know, unanimously in favour of some such Bill as this.

1061
All these various strains of people in different kinds of business, whether they are, some of them, so to speak professional social reformers or not, are unanimous with regard to the particular evil with which this Bill deals. I appeal to the Government, on the weight of that great support, to allow this Bill to go on, and let them find out from the experience of the Bill in this House what it can do, and whether it covers the ground or not. I make a real appeal to them on those grounds, and I would like to add in a closing word that nobody, I am sure, who is likely to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill is an enemy to the club system as a system. Years ago in my first parish I myself applied for a licence for drink for a club that I started. The club that is well run is really a help to the social life and amenities of the place, and there is no reason at all why any of the clubs that are properly conducted should suffer under this Bill.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I think that the nature of this debate will convince every one of us that it has been a most worth-while discussion on a most important subject—not merely an important one but, I think we are all agreed, a most difficult one. I could not help admiring the caution of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who, in a most delightful and valuable speech, yet managed not to take any very definite line in committing his Party to any view on the subject. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, was a little bit optimistic when, in the first few words of his speech, he spoke of the measure of agreement on this subject. The trouble is that there is so very little agreement when you get down to dealing with details, and I think if there is one thing that is quite clear from this debate it is that this subject is going to be settled on the question of the details. The real trouble is the complete sincerity on both sides. On the one hand you have that tremendous mass of people for whom Lord Clwyd spoke and for whom the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester also spoke to-day and the other day in a deputation to the Home Secretary; and on the other hand the sincerity with which this great body of working men genuinely fear an invasion of what they feel to be their liberties and their rights. We have
1062
upwards of 2,000,000 members of completely bona-fide clubs, but unfortunately the rights which are properly accorded to them are being abused by a comparatively extremely small number of people. The question before us is how far we are going to find it possible to deal with this minority without interfering with the legitimate rights of the majority.
Now I think comes a rather general reflection into one's mind—namely, that to-day I think we all have perhaps rather less belief in being able to promote sobriety by legislation. I see here the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who is Chairman of the National Fitness Council, and I cannot help feeling that the encouragement of movements such as that is going to do as much for the promotion of real sobriety as any legislation. Most noble Lords who have spoken have referred to the pledge which has been given by His Majesty's Government in the past in regard to this matter. I think first of all it would be useful to make quite clear what that pledge was. There was no pledge to deal with the general licensing question, but simply a pledge to deal with bogus clubs, and there is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to retreat from that pledge. But I think it has been evident to-day from the speeches on all sides of the House—the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, himself made it perfectly clear in speaking on behalf of the clubs—that we are agreed that it is in the interests of the clubs themselves that bogus clubs should in some way be dealt with. I think it has been particularly gratifying to hear from everyone who has spoken in support of this Bill the evidence of really genuine and universal friendliness towards the club movement. It is really nothing but the intense preoccupation with other matters that has made it extremely difficult for the Government to find time—and it would be some considerable time, because this is not going to be an easy or non-controversial subject—for dealing with this problem.
In looking at this particular Bill we have had to consider not merely whether His Majesty's Government like or approve of every clause of the Bill but whether we feel it is likely to command sufficient general consent to get through to the Statute Book, because, if it is not, it is merely a waste of time for it to continue.

1063
And I must say that the more we have looked at the Bill the more we have been driven to the conclusion that it is not likely to command that degree of universal consent that is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, in his speech, referred to the evidence in existence, and quite unquestioned evidence in many cases, of the gravity of the situation. He spoke of the persistent disregard of the law in some respects, of certain drunkenness and disorder, and the use of certain clubs for gambling. All that is true; but I do think we want to get the perspective right. When we look at the actual facts, there are something like 16,000 of these clubs—that is the figure which has been mentioned in this debate—250 of them have been concerned in offences against the law, and 139, or less than I per cent., have actually been struck off the register in the last year for which we have records, 1937. It is clear from these figures that the law is not wholly ineffective. On the other hand, I do not think anyone for a moment will say that it does not need some strengthening.
What are the noble Lord's suggestions? He suggests that there should be more control over initial registration and more adequate supervision, but the noble Lord will admit that he does in fact in his Bill go a good deal further than that. He really does, as he told us, include the major recommendations of the Commission presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. That Commission was unanimous. It has already been commented on what a very remarkable feat of Chairmanship that must have been, to have attained a unanimous Report on such a difficult subject. It is a tribute both to the ability of the Chairman and the manner in which he handled his subject. But the recommendations that Report put forward with regard to clubs were really only one part of their recommendations dealing with the whole licensing law. The opinion of His Majesty's Government is that if we are going to deal with the subject on a comprehensive basis it would be very much better to
1064
deal with it in a Bill relating to the whole question of licensing legislation.
I do not want to weary the House with a whole series of alternative proposals. I do not think this is really the moment for doing so. But I do think there are methods—they may have been hinted at in this debate—by which the subject might be dealt with on a rather easier basis than that proposed in the Bill, a basis which might command very much more general consent. If that were possible the Government would welcome it very much. If the Government felt that this Bill could be amended in that manner, the Government would welcome it very much. We do not think it can be. We do not think that this Bill could be put in the form necessary to command consent. After a debate of this character it is not possible to leave the matter there. It is quite clear from the practical unanimity with which your Lordships have spoken that the Government will have to take this debate most seriously. I cannot make any further announcement to your Lordships than that we stand by the pledge already given, and that we have not the slightest intention of retreating from it. In addition to that, I should like to assure your Lordships that I will personally convey the seriousness of this debate, and the manner in which your Lordships have spoken, to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and impress on him the views that have been expressed in this debate.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, at this late hour I will not detain the House for more than a moment. Of course I feel disappointed at the reply of the noble Earl who has just spoken. I very much regret that the Government have come to the decision that has been reached in regard to this Bill. Having regard to the speeches which have been made in this debate, and the very considerable weight of support which the Bill has received, I feel bound to take the sense of the House.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

London, L. Bp.

Clwyd, L. [Teller.]

Crewe, M.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Craigmyle, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Holden, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Astor, V. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Mersey, V.

Arnold, L.

Rea, L.

Samuel, V.

Blythswood, L.

Rochester, L.

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Munster, E.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Plymouth, E.

Erskine, L.

Zetland, M.

Stanhope, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Wicklow, E.

Hastings, L.

Albemarle, E.

Jessel, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lyell, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Bridport, V.

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hailsham, V.

Rockley, L.

Feversham, E.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Fortescue, E.

Aberdare, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harewood, E.

Bayford, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cautley, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Chatfield, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: Bill to be read 2a this day six months accordingly.

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the Miners' Welfare Fund is a purely domestic concern of the coal industry and no public money is involved. The Fund was constituted under Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, and the money is derived from an annual levy on every ton of coal produced. This levy is collected by the Mines Department, and the duty of allocating the money is vested by the Act in the Miners' Welfare Committee. In 1934, following upon an inquiry into the position of the Fund by a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Chelmsford, the output levy was reduced from one penny to one halfpenny, but its life was extended by sixteen years to 1951. In the meantime, under Part III of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, a new levy had been imposed—upon coal royalty owners—of one shilling in the pound on the value of mineral rentals. The money produced is specifically earmarked for the provision of pit-head baths. This formed the nucleus of what has by custom come to be known as the Baths Fund.
1066
When the output levy was reduced by the Act of 1934, it was calculated that the annual sum would be sufficient to provide for the completion of the baths programme in eighteen years, the remaining period of the output levy as extended by the Act of 1934, that is, at a total cost of £6,750,000. The contemplated provision of baths was limited to collieries which employ a substantial number of men, and have a reasonably long expectation of life—limitations which would result in an appreciable fringe of mines and miners being left unprovided for. In view of the great and insistent demand from the industry for more rapid provision of baths, the Miners' Welfare Committee decided in 1936 that they would be justified in accelerating the building programme to the extent of providing for expenditure at the rate of £625,000 a year. They estimated that expenditure at this rate for a period of eight years would break the back of the programme within that much shorter period. The Committee were enabled to embark on this higher rate of expenditure by taking advantage of an accumulated balance and of the time lags between the placing of contracts and the actual payments. It is estimated that if the fund continues in its present position the accumulated balance will be exhausted by about the end of March. The Baths Fund will then begin to require additional finance, over and above its statutory annual income of £375,000, and in respect of the period 1939–46 inclusive, a total

1067
additional sum of about £2,000,000 will be needed if the accelerated programme is to be maintained and carried through.
The Government therefore decided to increase the levy to one penny for five years and to devote the whole amount produced by the additional halfpenny during that period to pit-head baths. This will provide the £2,000,000 required for the completion of the main programme and about £375,000 towards the subsidiary programme. At the end of five years, unless Parliament otherwise decides, the levy will drop again to a halfpenny and the income of the Pit-head Bath Fund will drop to £375,000 per annum unless some other distribution of the total moneys available from the two levies is authorised. Clause 1 provides that the period of five years during which the additional halfpenny will be payable will begin with the 1939 output, but in order to secure, during this and succeeding years, the funds necessary to continue the accelerated baths programme, it was also agreed that the additional halfpenny and the original halfpenny will both be paid quarterly during that period. Clause 2 provides for the incorporation of a Miners' Welfare Commission to take over the powers and duties of the existing Miners' Welfare Committee, which is not a body corporate. The only new point, I think, is that the representation of the Mining Association and Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain on the Miners' Welfare Commission will be equal—namely, three persons each. The reasons for incorporation of the Committee are purely technical. The Bill is a measure which is agreed by both sides of the industry, and I hope your Lordships will give it a unanimous Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this is an agreed Bill. It has the full approval of the Party for which I speak.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships long, but as Chairman of the Royal Commission which sat for three years and incidentally took some evidence on this subject, I should like to say that I cordially welcome the Bill. I think it is very desirable that it should be passed. It will accelerate the work on pit-head baths, which is very
1068
desirable and which is not going on so fast as could be wished. The general public attitude towards the provision of pit-head baths has considerably changed. When the matter was first raised there was, I think I may say, considerable prejudice against them. A good many women were not keen, and the men did not want to use them. I have heard from a Liberal colleague in another place, who is no longer alive but who was very keen about these pit-head baths, that at first they were used for other purposes—for potato growing, for instance, and breeding rabbits for coursing. They did not at once gain much popularity.
The evidence before us, however, showed that opinion has very much changed and the Commission were anxious that means should be devised by which the provision of finance could be accelerated. That is what this Bill will do. We had ample evidence of the utility and value of these baths. As one inspector put it:
"The dust was left in the mines instead of being taken to the miners' homes"
as a result of the provision of pit-head baths. After his bath a man can respectably travel by tram, or 'bus, with his clothes clean and tidy, and not be shunned by his neighbours. It was also shown by the evidence that the comfort made the men more contented, and that they remained longer in mining employment. That is quite useful and helpful all round. Again, there are attached to nearly all the baths ambulance rooms, and a very large percentage of minor accidents—cuts and small injuries—were prevented from becoming septic by prompt treatment. There are now pit-head baths completed or under construction for about 400,000 workers—about half the total number of miners employed. One matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, which I think is worth watching, is the order of selecting the mines for building pit baths. That should be determined, I think, by two factors—namely, the number of miners employed, and the probable life of the colliery. Those are both matters which require attention. Looking at the Bill as a whole the practical work of the Mining Industry Welfare Fund will, I hope, encourage co-operation, good will and understanding. Those things are most important in the mining industry,

1069
and encouragement of them is one of the aims and objects of the Royal Commission.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, perhaps as the noble Lord has expressed the views of the Chairman of one Royal Commission I, as Chairman of another Royal Commission some years ago, may be allowed to say with what gratification I heard what he said and how cordially I welcome this Bill. When the Royal Commission over which I presided sat in 1925 and 1926 this proposal for the provision of pit-head baths was, as the noble Lord just said, regarded rather as a fad. There was no great enthusiasm for it even among the rank and file of the miners in many cases. It was generally considered that to suggest the universal establishment of pit baths was to propose rather absurd luxury expenditure. However, the Royal Commission of that date, having heard a great deal of evidence, formed the very definite opinion that pit baths were an absolute necessity and that their universal provision would do more than any other one thing to promote the domestic welfare of the mining community. We consequently made an emphatic recommendation in that sense and suggested financial provisions. After this interval of time it is a great satisfaction to those concerned with the matter then to see the results which have followed the judgment they then formed and to know that His Majesty's Government are taking active steps to speed up the provision of baths. I have no doubt your Lordships will speedily and gladly pass the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACTS.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, the Question which stands on the Paper in my name.
[The Question was as follows: To ask whether it is the case that His Majesty's Government contemplate early legislation with the object of amending the Government of India and Government of Burma Acts, 1935, and, if so, whether they can give any indication
1070
of the scope and purpose of the contemplated Bill.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, the reply to the noble Lord's Question is as follows: It is the case that His Majesty's Government contemplate the introducetion at an early date of a Bill to amend the Government of India Act, and they hope to secure its passage before Parliament rises for the summer recess. The object of the Bill is to remedy certain defects which practical experience has disclosed in the working of the Act, the remedying of which is a matter of some urgency. It is not surprising that an enactment of the length and complication of the Government of India Act should, when put to the practical test of administration, be found capable of improvement in a number of respects. But the contents of the proposed Bill have been intentionally confined to cases in which the Act, if unchanged, will lead to serious practical inconvenience. The amendments proposed in no case raise any new question of principle, or will alter in any material respect what are believed to have been the intentions of Parliament when the Act was passed, but I should perhaps add that the proposed amendments include one which is designed to remove, in the event of war, serious deficiencies which the preparation of drafts of the emergency legislation which might then be required has disclosed in the powers intended to be made available by Section 102 of the Act to the Central Government.
In two instances the amendments proposed affect provisions which appear in the same terms in the Government of Burma Act, and in those instances proposals for amendment of that Act will also be made.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess two questions. I gather from what he has said that the Bill will not touch in any important particular the question of the establishment of a Federal Constitution in India, but perhaps in order to prevent misapprehension in India the noble Marquess will say a word on that. The second question I should like to ask is whether we are to understand that the Bill will be introduced in your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Viscount that it will not in any way affect the Federal provisions of the Act. With regard to the House in which the Bill will be introduced, I am not at the moment in a position to give the noble Viscount the information for which he asks.

CONWAY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  DROITWICH CANALS (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]

    BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

    L. Braye,

    L. Manners,

    L. Ebury,

    L. Stanmore (Chairman),

    L. Greenway:

    Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 14th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

MACCLESFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:
1072

V. Bridport,

L. Erskine,

L. Dorchester (Chairman),

L. Banbury of Southam,

L. Kenilworth:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 14th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  LONDON GAS UNDERTAKINGS (REGULATIONS) BILL. [H.L.]

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

    V. Bridgeman,

    L. Annaly,

    L. Shute (V. Barrington),

    L. Holden,

    L. Merthyr (Chairman):

    Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 21st of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
    House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.