Sitting of 7 March 1939

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.
The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the Chairman of WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Southern Railway Bill.
Bill committed.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. Deputy-Speaker laid upon the Table report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Colchester) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Newbury) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Jarrow Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WORKERS' OVERTIME.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether there has been an increase or decrease in overtime below ground; and whether he can submit a report to the House on this matter?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): Particulars of colliery overtime are not normally collected by my Department, and the task of compiling a return from the overtime registers would be one of some magnitude. The number of complaints received and investigated in the last two or three years and the results of the investigation do not suggest that there has been any increase. I do not think any information of value would be secured by calling for a return. If the hon. Member has any particular cases in mind, I shall be pleased to have them investigated.
    Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the increased mechanisation of the mines, overtime is growing, and that what we desire is that the Mines Department should try to prevent this, or, if they cannot, that they should amend the Act of Parliament?
    Mr. Batey: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor held two inquiries, one in Lancashire and one in Scotland; and will he take steps to hold further inquiries?
    Captain Crookshank: If there is any evidence brought to my notice indicating that there would be any purpose in further investigation, I shall be glad to consider it.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Is the investigation by officers of the Department made through the books and statistics at the pit, or through the men at the pit? The books at the pit are not reliable on overtime, as the Minister knows. Is is no good the Minister shaking his head.

  OUTPUT AND PRICES (REGULATION).
  Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the representations of the Mineworkers Federation, asking that the British miners' working hours should be reduced

  1889
  by half-an-hour per day; and whether any steps have been taken to secure regulation of output and prices by international agreement?
  Captain Crookshank: I do not know what representations the hon. Member has in mind. I have received none recently. As regards the last part of the question, I cannot at present add anything to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Pontspool (Mr. Jenkins) on 31st January.

  MINE ACCIDENTS.
  Mr. Dunnasked the Secretary for Mines how many men and boys were killed or died from injuries sustained in and about the mines of Great Britain in 1938; and how many injuries there were to men or boys, and industrial diseases for which compensation was, or is to be, paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act in 1938?
  Captain Crookshank: During the year 1938, 859 persons, including 17 boys under 16 years of age, were killed as a result of accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act in Great Britain The number of persons injured and disabled for more than three days, and the number of persons disabled by industrial diseases during 1938 are not yet available.

  INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the conflicting reports which are being circulated as to the nature of the Anglo-German coal agreement, he can now make a statement as to the progress of negotiations for an international agreement between the various exporting countries?
  Captain Crookshank: Beyond assuring the hon. Member that progress is being made in the negotiations for an international coal agreement, I have nothing at present to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) on 31st January and to the subsequent replies by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on 14th February.
  Mr. Bellenger: What is the necessity for all this secrecy over an agreement which is well-known throughout the whole of the coal trade in England, and in much wider circles than that? Why is the
  1890
  House of Commons the only organisation which does not know the terms of the agreement?
  Captain Crookshank: I do not know that these details are known all over the country. Anyhow, it is not an agreement at this stage. It is an alignment of views between the German and British coal trades. It is only the first step towards international negotiations. I very much deprecate these conflicting reports being circulated. I do not think they serve any useful purpose while negotiations are actually going on.
  Mr. A. Jenkins: Is it not a fact that a draft agreement has been reached, and, if so, why cannot we have a statement as to the terms of that agreement?
  Captain Crookshank: No, Sir; it is only an alignment of views between the German and British coal industries. An international agreement requires the prior assent of a great many other countries.
  Mr. T. Smith: When the negotiations are concluded will a White Paper be issued?
  Captain Crookshank: I cannot say that. I am not negotiating; it is the particular industries that are doing so. These two industries have come to an agreement as to their own position. They are negotiating with the industries of other countries, and it is not a Governmental negotiation.
  Mr. Jenkins: Will the Minister undertake to make a statement to the House on this matter at the earliest possible date?
  Captain Crookshank: Certainly. As soon as there is anything definite to report, I am sure the House would wish to know, and I shall be only too anxious to make it known. But I must emphasise again that these are not inter-Governmental negotiations; they are trade negotiations.

  HOLLAND (STATE MINES).
  Mr. Kennedy (for Mr. Shinwell)asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the results of State ownership of mines in Holland, where the wages and working conditions are superior to those obtaining in other countries; and whether, in view of these

  1891
  facts, the Government will give the question of national ownership of mines their immediate attention?
  Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir, I have seen certain figures regarding conditions in the Dutch State mines, but the changing value of currencies and fluctuations in the cost of living make it difficult to establish a true comparison between wages received by the workmen, numbering about 20,000, in those mines and those elsewhere. In any case I cannot accept the implication that any superiority in their conditions, if there is any, is due to the State ownership of the mines themselves, and the reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  OVERSEA SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs particulars of any decisions reached by the Oversea Settlement Board as to the possibility of an early resumption of migration; and what special schemes the board have found it possible to recommend?
  The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): The report of the Oversea Settlement Board, presented in May last and issued in June as Command Paper No. 5766, sets out the views of the board on the whole question of migration from this country to the Dominions and also indicates the attitude of Dominion Governments towards a resumption of assisted migration. Assisted passage schemes are at present in operation, for certain categories of migrants, in the case of Australia and Southern Rhodesia, but the Governments of Canada and New Zealand have not so far felt able to co-operate again in such schemes.
  Mr. Day: Have the Government come to any definite conclusion as to Government assistance for voluntary societies?
  Sir T. Inskip: Assisted passages are being undertaking to Australia and Southern Rhodesia, as my answer stated.
  Mr. Day: But are not the voluntary societies very busily occupied in this matter?
  Sir T. Inskip: I understand that the question arises, to some extent, out of the activities of the voluntary societies.

  SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVE LABOUR).
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Committee appointed to study the position of the Masarwa, or Bushmen, in South Africa has yet reported; and whether the report will be made available to Members of the House?
  Sir T. Inskip: I assume the hon. Gentleman refers to the Standing Committee composed of representatives of the Inter-University Committee of South Africa and of the Administrations of the Union and the High Commission Territories. So far as I am aware, the Committee has not yet made a report. If, however, one is published I shall be happy to arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.
  Mr. Harvey: Am I right in assuming that that is the committee to which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor referred in an announcement on 10th November, in reply to a question by me on the subject.
  Sir T. Inskip: I do not bear in mind the answer to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no doubt it is the same informal committee.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    LASCARS.
    Mr. Loganasked the President of the Board of Trade how many lascars were employed in the British Mercantile Marine in the last full year for which figures are available?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The census of seamen employed on 15th June, 1937, shows that 43,900 lascars were then recorded as employed on sea-trading vessels registered at ports in the United Kingdom. Taking account, however, of vessels which were in employment at some time during 1937, but not on the censal date, the total of lascars so employed during the year 1937 was 48,700.
    Mr. Logan: Would these men be signed on outside England or in England?
    Mr. Stanley: I could not say. I have given what information I have on the subject.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Will this have a prejudicial effect on British seamen's employment?
    Mr. Stanley: That is a difficult question. There are divided views on the whole problem. The majority of these men are employed under conditions which would not be suitable for British seamen.
    Mr. Loganasked the President of the Board of Trade how many British ships employing lascars received a share of the recent tramp-shipping subsidy?
    Mr. Stanley: I regret that the information is not available.

  CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND, SERVICE.
  Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade particulars of any final conclusions that have been arrived at by the Imperial Shipping Committee as to the traffic possibilities of a passenger and cargo service between Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; and what further action it is now proposed to take?
  Mr. Stanley: The conclusions reached by the Imperial Shipping Committee were contained in their 35th report which was published in December, 1936. Negotiations took place thereafter between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand and the shipping companies concerned regarding the companies' request for financial assistance from the Governments for the construction of two new ships for the service, but in July, 1938, the companies advised the Governments that at the prices ruling construction was impracticable for the time being. Since then the matter has been in abeyance.
  Mr. Day: Are we to understand that these services may be abandoned unless a subsidy is given in time?
  Mr. Stanley: No, Sir, I have no authority to do that.
  Mr. Day: How can they hope to compete against American subsidised lines?
  Mr. Stanley: I understand, as a matter of fact, despite the difficulties, that, owing to some temporary advantages, they are competing fairly satisfactorily. As I said, the Governments concerned have discussed an agreement as to the assistance they will give and are open
  1894
  to receive representations from the shipping companies at the time when they think it is opportune to place these orders.

  PORTS (HEALTH).
  Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements exist for consultation and co-operation between Board of Trade surveyors and the officers of port health authorities?
  Mr. Stanley: Following the issue of the current Crew Space Instructions the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health took steps to secure close co-operation between the Board's surveyors and the officers of port health authorities. The Board's principal officers at the ports have since reported that arrangements for day-to-day co-operation are working satisfactorily.

  CREWS' ACCOMMODATION.
  Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade how many vessels have been reconditioned to bring them into line with the new requirements with regard to crews' accommodation?
  Mr. Stanley: During the nine months ended 31st December last, improvements of various kinds were effected on some 660 existing ships under the Crew Space Instructions.
  Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the total tonnage?
  Mr. Stanley: I cannot give it at the moment but I will see if I can get it for the hon. Gentleman.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Hammersleyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as the cotton reorganisation legislation will provide an organisation which will enable the industry to speak with a united voice, he will undertake that all the available assistance of the Government, including, if necessary, the assistance of a subsidy, will be used to prevent the further decline of the cotton export trade?
    Mr. Stanley: His Majesty's Government have the interests of the cotton export trade constantly before them, and take every available opportunity in their negotiations with foreign countries to secure

    1895
    benefits for it. If and when the organisation referred to by my hon. Friend is set up, the Government would naturally give careful consideration to any representations from it regarding the export trade.
    Mr. Hammersley: Are we to understand from that, that if the necessity arises subsidies are not ruled out?
    Mr. Stanley: I cannot answer a hypothetical question, but certainly if the organisation which is set up speaks with a united voice, the Government are likely to pay more attention to its views than to the very conflicting opinions expressed now.
    Mr. Fleming: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration also to the question of the St. Germain-en-Laye Convention, which stands in the way of the export trade of the textile industry?
    Mr. Stanley: That is a question which I have answered on innumerable occasions. On the advice of the highest legal authorities, that treaty is not capable of being evaded.
    Colonel Sandeman Allen: How is it possible for the French authorities to have evaded it in the case of French West Africa?
    Mr. Stanley: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that question down. But I would point out that two blacks do not make a white.
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the result of the ballot taken in the cotton trade; and what steps he proposes to take regarding legislation for the industry?
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement about the Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Bill?
    Mr. Stanley: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the result of the ballot of the producing sections of the cotton industry, and of the observations received from other interests concerned with the proposals. The position is now under consideration by the Government, and I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject shortly.
    Mr. Burke: Is there any possibility of legislation before the Easter Recess?
    Mr. Stanley: I hope to make a statement on the subject very shortly.
    Following are the particulars:
    Result of Ballot conducted by the Board of Trade in the producing sections of the cotton industry on the draft of a Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Bill.
    The number of effective ballot papers received was 1,997. The firms who voted represented over three-quarters of the estimated number of firms in the industry as defined by the Bill; on the basis of employment the proportion exceeded five-sixths. The proportions given below are calculated on the basis of the votes received.
    The proportion who voted in favour of the Bill in each section of the industry was as follows:

    Section.

    Measured by

    Number of firms.

    Employment.

    Output.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Spinning and Doubling

    66

    73

    72

    Weaving

    63

    68

    66

    Finishing

    64

    79

    77

    Packing and Making-up

    52

    72

    75

    For the industry as a whole the proportion in favour of the Bill was 65 per cent. measured by number of firms, 72 per cent. measured by employment and 70 per cent. measured by output.
    The Manchester Chamber of Commerce have sent the following report of a ballot of their members:

    Particulars of Poll—

    1. Number of voting papers distributed, i.e., total voting strength of Chamber membership

    4,358

    2. Number of voting papers returned

    1,706

    3. Number of voting papers rejected as incorrectly completed

    127

    4. Number of members casting votes in excess of two

    14

    Result of Poll—Totals—

    5. Number of votes in favour of the Bill

    730

    6. Number of votes against the Bill

    849

    Result of Poll—Classified—

    7. Votes cast by members in Category 1, i.e., members not engaged in the cotton textile industry For Against

    126

    29

    8. Number of votes cast by members in Category 2, i.e., in the producing sections of the cotton, etc., industry For Against

    436

    167

    Result of Poll—Classified—cont.

    9. Number of votes cast by members in Category 3, i.e., occupied in dealing in cotton and rayon goods in the home market For Against

    67

    189

    10. Number of votes cast by members in Category 3, who have also received the Government ballot paper as producers For Against

    6

    9

    11. Number of votes cast by members in Category 4, i.e., engaged in selling cotton and rayon goods to export markets For Against

    101

    464

    12. Number of votes cast by members in Category 4, who have also received the Government ballot paper as producers For Against

    18

    18

    The London Chamber of Commerce have reported that the Cotton Exporters' Section of the Chamber have considered the proposals and are opposed to the Bill as drafted; they desire various modifications to be made in the draft.
    The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce have reported that of the firms in their district known to be interested in the merchanting of textile goods, eight were in favour of the proposals and five were in opposition to them.
    The National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers and the Joint Board of Inside Warehouse Workers have expressed their support of the proposals; and the United Textile Factory Workers Association has forwarded a resolution, approving the proposals, which was passed by 138 votes to 60 at a conference of delegates from the district associations of the amalgamations which comprise that organisation.

    MINISTER'S VISIT, FOREIGN CAPITALS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneageasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the coming negotiations with foreign countries, he will say what attitude he is proposing to take up with regard to the protection of British agriculture?
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyteasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for a representative of the agricultural industry to accompany the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department on his visit to foreign capitals?
    Mr. Stanley: As I have already explained, the visit of my right hon. Friend to certain northern capitals is for the purpose of discussions of an exploratory and general character, and it is consequently unnecessary for him to be accompanied by representatives of individual interests. My hon. and gallant Friends may rest
    1898
    assured, however, that the interests of British agriculture will be kept well in mind.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: Will the interests of British consumers be kept in mind at the same time?
    Mr. Stanley: The question as a whole will be kept in mind.

    GERMANY.
    Mr. Liddallasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish in the Board of Trade Journal the amount of the stand-still short-term indebtedness of Germany to British creditors, with a rough analysis of the purposes for which the larger portions were originally lent or granted, and by whom; and will he refuse to discuss, in the coming trade negotiations, any proposals about short-term obligations which might worsen the position of the British subjects who invested in long-term obligations of German public authorities to assist post-war reconstruction and appeasement prior to 1931?
    Mr. Stanley: The so-called stand-still agreements in regard to the short-term indebtedness of Germany to British creditors are not inter-Governmental agreements, and I am not in possession of the detailed information referred to by my hon. Friend. As I have already explained, any conversations which may take place when I am in Berlin are intended to be of a general character, and I am not aware that there is any suggestion that proposals about Germany's short-term indebtedness should be discussed. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the object of his proposed visit to Berlin, in view of the fact that trading relations between this country and Germany are to be settled by agreements between the different industries represented by the Federation of British Industries and the Reichsgruppe-industrie?
    Mr. Stanley: I am going to Berlin in response to an invitation, which I have been glad to accept, to attend a dinner which is being given by the Reichsgruppe-industriein connection with the discussions with the Federation of British Industries regarding competition between

    1899
    individual industries of the two countries. I hope to have the opportunity of making contacts and of surveying the general problems of Anglo-German trade relations with those prominent in German economic life.
    Mr. Bellenger: May we assume from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman's visit will deal only with trade matters, and that matters of a political nature will be excluded?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, I have already said in this House that my concern is economic, and the people I hope to see are those who are prominent in the economic life of Germany.
    Mr. Thorne: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in addition to the luncheon or dinner he is going to attend, he will make inquiries about the deep bomb-proof shelters in Berlin?
    Mr. Stanley: That hardly seems to come under the heading of economic matters.
    Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed that any return visits shall be paid by German Ministers to this country, by Field-Marshal Goering or Dr. Goebbels, for example?
    Mr. Stanley: I should certainly be glad to see my opposite number Dr. Funk come over here at any time.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is it not in the interests of this country that British Ministers should make every contact they can?
    Sir John Haslam: Is it not the fact that this proposed visit rejoices the hearts of everybody interested in the export trade?
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to safeguarding the national political and economic interests, His Majesty's Government will insist on being consulted before any binding agreements are entered into by the representativs of British industries about to negotiate with representatives of German interests?
    Mr. Stanley: His Majesty's Government will keep in touch with the progress of the negotiations to which the hon. Member refers and must clearly be con-
    1900
    sulted on any question involving Government action. Agreements and understandings which do not require Government sanction are frequently made between British industries and the industries of other countries.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that the German Government will, obviously, be consulted in the event of any such agreement being arrived at, will not His Majesty's Government be consulted in view of the important political consequences that might follow?
    Mr. Stanley: We have been, and shall remain, in very close touch with the appropriate industries concerned.

    GOVERNMENT WHEAT RESERVES.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ensure that the superintendence, analysis, and arbitration of all security-stock wheat shall be carried out under the authority of the Port Corn Trade Association of the area in which such wheat is discharged?
    Mr. Stanley: In view of the importance of maintaining a common standard in the supervision of the Government reserves of wheat which are held at a number of centres, I do not consider that it would be practicable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. Arbitrations and analysis are provided for, in accordance with the general practice of the trade, under the rules of the London Corn Trade Association, and I am satisfied with the present arrangements.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Port Corn Trade Association are a thoroughly competent body to carry out this work, and that they would be absolutely impartial?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I have no doubt that the Association at the ports would be efficient, but there are a number of different ports concerned.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that complete impartiality prevails to-day?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Can my right hon. Friend say what is meant by "all security-stock wheat"?
    Mr. Stanley: I think that the hon. Gentleman means by that phrase, the wheat purchased by the Government under the Essential Commodities Act.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade by what method the superintendents who are supervising the Government's stocks of wheat are appointed?
    Mr. Stanley: The firm of Cargo Superintendents who oversee the condition of the wheat in store were appointed by the Food (Defence Plans) Department, on the advice of the Committee assisting the Department.
    Mr. De la Bère: Can we have an assurance that these two superintendents who do this work are not in any way connected with one of the largest combines?
    Mr. Stanley: I have already said that the chairman of this Committee is an independent miller, and I have no doubt that he is satisfied with these appointments.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Does either of these superintendents live in Brussels?
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give some assurance to the House that the price paid by the Government for the stocks of wheat which have been accumulated was approximately the market price at the time they were purchased; and whether he will say if, at the present time, these stocks, on realisation, would show profit or loss to the Government?
    Mr. Stanley: All Government wheat has been purchased at the market prices current at the time of purchase. World prices of wheat have fallen by about 40 per cent. since April, 1938, when the initial purchases were made. It follows that if the reserve were sold at to-day's prices, there would be a loss. There is, however, no such intention.

    INDIA.
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information regarding the negotiations for anew agreement with the Indian Government regarding tariffs on cotton goods?
    Mr. Stanley: I would refer to the answer which I gave on 28th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton).
    Mr. Burke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the importance and urgency of this matter to Lancashire, what is the earliest date upon which I might put down a question and get an informative reply?
    Mr. Stanley: I cannot possibly tell the hon. Member. This is a matter of negotiation between ourselves and India, but, as I have already pointed out to the House, the existing agreement expires at the end of the month, and, therefore, it is a matter, which, one way or the other, has to be settled very quickly.
    27. Mr. Hamilton Kerrasked the President of the Board of Trade what precise steps he proposes to take to obtain the approval of the British cotton textile industry to the terms of the draft Indian trade agreement before submitting it for the final approval of the Government and Parliament?
    Mr. Stanley: Close contact with the cotton textile industry has been maintained throughout the negotiations, but the responsibility for the terms of any trade agreement which may emerge must remain with the Government.

    INTERNATIONAL CARTELS.
    24. Mr. A. Hendersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not approve of the establishment of any international cartels, which include representatives of British industries, if such cartels involve any reduction in British trade with South- Eastern Europe?
    Mr. Stanley: The conditions governing international cartels differ widely in different industries, and I think it would be unwise to attempt to apply the same formula to all of them; but I will certainly bear in mind the point which the hon. Member raises in considering any such cartel for which my approval may be sought.

    CHILE.
    Mr. Emeryasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to assist Anglo-Chilean trade, he will ascertain if it is possible to set up a barter-exchange of Chilean chilled meat for British exports, or to accept a stipulated amount of Chilean meat in substitution for Argentine meat, for the service of Chilean defaulted loans raised in London?
    Mr. Stanley: I am not satisfied that a barter scheme of the kind suggested would be in the interests of United Kingdom export trade to Chile. As regards the suggestion that purchases of meat should be diverted from Argentina to Chile, I would remind my hon. Friend of our undertakings to Argentina in the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement, 1936.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Would it not be better to produce more English beef instead of importing foreign beef?

    EXPORT CREDITS.
    Mr. Porrittasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what countries his Department are not prepared to coverunder the export guarantees system?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The facilities provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department are normally available for exports from the United Kingdom to any overseas country, provided the Department's Advisory Council considers the business to be sound and the risk involved to be reasonable.

    FISHING VESSELS (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES).
    Mr. Adamsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what organisations representing owners of fishing vessels were consulted before the new rules with respect to the life-saving appliances to be carried on fishing vessels were made?
    Mr. Stanley: The following organisations representing owners of fishing vessels were consulted: the Aberdeen Steam Fishing Vessels Owners' Association, the English Herring Catchers' Association, and the British Trawlers' Federation, as well as several constituent bodies of the Federation.
    Mr. Adamson: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that progress has been made?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.
    33. Mr. Adamsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to ensuring that every possible pre caution is taken to avoid the loss of valuable lives from fishing vessels, he will instruct his surveyors to consult with
    1904
    representatives of the appropriate fishermen's organisation before recommending in the case of any vessel an exemption from any of the requirements of the new rules regarding life-saving appliances?
    Mr. Stanley: The new rules were drawn up in consultation with representatives of both owners and men, and exemption from any requirement in them is only granted when the Board of Trade are satisfied that that requirement is either impracticable or unreasonable in the case of the vessel concerned. It is the practice of the Board's surveyors to keep in touch with local opinion, and the Board are happy at all times to consider representations from any responsible body. Beyond this I do not think it is possible to go.
    Mr. Adamson: In the case of any dispute arising between employers and fishermen, will there be an independent survey before the right hon. Gentleman comes to a decision?
    Mr. Stanley: No, I cannot do that, because it is my responsibility to administer the law, but I am always willing to receive representations from those who think that an exemption in a particular case should not be granted.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Surely if the two parties sitting in conference cannot come to an agreement as to whether an exemption should or should not be given, the right hon. Gentleman will not object to some other body being called in to give an impartial decision?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member, apparently, believes that the two sides meet to discuss these matters. They meet to discuss certain rules, and it is my responsibility as to whether exemption should be given. At the same time I welcome any representations in regard to the way in which these exemptions should be granted.

    BRITISH ARMY.

      FOREIGN LEGION.
      36. Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the possibility of establishing as a unit of the British Army a foreign legion, on the analogy of that in France, open to men of all nationalities or national minorities, in sympathy with ideals of democracy and freedom?
      Lieut.-Colonel Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of raising a military unit open to refugees of other countries who are admitted to this country?
      The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The establishment of a unit of the nature suggested has been considered, but it is not thought to be an advantageous course.
      Mr. Flemings: Is there anything to prevent refugees from joining the ordinary units of the British Army?
      Mr. Hore-Belisha: There are certain circumstances in which some of them can join.
      Mr. Mander: Would it not be possible in a foreign legion to recruit a large number of Germans who do love democracy and freedom?
      Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Without necessarily opening all units to refugees who are in this country, would not this be a convenient temporary measure in the case of refugees who have reached this country?
      Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Is it not the case that in the French Foreign Legion men can become soldiers if they are physically fit, and that there is no question of any political opinion arising? Is not that the best way in which to recruit men for the military forces?
      Miss Rathbone: Are there not a large number of most seasoned and experienced soldiers in Europe who are refugees, and if France can make use of them, why cannot we?

    APPLICANTS FOR ENLISTMENT, WEST HAM.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for war what number of men applied to enlist in the Army in the borough of West Ham for the last 12 months or the latest available date; what percentage were rejected on medical grounds; and what was the percentage of the applicants for enlistment rejected on the grounds of defective vision?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I regret that separate figures for the borough of West Ham are not available.

    MONMOUTHSHIRE TERRITORIAL FORCE ASSOCIATION.
    Sir Reginald Clarryasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Monmouthshire Territorial Force Association have occupied for some years in the borough of Newport two drill halls and four houses upon which no rates or contribution in lieu of rates have been paid to the local authority; and, further, in order to meet the present expansion of the Territorial Army, additional property has recently been taken over by the association, comprising warehouse, garage, and five houses, involving a further direct loss to local rates resulting in an indirect discouragement to local enthusiasm for the Territorial Army, and whether he will consider making use of Regular Army property for the purposes of the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The facts are as stated. There is no suitable surplus War Department accommodation at Newport. It would be a pity if localities were to feel that it was a burden to make the small contribution involved in accommodating their own citizen soldiers.
    Sir R. Clarry: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that something should be done to remedy the very unfortunate situation which applies throughout the whole country to some extent?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am not prepared to admit that it is unfortunate. I think it is fortunate that Newport should have its Territorials.

    CLOTHING MATERIAL.
    Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for War what quantities of serge for service dress have been ordered since 1st January, and what proportion of this order has been placed with Scottish mills?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Since 1st January last, 1,700,000 yards of serge for service dress have been ordered. As a result of the tendering for this order, all Scottish firms except one were excluded on price, and the one exception was so far behind schedule on a trial order which had already been placed with it, that it was not considered that a further order could be given to it. In some cases, such as that of Highland tartan, Scottish firms supply the whole requirements.
    Captain Ramsay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether consideration was given to the fact that unemployment in the Scottish mills is very high, and that the quality of the stuff which they turn out is rather higher than that produced in Yorkshire?
    Mr. Neil Maclean: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the firms which tendered from Scotland were excluded on the ground that they were not in depressed areas, and whether the difference in the estimates sent in was due to the extra carriage from Scotland to England?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: This is merely a question of price.
    Mr. Maclean: Does not freight enter into price? Will the right hon. Gentleman go into the matter, because he does not seem to know what enters into an estimate?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The freight per yard is quite negligible.
    41. Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for War whether any orders for clothing material, other than serge, have been recently placed with woollen mills; and what proportion of them has been placed with Scottish mills?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Orders for 3,230,585 yards of clothing material, other than serge, have recently been placed with woollen mills, of which 49,500 yards were placed with Scottish mills.
    Captain Ramsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the question of unemployment in Scottish mills is really very grave, and see whether he cannot make some allowance, and not merely look at this matter from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will willingly go into the question with the utmost sympathy, and consider any facts which the hon. and gallant Member will lay before me.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that Yorkshire can do with all the orders he can give?
    Mr. Alexander: Will the Secretary of State keep in mind that in all these matters the chief consideration must be the public interest?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is the prevailing consideration.

    CONTRACTS (DISTRESSED AREAS).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state from records kept by the War Office the amount of contracts and/or sub-contracts placed during the last two years, respectively, which went to the distressed areas?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The total value of contracts placed by the War Office with firms in distressed areas (including Special Areas) during the 12 months from 1st March, 1937, to 28th February, 1938, was £9,218,766, and for the corresponding period 1938–39, £17,858,626.
    Mr. Day: Is it hoped to increase these orders during the coming year because the unemployed in these areas are greatly dissatisfied?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: If there is the same ratio of increase they will be doubled again.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what proportion of this sum has gone to Scotland?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot improvise an answer to that question.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman also find out if any proportion has gone to Northern Ireland?

    OFFICERS (AIR TRAINING).
    44. Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for War what facilities, if any, are provided to enable serving Army officers to learn to fly; whether it is the policy of the Army Council that serving officers should become pilots; and whether he will approach the Civil Air Guard Commissioners with the object of allowing serving officers to join the Civil Air Guard?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Fifty-four officers are at the present moment seconded to the Royal Air Force for this purpose. These officers serve as pilots in Army co-operation squadrons. A number of Army officers also join civilian flying clubs, which receive subsidies from public funds. It is not in accordance with the Civil Air Guard scheme to enrol personnel who, in time of emergency, will be under a prior obligation to serve in the Naval, Military or Air Forces.
    Mr. Perkins: Is it the wish of the right hon. Gentleman that the maximum number of serving officers should become pilots?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. That is my decided wish.
    Sir W. Lindsay Everard: Can my right hon. Friend say how many officers are being trained as observers?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot say without notice.

    AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE (CLERICAL WORK).
    Miss Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has further considered the question of payment for the necessary clerical work of the Auxiliary Territorial Service; and whether he can make any statement on the matter?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The provision of necessary clerical assistance to Auxiliary Territorial Service Companies is the responsibility of Territorial Army Associations, which receive grants for the purpose An increase in these grants is being considered.
    Miss Wilkinson: Do I understand that that increased grant will be sufficient for them to pay for this necessary clerical work? Is that the idea?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I trust so. Perhaps the hon. Lady will await the additions which we propose.
    Miss Wilkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not trust him, and that is why I am asking him.

    NATIONAL SERVICE.
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the letter addressed to him on the subject of National Service on behalf of the National Youth Pilgrims, 2,500 of whom came to London on 19th February?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The organisers of the pilgrimage were informed on 1st February that it would not be possible for me to receive a deputation from the various sections of the pilgrimage on 20th February. They renewed their request in a letter dated 17th February, which did not reach me until the 20th of that month, but I was unable to alter my decision.
    Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great importance which these young people of military age attach to the question of policy in connection with National Service?

    FIGHTING SERVICES (DEPENDANTS, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to increase the pay and allowances of serving ranks of all His Majesty's Forces in order to obviate any of their dependants being compelled to have recourse to public assistance?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The conditions of service of men in His Majesty's Forces have been considerably improved in recent times, and I cannot accept the implication in the question that they are inadequate. If the hon. Member is referring to the men who marry before they are entitled under the regulations to marriage or family allowance, I am not in a position to add to the replies to previous questions on this subject.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause an inquiry to be made so that he can be satisfied that this inflicts very considerable expense upon the local authorities of the country, and an exceptionally heavy burden on the depressed areas?
    Sir J. Simon: That question, I think, is always under consideration.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Shall we have a statement from the Secretary of State for War to-morrow that the age will be lowered?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

    SPINSTERS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the report on Spinsters' Pensions will be available to hon. Members?
    Sir J. Simon: I hope to receive the report before the end of this month.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is with

    1911
    his approval that old age pensioners, with an earned income of £125 per year, are being charged Income Tax on their income of £26 per year derived from the old age pension as unearned income?
    Sir J. Simon: The hon. Baronet is, I think, misinformed. A contributory pension paid under the provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act is not treated as unearned income. If the hon. Baronet will give me particulars of the case he has in mind, I shall be happy to cause inquiries to be made.

    NON-INDUSTRIAL CIVIL SERVANTS (WAGES).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, taking the full total of non-industrial civil servants,

    Number of Non-Industrial Civil Servants in receipt of salary or wages falling within certain ranges at
    Ist April, 1938.

    ——

    Whole-time.

    Part-time.

    Total.

    Adults.

    Juveniles (under age 21).

    Total whole time.

    Men.

    Women.

    £1 10s. per week and under

    (Details not available)

    23,270

    35,074

    58,344

    £2 per week and under

    1,823

    5,954

    37,346

    45,123

    41,081

    86,204

    £3 per week and under

    64,674

    38,302

    44,967

    147,943

    46,261

    194,204

    £4 per week and under

    140,313

    52,170

    45,193

    237,676

    48,826

    286,502

    £5 per week and under

    168,502

    56,223

    45,199

    269,924

    50,471

    320,395

    Total Non-Industrial Staff

    241,868

    61,941

    45,199

    349,008

    53,966

    402,974

    TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATIONS (RATES ON PROPERTY).
    Sir R. Clarryasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that property occupied by the Territorial Army not only pays nothing by way of local rates to the local authority but also makes no contribution granted by the Treasury in lieu of rates which is the case of property occupied by the Regular Army; and on what grounds this discrimination is based?
    Captain Wallace: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st February to the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes).
    he can state the number of officers in receipt of under 30s. per week, under £2 per week, under £3 per week, under £4 per week, and under £5 per week, respectively?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): As the answer involves a statistical table I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I regret that, owing to the manner in which the necessary statistics are compiled, it is not possible to give the information exactly in the form desired by the hon. Member. The numbers in the following table relate to officers in receipt of 30s. per week and under, instead of to officers in receipt of under 30s., and similarly with regard to the other rates quoted.
    Sir R. Clarry: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that that is not an answer to the question? Will he be good enough to receive a deputation of hon. Members on this matter?
    Captain Wallace: That is an entirely different question. But I think the answer referred to was an answer to the question.

    SCOTLAND.

      HOUSING.>
      Mr. T. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Special Areas Housing Association is experiencing any difficulty in acquiring sites for cellular concrete or any other

      1913
      type of house-building; and, in view of the fact that contracts for £1,000,000 of housing work are issued but the contractors cannot proceed, for lack of authority to utilise the necessary sites, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I am aware that the association have met with difficulties in acquiring certain sites. I am informed, however, that of the six sites selected for the £1,000,000 contract to which the right hon. Member refers five sites are now available to the association.
      Mr. Johnston: If the association find difficulty in getting proper sites in proper places, will the right hon. Gentleman secure power for them to get the land compulsorily?
      Mr. Colville: I shall bear in mind the difficulties that they experience. I have been in touch with the associations of local authorities, and at their suggestion I have arranged that future cases of difficulty should be taken up by the Housing Association with the appropriate association of local authorities.
      Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. Gentleman said that five sites have been selected. Will he tell us the names of those sites?
      Mr. Colville: I should require notice of that question.

    RIVERS POLLUTION (COMMITTEE).
    62. Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Committee on Rivers Pollution in Scotland last met; and when he expects its next report?
    Mr. Colville: The last formal meeting of the committee was on 15th October, 1937. A draft report is being prepared and every effort will be made to expedite its publication.
    Mr. Johnston: In view of the importance of this matter, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a year and a-half is too long a period to elapse before this committee reports?
    Mr. Colville: The reason for the delay is that certain officers engaged on this work were temporarily detached for emergency work. I am anxious to push forward the report as quickly as I can.
    Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is time he had further powers to deal with river pollution in Scotland?
    Mr. Colville: That is another question.

    NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICES, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Departments under his control will be accommodated in the new Government offices at Calton Hill, Edinburgh; and how many Departments and the approximate numbers of staff will require to be accommodated elsewhere?
    Mr. Colville: The new buildings will, under present plans, provide for the headquarters staffs of the proposed Home Department (which will replace the Scottish Office, the Fishery Board and the Prisons Department), and of the Departments of Education and Agriculture; for part of the headquarters staff of the Department of Health; for the General Board of Control; and for a branch of the Stationery Office. The total staff to be accommodated will be about 1,300. The Insurance Division and other staff of the Department of Health (numbering in all about 300), the Registrar-General's Department (numbering about 60) and the Scottish Juvenile Welfare and After-Care Office (numbering about 20) will be accommodated elsewhere in Edinburgh. The legal and other non-administrative Departments will continue to occupy their present accommodation. These arrangements are, however, provisional, and the whole question is at present under review.

    HERRING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Fishery Board have now completed their inquiries into the case of damage caused to nets and gear of three St. Monance drifters by the operations of ring-net boats; what is the result of these inquiries; and what steps it is proposed to take to prevent a repetition of incidents of this kind?
    Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir. The Fishery Board for Scotland have made the further inquiries which were promised in my answer to the hon. Member on 23rd February. These have not produced any evidence that the damage was caused by the operations of ring-net fishermen. The

    1915
    commanders of the Fishery Cruisers have instructions to take all possible steps to prevent difficulties arising between drift and ring-net boats and every effort will be made to secure that damage to drift nets does not occur.
    Mr. Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Fishery Board have come to any conclusion? The damage must have been caused somehow. What was the reason?
    Mr. Colville: The board could not be positive, but it is thought that in the three cases referred to the damage is likely to have been caused by the tail ends of the fleets of nets fouling the bottom.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEMBERS' DISQUALIFICATION).
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state what action he pro poses to ensure that town and county councillors who are members of co operative societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, are not prejudiced in comparison with those who are shareholders in companies incorporated under the Companies Acts?
    Mr. Colville: I have been in consultation with the Departmental Committee which is at present reviewing the general local government law in Scotland, and at my request, the committee have been good enough to furnish me in anticipation of their general report with their views on the particular difficulties referred to and also on those which have arisen under Section 107 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925. The committee are agreed that the existing law should be amended in order to meet these difficulties, and I hope to introduce a Bill for the purpose at an early date.
    Mr. Westwood: In view of the serious disquiet in local administrative circles in Scotland, can we have any indication as to how speedily that emergency legislation will be introduced?
    Mr. Colville: I hope that within a fortnight I should be able to introduce a Bill.

    MATERNITY HOMES.
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state to the last convenient date the total number of maternity homes registered by
    1916
    local authorities; the number of nurses they employ; and, of the latter number, those who have neither Central Medical Board qualifications nor registered in the general part of the register of nurses?
    Mr. Colville: Information obtained in 1937 showed that in 146 registered maternity homes at that date, 747 nurses were employed, of whom 107 were neither certified midwives nor general-trained registered nurses. I do not think that the position will have materially altered since that date.

    ICE RINK SITE, ABERDEEN.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he was acquainted on 24th February with the provisions of the article of roup governing the feuof land for an ice rink in Aberdeen in December last; and, if not, whether he was acquainted with these provisions on the 28th February?
    Mr. Colville: On 28th February I received an extract from the Articles of Roup, and I obtained a full copy of the Articles on 1st March.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in his? answer to me on 28th February, he put upon the word "roup" a meaning more favourable than the facts warrant, and that there was a definite inaccuracy in his answer on that date? Does he recognise that fact?
    Mr. Colville: I know the point to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. The wording of my reply on that occasion correctly expressed the interpretation which I understand is placed upon the articles of roup by the Corporation, but I have no authority to say whether or not it is the right interpretation.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough merely to study it for one minute, and he will see that it is a false interpretation?
    Mr. Colville: I have studied it, but it is not for me to express a view.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: For the benefit of those hon. Members who are ignorant of the Scottish language, would the right hon. Gentleman translate the word "roup"?
    Mr. Colville: It means an auction sale.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the articles of roup governing the sale of the ice rink site in Aberdeen last December required that there shall be erected on the site one granite building solely; that the building shall be used for sports on ice or for certain other specified purposes, and for such other purpose, including dancing, as the council may approve; that these conditions rule out the erection upon the land of any other building; that the council had previously agreed with certain company promoters to sell the land on the above terms at a feu duty of £175 per annum though other persons were prepared to bid much more; whether he has yet received a report from the public auditor; and what action he proposes to take on these facts?
    Mr. Colville: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative; but I am not prepared to express any opinion as to the legal interpretation of the conditions. As regards the fourth part of the question, I explained to the hon. Member, in reply to his question on 28th February, that according to my information the Corporation, on receipt of an offer by the company, indicated that they were prepared to dispose of the land in accordance with the statutory procedure. The answer to the fifth part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, on the information before me I do not think that I have power to take any action.
    Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, whether he is aware that if his answer to the first and second parts of my question is in the affirmative, then his answer to me on 28th February must have been inaccurate; and, secondly, does he realise that according to the standard work on this subject by Muir-head, page 126, the power to take action in this case rests in the Crown, and, therefore, in the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Colville: As I have said, I am not prepared to give a legal interpretation of the terms of the articles of roup, but as the hon. Member has given notice that he intends to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, I think it would be better to discuss it then.

    CLERK OF JUSTICIARY.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Lord Advocate what considerations guided him in making the recent appointment to the position of Clerk of Justiciary; what is the age of the appointee; and at what age will he be required to retire?
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): For many years the office of Clerk of Justiciary was held by an advocate on a part-time basis. A change was made experimentally in 1933 when a whole time civil servant was appointed, but on review of the circumstances on his retirement last month, it was found that the post could be adequately filled, as formerly, on a part-time basis. The person appointed is 61 years of age and will be required to retire not later than at age 70.
    Mr. Mathers: While disclaiming any idea of criticising the individual who has been appointed—for I have nothing whatever against him—may I ask the Lord Advocate whether this is a sample of the kind of appointments that we will get as the result of the passing of Clause 4 of the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill, which has been through Committee?
    The Lord Advocate: No, Sir. The post in question has been held for a great many years by a succession of eminent counsel. As far as I am aware, a solicitor has never held the post.
    Mr. Buchanan: Was the retiring occupant an advocate; and will the person who gets the new appointment receive any pension from the Crown on his retirement?
    The Lord Advocate: The answer to the first part of the question is that the person who held the appointment from 1933 until a month ago was a civil servant——
    Mr. Buchanan: And an advocate as well?
    The Lord Advocate: No, he was not a member of any branch of the legal profession. The answer to the second part of the question is that the post does not carry a pension.

    TOWN COUNCILS ACT, 1900.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Lord Advocate whether he proposes to take any, and if so, what, action upon the

    1919
    breach which has been brought to his notice of Section 98 of the Town Councils Act, 1900?
    The Lord Advocate: No, Sir. If the provisions of the Section have not been observed in the case to which the hon. Member refers, I have no power to intervene.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is it then the case that municipal bodies all over the country can carry out actions which are ultra vires and result in great loss to the ratepayers, and that he must watch these things and take no action whatever?
    The Lord Advocate: This is the first occasion, as far as I know, on which any question has been raised with regard to Section 98 of the Town Councils Act, 1900. I should have thought that there were powers under the existing law to prevent any abuses that might arise.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman either take steps to give himself the powers which he states he lacks, or make some public statement to indicate to the ratepayers that the remedy resides in action by them?

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is great concern amongst non-manual workers in regard to the £250 salary limit for entry into national unemployment insurance; and whether, at an early date, he will seek to introduce a scheme, so as to bring in persons whose salaries range up to a maximum of £500?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 2nd March by my right hon. Friend, to a similar question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).
    Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend to go carefully into this question with a view to bringing into unemployment insurance the class of persons set out here and thus give a certain measure of security to large numbers of people, in the event of their becoming unemployed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Member will look at previous answers on the subject I think he would see that that is exactly what is being done.
    Mr. Leslie: Will the Government consider giving effect to the recommendations of the Beveridge Committee and raising the income limit?

    AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Borough of Romford is to be included in the immediate list of those to which equipment and instructions for air-raid shelters are being sent, in view of its very vulnerable position in time of war; and whether he can give any assurance that no means limit will be imposed in connection with the free distribution of the shelters in this and other areas where fares and payments for houses take up such a large part of the weekly income?
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16th February to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Herr ford (Sir M. Sueter).

    NEW ROYAL YACHT.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached as to where the new royal yacht is to be built; whether he will assure the House it will in any case be built solely as a yacht and not on the lines of a semi-warship or with any of a warship's features; and whether he will consider placing the order for its construction either at Clyde-bank or at Dumbarton in order that the workers there may have the opportunity to build the finest yacht in the world, which will prove to all the world the preeminence of British shipbuilding?
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): The intention when Parliament has approved the new programme is to place the order for the construction of the royal yacht by competitive tender, but the hon. Member can rest assured that invitations when issued will certainly include suitable shipbuilding

    1921
    firms both at Clydebank and Dumbarton. The vessel will be built as a yacht, but she will be capable of conversion into a hospital ship if required for such service in any emergency.
    Mr. Maclean: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are other yards on the Clyde in addition to Clyde-bank and Dumbarton, and that there are three yards in Govan which have already built yachts for Royalty?
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, any yard capable of building a good yacht will certainly be given an opportunity of tendering.
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: As soon as the preparations are sufficiently far advanced, will my hon. and gallant Friend undertake to place a sketch of the proposed design in the Tea Room?

    LONDON UNIVERSITY (AMERICAN STUDENT).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Harper W. Poulson, an American student at London University, has recently acted as unpaid editor of "Student Forum"; that on 1st February, 1939, he was told he must surrender his connection with this undergraduate paper or leave the country; and whether he will make it clear that foreign students will in future be allowed to play a full part in all undergraduate activities?
    The Undersecretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): An application was made in August last to engage the whole-time services of Mr. Poulson as managing director of "Student Forum," Limited, and editor of the paper "Student Forum" at a salary of £200 per annum, and it was represented that Mr. Poulson had been a sub-editor, had sold advertising space and had technical knowledge of printing and publishing. As it appeared that this appointment was similar to an ordinary commercial appointment, and as Mr. Poulson had been admitted to this country as a student and not for purposes of employment, the application was refused. When it was found this year that Mr. Poulson was nevertheless acting as a director and editor, he was warned that it would not be possible to allow his stay in this
    1922
    country to continue. Subsequently, however, information has been received to the effect that the earlier proposal of running this paper with a paid staff has been abandoned, and that Mr. Poulson's position is that of a student giving voluntary assistance to a student publication. If this be so, there will be no objection to Mr. Poulson continuing such activities as are consonant with his position as a student.
    Mr. Harvey: Are we to understand that it is the Under-Secretary's view that foreign students at universities are free to give unpaid help to student magazines?
    Mr. Lloyd: Broadly speaking, I think that is so, but, of course, each individual case has to be considered on its own merits.
    Miss Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether in the present condition of affairs his Department could not find something far better to do than fussing about a matter of the pocket-money of students?
    Mr. Lloyd: This appeared to be a genuine commercial application and if it was a genuine commercial application we had to consider the interests of our own people who might have been employed.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand from the previous answer given by the Under-Secretary that there are certain circumstances in which foreign students would be prevented from giving voluntary help to student papers?
    Mr. Lloyd: What I said was that the original application had been for a managing director of "Student Forum," Limited, and editor of the paper "Student Forum" at a salary of £200 per annum. In that case, the employment aspect of the matter naturally had to be considered.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Do we understand that foreign students in general are to be prevented from giving voluntary service?
    Mr. Lloyd: I did not say that. I gave a broad generalisation, in reply to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey), but I added that each case had to be considered on its merits.
    Miss Rathbone: Will Mr. Poulson be permitted to remain in this country to the normal end of his university career?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

    INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (COTTON OPERATIVES).
    Mr. Kerrasked the Home Secretary whether any decision has yet been reached as to what action the Government intends to take upon the report and recommendations of the committee which investigated the question of dust in card-rooms?
    Mr. Lloyd: I can only refer at present to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) last Wednesday week.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (TIGER IX ENGINES).
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air how many Tiger IX engines have been supplied to the Royal Air Force during the last two years; whether they have proved satisfactory; whether any have been replaced; and the price paid for each engine?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Seven Tiger IX engines have been supplied to the Royal Air Force during the two years ended 28th February, 1939, as part of a total purchase of 80 of this type. The engine was subject to a reduced period of development, due to its being one of the first of the new types acquired for the early part of the expansion programme. It did not prove entirely satisfactory before modification. No replacements have been acquired, and it is now being superseded by later types which are giving satisfactory service. In regard to the last part of the question, it is contrary to public policy to disclose prices paid.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to continue the present agreements with Imperial Airways, Limited, after the end of this month?
    Captain Balfour: The only agreement with Imperial Airways, Limited, which is due to terminate at the end of the current month is that part of the agreement of 9th March, 1929, which provides for services between London and places in Europe. Arrangements are being made for extended European services, and it is hoped that these extended services will be
    1924
    introduced next month. For their operation an agreement with Imperial Airways, Limited, and also with British Airways, Limited, will be necessary.

    INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ORDER.
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of calling an international peace conference for the purpose of considering the most appropriate steps for securing international justice through the establishment of an equity tribunal in order to settle all disputes, and a police force to uphold international law and order, as an effective alternative to the present race in armaments?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the view of His Majesty's Government there is at present no prospect of general agreement on proposals for an equity tribunal and an international police force.
    Mr. Mander: Will the Prime Minister say what policy the Government have, if any, as an alternative to the race in armaments?
    The Prime Minister: Not in answer to a supplementary question.

    SPAIN.
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether any exchange of views has taken place with the United States Government on the subject of the recognition of General Franco?
    The Prime Minister: No exchange of views took place between the two Governments, but the United States Government were kept informed of the views of His Majesty's Government in regard to this matter.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not the policy of the United States Government not to recognise acts of foreign aggression; and has the Prime Minister any knowledge of what attitude the United States Government are going to take up on this matter?
    The Prime Minister: It is not for me to say what the policy of the United States Government is.
    Mr. Mander: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know very well what attitude the French Government would take up?

    HOUSING (BUILDING BY-LAWS).
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Health whether, for the protection of working-class purchasers of newly-built houses, he will consult with the local authorities with a view to tightening up local by-laws to ensure that newly-built houses should be of better quality so as to give reasonably long service without abnormal repairs?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Under the Public Health Act, 1936, building bylaws made prior to the passing of the Act will lapse in July next, and a model code for the guidance of local authorities in preparing new by-laws has been issued by my Department. So far, therefore, as the matter can be dealt with by building by-laws, the action suggested by my hon. Friend is already being taken.
    Mr. Thorne: Will the model by-laws that may be issued in the future be different from the old ones?
    Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir, but it is not merely a question of new by-laws, but of enforcing existing by-laws.
    Mr. Day: Has an agreement been reached with the local authorities with regard to the by-laws?
    Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Macquisten: Will they allow builders to put in gas as well as electricity?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister the reason for the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night?
The Prime Minister: It is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to obtain the Committee stage of the Diplomatic and Consular Services and Foreign Office Votes, and the second, third and fourth Orders, being the Report stages of the Supplementary Estimates which have recently been considered in Committee. The Report stages of the Colonial Office and Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Votes will, however, not be taken to-night. We also propose to take the Report and Third Reading of the Cancer Bill.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 122.

Division No. 54.]

AYES.

[3.47 p.m.

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

Cartland. J. R. H.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

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

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

Emery, J. F.

Albery, Sir Irving

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

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

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

Emrys-Evans, P V.

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

Channon, H.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

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

Chapman, A. (Rutherglan)

Everard, Sir William Lindsay

Apsley, Lord

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Fleming, E. L.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Christie, J. A.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Furness, S. N.

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

Colfox, Major W. P.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Balniel, Lord

Colman, N. C. D.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Granville, E. L.

Beit, Sir A. L.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Han. J.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

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

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Bernays, R. H.

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

Crimston. R. V.

Blair, Sir R.

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

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Bossom, A. C.

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

Masking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

Boyes, H. Leslie

Crossley, A. C.

Hambro, A. V.

Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

Culverwell, C. T.

Hammersley, S. S.

Brass, Sir W.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Harbord, A.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Harvey, Sir G.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

De la Bère, R.

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

Brooklebank, Sir Edmund

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Haslam. Sir J. (Bolton)

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Denville, Alfred

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

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

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

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

Donner, P. W.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Bull, B. B.

Drewe, C.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Higgs, W. F.

Burghley, Lord

Duggan, H. J.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Dunglass, Lord

Holdsworth, H.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

Eastwood, J. F.

Holmes, J. S.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Hopkinson. A.

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J,

Horsbrugh, Florence

Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Moreing, A. C.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich.)

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

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

Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

Hunter, T.

Nall, Sir J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Keeling, E. H.

Orr-Ewing, I. L

Storey, S.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montross)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Patrick, C. M.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Peake, O.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Sutcliffe, H.

Kimball, L.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

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

Petherick, M.

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

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Pilkington, R.

Thomas, J. P. L.

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Touche, G. C.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Porritt, R. W.

Train, Sir J.

Lees-Jones, J.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Radford, E. A.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Ramsbotham, H.

Turton, R. H.

Liddall, W. S.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Lipson, D. L.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Han. Euan

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Rayner, Major R. H.

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

Lloyd, G. W.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Warrender, Sir V.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Remer, J. R.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Wells, Sir Sydney

McKie, J. H.

Rosbotham, Sir T.

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

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

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Macquisten, F. A.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

Maitland, Sir Adam

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

Russell, Sir Alexander

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

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

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

Salmon, Sir I.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Markham, S. F.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Marsden, Commander A.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

York, C.

Mailer, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Scott, Lord William

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Selley, H. R.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Captain Hope and Mr. Munro.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Marklew, E.

Adamson, W. M.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Marshall, F.

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

Grenfell, D. R.

Mathers, G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Messer, F.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Montague, F.

Banfield, J. W.

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

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

Barnes, A. J.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Muff, G.

Barr, J.

Hall. J. H. (Whitechapel)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Batey, J.

Hardie, Agnes

Owen, Major G

Bellenger, F. J.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Parker, J.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Hayday, A.

Parkinson, J. A.

Benson, G.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Pearson, A.

Bevan, A.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Poole, C. C.

Buchanan, G.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Price, M. P.

Burke, W. A.

Jagger, J.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Chater,.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Ridley, G.

Cluse, W. S.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Cocks. F. S.

John, W.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Cove, W. G.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Sanders, W. S.

Daggar, G.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Dalton, H.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Silkin, L.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Kirkwood, D.

Simpson, F. B.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lathan, G.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Day, H.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Dobbie, W.

Leach, W.

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

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Leonard, W.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Ede, J. C.

Leslie, J. R.

Sorensen, R. W.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Logan, D, G.

Stephen, C.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Lunn, W.

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

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

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

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

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Foot, D. M.

McGhee, H. G.

Thorne, W.

Frankel, D.

MacLaren, A.

Thurtle, E.

Gardner, B. W.

Maclean, N.

Tinker, J. J.

Garro Jones, G. M.

MacNeill Weir, L.

Tomlinson, G.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mander, G. le M.

Viant, S. P.

1928

1929

Walker, J.

Westwood, J,

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Watkins, F. C.

While, H. Graham

Watson, W. McL.

Wilkinson, Ellen

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

Welsh, J. C.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Question put, and agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Mathers: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, with respect to coal mine refuse liable to spontaneous combustion."
The necessity for this Bill being brought in is that when a similar Bill applying to England and Wales was given an unopposed Second Reading in this House on 25th November that particular Bill did not refer to Scotland. Rather than go through the process of recommitting that Bill and making it into a United Kingdom Measure, it was thought desirable that Scotland should be covered separately. The purpose of this Bill is entirely the same, that is, to make it possible for a local authority having coal mine refuse bings in its locality to be able to apply to have such deposits of coal mine refuse declared to be a nuisance, and to have them dealt with as a nuisance in the public interest. That proposal would put additional powers into the hands of local authorities beyond those they have at the present time, and since it became known that I was to bring in such a Bill certain apprehensions have been expressed to me, but I think that very largely those apprehensions are ill-founded, and in any case the object of the Bill is so desirable in itself that I think any possible inconvenience—and it can amount to little more—which is placed upon those who own these deposits ought not to stand in the way of bringing this Bill into effect.
However, because of the fears which have been expressed with regard to the effect of this Bill, I have considered it expedient to introduce into it two provisos which are not in the Bill applying to England and Wales. The first proviso is that any application made by a local authority to have such a deposit declared a nuisance will be heard before a sheriff, which means to say that it shuts out the lay magistrates and justices who, in the ordinary course might deal with an application to have a coal mine refuse bing declared a nuisance. The taking of such applications before a sheriff guarantees that a properly equipped legal mind will deal with them. In our Scottish
1930
legal system the sheriff is a person whose reputation stands very high, and I am sure we may be confident that justice will be done in respect of any such applications.
There is another proviso which says that it will be a defence, on any such action being raised, that the owners of a deposit have taken due precautions to prevent the coal-mine refuse becoming ignited through spontaneous combustion. There are ways and means open to prevent that spontaneous combustion, and I think that those who are the owners of such bings are in duty bound in the public interest to take whatever steps can be taken to prevent the ignition of the deposits. I need not stress the importance of that matter. It is well known that very great harm is done by the fumes that comes from these burning bings, and I do not know of any place in the country which is more detrimentally affected than certain parts of my own constituency. I am very glad, therefore, to have the opportunity of asking the House for leave to bring in this Bill. Recently we have had a further reason, apart from the health reason, why the bings should be dealt with, and that is because of the guidance they would give to enemy aircraft in the event of an attack by air on this country. I am not seeking to stress that point at all.
It has also been represented to me that the Bill might cause difficulty to those who are now using such accumulations of coal-mine refuse for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. I am told that in Scotland more than 75 per cent. of the bricks used are made from these coal-mine bings. Naturally, I have no wish whatever to interfere with the making of bricks which may accelerate housing progress. I have no desire to interfere with the employment that is thus provided in a new industry, and I very earnestly want to see the bings used for that purpose in order that we can get them used up. They are not in keeping with the amenities of many parts of our countryside, and if this brick-making process can go on and we can have these humps on the horizon removed, then good luck to those who are carrying on that activity.

1931
The provisions of the Bill are such that they should commend themselves to every part of the House. There are hon. Members backing the Bill from every section in the House. I ask not only for leave to bring in the Bill, but for assistance in proceeding with its further stages in order that it may be placed on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mathers, Mr. Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Barr, Mr. Cassells, Mr. Gallacher, Mr. Robert Gibson, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Henderson Stewart, Mr. McLean Watson, Mr. Welsh, and Mr. Westwood.

PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND).
  PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to amend the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, with respect to coal mine refuse liable to spontaneous combustion," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1938.
      CLASS II.

        DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £259,087, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1939, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants-in-aid; and sundry services arising out of the war."
        4.7 p.m.
        The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if we consider the two Votes with which I have to deal, each under its own head. I am not quite clear whether we are to consider first the Foreign Office Vote and then to take the Vote for Diplomatic and Consular Services.
        The Deputy-Chairman: We shall take first the Vote for the Diplomatic and Consular Services. The Foreign Office comes under a separate Vote later on.
        Mr. Butler: The Diplomatic and Consular Services Vote, as the Committee will see, is under a great many heads relating to matters of considerable interest. I shall attempt to describe the contents of the Vote according to the several different heads. The first head may be taken to cover questions arising out of the ordinary Diplomatic and Consular Services, including several special missions and services, and might include Votes C, L, P, Q, KK, MM, and the British Legion Contingent grant under YY. That is one heading. The second heading, "News and Propaganda," would cover Votes K and N. The third heading includes two Votes on Spain to deal with the Non-intervention Committee and the withdrawal of volunteers; that is items PP and TT. The last heading which my remarks will follow
        1946
        will cover humanitarian questions under SS, WW, XX and ZZ. I adopt that procedure because otherwise we should be jumping from one head to another and the discussion might be very difficult to follow.
        To deal first with the heading C, "Journeys on the Public Service": For journeys on the public service there was a provision of £26,000 originally, based on the experience Of normal requirements, and this particular additional sum of £6,000 reflects the increased activity of Diplomatic and Consular officers due to the highly disturbed political conditions of last year. There are no particular features under this heading and I can pass to head L, Special Missions and Services, of which there are a good many subheads. The first sub-head is an extra amount of £1,300 wanted for the payment of the commercial mission in Spanish territories under the authority of General Franco. This refers to Sir Robert Hodgson, who was appointed in order to keep contact, in this commercial mission, with the Franco authorities. I should like to pay atribute to the work that Sir Robert Hodgson has done. He had already had a distinguished career before he went to Burgos, and I know it will be agreed that the contact which he was able to establish and the respect in which he was held by those authorities were extremely valuable in the circumstances of the time. The original Estimate has been exceeded by this sum of £1,300, and it covers, of course, the cost of Sir Robert Hodgson's salary, and that of his assistants, typists, servants, and so forth.
        The next sub-heading is a provision for gas masks for the British civilian community in Egypt. This payment has to be made in order to reimburse the sum paid to provide gas masks for this community. The justification of these Estimates is based simply on the ground of the very special position in Egypt, its strategic importance and the necessity for providing those there with gas masks. I understand that the masks are being held in storage by the British military authorities and that arrangements for their distribution in an emergency are in hand. The next head is payment of British observers in Czecho-Slovakia, a sum of £4,000. I shall sum up the position for the convenience of Members. There were originally two observers sent

        1947
        in June of last year, Mr. Henderson and Major Sutton-Pratt. On 27th September it was decided that more should be sent, and six or more were sent on 30th September, which made up a total of eight or nine to form a band of observers. Shortly after that steps were taken to recruit 40 additional observers to form a larger body that would be in a position to exercise a calming and valuable influence in preventing the occurrence of unfortunate incidents. The International Commission set up under the Munich Agreement, after some discussion agreed that the observers should be placed under its orders. They were, therefore, utilised by the International Commission, and in accordance with Section 3 of the Munich Agreement their services were used during the evacuation of the Sudeten areas. This evacuation was carried out smoothly, and in view of the feeling of tension which prevailed before, great credit is reflected on all concerned, and I think we ought to pay a tribute to the work which the British observers gave in this connection.
        Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Did they leave any reports as to the conditions?
        Mr. Butler: The Government were kept fully informed of the activities of the observers.
        Mr. Mander: The right hon. Gentleman says that the evacuation was carried out smoothly, but is it not a fact that tens of thousands of refugees poured in terror over the frontier?
        Mr. Butler: I have said, and other speakers have said on behalf of the Government in the past, that there have been certain difficulties over this delicate and indeed dangerous operation, and the fact that it was carried out comparatively without incident is due to the calming influence exercised by the observers at that time. I am not going to deny that refugees crossed the frontier or that there were serious difficulties, but I think that without the observers the difficulties would have been worse.
        Mr. Benn: The whole purpose of this £4,000 relates to these observers. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Committee will be entitled to ask in connection with this item what the observers reported as to the conditions? We were told that with the entry of the German troops arrived the Gestapo, who
        1948
        proceeded to deal with certain people. That must have been noted by the observers. This is the proper time for the Committee to inquire into these matters.
        Mr. Butler: I have told the right hon. Gentleman that I have no report of that nature which I can give to the Committee. I will continue my story, therefore, describing the work which the observers did in extremely difficult circumstances.
        Mr. Ridley: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that the Government do not know what the observers observed? Do they not know what the observers saw in regard to the operation of Clause 7 of the agreement?
        Mr. Butler: These observers were sent for the purpose of watching and, by the calming influence they were able to exert, preventing unpleasant incidents arising. It is a little too much to expect the Government to lay a series of reports from observers who were appointed for a purpose which they most admirably discharged. We have our own missions abroad and we have our own reports from those countries. While I respect the wish of the right hon. Gentleman to obtain, as he is entitled to, every possible piece of information, I am afraid that I cannot add any more to what I have said on this heading.
        Mr. Noel-Baker: This matter is one which affects our own British interests in a most intimate manner. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the observers reported anything about the evacuation of the Czecho-Slovak army when they left the territory? It was their duty to supervise that evacuation. Can he say whether it is true, as was reported, that 1,200 pieces of heavy artillery were kept by the Germans and moved to the Western front?
        Mr. Butler: I ask the hon. Member to put himself in the position in which I stand on this question. We recruited a certain number of observers. It was not within their competence to present to us reports which could be more suitably sent by our military attacés. As the hon. Member knows, our missions abroad have military attaches. I think I can tell him that it is not in the public interest that we should publish reports that we receive from our military attachés.
        Mr. Benn Mr. Benn rose——
        Mr. Butler: I have really given way quite a number of times and there are many other items on which I might be up and down the whole time. The Government are fully informed on these matters, which are confidential.
        Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but I must point out that it cannot be confidential whether or not the evacuation of the Czecho-Slovak army was carried out in conditions foreseen by the Munich Agreement. It was never proposed under the Munich Agreement that Czechoslovakia should not be able to take their armaments with them back into Czechoslovakia. As those observers went for the purpose of seeing that those evacuations were carried out smoothly, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and in accordance with the provisions of the Munich Agreement, surely they must have reported whether the armaments were taken or not. Surely that is a point on which the committee that authorised the expenditure of this public money has a right to information.
        Mr. Butler: I told the hon. Gentleman that I was serving the Committee to the best of my ability, and that I have no report on this matter that I can give to the Committee. The next item deals with the exchange of prisoners in Spain. The Committee will appreciate that this is the work of which Field-Marshal Sir Philip Chetwode was in charge. I should like to pay a tribute to the work which he has done and to the esteem in which he has been held by both sides in Spain. One of the early achievements of the Commission was to bring to a successful conclusion in extremely difficult circumstances the negotiations which had been proceeding between both parties for an exchange of refugees at the Cuban Embassy at Madrid, and which were on the point of breaking down. The Commission furthermore succeeded in acquiring from the ex-Spanish Government certain promises of clemency. It is due to the work of the Commission that the reprisals, which at one time provided a severe outlook, were avoided. The sum of £3,800 which we are asked to vote for this Commission is proved to have been very worth while spending.
        Miss Rathbone: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether similar
        1950
        arrangements were made about reprisals from General Franco?
        Mr. Butler: I am afraid that it would not be in order to do so on this Vote. I am describing the work of the Commission and the arrangements for the exchange of prisoners in Spain, and am not describing the policy in relation to recent events with respect to General Franco.
        Mr. Charles Williams: How many prisoners were exchanged under this sub-heading?
        Miss Rathbone: I was not referring to-recognition of General Franco. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the success of the Commission in securing from the Republican Government an arrangement about no reprisals; did they secure similar promises from the other side?
        Mr. Butler: I can at once assure the hon. Lady that the communications of the Commission were with both sides, and that care was taken to get assurances from both sides. I regret to say that the exchange of prisoners has not been on a large scale. There have been various forms of exchange of prisoners through various agencies, but this particular agency has not been responsible for a large scale number of prisoners. That is why, in stressing the achievements of the Commission, I indicated certain highlights rather than gave figures and numbers.
        Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——
        The Deputy-Chairman: There is a positive spate of questions. We must give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to go on with his speech.
        Mr. Butler: The next item is with regard to Lord Runciman's mission to Prague, for which we are asking the sum of £1,700. The Committee will remember the circumstances in which Lord Runciman, accompanied by a small staff consisting of Mr. Peto, Mr. Ashton-Gwatkin of the Foreign Office, Mr. Stopford of the Treasury, and Mr. Henderson, formerly His Majesty's Consul at Innsbruck, went to Prague for the purposes of this mission. The sum of £1,700 is required for travelling and hotel expenses of Lord Runciman and his staff, and the salaries of those of his staff who were temporarily engaged. This is a comparatively small sum, compared

        1951
        with some other sub-headings, in view of the excellent services of Lord Runciman at that time.
        The next item relates to the Commission on Aerial Bombardments in Spain. The constitution of that commission was suggested by the late Spanish Ambassador in London. He suggested that an international commission should be set up to report on aerial bombardments in Spain. We made every effort to secure the adhesion to this commission of other Governments, but for various reasons, as I have told the House and now tell the Committee, those other Governments refused to co-operate, with the result that in the end His Majesty's Government by themselves sent a commission to report on aerial bombardments in Spain. The commission proceeded to Toulouse and was ready for its work on 1st September last. Since that date they have issued seven reports, including accounts of bombardments of Alicante, Figuer as, Barcelona and Tarragona. The sole concern of His Majesty's Government has been with the machinery of producing those reports. I would make it clear to the Committee that the reports themselves are the responsibility of the commission. While I was at Geneva I was able to hear testimony paid by Signor del Vayo to the work contained in these reports. He paid a tribute to the impartial and thorough manner in which the two officers concerned had done their work. I should like to add my own tribute, because it is now proposed by His Majesty's Government that this commission should be disbanded.
        The next sub-head which I suggested we should take was P, relating to office expenses and fee allowances. Since the Estimate was prepared, in November, 1937, there has been a large increase in the consular office expenses in Vienna, as a result of the disappearance of the Legation. Additional expenditure has been necessitated, too, for various office staffs by the rush of visa work, because of the requirement of visas on German passports, and owing, in the second place, to the situation of the Jews. It is not surprising that there has been an increase in the amount necessary.
        The next item relates to outfits, travelling and special services, extra expenditure which is almost entirely attributable to the highly disturbed political conditions
        1952
        which have obtained. In consequence of those unusual conditions, there has been a series of moves and therefore an increase in allowances and so forth. This amount covers the disturbances and displacements due to the wars in Spain and China, which have resulted in a good many emergency journeys. Similarly, the crisis of last September resulted in a good many journeys in Europe. The next heading relates to telegrams, which has naturally been very heavy. I have made inquiries in the Department and I find that the utmost care is being exercised in the despatch of telegrams, and that verbosity is not being encouraged. Nevertheless, it is important to make one's meaning clear. The result is, naturally, to give rise to this increased amount. I would draw attention also to the system by which the sending of telegrams by bag is encouraged, and therefore the need for their reception over wires or by wireless is rendered less. Similarly, in order to be sure that public money is not wasted, there have been issued as lately as June last circulars reminding the heads of missions overseas of the need for economy in telegraphing.
        The next heading is MM, "Passport visa control abroad." There has naturally been, in Germany in particular, as a result of the revised visa requirements and of a mass of Jewish refugees seeking information and assistance, a very great extra strain imposed upon our Consular officers abroad, and this extra money is needed by reason of the increased work. I have been making inquiries from those who control these services, and I know that our passport control offices in Central Europe have, during the past 12 months, been beseiged by refugees desiring to be sent to parts of the British Empire, asking question on the prospects of emigration and countless questions as to how they could secure a future for themselves. During the present financial year the staff of the office in Berlin has been trebled, and at Vienna it has been increased from four to 25, but even so at both places the staff has had to work for very many hours, often well into the night, in order to cope with the work. While I have been paying a tribute to some of our more distinguished representatives abroad, I would like also to pay a tribute to the work that these men and women have done to relieve suffering, very often at great personal in-

        1953
        convenience, and under the strain in which they have had to work in the circumstances which I have described.
        I come now to the heading YY, dealing with the decision to send members of the British Legion to Czecho-Slovakia. It will be remembered that it was suggested that members of the British Legion should go to Czecho-Slovakia during the crisis last September. The British Legion proposal was incorporated in the proposals for a peaceful settlement put to Herr Hitler by His Majesty's Government on 27th September. It was an exceptional measure, put forward at the last moment in the hope of averting what might have developed into a European war, and in so far as it was favourably received by Herr Hitler, the British Legion proposal contributed to a peaceful settlement of the dispute. The Committee will remember that the services of the members of the British Legion were not finally employed, but some rather elaborate arrangements had to be made in order to despatch a force of what amounted to 1,200 men recruited by the British Legion for special duties in connection with the plebiscite in Czechoslovakia. Candidates were informed that the possible duration of their services would be about six weeks; the men were to receive suitable payment. Olympia was taken over as a rallying centre for the Legion, and two ships were requisitioned for the transport of the Legion into Germany.
        It was on 13th October that the International Commission reached the decision to dispense with a plebiscite, and in view of this decision the services of the British Legion were no longer required, and the contingent was disbanded. Before it was disbanded, however, my Noble Friend the Secretary of State sent a letter to all members of the Legion to thank them for their action, pointing out that their services had had a wider significance than they might perhaps realise in their disappointment. The German Government also sent a similar message of thanks to them, expressing their appreciation of the Legion's public spiritedness in holding itself ready for use if necessary. That, I think, describes the story of the British Legion. The expenses, as the Committee will see, were considerable, and that is why I have taken time in explaining the reasons. I could give, if required, details of the expenses, which include as to
        1954
        about one-third pay and allowances, the rest being devoted to travelling; for instance, sea transport, the hire of two liners, which amounted to a considerable sum, clothing and equipment, food and accommodation during the period at Olympia. All these, it will readily be seen, easily make up the rest of the sum. That, I think, covers as well as I can in my opening remarks, the various headings in regard to staff and special services.
        The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know whether the Committee would like to take each item separately or whether it would prefer to take the Vote as a whole.
        Mr. David Grenfell: I do not think it matters very much. I am not sure that the Committee is seized of the order in which the Votes have been placed, but if there is no objection, I do not think there should be any difficulty in pursuing now the other groups mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Butler: Perhaps it will be convenient if I repeat the groups that I am going to take. I have dealt already with C, L, P, Q, KK, MM, and YY. K, M, and N deal with news and propaganda, and the first heading here is "News Department Expenses." The reason for this is the appointment of Press officers to certain of our missions abroad. This is an all-important step for the co-ordination of our publicity. Nine such additional Press officers have been appointed during the last year, and this sum is required to meet the salaries of those and any others appointed up to 31st March. Most of the appointments are quite recent; hence the sum is not very large. These officers' work is, I think, very valuable at this time, and I think it is a step forward for our publicity abroad that we should have taken the decision to appoint Press officers to those missions. They naturally work under the supervision of the Ambassador or Minister on whose staff they serve.
        The second point is a sum of £6,000 paid during the crisis to Reuter's for the extra sending of words daily from the two stations at Leafield and Rugby. Leafield serves chiefly Europe and to a certain extent the Near East, and Rugby the rest of the world. It was thought that an increased output of news of the type that Reuter's send would be very valuable at the time of the crisis. The amount of

        1955
        words, thanks to this contribution, was raised from 1,000 to 3,000 daily, and the expenditure was divided approximately as between Leafield and Rugby, a certain amount going to ordinary headquarters expenses. I think the Committee will appreciate the value of this decision when they understand that some 20,000 words were going out daily from some American agencies, and, therefore, the decision to increase, by a special and quite extraordinary contribution to Reuter's, the amount of British words going out daily from these stations will, I think, be agreed to have been a valuable one.
        The next heading is N "British Council." The British Council, as the Committee will know, is doing important work in spreading in foreign countries a knowledge of the English language and of British culture, thought, and institutions. I was interested to see in the "Times" to-day a tribute to an aspect of this cultural and non-political work of the British Council, in a letter written from Rome on 21st February, congratulating the Old Vic Players, who have just been visiting. Italy, and paying a special tribute to the manner in which "Hamlet" was rendered. I believe that this work done by the British Council abroad is extremely valuable. Let me instance further that the British Council have had considerable success in, for example, two particular places, to give only two examples. In Athens extra teachers for the School of English Studies have been a great success—there have been no fewer than 5,000 applicants for the courses—and in Bucharest extra teachers have been organised for the Anglo-Rumanian Institute, and there are now readers in English at two of the Rumanian universities.
        This is an example of the type of work of the British Council which is steadily developing. They help to create Chairs of English in foreign universities, and over 150 foreign students are at present holding British Council scholarships or bursaries lasting for one year or more at British universities and university colleges. We have been accused in this country of not taking enough trouble to spread our own culture and ideas, and I think we should thank the British Council for the pioneer work which they are doing in this direction. I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the
        1956
        Opposition for his collaboration in this matter, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition, who has given his assistance, and I think we should all be agreed in thanking the Chairman, Lord Lloyd, for devoting the majority of his time to this work, and also those public-spirited donors who contribute a considerable sum of money to the work of the British Council every year. I think everybody realises what they have done. Therefore, I trust that with this explanation of the Council's work the Committee will agree that this sum for the all-important British Council at the present time is justified. That covers the general heading of "News and propaganda" under K, M, and N.
        Now I come to Spanish questions, under PP and TT. The first is a contribution to the international fund established by the Committee for the application of the agreement regarding non-intervention in Spain. This particular grant is necessary for the preparations made by the Non-intervention Board, which is the international agency used by the Nonintervention Committee. The money required has been used in grants up till now for keeping in being the scheme of observation, and this Supplementary Estimate refers to the scheme of observation on the Spanish-French frontier and also to the question of sea observation. The Committee will probably wish to know what the present position about the scheme of observation is, and it may be said that in view of the gradual termination of hostilities, and in view of the fact that the observing officers have been held in readiness for some time and that it has become unlikely that their services would be needed, there has been a series of dismissals of those who have been collected to act as observing officers.
        In the case of the land scheme the personnel was reduced by a considerable number of officers on 15th February last, and the number of officers will probably be further reduced in the course of this month. That is a wise course, because those who are responsible for voting the money want to be quite satisfied that we are taking steps to make the necessary economies. The sea observation scheme has been in full operation since April, 1937, and until very recently it has not been possible to make substantial economies. In regard to both these schemes, and more perhaps in regard to

        1957
        the land scheme, which has not been so recently in operation, it may be said that the service of the observation officers was not always in active operation. The answer is that it was thought advisable to keep a nexus of officers in being so that if the Non-intervention Committee's plan had been brought into force the services of these officers could at once have been called upon, and the plan could have been put into operation and gradually extended to deal with the problem.
        In regard to the sea observation scheme, it is true to say that the fact that the vast majority of ships trading with the Spanish ports of the late Government of Spain carried non-intervention officers militated against breaches of the nonintervention scheme. I think that fact has tended to prove that the sea observation scheme, about which there have been a great many questions asked in the House, has been a valuable one.
        Mr. Benn: To Franco.
        Mr. Butler: I do not accept that statement, but I do not want to enter into controversy on the point. The contribution under TT is towards the expenses in connection with the withdrawal of volunteers from Spain. This is another aspect of the money which has been spent with a view to preparing for the Non-intervention Committee's plan coming into operation. Certain advance payments were made, as I informed the Committee last year on a Supplementary Estimate. These advances were made for the purpose of making preparations in connection with the withdrawal of foreign volunteers. I would remind the Committee that the decision taken by the late Spanish Government to disband their own foreign volunteers, accomplished a good deal of the withdrawal work, at any rate on one side, with the result that the immediate need of the scheme for the withdrawal of volunteers was not so necessary on this one side. In this case also a nucleus was kept in being always ready to be used in the event of the Non-intervention Committee's plan being brought into operation. The justification for voting this money is that it is best to take trouble with a scheme of this sort to make sure that the object we all desire, the withdrawal of volunteers, should be brought about and that we should be ready for action. The observation scheme contribution that we are making this month will
        1958
        be greatly reduced from what it was before, because the scheme does not call for as much expense as if it were being fully used.
        The contribution under SS, WW, XX, and ZZ come under the humanitarian heading. The item SS includes a further contribution to the international fund established by the International Commission for the assistance of child refugees in Spain. We have been continually pressed as a Government to make further contributions to this International Commission, and we have been kept closely in touch with its work at London and Geneva. During the time of the retreats, when the refugees were having to flee from one town to another, many hundreds, indeed, thousands of children owed their lives to the work that was done by this commission, and I am glad to say that it has now extended its work to refugees who have crossed the French frontier. There is no doubt that the contributions made by His Majesty's Government had the effect of encouraging other Governments to contribute to the fund, and when other Governments contributed I am glad to say that we increased our contributions, to try and keep our generosity commensurate with the terrible tragedy with which the commission had to deal. The commission is now doing work in Nationalist territory. Representatives of the commission have recently been to Burgos and special arrangements have been made for relief in Nationalist territory. They have expressed the view that relief in Spain will continue to be urgently required until next autumn. Therefore, in voting this sum the Committee may realise that the International Commission is continuing its work not only on behalf of the refugees who have gone into France but in the Nationalist territory occupied at Barcelona and elsewhere by General Franco.
        Item WW deals with the evacuation and maintenance of British refugees from China. On the outbreak of hostilities in the Shanghai area in August, 1937, arrangements were made by the British Government, through its consular authorities, with the help of local committees, for the evacuation of British women and children to Hong Kong. Between 17th and 24th August about 3,800 British subjects were sent to Hong Kong in six ships. Some 3,300 British subjects found their

        1959
        own accommodation and paid for it, but about 500 became a charge on the Government. The Hong Kong Government made the necessary arrangements for the relief of these. The expenditure during 1938–39 is expected not to exceed £11,000, and the amount recovered from various individuals, which goes as an appropriation in aid, comes to about £3,600.
        Item XX refers to the relief of distress in Spain: a contribution of £2,500 towards the International Red Cross. The Committee will be aware that throughout the Spanish struggle His Majesty's Government have done their best to contribute to all humanitarian causes, and in addition to the International Commission the International Red Cross is one of the causes which we thought it right to support. The final item ZZ relates to expenses incurred in connection with the repatriation of British volunteers from Spain—£3,000. This sum is intended to provide for the expenses of some 500 men. Up to 14th January last, the latest date covered by the League Commission superintending the withdrawal of volunteers, some 400 men had returned to this country. The remainder are continuing to arrive in small numbers, and it is hoped that the total number will soon have returned.
        I have had a certain amount of correspondence with hon. Members in regard to some of their constituents who have been involved. I should like to say a few words with regard to the undertaking for the repayment of expenses by the volunteers. This is the normal rule which concerns British subjects who are in distress abroad, but it does not mean that the Government will insist on a poor volunteer, who may be out of work and in distress, repaying the money for his repatriation. It is simply the normal provision. I can assure hon. Members that in many cases we have remitted the expense when we have been quite sure that those who are in trouble are not able to pay themselves. Therefore, I trust there will be no anxiety on that score.
        Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to add to the information? Does this Estimate include any provision for paying the expenses of certain Stateless members of the International Brigade, who cannot be provided for by the Government of their
        1960
        own country because they cannot safely return to their own country? There are a certain number of Stateless members of the International Brigade.
        Mr. Butler: This Supplementary Estimate is for British volunteers repatriated from Spain. I shall have to take advantage of another occasion to explain to the hon. Lady the arrangements for foreign volunteers. I have now covered all the headings in the Supplementary Estimate, and I therefore urge its acceptance on behalf of the Government.
        4.57 p.m.
        Mr. Grenfell: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
        I think the Committee is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his very capable attention to every item of this very long list of expenditure, but we should have been better pleased if he had allowed himself a little more time to give us details which he omitted. Perhaps in the later stage of the Debate those details will be forthcoming. As I sat here I felt that if I had known nothing about the subjects under discussion I should have gleaned very little definite information from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. We recognise that he has left himself open to questions, which he will naturally expect, and we hope that before the Debate finishes certain necessary details will be given.
        For the convenience of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman divided the Estimate into various categories according to the quality of the service catered for. In that regard we are indebted to him. He first called attention to the increased expenditure on journeys in the public service. It has been a very busy year. There has been much going and coming and much advertisement of these moves, and I am surprised, after all that has been written and said of the peregrinations of Ministers, that so little money has been required to cover the expense. I am relieved to find that in these days of modern travel it has all ben done so expeditiously and so cheaply, and I am only disappointed that there has been little substantial fruit from all this effort.
        On Item L, the Under-Secretary paid tribute to Sir Robert Hodgson for his work in Spain. There, again, I should like to have much more information regarding the work that Sir Robert Hodgson has been doing. We have never been

        1961
        able to find out at Question Time what he is doing, whether he is at Burgos or elsewhere, and whether he ever hears anything of the kind of news that goes round the world, except to Burgos. We have not been at all satisfied with the quality of the service of Sir Robert Hodgson. Of course, he has been working to instructions but his activities do not show that he has been too well aware of the conditions in Spain. We may now have come to the end of the struggle, which has lasted nearly three years, and it has had a result which probably gives much satisfaction to certain people in this House. I have been aware from the beginning that there are certain people in this House who have desired the end which now seems to be in sight. It is not the end, however, and everybody who knows the conditions in Spain and the implications of the struggle knows quite well that we shall learn far more of the details of the struggle itself and of what is involved in it in the months and years ahead of us. We have been kept in the dark—too much in the dark, having regard to the fact that we are supposed to be still a democratic country where free debate and discussion are permitted. I am disappointed that we do not know what Sir Robert Hodgson has been doing. He has been given an additional £1,300 for salary and payments for servants, and we admit that these are necessary expenses, but I would be wrong if I allowed this occasion to pass without reminding the Under-Secretary and the Prime Minister that Sir Robert Hodgson's activities in Spain have been hidden very much under a bushel and that the House has never been treated in confidence to a report of his activities.
        We do not quarrel with the next item, the provision of gas masks for the British civil community in Egypt, but I hope they were organised and supplied with a little more efficiency than they were in this country. I have not received my gas mask yet. Many months ago I was invited in a hurry to go and get myself measured for a gas mask. I thought I would comply with the instructions, not that I attach much importance to gas masks, but I have not yet received it. I hope that these gas masks will never be wanted in Egypt, but we do not complain of any expenditure that will give protection to civil British communities wherever they live.
        1962
        I come next to the item for British observers in Czecho-Slovakia. I should have thought this would have been the occasion to tell the Committee much more about them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) endeavoured to put questions as we went along, for nobody knows exactly what these observers are observing and whether they have sent any reports to headquarters. No one knows whether they have been in contact with the military attachés and whether their experience has been of any value from a military standpoint. I had the pleasure of meeting some of these people; they were nice, intelligent people, and we should be proud of the ability to obtain the services of men of that type. I am sure that they would do no harm in Czecho-Slovakia, but I am not sure that they could do much good. By their demeanour they must have been a great credit to this country, and I am sure they did nothing to prejudice the reputation which we rightly hold in the world, and which I hope we shall hold for a long time. These men were meant to watch military movements and to see that the two armies which were in the field did not clash with each other. One of them had to deal with evacuation and the other with the equally difficult task of invasion. They came within speaking distance and the observers on the spot were there to try and obviate any difficulties between them. I think they did their part as military men quite well, but I do not know whether we derived any other benefit from the personal conduct of these men. It is not good enough to tell the Committee there is no more information and nothing more to be said, for we can never return to this subject in an orderly way, and as there is to be no White Paper published the Committee is entitled to more information.
        We next come to the Commission for the exchange of prisoners in Spain. The right hon. Gentleman told us that not many prisoners were exchanged. That is a tragic commentary on the conditions in Spain. When I was in Madrid I saw some of these prisoners. I saw people who were being detained for political reasons, and nothing has depressed me more in my life than to see men with whom I disagreed politically detained in prison because they held firm to their political views. It is an honourable thing

        1963
        for a person to stand by his political views. It is the acme of conduct in politics to remain faithful and loyal to one's own side, and I do not blame the people who differ from me, and who, because they differed were in prison in Madrid. They were opponents of the Government and said so openly, and I and my colleagues endeavoured to soften the possible shock between the two sides when the war came to an end. We approached the Spanish Republican Army, and they did everything they could to reply to the plea we made for the anti-Red prisoners. My sympathies have been with the people who are described as Reds, although they are not nearly as Red as they are assumed to be. I made an appeal on behalf of the anti-Reds, because I do not believe any country can afford to vent displeasure and malice against defenceless people who differ from us in politics. I am convinced that if the Government had put forward every effort they would have been enabled to obtain a far better exchange of prisoners and have been able to achieve a far greater measure of reciprocity and recognition of the differences between the two sides. Every life sacrificed through the neglect of care about prisoners has acerbated feeling in Spain, and we come to the end of the conflict with bitter feelings, the toll of which will be known to us in the days to come.
        The next item to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the visit of Lord Runciman and his mission to Prague. I never knew why it was necessary to send him there, and I do not know to-day. Just before the House rose at the end of July we were told that he was going to Prague, and there was a great fanfare and blowing of trumpets on his departure. He was said to be on a mission of mediation to try and bring these people to a lasting understanding and to make peace. Almost on the day that Lord Runciman arrived in Prague the German Army was mobilised. That was the reply the Germans made, and day by day, as the negotiations went on in Prague between Lord Runciman and the Henleinists and the Czecho-Slovak Government, the German Army moved closer to the Czech border. Long before the conversations had reached any definite end the German Army was practically in possession, with the knowledge of the whole world. I
        1964
        feel sure that Lord Runciman could not on that occasion have done anything except as a representative of a country that was not prepared to put up with German intimidation, bluff and threats. The German threats were effective, however, and Lord Runciman came away having committed himself for more than anybody expected. Remember what the Sudeten-Germans themselves claimed. I have here a statement that was made by Henlein in Prague at a public meeting in October, 1933, about seven or eight months after the advent of Hitler to power. This is what he said: "By identifying ourselves"——
        The Deputy-Chairman: While we are voting money for Lord Runciman's mission, this is not an occasion on which we can discuss in detail the foreign situation of that time. We have discussed it several times in the House already.
        Mr. Grenfell: No one wants to stop Lord Runciman having his expenses, but we do want to know why he should be paid, and whether a full measure of service and the right kind of service was performed by him. I am only trying to show that he finished his mediation a long distance behind the position taken up by Henlein himself in 1933, five years before Lord Runciman went to Prague. Henlein then said that they were co-operating and working peacefully with the Czechs, and in 1938, after various attempts, Lord Runciman came to an agreement, although the terms submitted by the Czech Government in August, 1938, went far short of the final settlement made by Lord Runciman. I regret having to say that, while we pay the money gladly to meet the travelling expenses of Lord Runciman and those who worked with him, we witnessed the retreat of British opinion on a matter so vital to the interest of this country when Herr Hitler had dominated Europe by threats of war——
        The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going far beyond the Supplementary Estimates.
        Mr. Grenfell: I am sorry. There comes a time when things should be said in this House, and I thought that this was the occasion. I do not wish to offend the Chair, and I will move on to something else.

        1965
        I come to the payment of £6,000 to the Reuter News Service. I do not know what particular service this news agency is capable of rendering, and I do not know why this special payment should have been made. I know that the firm claims that it has highly skilled reporters abroad, that it gets reliable information, and that it tests every piece of information, apparently, with more care than anybody else. I have seen statements in the "Times" by the chairman of Reuters, on behalf of the company, but we want much more information. I do not think Reuters is this kind of impartial judge on foreign affairs, reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, without exaggeration. I do not believe that of any company, and I object to the inference that this company is to receive special recognition because of the impeccability of the firm and the services which it renders to this country. I would like far more information. I notice how strangely truth sometimes evades the efforts of this agency, which claims to be the best of its kind in the world. I will leave that to other Members who are far more expert on this matter than I am, but I think it is dangerous to select one particular agency, without consultation with the House, to disseminate news at very substantial expense, without more explanation than has been given to us.
        In connection with the item for passport visa control abroad, I would venture to pay a compliment to the people whom I have seen working in Berlin, Vienna, Prague and elsewhere, and especially those who have worked courteously and efficiently since the summer of last year in helping the vast mass of refugees who have come to find a home in this country. It fills one with a pride which all of us ought to cherish that in these days of darkness, stress and difficulty abroad, it is to this country that the majority of those people wish to come. That is not an accident; it is due to the fact that we have been able to maintain a measure of freedom and still offer some hope of asylum for people who find it impossible to continue living in the countries where they were born. I am glad that our representatives when they have been besieged in their offices day by day by these people have been able to acquit themselves with such great credit. In Prague, where I have seen the work at
        1966
        close quarters, their accommodation was not suitable. It was necessary to provide more accommodation and a larger staff. I understand that provision is being made for that. I want to pay my tribute of respect of appreciation for the way in which these people have done their work.
        Then I come to the contribution in respect of non-intervention in Spain. Great claims have been made for nonintervention. I wish that half of them were justified. I do not believe we have had half the results we were entitled to have under this machinery. If the officers who work for us had been properly treated, and able to carry out their duties, non-intervention would have had far more practical effect.
        Now I would say a word about the international fund for the assistance of child refugees in Spain. Here is a tremendous problem. I am glad the Government have been able to make their contribution, and I hope we shall be able to join in the work of assisting these people, both in Spain and in France. I am also pleased to find that the Government are doing something for the repatriation of these men who went to fight in Spain. Those who went to fight for the interventionist States will go back to be honoured in their own countries. They fought as the official representatives of those countries. Our men, and men from the Dominions and from various parts of Europe are in a different position. Some of them are Stateless, and the one aim of mainy of these men was to find citizenship. They went to fight for the side which appealed to them most, and hoped that, as a result, they would win citizenship in Spain. I am glad to hear that there will be no harsh insistence on the repayment of these sums technically due from the men who are being assisted. They are poor men; they have nothing but a political faith. They have given everything they can afford to give, and, whether we agree with them or not, we ought to honour them for their consistency and their courage. I am glad that this country has given them the means of returning to their own countries, and when the pathos of this story has been blunted a little by the passage of time, I hope we shall remember that these men, believing in freedom, went and offered their lives in order that freedom might be saved.
        Captain McEwen: Am I right in understanding the hon. Member to suggest that these Stateless men should be allowed to acquire British nationality?
        Mr. Grenfell: No, but I should like some kind of Nansen passport to be given to them. I spoke to some of these men—Germans, Italians and others—when I was in Spain, and found them to be men with definite political views. They were just as strongly political as the Tories in this House, and there are no more ardent politicians than the case-hardened Tories in this House. These men were idealists, and I hope that all of these who are Stateless, and others who are State less—there will be many more Stateless men in Europe
        The Deputy-Chairman: This Estimate does not deal with the position of Stateless people.
        Mr. Grenfell: I wish to express my thanks, and my further wishes that the Government will interest themselves on behalf of these people.
        5.25 p.m.
        Mr. Mander: These Supplementary Votes give us an opportunity of reviewing the famous events of last Autumn. First we see "Journeys on the Public Service." I would like to ask whether this Vote includes the journeys made by Sir Horace Wilson to Germany and back; or is that to be borne on the Vote for the Ministry of Labour? I am glad to note that this particular departure from our usual procedure has come to an end, and that Sir Horace, whom I have no wish to criticise personally, has obtained a high position in the Civil Service, and that apparently the officials of the Foreign Office are performing to the full those functions which at all times they have been capable of carrying out. In regard to the provision of gas masks for the British civil community in Egypt, I would like to ask a question. By all means let them have gas masks, but it is difficult to understand why they were selected, apart from all other British communities in and about the Mediterranean, who presumably equally require gas masks as protection against any possible attack. We ought to have some justification for the selection of these happy individuals living in Egypt for protection by gas masks.
        I was somewhat astonished at the urbane audacity of the Under-Secretary when he referred to the smooth evacua-
        1968
        tion of the Sudeten territories after the Munich Agreement. Anything further from the truth I could hardly imagine. I happened to be in Czecho-Slovakia shortly after the Munich Agreement. I went as an unofficial observer to the frontier. What actually happened was that the Czech Army retired, and there was a gap of a day or two, during which there was no control of any kind and the Henleiners murdered and pillaged without interference. We should have had some further information about that; we should not be put off when money is asked for with such statements as "It is all confidential" and "I cannot give any information."
        I want to say something about the Runciman mission, that deplorable episode in British diplomacy. I think one of the regrettable aspects of it is the language in which it was described to this House by the Prime Minister on 26th July. He then said that, in response to a request by the Czecho-Slovak Government, this mission was to be sent. I suppose there might be a certain understanding of English which would make this an accurate description, but, of course, the facts are that the Czechs knew nothing about it. It was all cut-and-dried without their knowledge; they did not like it, they did not want it, and then it was put up to them, "Had you not better tell us that you would like this Mission to come?" It is extremely unfair to the Czech Government that they were burdened with the responsibility of saying that they wanted the Runciman Mission to come out; they wanted nothing of the kind, and the Government knew that perfectly well. The object of the Runciman mission, as many of us suspected at the time, was simply to put over the policy of the surrender of the Sudeten German areas to Germany; it was that and nothing else. The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that that was his policy. He said so at the famous luncheon party on 14th May given to American journalists by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). It was all made perfectly clear then.
        The Deputy-Chairman: I have already ruled that discussions of that kind are out of order.
        Mr. Mander: I appreciate that fact, but I was only making a passing reference to it. I think it has a very direct bearing

        1969
        on the objects of the Runciman Mission, which were solely for the purpose of putting over that policy. He was to go out as an investigator and mediator. Those were the words that were used. I do not wish to make any personal attack on the members of the Runciman mission. I am sure that in the circumstances they did all they could, and all that they were asked to do, but the action of the Government in sending them out was highly reprehensible, and, if it were possible to censure the Government by voting against this particular proposal, I should be very glad to do so. But I am afraid it would only have the effect of depriving the members of the Runciman mission of their expenses, which they certainly earned. One wonders whether there is any other Runciman mission in the world to-day. It has been suggested that the Runciman of Tunis is M. Vaudion, but I cannot say anything further on that subject.
        I should like to pay tribute to the very fine work done by the British Council under the chairmanship of Lord Lloyd. I think that we might well spend even more money on it than we are actually doing. I am sure it is raising the prestige and influence of Great Britain in all countries where it is carrying out its work, and I think we ought gladly to vote the money required. With regard to the question of office expenses at Vienna, I understand that there is still very considerable delay occasioned to persons waiting to get passports and visas, and I should like the Under-Secretary to give more definite information about the matter. I would ask him whether he feels that, although we have given that additional staff, it is even now sufficient to deal with the large number of persons who are daily queueing up or requiring attention.
        I pass to the Non-intervention Committee. I resent very much having to vote a penny towards that disgraceful farce. It has been extremely successful in carrying out what I have supposed for a long time has been its real object, namely, the victory of General Franco in Spain. It has unquestionably secured that, because without its operations in preventing food and arms reaching the Republican side, certainly Franco never could have triumphed. In helping Franco to win, the Non-intervention Committee has inflicted on this country and France a major military defeat. That may be
        1970
        disputed, but time will show. It may be a few weeks or it may be a few months, but certainly many of us feel that, in what has happened, this country and France have received a very serious blow indeed, and that our insecurity has been greatly increased.
        I would like to ask the Under-Secretary for some information which I know he will not much like to give, but it has a bearing on the question as showing the farcial proceedings of the Non-intervention Committee. How many of its observers have been done to death by the members of the Non-intervention Committee itself? We know of cases where these observers, travelling on food ships and in British ships and other ships in the normal course of their duty, and proceeding to Spanish ports, have been bombed and machine-gunned from the air by aircraft belonging to members of the Non-intervention Committee, and nothing has happened about it. It would be interesting to know how many have been killed, and what sums of compensation have had to be paid to the families of these individuals, and whether such sums are borne on this particular Vote.
        I now pass to the item in the Estimate —"TT—Contribution to Expenses in connection with the withdrawal of volunteers in Spain." Nothing at all has been obtained. An elaborate scheme has been built up over many months. A pretence had to be made that there was some chance of its being put into operation in order to justify the continuation of the Non-intervention Committee, but it was known perfectly well that there was no chance because, although all the members of the Non-intervention Committee had agreed to it, General Franco was opposed to it and would not allow it to be carried out. I would ask the Under-secretary whether, seeing that there are still foreign troops in Spain on Franco's side, it is proposed that when they are evacuated, if ever, the expenses of that evacuation will fall on the funds of this Vote? I cannot ask how they are to be paid otherwise, but I think we are entitled to know whether the Non-intervention Committee in any of these Votes is to pay for the evacuation of the volunteers from Franco's side.
        As to the Item YY, I should like to praise the public spirit of the British Legion in offering their services in such large numbers and being willing to go

        1971
        to Czecho-Slovakia and endure the experiences and hardships with which they would have had to contend. At the same time one cannot help realising that a very large sum of money—£5,000—has been spent because of the failure to carry out the terms and the spirit of the Munich Agreement. The right hon. Gentleman said that when the International Committee met they decided that, after all, it was not necessary to have any plebiscite; that, happily, agreement had been reached among all members of the Commission and the Czechs, and that, therefore, there was no need for anyone to go. What I understand actually happened was that the International Committee met, and, if there was any discussion or talk about plebiscites or variations of any kind, the Germans said, "Our view is so-and-so, and if you do not agree we march." Then the International Commission hastily came to heel and did exactly what Hitler said, and in these circumstances no plebiscite was necessary. But it is not a very creditable piece of work from the point of view of British foreign policy.
        It is interesting to find in regard to "ZZ.—Expenses incurred in connection with the repatriation of British Volunteers from Spain," that a scheme, which is a necessary final part of, perhaps, the one successful piece of work that has been carried out by any organisation in connection with Spain, was carried out by the League of Nations. The League of Nations Commission went out, at the request of the Republican Government, to withdraw the International Brigade and did its work with great success, and they ought to be warmly congratulated. What they did bears a very marked contrast to the futile proceedings of the non-intervention Committee, and I very gladly agree to vote the sum of£3,000 for the finishing off of the work that they have so successfully carried out. There will, I think, be other opportunities for referring to certain other aspects of the Foreign Office work, but I am glad to have had the opportunity of making these few comments on the momentous—as it is from whatever point of view you look at it—events of last autumn and of saying some things in strong criticism of certain of the events which took place, at the same time feeling that in the circumstances one cannot do other than vote the money
        1972
        for the persons who were ordered by the Government to carry out this work.
        5.41 p.m.
        Mr. C. Williams: It is really some time since I studied closely any Supplementary Estimates, and I say frankly, from a study of the present Supplementary Estimates, I realise what a not very strong and industrious Opposition means when you have Estimates which are not quite so closely studied, as has been the case in the past. It may do no great harm if I point out one or two of the things which have struck me very much in going through these Estimates. It says under SS:
        "Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended at 31st March, 1939, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer."
        That sentence is one which many of us have seen before, and it occurs in these particular Estimates again and again. It shows that we are constantly voting sums of money which will run out in due course, and then ultimately we do not quite know what has happened to them. I am glad that, at any rate, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present, because undoubtedly he may, sooner or later, become Chancellor of the Exchequer and be in a position to deal with this matter very severely. It goes further than that. It says under TT:
        "Conditions as to audit, surrender, etc., will be those applicable to the grant for which provision is made in Subhead PP above."
        In other words, you have reference back to another Sub-section of this particular Estimate. It is a very great pity when you get an Estimate of this kind in which there are so many items not estimated for.
        I wish to say something on a matter which I do not think has been given sufficient attention, that is, the very small Vote of £8,000 under the head of WW for the help of our own subjects in China. This is a very small Vote. A great number of our own people have lived for a long time in China, and on this occasion they met with a very considerable amount of trouble in many ways and were in great danger. I would far rather vote this £8,000 in respect of the women and children of our own people who are carrying out our trade in China than some of the other money we have to vote to-day. We have heard so much about other people and foreigners that I do not think

        1973
        there is very much harm in one Englishman saying that this is money which we spend gladly and willingly, and that we congratulate the Foreign Office on the work they have done there. I do not depreciate their services in other matters, but I would rather spend our money on these people than in some of the other ways.
        I would like to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to a question I asked him about the exchange of prisoners from Spain. I realise that a sum of £3,800 has been expended, but that has not all been expended in the actual exchange of prisoners. The real value of that sum is in the help it has given to ameliorating the condition of prisoners in Spain. I do not know what the actual number is; it may be that it is small, but, at any rate, there is no harm in the Committee knowing actually what has happened. This is one small outlay in the great work that has been done, and there is no doubt that many thousands of lives have been saved in Spain by the help which the British Government have afforded. The British Navy has also played its part. I think the Minister had a very strong point here and could have made a much stronger case than he did, because almost the entire sum in these Supplementary Estimates, amounting to £250,000, has been spent in helping human suffering in one place or another throughout the world. That is what the Government have been doing, and I think it is a very strong point which should have been emphasised much more than it has been.
        Equally I was disappointed with some of what I would call "Wolver Hampton criticisms" which we have had this afternoon on the Sudeten mission. Members of the Liberal party have always turned round and criticised an ex-Liberal and a great Englishman who gave up his time to try and bring peace. Can they do nothing else but ask questions? As far as this mission is concerned it has been successful, and the least the Committee can do is to take a generous view and give some appreciation to the man who gave up his time and his services to the country.
        Mr. Mander: I would remind the hon. Member that in my speech I said that I was not in any way attacking the Commission, who no doubt did their best. I
        1974
        was attacking those who were responsible at the time.
        Mr. Williams: I heard that statement, and I also heard, as did other hon. Members, the underlying sneer which ran through the speech of the hon. Member. I do not think there is any need to follow it up, but I think it is a grave discouragement to this country if we fail to give full credit to those, to whatever party they belong, who may be sent on a foreign mission. Now I will say a nice thing about the hon. Member, and that is that at any rate he has joined with everyone else who has taken part in the Debate—and may I add my humble voice in a tribute to Lord Lloyd for what he has done for Britain. As one who does not like Supplementary Estimates I should not complain if this particular work, really true British propaganda, was increased in the future. However strict the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be on other matters, that is one of the things which I hope he will never curtail in any way. Supplementary Estimates of this kind, most of them for the purpose of helping to redeem distress in other places, are well justified indeed.
        5.51 p.m.
        Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) opened his speech by offering a few congratulations to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I would like to add one or two of my own, though not for the same reasons. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) referred to the urbane audacity of the Under-Secretary of State, I would prefer to describe it as massive placidity. The Undersecretary has developed almost to a fine art the capacity of describing Estimates of this kind with such an absence of emotion as to leave the Committee to believe that behind them there is no tragedy and no misery. I congratulate him, too, on a further accomplishment. He has used such guarded and reserved language in making his statement that if the technique is developed much further and much longer it will be found that while he may be thought to have said something, on examination it will be found that he has said nothing at all. He said: "Even so far as Herr Hitler accepted the idea of the British Legion the offer of the Legion contributed to a peaceful settlement." In another year's time the Under-Secretary will say, "In

        1975
        so far as Herr Hitler accepted the idea the offer of the British Legion contributed to a peaceful settlement in so far as there was a peaceful settlement."
        Then as to the work of the British observers. He was pressed to tell the Committee whether, in fact, he knew anything of the observations of these observers and he admitted that in the process of change and evacuation of the Sudeten areas there had been what he called certain difficulties. That again is a classic example of using the minimum of language to describe the maximum of suffering and disturbance. In the case of the Army and in the case of the civilian refugees I am not going to press him for more specific information, but there is one point upon which I do desire further information, and that is the operation of the Munich Agreement, particularly Article 7. It seems to me that the operation of this Article was primarily the duty of the British observers. They carried heavy responsibilities for making certain that this country did all it could to see that the Article was implemented in the way the House was led to believe it would be in October of last year. In the Debate in October my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asked the then Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what was to happen to the Sudeten-Deutsch who did not want to go under the jackboot of Hitler. The Minister replied:
        "This is provided for in Article 7 of the Treaty which enables them to have six months in which to opt out of the State or into the State as the case may be."
        I think the Committee is entitled to press the Under-Secretary of State for an answer on this point. Is he satisfied from the reports he has received from British observers that Article 7 has in fact been implemented in its terms and in its spirit?
        The Deputy-Chairman: This is a Supplementary Estimate dealing with the salaries and expenses of these observers.
        Mr. Ridley: I am trying very hard indeed to keep within the Rules of Order, and I am obliged to you for what, obviously, is sympathy. I submit that this is the last occasion on which we shall be able to discuss this work, and further that the circumstances are so recent as to make it not possible to discuss it on
        1976
        the original Estimate. Therefore, I submit that it is proper to draw attention to it now and to ask the Under-Secretary whether he is really sure from the reports of the British observers that Article 7 has been implemented in the letter and in the spirit? I press the point no further. The Under-Secretary also said that he had been satisfied by the assurances in the matter of reprisals from both sides. The announcement made in the "Times" of the new Burgos Judicial Code creates some uneasiness in the minds of those who read it. The Under-Secretary of State also made a reference to what he called the excellent services rendered by Lord Runciman, and did so in justification of the Supplementary Estimate. With respect to what the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has said, I would ask, "to whom were the excellent services rendered?" and I suggest that the bill of costs should be sent to those who were rendered these excellent services. I suggest it should be sent to Berlin instead of to this House. In regard to the Supplementary Estimate in connection with Non-intervention, I think it was Horace Walpole who said:
        "Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel."
        It is certainly a mixture of comedy and tragedy that the Committee should be asked to agree to a Supplementary Estimate of £20,000 to cover the expenses of pretending that we are following the policy of non-intervention, in other words, in an attempt to secure an objective which, in fact, has not been secured. The tragedy and the failure we have before us. The tragedy is emphasised by the fact that the total Vote for non-intervention is less than the Vote for retrieving the consequences of the tragedy in Spain. I ask the Under-Secretary to say how this money is being spent and what part of it is being spent in Spain, and what contribution is being made to the refugee relief work which is being undertaken by the French Government. A grave responsibility rests on this Government for the situation which has arisen, and many hon. Members will be glad to know that far more generous provision is being made for the victims of this tragedy and suffering. I want the Government to stop spending more on a vain pursuit than it is proposed to spend on saving the victims from the consequences of our weakness and our folly.
        6.0 p.m.
        Captain McEwen: I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State upon the lucid way in which he presented these complicated Supplementary Estimates, and to join with hon. Members on all sides of the Committee who have paid him a tribute on that score. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) made a speech, with his usual fairness in dealing with controversial questions, and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), in his customary attitude, with both feet firmly planted in mid air, also made a contribution to the Debate. The hon. Member for Gower, in the course of his remarks, told us that he was without a gas mask, and went on to say that the fact that he was in that condition did not very much concern him. I hasten to acknowledge the tribute which therein lies to the policy of the Prime Minister. I would say that I also, were I in the same deprived condition in which he finds himself, would not be particularly concerned, and for the same reason; but I would add that if it were the case that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power at the present time, I should not only take care to be in possession of a gas mask, but I should be carrying it at this moment.
        I want now to refer to one complaint that was made by the hon. Member for Gower concerning Sir Robert Hodgson's activities. The hon. Member made great play of the fact that we had, so he averred, been left in the dark as to the nature of Sir Robert Hodgson's activities. I think the hon. Member is making a mystery out of nothing. After all, all His Majesty's envoys and representatives abroad, in the normal course of events, report directly to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; their reports are confidential, and are not published or made known either to the House or to the public. Surely, Sir Robert Hodgson was in no different position as a diplomat. Therefore, the statement that his activities were hidden under a bushel is, I think, somewhat misleading. As regards the Runciman mission, of which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton spoke at some length, there again the question was asked, Why did he go? As soon as the hon. Member had asked that question, he proceeded to give an answer, for he went on to describe the growing
        1978
        seriousness of the situation as it then existed. Surely, that is the answer. The Runciman mission were sent as investigators and mediators precisely because of the growing seriousness of the situation as it then existed.
        There are one or two points in connection with the Supplementary Estimates to which I would like to draw attention. I join with other hon. Members who have expressed a desire that there should be an even greater contribution from the Government to the funds of the British Council. Anybody who has been in any way in touch with the activities of that Council during the past few years must know the immense amount of good which it is doing in every country in Europe at the present time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in hoping that the cutting down of those funds will be the last form of economy which the Treasury will attempt to make, for they were never more necessary than they are at the present time. As regards Sub-head K in the Supplementary Estimates, my right hon. Friend referred to the fact that nine additional Press officers have been appointed, and it would be interesting to know, if possible, to what posts they have been appointed.
        As regards Sub-head SS, surely the best service that we can render to the refugees in France, apart, of course, from taking action in the way of assisting the French Government with grants of money for looking after the refugees, is to facilitate, through the ordinary diplomatic channels, which are once more open, the return of these refugees to their own country as soon as possible. I know that there are some men, it may be soldiers, who would not in any circumstances return there for fear of such reprisals as might be carried out on their own persons, but surely, in the case of the bulk of the women and children and the old men, who have not in any way been mixed up in politics, the best thing for them would be to return to their homes as soon as possible. I trust that the Government will endeavour to facilitate that. With regard to Sub-head ZZ, which refers to expenses incurred in connection with the repatriation of British volunteers from Spain, is it not possible, as a common-sense suggestion, that the same organisations as paid for these men's passages out to Spain might be called upon at any rate to assist in paying their

        1979
        passages back? In conclusion, I wish to touch upon one subject—I do not know whether it is in order on these Supplementary Estimates, but I do not know on what other occasion it could be raised—which has been raised once or twice at Question Time, namely, the admission of women to the Diplomatic Service. In all brevity, I would merely like to ex press——
        The Temporary Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle): That is a matter of policy which does not arise on these Supplementary Estimates.
        Captain McEwen: I am delighted to hear that. If it is a matter of policy, it is one which in all probability will not come up for a considerable time. That being so, I will not even suggest what I was going to say, except that I hope the occasion will never arise for me to say it.
        6.8 p.m.
        Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen) did not find it possible to extend his customary gallantry to the fair sex this evening. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have observed that all the references made this afternoon to the British Council have been favourable, and that without exception each hon. Member who has spoken has asked for further funds to develop the work of that body. I warmly support that plea, but I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us a little more about the Council than he was able to do in his opening remarks. The Council is in its infancy; it is only starting now to establish itself and to develop its work. I believe that work is of the highest value to this country and the Empire. It is work intended to promote a wider knowledge of Great Britain and the English language abroad, and to develop closer cultural relations between Great Britain and other countries. If properly carried out, I believe that work may exercise a potent influence for peace itself. Therefore, it seems to me to be necessary that the Committee should follow, not only generally, but in some detail, the activities of the British Council.
        I should be obliged if my right hon. Friend could give me guidance on two aspects of the British Council's work-first, its constitution, and secondly, its
        1980
        methods and administration. As to the constitution of the Concil, as hon. Members know, it is intended to be a British body, even though my right hon. Friend told us that its function was to develop English culture abroad. I would like to make it clear that it is British culture with which it is concerned. The Council is essentially a British body, and therefore, it should represent not only one part or certain parts of the country, but the whole country; and in order that that representation may be as effective as possible, it ought to reflect not only general cultural interests where these are common to all areas, but national characteristics as well, where, as in Scotland, and it may be also as in Wales, these are distinct and have their own peculiar contributions to make to the development of British contacts in other lands.
        Mr. Crossley: What does my hon. Friend mean by "British"?
        Mr. Stewart: I had better answer my hon. Friend at a later date; it would take me a long time to make it plain to his English mind. In Scotland, we rather resent the use of the words "England" and "English" as meaning the whole of Great Britain and British. If they are intended to mean "Great Britain" or "British," those words should be employed.
        Sir Ronald Ross: Why not say the United Kingdom?
        Mr. Stewart: Well, the United Kingdom and Ireland. I do not claim for Scotland that its culture or its traditions are in any way superior to those of England—I reserve that sort of claim for St. Andrews nights and Burns suppers, where a modest pride in Scottish achievements is generally and generously permitted—but I say that the culture and traditions of Scotland are different, and have a special value which ought not to be ignored. As the Committee know very well, centuries ago, long before any contacts had been made by London, Scottish traders were in the closest touch with traders in the Low Countries, and friendships were made then which persist even to this day, and find expression in Scottish names, Scottish titles and Scottish streets in almost every country in Europe. In the New World, and in other lands, men of our race have established reputations for fair trading, ability and comrade-

        1981
        ship which, although no more honourable than those of England, have a worth of their own which makes a particular appeal at any rate to some foreign peoples.
        Those peculiar contacts are of real value to the British people as a whole, and when an organisation such as the British Council is created to foster an understanding of this country, its character, education, arts, and sciences, and so to enhance our standing abroad, it seems to me not only wise but necessary, in the best interests of the United Kingdom, that the contribution of Scotland should be fully employed. Of course, there are Scotsmen already upon the British Council. But this body is becoming more and more an official organisation. It stands officially for Great Britain, and therefore, it seems to me a reasonable request that the Scottish Office should be directly and officially represented upon the Governing Body of the British Council.
        The Scottish Office is not merely a Department dealing with a single phase of our social life—health, education, or what you like—but is a Department that stands for all the activities of that country. In truth, it stands not for one section but for the whole range of Scottish life, and therefore, it may be taken to represent the nation. I understand that the Foreign Office are now considering the appointment of a Scottish Office representative to the executive committee of the council and I hope that my right hon. Friend in his reply will be able To give me an assurance on that point. Such an appointment would give great satisfaction to Scotland and would, I am certain, be of real value to the council and its work. My right hon. Friend will observe that I have made no reference to the somewhat unfortunate controversy which has arisen recently about certain Scottish films. I feel that with the addition to the membership of the executive committee which I have suggested, that difficulty would be quickly disposed of, to the mutual advantage of all parties.
        With regard to the administration of the council reports which have reached me from the Balkans lead me to believe that the people in those countries are at present exceedingly anxious, or as it was put in one letter, "desperately keen," to make friendly contacts with this country and that there are great opportunities for an extension of the council's work there. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend
        1982
        could enlighten the Committee on some of the following points. In most Balkan countries there are already schools for British nationals. Are those schools given adequate consideration? Is their value sufficiently appreciated? Is adequate use being made of the numerous business interests in those countries which include, I am assured, many great experts upon the problems involved? Are the links between the universities used to the fullest extent? Apart from the itinerant lecturers of whom we hear a great deal, who are sent to lecture in Turkey and elsewhere, has the council developed sufficiently the plan of establishing what might be called resident disciples, that is to say, British men and women who will live in those countries, and meet the people in their daily tasks, and so spread knowledge and understanding of this country?
        What is the organisation of the council for the effective approach to these various problems? Each country differs from the other in its needs and outlook, in the temperament of its people and in their attitude towards our country. I know that the council make use of experts in various walks of life, but I wonder they have considered the idea of setting up regional committees. I suggest that a number of such committees should be formed each responsible for a particular country and each composed of experts upon that country's needs and conditions. If such a plan were adopted it would be possible for a scheme of steady, sustained activity to be conducted in each country, on lines proposed and supervised by the regional committee responsible. Given such a plan, we should feel assured that the best thought was being applied to this subject and that practical methods were being employed. I believe that in that way we could establish, on sound lines, a growing understanding between ourselves and the peoples of foreign countries in whose keeping, I believe, the fame, fortune and peaceful purpose of the British Empire may well repose.
        6.20 p.m.
        Mr. Creech Jones: Like the hon. Member who spoke last, I feel some doubt in regard to the work of the British Council. It may be that I am profoundly ignorant of that work or that I am a little sceptical, but I should like to receive from the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a little more information

        1983
        about this body. It seems to be taken for granted that all members of this Committee are fully acquainted with what the British Council is doing, but I have noticed already in this discussion some inconsistencies in statements made as to the purposes of the council. One hon. Member told us that it existed for performing "real, true British propaganda," whatever that may be, whereas the White Paper informs us that the council exists to develop closer cultural relations between Great Britain and other countries. It may be that its work is educational, but if the council exists to do a particular job in the sense of spreading a particular type of propaganda, one must express doubt as to the effectiveness or value of its organisation. I, personally, do not object to the building up of a better understanding among people abroad of the social and cultural life of Great Britain, but I am not anxious that British money should be spent on propaganda purposes in the narrow sense.
        It may be that, in regard to these things, I am a heretic, but I cannot help feeling a little sceptical when I read occasionally in the public Press about certain titled individuals being sent abroad to lecture on the social and industrial problems of this country. Apparently one qualification for the spread of British culture is the possession of a title. I may be wrong in my assumptions, but I have been trying to get a little more information about what the council is doing and I have not been successful. The sending abroad of representative people from this country should be only one part of the council's work. I am informed, too, that the various committees which have been set up under the council seldom meet. I understand that the kind of specialised duties which it was hoped the council would perform are seldom discussed by the specialists whose aid was sought to guide the council in its work. I put these points because, frankly, I do not know what is the real scope of the council's duties. There seems to be considerable hesitancy on the part of the council to tell the world precisely what it is doing.
        I tried recently to get the report of the council, and I find that the annual report is a very considerable time in coming out. I doubt whether a report has been issued yet, and one cannot find out what
        1984
        the activities of this body have been for the last 18 months. If this body is of such importance and if public money is being spent in connection with its work, then it ought to report regularly and there ought to be a closer contact between it and the House of Commons. I agree with the previous speaker that we ought to know in greater detail about its work. I do not intervene now with a view to prejudicing that work but merely in order to get more information about it. I hope that we may be assured that that work is now going forward on sound lines and in a broad-minded spirit, and that this body is ably representing British culture and social life to the peoples of other countries.
        There is one other matter with which I wish to deal. It concerns the conditions operating in our passport offices abroad. I would like to be assured by the right hon. Gentleman that the unhappy conditions of congestion which made it so difficult for refugees to escape from several countries have now been sufficiently modified to ensure a speedier and more efficient service in this Department. I know that the passport offices abroad have had to work under considerable difficulty. That we readily admit. One appreciates, too, that it is impossible suddenly to increase the staff of an office by transferring to it inefficient or inexpert people for the handling of the very difficult problems with which these offices have to deal. One pays a tribute to the magnificent services which have been rendered in this connection, but I would like to be assured that as a result of the new arrangements and extensions of staff which have been made, the discomfort and inconvenience previously suffered by many people who sought to come to this country have now been removed. I hope that the conditions in the offices are better for the staffs concerned and that they are no longer subject to such tension and such heavy pressure as existed recently. I hope also that while some considerable measure of relief has been afforded to them, the people who are seeking their services are no longer liable to delays and inconveniences. Those are the only two points which I wish to raise. As I have said, I am anxious to learn a little more about the British Council, because it seems to me that while everyone is prepared to eulogise it, we have been left in complete ignorance about its work.
        6.28 p.m.
        Miss Rathbone: It is remarkable that in this discussion nearly every speaker has expressed unwillingness to curtail the money which we are being asked to vote on these various heads. Indeed, in many cases, the main criticism that has been made was, "We wish it had been more." On the question discussed by the two previous speakers, namely, the grant to the British Council, I should like to say briefly how fully I agree with those who have paid tribute to the work of the council considering the meagreness of the resources placed at its disposal. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what the British Government contribute to the council. I wonder whether he can also tell us what the German and Italian and French Governments are contributing under different names, for propaganda in some of the countries where the British Council is operating. I think it would be a fairly safe guess that for every £1 spent by the British Council in any of these countries, £1,000 or perhaps £100,000 is being spent by Germany and Italy in propagating their false faiths.
        I am to some extent critical of the direction of the activities of the council. When I was in Yugoslavia and Rumania two years ago, I found everybody there grateful for the British Council's work, but in one university after another I was told something like this: "What we really want from the great democracies is closer contact between our peoples and especially more instruction in our countries in those institutions and those ideals which are the special glory of the democracies." What they wanted was more instruction in our social system, in our industrial development and in all matters of that kind. At this moment it seems a pity that the British Council should restrict itself so much to single lectures and to concert tours. It seems to me that what we want are short courses on particular subjects given at two or three universities at the same time, so that the democracies of the countries in which those universities are situated may get a real knowledge of the institutions and ideas that are characteristic of the democratic countries.
        As to the contribution to the expenses connected with the withdrawal of volunteers from Republican Spain, we were told that arrangements have been already
        1986
        completed for the withdrawal of the British volunteers. I hope I shall not be transgressing the limits of the Debate if I ask whether any arrangement has been made for the withdrawal of those persons who, though volunteers, are not British subjects, and are not the subjects of any nation that can be expected to receive them back. There is a proposal in the report of the Non-intervention Committee, which was adopted last July, relating to the question of the withdrawal of stateless persons, in which it was suggested that those persons should be evacuated to the countries in which they were habitually resident. The actual arrangements made for the withdrawal of volunteers did not come under the Non-intervention scheme, because the scheme was never technically carried out, but I suggest that we have a moral obligation to treat those volunteers who fought in Spain, and whom the Republican government voluntarily dismissed, not less well than they would have been treated if the British plan had come into operation. The actual position is that thousands of them are at present living on the Southern border of France, where they came from Catalonia, under the most cruel and deplorable conditions. They are brave men, some of the best fighters in Europe. Cannot we find something better to do with them than leaving them to starve to death, or, if they are taken back to Spain, to be shot against a prison wall. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether something cannot be done for the removal of these men.
        A tribute was paid to the work of the International Military Commission that supervised the withdrawal. If His Majesty's Government admire the work of the Commission, I would ask why they have so carefully suppressed all mention of its report. I had the greatest difficulty in securing even that a copy should be placed in the Library. It seems as though the Government are determined to honour that report by giving it a quick burial. One is tempted to suggest that, because it contained such a glowing eulogy of the honour, good faith and efficiency of the Republican Government, it did not suit the policy of His Majesty's Government at the moment to give it publicity.
        I pass to another report to which there is the same apparent disposition to pay

        1987
        lip service but to do nothing to make its. facts known. I refer to the grant for the payment of the expenses of the Commission on Aerial Bombardment in Spain. The right hon. Gentleman told us, in his introductory remarks, that that commission was about to be disbanded. Has its report been published; or, if not, when will it be published, and will steps be taken to see that every Member of the House has the opportunity of reading it? If not, is the reason the same as in the previous case, namely, that the report of the Commission on Aerial Bombardment in Spain records a large number of cases in which aerial bombardment of civilian populations has taken place, without any military justification, by General Franco and his foreign allies; and does it record any similar instances where there was on the Republican side bombardment unjustified by military exigencies? I may be unduly suspicious, but I strongly suspect that when we see the full report of that commission, we shall find that, just as in the case of the other commission, as little as possible is going to be said about it, because the report is extremely unfavourable to General Franco and relatively favourable to the Republican Government. There is no doubt that at present it does not suit the Government to give publicity to any facts that tell in favour of the defeated government and are unfavourable to the new government in Spain, with which they want to curry favour. I sometimes wonder what has become of this country's traditional reputation for sportsmanship, or of the spirit that used to make the British people reluctant to kick a man when he was down and anxious to pay any tribute they could to those who were in distress.
        As regards the assistance of child refugees, I am heartily glad that we are now giving an increased grant. The original grant was £10,000, and it is now to be increased to £80,000. The right hon. Gentleman made considerable capital of the fact that His Majesty's Government had been the first to make a State grant, namely, this grant of £10,000. For a considerable time no other Government had given an equal sum, and he seemed to be making a claim on behalf of the British Government that it had been very generous. Consider the facts. I speak from memory, but I think I am right in saying that the necessity for sending
        1988
        assistance to child refugees in Spain was first mooted about October, 1937. There were hagglings and discussions at Geneva, and there were endeavours to get other governments to contribute, but, in fact, nothing was contributed until about six months later, after the bitter winter had passed, and then His Majesty's Government contributed the noble sum of £10,000, and took great credit to themselves for having given more than any other government. According to the Report of the International Commission itself, that was but a third of the sum necessary to cover the first period of its operations. It only sufficed to feed about a tenth of the child refugees who needed provision and was a very meagre contribution to their assistance.
        I should like to ask when this increase from £10,000 to £80,000 was made, and why it was made. I suggest it was made for two reasons, the first being that the Government were ashamed because the United States Government offered to make a contribution of corn in kind to the value of £100,000, and the Government of Sweden—poor little Sweden—offered to make a money grant of £75,000. [Hon. Members: "Poor little Sweden?"] Sweden is certainly small and is poor relatively to Great Britain. It is a country for which I have a great admiration. It was only when the United States sent £100,000 in corn, and Sweden £75,000 in cash, that His Majesty's Government proposed to give this new grant, just when Barcelona had fallen or was about to fall, and when the money was likely to go into Franco Spain rather than into Republican Spain. I do not say that that was the motive, but it does look just a little like it, does it not?
        It is said that, after all, it is more than other countries have given, but what about France? France has not given as much in cash, but how many refugees has France received? At least 100,000 refugees from Spain have gone into France during the last year or two, whereas we have not been allowed to bring one refugee into this country as a refugee. We were allowed to bring 4,000 Basque children here—and there was a fearful fuss about it—on condition that they were kept entirely at the expense of the voluntary organisations abroad. They were not even allowed to be sent to our elementary schools. That was our generosity to the

        1989
        refugees. France has been infinitely more generous to the refugees than we have. And what about other countries? I suggest that the responsibility that rests upon the shoulders and the conscience of France and of this country is very different from the responsibility that any other country has to bear. We were the authors, we were the initiators of the Nonintervention Agreement, and, whatever may be said about that Agreement, whatever claim may be made, and granted, that it prevented the war from spreading, we must recognise, and it cannot be denied, that the tragedy and appalling suffering that are falling upon the defeated Republican Government just now, and the crowding into France of nearly half a million refugees——
        The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Lady is really going beyond the boundaries of the Supplementary Estimate.
        Miss Rathbone: I accept your Ruling, of course, but the point I was trying to make was that, so far from this grant of £80,000 being a magnificent effort of generosity, it is far too little and far too late. The right hon. Gentleman said that the money given to the International Commission had saved many thousands of child lives. I am sure it has. But how many child lives were lost because the amount given was so small and came so late? Is the right hon. Gentleman's conscience haunted by the thought of the children and mothers who might now be exulting in the sunshine and looking for ward to the spring, but who are rotting in their graves, or whose constitutions are irrepairably damaged because of what we did not do in Spain, or of the little assistance that we gave? We never even tried to stop the bombing of ships bringing food to Spain——
        The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Lady is trying to deal with matters which are far outside the Supplementary Estimate.
        Miss Rathbone: I will say no more, beyond expressing the hope that the International Commission for Child Refugees will go on with its work, and that the £70,000 increase in the grant is only going to be part of what we give, because the need for this work is greater than ever, if not in Spain itself, in those districts of France where the International Commission, I understand, is now operat-
        1990
        ing, and where people have been living in deplorable conditions for a month or more without any covering over their heads and lying on the bare ground. I know of a hospital in that part of the country which is without a roof, but has 4,000 patients and only two doctors and two nurses to look after them. At present those patients do not come within the reference of the International Commission, because they are not children. I trust that the Commission's reference will be extended to cover men and women as well as children, because there is now more need than ever for its beneficent activities and for the most generous contribution that the British Government can make towards its expenses, which at present the French Government are bearing almost alone.
        6.44 p.m.
        Mr. Emmott: I do not propose to follow the hon. Lady into an examination of the matters which she has discussed, but I should like to make one or two observations with regard to the British Council. In the first place, I think, it might be worth while, since we are accurately examining Supplementary Estimates, to call attention to what I imagine to be a clerical error. I see that on page 10 the sum required is stated as £27,307; but I imagine that, by one of those errors on the part of the Government Printer which are extremely rare, this figure has been carried across from the figure which, correctly, appears at the bottom of page 11. Anyone merely glancing down the page might imagine that the provision required for the grant-in-aid of the British Council was £27,307, whereas I think the correct figure is £20,500, as appears from page 8.
        On the substantial question I only wish to say that I believe that the work of the British Council deserves the most active and generous support of the Government and of every Member of this House. I had occasion not very long ago to offer to the House some observations on the work of the Council, and I do not propose to add to them upon this occasion, but I should like briefly to associate myself with the plea that came from my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen) that in the future this financial provision which appears in the Estimate should not be at

        1991
        all cut down. I think that it would be a very bad thing for British prestige abroad if the financial support accorded to the British Council by the Treasury were to reach a certain figure and were therefore to support a certain level of activities by the British Council and then, in the future, were to be diminished, with the consequent diminution of the activities of the British Council. Such a thing, I think, would do great harm to that prestige which it is one of the functions of the British Council to increase.
        I pass from that matter to remark upon the item in the Supplementary Estimates for the expenses incurred in connection with the repatriation of British volunteers from Spain. I do not particularly wish to make the observations I am going to make, but I think I ought to offer a remark upon one aspect of this question which we, as Members of the House of Commons and guardians of the public purse, should not pass over. I could, if I were so minded, enlarge upon the political character of the action of the men who went to fight in Spain. If I were to do so I should deplore what I sincerely believe to be the dangerous and frightful folly that induced men to go to fight for anarchy and Communism under the delusion that they were defending the cause of democracy. But to go too far along that line would lead me out of order. I wish therefore to insist upon this fact: that the men who went to fight in Spain broke the law of the land. They were in breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act. That is a very important fact.
        Mr. Pritt: Would the hon. Member tell me what Section of that Act made it unlawful for them? There is an Act to make it unlawful for people to take them there, but none for them to go.
        Mr. Emmott: I have not the Act here, but I certainly understood, that in a Declaration which was made, I think, in February, 1937, by the Foreign Office, although I speak from memory, it was declared to be—it was not a new law, merely a declaratory statement of the law—illegal for persons to volunteer for service in Spain.
        Mr. Pritt: The law cannot be made by declaration. It never has been the law, and is not at this moment the law. No Englishman is breaking the law if he en-
        1992
        lists in the forces of a foreign State if he chooses to do so.
        The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member's remark is in order upon the point he was going to make, but it is not in order to discuss whether he is right in his statement about the Foreign Enlistment Act.
        Mr. Pritt: Is it in order for Members to base an argument upon a misstatement of the law?
        The Temporary Chairman: It is in order for the hon. and learned Member to deny the statement, but we cannot enter into a discussion about who is right.
        Mr. Emmott: I must say that I do not accept the hon. and learned Member's assertion that my statement of the law is incorrect. But if it would be in order for my right hon. Friend to do so when he comes to reply to this Debate, perhaps he would inform me whether I am right or not. I believe I am right, and I believe the Declaration, made, as I think, although I am speaking from memory, in February, 1937, relating to the Foreign Enlistment Act, showed that the actions to which I am referring were in fact illegal. If this view is right I say that the Committee is now being invited to sanction a charge upon public funds which is due to activities that themselves constituted a breach of the law, and I consider that the Committee should deplore this fact. I admit the necessity of the repatriation of these men; but I deplore the illusions that were responsible for the circumstances that now call for this charge upon public funds. And finally I wish to say that I support, because I consider it was an extremely sensible one, the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington that the cost of this repatriation should be borne, at least in part, by the organisations that were responsible for the original enlistment.
        6.52 p.m.
        Mr. David Adams: The Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) made an allegation that the Prime Minister had determined long before the Czecho-Slovakian crisis arose to hand over that country to Germany. While there appears to be substantial evidence to confirm that view I believe the Rules of Order would prevent me from going into details, and we shall have to permit history to record

        1993
        the accurate facts of the case; but when we are passing the item in respect to Lord Runciman's visit to Prague we shall be entitled, I suppose, to express our particular views upon what occurred then. I want to say at once that in my judgment the work of Lord Runciman was carried out with remarkable consistency and efficiency, and with an ardent desire to secure good will and a proper settlement, within the Czech State, of the Sudeten problem, but I wish also to confirm that in my judgment he was prevented from fulfilling the object which he had in view by the visit of the Prime Minister to Berchtesgaden. In that way his work was completely nullified, and never yet has there been in the House an explanation of the action which the Prime Minister took.
        The Temporary Chairman: In that statement the hon. Member is going much beyond the scope of what is in order upon this Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member can give his views upon the mission, but he cannot argue about the Prime Minister's visit having affected the result of the mission.
        Mr. Adams: I desire very anxiously to meet your desires in the matter, Sir Cyril, but I should like to place on record this statement of the Prime Minister. At the time he said that for some time past he had contemplated visiting Herr Hitler. When he made that statement in the House he also stated that peace had once more been restored between the Czechs and the Sudetens. If that were the case, what reason had the Prime Minister for withdrawing Lord Runciman at that time from Czecho-Slovakia? I assert that that withdrawal was the prime cause, probably, of the misfortunes that then fell upon the Czechs, for immediately the Prime Minister determined upon the visit to which I have just been referring and sent that humiliating and obsequious telegram to Herr Hitler he at the same time withdrew Lord Runciman.
        The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is really traversing the Ruling which I have just given.
        Mr. Adams: I take it we are paying for, along with other things, the sending of certain cables in connection with this whole affair, and to stifle our criticism of these particular items seems to me to be taking a rather stern view of the situation.
        The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must not say that. That is criticising my action. I have given my Ruling and the hon. Member must observe it.
        Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. If we are considering the payment for sending a particular telegram or cable would it not be in order for an hon. Member to discuss the advisability of the sending of that cable? Surely nothing could be more relevant.
        The Temporary Chairman: I am not aware that we are discussing the expense of that particular cable, but in any event it would not mean that because the cost of a cable is in an Estimate hon. Members can discuss general matters of foreign policy in the widest terms.
        Mr. Adams: Then I will content myself with stating that I believe the work of Lord Runciman was destroyed by his recall from Prague at a time when the Prime Minister admitted that peace had been restored between the Sudetens and the Czechs, and that if proper judgment had been exercised he would have been permitted to go on with the good work on which he was employed. I leave that side of the Estimates and would like to say how grateful one is to observe how the work in connection with passport facilities which have been afforded to those abroad was carried out, at much sacrifice and with much overwork, by the officials. It has been my duty to aid in the return to this country of certain of the refugees, and I have nothing but the highest praise for own own people and for the employés who were engaged upon this work abroad.
        With regard to the British Council, that is a departure which, I hope, will become part and parcel of the normal life of this State. To extend a knowledge of Britain, of our culture and our democratic institutions, has become more necessary, in the judgment of those of us on this side of the Committee, on account of the international humiliations we have suffered, and it will not be a bad thing for the British people if such knowledge is extended in this country. I think it was Bernard Shaw who said that if you want to know anything of a subject you should lecture about it. This expenditure upon extending knowledge abroad might well be directed at times to this country in

        1995
        order that the British people should have a fuller knowledge of their own country. At all events, from my point of view this expenditure will have the advantage of stabilising to some extent our democratic institutions. It will confirm Governments of the day in the good task to which we have so far directed our attention, and it may be that we shall be able by those means to extend democratic institutions abroad. The conflict of words and controversy from Central Europe appears to have somewhat declined, and I think it will cease at a very early date I think Britain may well look to the British Council as being the means of nullifying false propaganda and restoring in due course the ancient prestige of this country among the nations of the world.
        7.1 p.m.
        Mr. Storey: I should not have intervened if it had not been that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) questioned the provision that is made for payment to Reuters Agency of expenses incurred in increasing their output of foreign news at the request of the Government. The hon. Member asked why they should select this one firm, which he charged with lack of impartiality. The reason why the Government requested Reuters to increase their output of news is obvious. On two recent occasions the House has passed Resolutions recognising the value of the distribution of British news through British channels, and if the Government are to implement those Resolutions they must use the main channels that are available. In the distribution of news to the newspapers of the world Reuters is not only the main British channel; it is the only British channel. It is the only British agency which has world-wide facilities for the distribution of news. It has also obtained an immense prestige built up by its independence and the accuracy and integrity of its news services. That prestige is, I think, the answer to the unsupported charge of partiality which the hon. Member made.
        In recent years Reuters have had to face very heavily subsidised foreign competition. Foreign Governments, realising the value of the dissemination of news to the newspapers of the world, have accorded vast support to various news agencies and given them cheap wireless facilities. They have been able to
        1996
        issue well edited wireless services. All the news in those services is news seen through foreign eyes, and some of it is definitely tendentious in character. I think, therefore, it is in this country's interest that world news should be presented through British eyes as an antidote to foreign subsidised competition. Reuters efficiency and prestige have so far enabled them to hold their own. Help or no help, they will continue to fight for British interests. But let us be quite frank. The strain is beginning to tell and, if they are to continue to do so, to the full effect in the face of this competition, some special wireless facilities or some assistance in meeting Post Office charges should be available to them. The crisis last September emphasised the need for this supply of British news throughout the world and, at the Government's request, Reuters increased their wordage and were promised assistance towards their telegraphic charges. That assistance was only in the distribution of news. It implied no interference whatever with the collection or selection of the news and therefore the assistance does nothing to interfere with the effectiveness of Reuters service, which is due to their prestige, built up, as I have said, on their independence, accuracy and integrity. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not hesitate to vote this small sum to assist them in carrying out their work.
        7.6 p.m.
        Mr. E. J. Williams: I should like to say a few words to contradict the statement of the hon. Member below the Gangway with regard to the British volunteers who went to Spain. The events of the last few weeks are so well known that hon. Members should now realise that the Welsh miners and others who volunteered for Spain in order to support the Republican Government were doing something which they sincerely believed was in the interests of democracy and liberty. I am sure that, when history is recorded, it will be clearly shown that they were doing something which was essentially necessary for preserving liberty throughout the world. The hon. Member's comments cast very serious reflections upon honourable people, citizens of this country, who sacrificed not only their occupations but almost their careers in volunteering, not in order to assist anarchy and Communism but to try to maintain democracy throughout the

        1997
        world. I should like to know what the Government are really going to do in regard to the refugee problem, which is now being faced almost entirely by the French Government. The report that we receive on all hands is that conditions are really deplorable. I should like the hon. Gentleman to indicate how this money will be spent and what real assistance, not only financially but in every other way, the Government are prepared to render in order to relieve this very serious situation.
        7.9 p.m.
        Mr. Butler: I think I had better start, in replying to the points which have been raised on these rather complicated Supplementary Estimates, by acknowledging the general atmosphere in the Committee in accepting the fact that this money is needed for expenses concerned with the relief of distress. I have, therefore, been glad to notice, in spite of certain criticism which must always be forthcoming from those who wish to discharge their duty as legislators, the general acceptance of the necessity for these Supplementary Estimates. I had better take first the point of financial purity put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who has returned to his interest in Supplementary Estimates. He drew attention to technical explanations put in the headings to SS and TT. The first is:
        "Contribution to the International Fund established by the International Commission for the assistance of child refugees in Spain."
        The reason for the statement that
        "Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended at 31st March, 1939, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer"
        is because of the nature of the grant, which is a grant of charity, and this is put in in order that the usual practice shall not be followed that any unexpended sum shall be returned to the Exchequer. The second point to which he referred is explained by the particular character of the Vote. The first had the characteristic of being a charitable Vote. The second has the character of being an international Vote for an international body. Therefore, the expenditure will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but, at the request of the International Board, the accounts of the Council will be audited for the Council by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
        1998
        The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) said she trusted that the report of the commission which investigated bombing in Spain would be published. The Bombing Commission was appointed to be at the service of the contending parties to investigate the results of individual bombardments. This it did, and its reports were submitted to the League and were considered by us at a meeting of the League Council in January. I do not want to return to a controversy which was rather of the hon. Lady's making, but I never had any intention that the previous League report, which was concerned with the withdrawal of volunteers, should be withheld from the public gaze. I spoke of it at Geneva. The world Press was present and a large part of its contents was reproduced in the Press of the world. I did not realise that the document was not readily available in London, but understood that full publicity was given to it. In the same way the reports made by this Bombardment Commission were before us at Geneva and they were commented upon by the Press. I will certainly give an undertaking that their contents shall be made available as soon as possible for the House to consider. I hope the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that I shall be only too pleased to let those reports see the light of day.
        The hon. Member who spoke last asked whether the Government were giving close enough attention to the relief of refugees on the French side of the frontier. I can assure him, and others who have raised the question, that it is of extreme seriousness, and its gravity is fully realised by the Government. I can say no more to-night than I could on the previous occasion because action has taken place on French territory, under the control of French organisation, and therefore I cannot give any further information until we can give the reply from the French Government in answer to certain suggestions that we have made. When I can, I shall be glad to give such information as I have to the Committee or to the House. The only mariner in which; that serious question comes out to-night is because the International Commission-has extended its work over the frontier. To that extent I could not accept the hon. Lady's remark about our contribution being too late. There is plenty of distress with which the commission will have to

        1999
        deal. I must answer her general criticism by saying that I am glad that we have not been castigated in this manner by the International Commission itself, which has, in fact, expressed its gratitude to us for what we have done.
        Miss Rathbone: Has not the International Commission frequently reported that the money in hand was completely inadequate for the task it had to do, especially when so many children needed feeding?
        Mr. Butler: Yes; I was just about to say that, but I like to yield to the hon. Lady. I was just about to say that it is certainly true that any amount of money that we could get would probably be inadequate to deal with the great distress; but we have done our best, and I believe that our contribution has had some result.
        I want to deal with the points raised in connection with the British Council. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) raised the usual question, which appealed to me, whether this was a British or an English council. Unfortunately, I am not Scottish and not English. I can be perfectly fair in this matter. I should have used the word "British," following the name of the British Council itself. In order to comfort my hon. Friend for his disappointment with my previous language, I can tell him that we have secured an agreement with the chairman of the council enabling me to say that arrangements are being made for the representation of the Scottish Office on the executive committee. I trust that this will take place very shortly.
        The hon. Member also raised one or two other questions relating to the Balkans and to regional committees. I have referred already to the work of the British Council that is done in Rumania and other places. In the Balkans the work of the council has been directed towards establishing Chairs and Readers in universities. We bring students from schools there to England—and I hope Scotland, too—to help to encourage English teaching in the school. The British Council does not have regional committees abroad because it prefers to work through our missions. There are in London two regional committees of the British Council, the Near East Committee specially concerned with the Balkans, and the Iberian-
        2000
        American Institute, for South America. To a certain extent there is here the type of regional advice which the hon. Member desires.
        Apart from that, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) raised the question of the report of the council, and said he would like to know more about it. That is a very laudable desire, but I would refer him to the Debate which took place the other night on a Private Member's Motion on the subject of the dissemination of news abroad. I would remind him that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Opposition are connected with the council. It is in no sense a body favouring one section of the country rather than another, but it is essentially a British body representing the best that is in this country, with the object of making cultural links with other countries. On the question of reports, the council has not actually published detailed reports, but I understand that a report in general terms on its work and activities throughout the world is in course of preparation and will be published shortly. When it is published, we shall take every step to bring it to the attention of the Committee and of the House. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to say any more on the subject I will do so, but I want to assure him that we are trying to meet the points which he raised in his speech.
        My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddingtonshire (Captain McEwen) asked whether the new Press officers had been appointed. I referred in my original speech to the Press officers in missions overseas. They have been appointed at Belgrade, which covers Sofia, Brussels, Bucharest, Stockholm with Oslo, Helsingfors, Lisbon, The Hague, Buenos Aires and Lima. It is hoped in due course to appoint Press officers in certain other capitals. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) raised the question of the contribution to Reuter's. I may say that that point was ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey).
        Then we come to the various more detailed points under Head L, Diplomatic Services and various movements. While considering this question of diplomatic journeys, the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) asked whether the expenses of a certain public

        2001
        servant were included in sub-head C. I am advised that the cost of the Prime Minister's visit to Munich is being borne on the Treasury Vote, and is not included under this head. I have nothing I can say to him in reply on that point. The hon. Member for Gower referred to the services of Sir Robert Hodgson. I am sure that the hon. Member's criticisms were not directed in any way personally against our agent. I could not recognise that the services of Sir Robert Hodgson have been shielded from public gaze or that the results have not been brought before the House. His services have been most valuable in maintaining British interests under exceptionally difficult circumstances with what were known at that time as the Burgos authorities and keeping our Government in touch with matters. If we are in due course to cement an old friendship with an old country under a form of government that has come about, I am sure that the services of Sir Robert Hodgson, at an extremely difficult time, will be remembered. I was asked about the exchange of prisoners. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay asked how many prisoners had been actually exchanged by the machinery of Sir Philip Chetwode's Commission. The answer is about 300, apart from the other achievements to which I have referred.
        Considerable reference has been made to the British observers in Czechoslovakia, and the hon. Member for Clay-cross (Mr. Ridley) asked about the relationship of the work of the observers to Article 7 of the Munich Agreement. That article relates to the optants, and the British observers had no connection with that matter, so I am afraid that I cannot deal with it under this Vote. Observers come under Article 6 of the Munich Agreement, which related to the evacuation of the Sudeten territory. In reply to some of the points raised in connection with these observers, I would remind the Committee of the terms of reference which were given to these observers for the work that they were expected to do. They were
        "generally to render assistance in the areas under occupation by Germany in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and more particularly to investigate any incidents which might arise and do their best to avoid them."
        As I said before, it is thanks to the careful
        2002
        work of the observers that more incidents did not arise. I will not deny that things were not altogether satisfactory, but considering the difficulty of such an evacuation it was carried out smoothly and quickly and it was in part due to the observers that that was so. I was asked whether the observers had reported on the evacuation of Czecho-Slovak military material. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) made a point of it. I am informed that this matter would have been dealt with by the military sub-committee of the international body in Berlin, and the Committee should know that this question was settled, we understand, to the satisfaction of the Czecho-Slovak military authorities by direct arrangement between them and the German military command on the spot. In fact, a great deal of military material was withdrawn, but this was not specifically the work of the observers. In order to answer the points put to me I have deliberately taken up these questions.
        Now I come to head SS, which deals with the relief work of the International Commission, to which I made a passing reference at the beginning. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay asked whether I would continue to bear in mind the type of relief which has been and will be given; I give the Committee the extra assurance that we are aware of the great importance of the need for this relief at the present time. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton referred to the sad death of certain of the non-intervention observers. I am informed that four observing officers were killed in the course of their duties, two Danish, one British and one Swedish. He further asked what provision had been made for their dependants. I am informed that the Nonintervention Committee makes provision, by a suitable insurance and compensation. From inquiries I have made, I think its compensation is on a scale suitable to the circumstances.
        Mr. Mander: By whom were they killed?
        Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot give particulars in each case. They were killed in the course of their duties. I think I have covered all the detailed points which have been raised in the course of this very interesting Debate.
        Mr. Mander: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a reply under the heading TT, whether any of the funds could be used now for the evacuation of the foreign troops on Franco's side.
        Mr. Butler: That is a matter which will have to be decided by the International Committee. It is not a matter on which I can give an answer here, because more than one Government is represented on the Committee, but from the point of view of the British Government I will certainly investigate the hon. Gentleman's point.
        Miss Rathbone: While on that point, would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the matter which I raised, as to what is to be done with the Stateless volunteers, who have no Government to look after them?
        Mr. Butler: That matter is not covered by any Vote here. As I told the hon. Lady yesterday when she came to see me on the subject, the importance of this
        question is fully realised and we shall render all the aid we can to help return these men to whatever country they wish to go to. In some cases when people are Stateless it is very difficult to find a destination for them. We shall certainly do our best to investigate the matter, and, as the hon. Lady suggested, we shall consult authorities who know the situation on the spot. I now ask the Committee to allow us these Supplementary Estimates, believing as we do that they are for the purpose of the relief of distress in a period of grave international complications, and indicating as they do the determination of the Government, not necessarily to get involved in every quarrel in the world, but to help lessen the evil results that arise from quarrels between men.
        Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £258,987, be granted for the said Service."
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 207.
        Resolved,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £259,087, 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 expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishment abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote;
        2006
        certain special grants and payments, including grants-in-aid; and sundry services arising out of the war."

        FOREIGN OFFICE.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day

        2007
        of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
        7.41 p.m.
        Mr. Butler: This Supplementary Estimate is not so considerable, either in size or in scope as the one which we have been considering all the afternoon. The position is that additional sums are required for each sub-head of the Foreign Office Vote amounting to £15,000. In addition, a deficiency in passport fees of £25,000 is anticipated, so that the main Estimate is short by £40,000. The reason for the increased expenditure and the decreased passport fees is the international uncertainty to which I referred on the previous discussion. Salaries have gone up for various reasons, such as certain emergency work by clerical staffs, overtime, and so forth. There are certain under-estimates for the office work of the Committee on Non-intervention, about which we had a full discussion on the Diplomatic and Consular Vote. As to the Communications section, Sub-head B, this covers salaries of King's Messengers visiting capitals abroad, and incidental expenses include cypher telegrams received from abroad. Then there are sub-heads for expenses in connection with telephones and special services, in particular, wireless equipment needed as an extra in the difficult time which we had last October.
        Perhaps the main head which arises under the Foreign Office Vote as such is the question of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees. This committee was set up by the resolution of the Evian Committee on 14th July, 1938, and it provided for the creation and the appointment of the director, whose task would be to negotiate for the improvement of the conditions of refugees and to approach the Governments of the different countries with a view to developing opportunities for settlement. A great deal of work has been done since the date when the Evian Committee was set up, and when the political director, to whose work I should like to pay a tribute, was appointed. The committee have since been in contact with certain German authorities, and it is understood that consideration of the question is still proceeding. There is a certain amount of satisfactory news to report. There have been certain very encouraging offers from countries of settlement, notably from the United States of America, Australia, the
        2008
        Dominican Republic, and the Philippines, and these, with the offer made by His Majesty's Government in the Prime Minister's statement of 21st November, make by no means a negligible contribution to the solution of the general problem. Several of these schemes are already being examined by expert commissions. The committee has been in existence for only a little over six months, and the problem is so vast that long-term schemes take a long time to mature. In the circumstances, therefore, the committee's achievement in focussing the attention of some 30 Governments on the problem must be regarded as most valuable. The committee also offers an opportunity of close and constant touch with the United States, whose assistance and interest in refugee problems are of the very greatest importance.
        There is one recent development which has given the Government considerable satisfaction. It may have been thought at one time that the committee's work would overlap or hamper the activities of the League of Nation's refugee section; but a decision has been taken that the League's High Commissioner for refugees should, in addition, assume the office of director of this committee. Thus the lack of co-ordination between the Evian Committee and the League's High Commission for refugees has been avoided by selection of the same man to be director of both bodies. I should like to pay a tribute to Mr. Rublee and to welcome his successor whose great administrative record and work at Geneva I appreciated very much at the last meeting of the council. After these explanations, I hope the Committee will be able to vote this money for subjects which are non-contentious, money which is needed for the prosecution of the work of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
        7.47 p.m.
        Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like to say a few words in regard to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman about the Evian Committee and the League of Nations refugee organisation, and the work which these two bodies are now engaged in doing. I, too, should like to pay a tribute to the valuable work done by the late director of the Evian Committee, Mr. Rublee, for whose ability and character all who know him have a very high regard. The Under-Secretary was right in saying that the Committee was

        2009
        very fortunate in having him as its first principal agent. I should like also to associate myself and my hon. Friends with what the Under-Secretary said about the League of Nation's High Commissioner for Refugees. I think it is a very happy augury that so able and distinguished a British civil servant should have been chosen as High Commissioner of the League of Nations refugee organisation, and I think it is still more happy that the Evian Committee should have selected him as the successor of Mr. Rublee. I hope this means that all the refugee work is now going tobe pooled together into one organised system.
        Many years ago I had the honour of serving under Dr. Nansen when he was acting as High Commissioner for the League in the early days when very large numbers of refugees were dealt with, many more than now, in spite of the disastrous civil war that has been going on. Very great and successful refugee schemes were carried through then. I have always believed that the success achieved was largely due to the fact that the High Commissioner was able to use the authority of the League, which was greater in those days than it is now, and that he was also able to use the international machinery of the system of local officers established by himself, independent in a sense of the local government and working on behalf of the High Commissioner, but associated very closely with the administration of the National States where they were established. I believe such a system is absolutely indispensable if any big schemes for refugee settlements, or for the infiltration of refugees, are to be carried through.
        I hope the Government will press for co-operation as closely as they can, and that when the right time comes, in spite of the economies which there may be in the Budget of the League, they will see their way to give Sir Herbert Emerson, as High Commissioner, a much larger sum than is at his disposal now. He has in that capacity certain revenues at his disposal from the sale of the Nansen stamp, and from refugee postage stamps issued by certain national administrations, in particular France and Norway. This means a very considerable amount of money, and I hope His Majesty's Government will introduce postage stamps of this kind here. It would be an example to many other Governments,
        2010
        and at this very critical time, without further burdening the taxpayer, except so far as he chooses voluntarily to be burdened, it would be a means of raising additional revenue. I hope, also, that when they come to consider the matter they will put more money into the Budget of the League itself. If Sir Herbert Emerson were to be given another £20,000 a year, of which our share would be £2,000 or £2,500, it would enable him greatly to extend the scale of his administration and to secure much larger practical results than he can at the present time.
        Having made these general observations, I would end by asking the Undersecretary if he can tell us whether it is the intention that Spanish refugees shall be brought within the scope of the Evian Committee or of the High Commissariat of the League of Nations. I hope that we shall not see a repetition of the tragic follies of the past, when certain refugees from Germany were excluded from the work of the High Commissariat of the League, because the German Government objected. Therefore, for a long time there was no effective protection. Although in the end the work had to be united, it was greatly hampered in the meantime. I hope the Government will bring the Spanish refugees into the ambit of this work. If they do so, they will help France to deal with a problem which is not specifically a French problem, and in respect of which a great burden has fallen upon the French people. We ought to pay a tribute to their generosity in this matter. I hope they will be helped to deal with the problem, as it ought to be dealt with, on an international basis. By doing this we shall also be doing something to lessen the misery of the Spanish refugees themselves. I do not want to deal with the other items. By far the most important matter raised by this Vote is that of the refugees, and I hope the Government will be able to give a satisfactory answer.
        7.53 p.m.
        Mr. Mander: I should like to raise one or two points in connection with this Supplementary Estimate. The first comes under sub-head A, the £750 for the Non-intervention Committee. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some indication when this work is coming to an end. Obviously, it will not go

        2011
        on very much longer, and he ought to be able to give us some assurance about the period that he has in mind. With regard to subhead E, telephones, I suppose the reference is to telephone calls which have taken place on Government business at home and abroad. In so far as it involves telephone calls abroad, I read with horror one day in the Press during the crisis that the Prime Minister had been spending a good deal of his time at Godesberg telephoning to Members of the Inner Cabinet in London. Obviously, what he said was overheard by the Germans and would be conveyed to Herr Hitler at once. This is a serious point. It is ludicrous for the Prime Minister to spend his time telephoning to colleagues over here from a country or for a matter of that from any country where everything that is said in a crisis of that kind is known to the other side. I think it was a rather remarkable proceeding.
        Included in this Vote, also, is an Estimate for a direct telephone line between the Foreign Office and the residence of the Secretary of State. I presume that refers to his home in the country, in Yorkshire, and not to his residence in London. If so, I am entirely in favour of it. I would do everything I could, so far as I understand the situation, to strengthen the position of the Foreign Secretary in relation to certain of his colleagues. If anything can be done by giving him direct telephone communication and by cutting off the telephone communication of certain other Members of the Cabinet, it would be in the general interest of the foreign policy of this country. I should also like to know something about the wireless equipment. For what purpose is it used? We have not had any information about it.
        In regard to the Inter-Governmental Committee, I should like to join in the tribute paid to the late director, Mr. Rublee. It is very largely due to his attractive and sincere personality that he was able to get on as well as he did while he was in Germany, and I think it is a very wise procedure to have selected Sir Herbert Emerson to take charge of both sections of the work for refugees in future. I hope that this means, as the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) said, that the Spanish refugees and the refugees from anywhere
        2012
        else will be brought under Sir Herbert Emerson. That is the most effective way of dealing with the matter. I do not know whether we can have any information as regards the results of Mr. Rublee's visit to Berlin. A good deal has appeared in the Press in a way that is clearly authoritative. As I understand it roughly, the scheme is that the money of the Jews, which has been taken, stolen, from them should as to 75 per cent, of it be kept in a trust fund in Germany—I am not clear whether it is to be for the benefit of the Jews or for the Nazis—and 25 per cent. is to be used for the purpose of paying the fares to the frontier of Germany. I do not see why the Noble Lord should call me to order.
        The Paymaster-General (Earl Winterton): I did not do so.
        The Temporary Chairman: I do not see how the point which the hon. Member is raising arises on the Supplementary Estimate.
        Mr. Mander: I was getting on quite well until the Noble Lord called me to order.
        Earl Winterton: I did not use the word "order."
        Mr. Mander: I appreciate that it may not be in order to discuss this question. I am only trying to find out whether we can have information from the Undersecretary or the Noble Lord on this subject. Without pursuing the matter further I should like to comment on what Mr. Rublee was able to do. He carried out admirably the task which was allotted to him, but he had no control of policy. It is an odious situation that these Jews are to be allowed to be robbed and despoiled, and then we have to agree to some scheme that will help the Germans to make money out of them. If it is possible for the Noble Lord or the Undersecretary to give us any further information on this question, it will be of public interest.
        7.59 p.m.
        Earl Winterton: I am sorry the hon. Member thought that I had interrupted him. I am afraid that it is not possible for me as chairman of the Evian Committee to enter into a discussion of questions which are of the utmost importance, but on which I can say nothing in view of the Ruling of the Chair. All

        2013
        that I can say is that contact of a favourable character is being maintained with the German Reich, a contact which was established in the first instance by Mr. Rublee, on behalf of whom, as chairman of the committee, I should like to express gratitude to hon. Members for their friendly references. I would like, also, to pay a tribute to the patience and skill with which he has conducted the discussions and with which he has generally directed the work of the committee. The only other point that arises in connection with this Vote is the question of co-ordination between the activities of the Inter-Governmental Committee, or Evian Committee, as it may be termed, and the work which is done by the League High Commissioner. While it is desired, as I understand, both by the Council of the League of Nations and certainly by the committee over which I have the honour to preside, that there should be the fullest co-operation and co-ordination of activity, it is impossible to have one single organisation because the United States is not a member of the League of Nations. The Government of the United States take a particular interest in this matter of refugees from Germany, but it is not possible for them to be a member of any body which is directly connected with the League of Nations.
        Mr. Noel-Baker: On many occasions the United States have officially participated in conferences and committees organised by the League of Nations.
        Earl Winterton: That is not the point. It is a different thing to be officially a member of a body which is under the League. I am, of course, not in a position to speak for a foreign Government, but I know that I am expressing the exact truth when I say that it would not be possible to carry co-ordination and co-operation further than it is being carried at this moment. Germany too is not a member of the League of Nations. It is a delicate subject to deal with, but it is easier to carry on discussions between the director of our organisation and the German Reich Government than to carry on discussions directly between the Reich Government and an organisation belonging to the League of Nations. The matter is being kept constantly in mind, and I hope that on some occasion when there is an ad hoc discussion on this subject it will be possible further to inform the House.
        Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Noble Lord say something about the Spanish refugees?
        Earl Winterton: That is another matter with which I am not officially concerned, because I only act for the Foreign Office in the matters to which reference have just been made. In regard to the Spanish refugees being placed under the Evian Committee, however, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that is impossible because by our mandate drawn up at Evian, and for which we obtained the authority of the associated Governments—and may I say, in parentheses, that as far as our Constitution is concerned we have been singularly united—we are precluded from considering other than refugees from old and new Germany. However, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary informs me that nothing is being left out of consideration as to the future of Spanish refugees. They are being at present cared for by the French authorities.
        The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think that that comes under this Vote.
        8.7 p.m.
        Miss Rathbone: May I ask when the Evian Committee will meet again to reconsider what seems to me the fatal decision arrived at last June, when they laid down the principle that all efforts for refugees must depend on voluntary organisation? Until they budge from that fatal position, which every expert on the refugee question admits to be an impossible one, for we cannot deal with a problem so vast with voluntary funds, that resolution seems like a blank wall stopping all serious effort to deal with the problem on a big scale. I hope that the Evian Committee will shortly reconsider that matter and at the same time consider extending its reference to cover Spanish refugees.
        Earl Winterton: It is a little difficult to answer the question while keeping within the rules of order, but perhaps I can give this reply, that neither as representing His Majesty's Government on the Committee nor as chairman of the Committee could I possibly advocate a departure from the policy that was laid down at Evian. The 32 nations represented on the Committee were unanimous in their decision, and it will be no use asking them, even if I were inclined to do so, to

        2015
        alter this constitution. It is left to the chairman, in consultation with the director and the vice-chairman, to call a meeting of the Committee, and there will probably be a meeting in the summer. It will then be open to any member to raise the point mentioned by the hon. Lady, but every one of the nations is opposed to any alteration of the conditions which were laid down at Evian. The Committee, I think, has achieved considerable results, and I have the greatest hope that it will achieve still greater results in the coming few months.
        Resolved,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, 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 Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
        Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
        REPORT [23RD FEBRUARY].
        Resolutions reported.

      CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1938.

        CLASS II.
        1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £14,400, 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 Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
        2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,044,710, 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 sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants-in-aid."

      CLASS I.
      3. "That a Suplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000 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 other expenses of Royal Commissions, Committees and special inquiries, etc., including provision for shorthand; and the expenses of surplus stores, etc., liquidation."

      CLASS VI.
      4 "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £156,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Land Fertility Committee,
      2016
      and contributions towards the cost of acquiring and transporting lime and basic slag incurred by occupiers of agricultural land in the United Kingdom."
      5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,800, 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 Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and subordinate departments, including certain services arising out of the War."
      6. "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 certain Mercantile Marine services, including the expenses of Coastguard and General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen."

      CLASS VIII.
      7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, 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 War pensions and allowances (including cost of treatment) to merchant seamen and fishermen and their dependants and the administrative expenses connected therewith."

      CLASS VI.
      8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £139,820, 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 Department of Overseas Trade, including grants-in-aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel and Indus trial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland."
      First and Second Resolutions read a Second time.
      Ordered, "That consideration of the First and Second Resolutions be postponed."—[Major Harvie Watt.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      8.9 p.m.
      Mr. Tinker: There is an item for £300 for the Commission on Workmen's Compensation. We discussed this point in Committee and the Financial Secretary gave some indication what would happen on the report of that Commission. I would like to know whether he has anything further to say, because those who are interested in workmen's compensation are perturbed about what the Commission may do. Can we have an assurance that the question will be dealt with by an

      2017
      interim report of the Commission, because there are several important points which ought to be brought before the House before the final report is produced?
      8.10 p.m.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I am afraid that it is not possible for me to tell the House any more than I told the Committee. I did as I promised and conveyed immediately to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, on whose recommendation the Royal Commission was appointed, the views which had been expressed in the Committee. He gave me to understand that he took the same view that I ventured to express in the Committee, that it would be for the Commission, which is a very distinguished body, to decide whether they would issue an interim report or wait until they could deal with the whole question; and also that the situation would not be improved by attempting to impose on the Commission the duty of presenting an interim report. I can assure the House that the matter is very much in the mind of the Home Secretary and that the Commission are fully seized of what was said in the Committee.
      8.12 p.m.
      Mr. George Griffiths: Do we understand from the Financial Secretary that this Commission is favourably looking upon the request which we made when this matter was discussed last week? There is no doubt that the whole industrial world is perturbed about the length of time it takes when these Commissions are sitting. When they are appointed they hold out what I might term false hopes of redress in the immediate future, and they sit so long that the people who are affected and the people who are starving have their courage knocked out of them; their soul is knocked out of them, as we say in Yorkshire. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and I are not big noises in the country, but we want the Commission to feel that at least we know what we are talking about on the question of compensation. Before I came to the House I knew what it was to have very little compensation, and I am able to enter into the feeling of those men who have been taking these small amounts of compensation, some of them for 10 years. We are now asking the Commission to bring in an interim report
      2018
      so that we can have an increase in the amount of compensation. A report was in the Vote Office yesterday showing that 184,000 men in our industry were hurt last year——
      The Chairman: The hon. Member must not go into the merits of the subject.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry I am offside again. I never have the ball but I run it out of play. I was trying to point out that the amount which these men are getting is insufficient and that we want an interim report so that the amount of compensation can be raised. We shall not leave the Financial Secretary quiet; we shall humbug him with questions and take every opportunity that comes our way to raise a discussion on this matter. We shall repeatedly raise it because we want to make him so uncomfortable that he will say, "Let us have an interim report and give these chaps a little more money."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agreed with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Westwood: We are entitled to some explanation as to what action is being taken by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to guarantee that, so far as the provision of this additional money is concerned, those who are to get the lime will at least get lime instead of the fraudulent material being foisted on them at present. In the Committee I raised the matter. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 23rd February:
      "Mr. West wood: Is it not the fact that, as a result of investigations of the Inspector of Weights and Measures in Scotland, it has been admitted in answers in this House that fraudulent sales have been taking place, and that there is no genuine control at the present time in order to safeguard the farmer under the existing law?"
      The Minister of Agriculture replied to me:
      "I think that that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am merely dealing with English and Welsh farmers and distributors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1939; col. 670, Vol. 344.]
      May I respectfully suggest that the same type of fraudulent sales are taking place in England as in Scotland? When this

      2019
      House is asked, as it is to-night, to provide over £150,000 for the purpose of helping to rehabilitate the land by the supply of lime, we are entitled at least to be assured that the Department will see that it is lime that is provided. I know that I should be out of order in suggesting new legislation, but I am entitled to ask what action the Department are taking under their existing powers to see that the lime contains 86 per cent. of calcium oxide. In the case of three samples of material being sold as lime of which I have had information, the deficiency of calcium oxide has been 41.16 per cent., 87·093 per cent., and 53·51 per cent. and in the case of another three samples, it has been 17·97 per cent., 18·53 per cent. and 35·88 per cent. respectively, as compared with the guarantee given to the farmer when that material was sold—and I am purposely using the word "material," because it was not lime.
      I know a deputation met the Ministry of Agriculture on 26th October, 1938, and pointed out many of the difficulties resulting from the Act of 1936, under which powers are being used at present for the supply of this material alleged to be lime. I am entitled to raise this matter on behalf of not only this side, but the whole House, because both sides are desperately anxious to see that when the State provides money, that money is being used to provide the material which the farming community expect to get when they provide pound for pound for the reliming of agricultural land. I am not raising this in any hostile spirit, but in order to see that the Department are using their powers to the fullest possible extent, to see that money provided by the State is properly spent and that the farmers are not defrauded.
      I have letters not only from inspectors of weights and measures in Scotland, but from inspectors of weights and measures in England, and I find that in Buckinghamshire, for instance, the same thing is going on as in Angus. There must be power for the Ministry of Agriculture to see that farmers are not defrauded, and that State money is well spent. We are entitled to get an explanation from the Minister as to what action is being taken, and if the action which can be taken cannot give the results that the House desires, we are entitled to ask for the
      2020
      setting up of a departmental committee —a step which I understand has, at least, been approved of by the Scottish Office. I have been informed that the Scottish Office were in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture for England on the advisability of setting up a departmental committee, so that if the present powers are not adequate a full investigation can be carried out by that committee with a view to getting improved regulations, or even new legislation, for the purpose of safeguarding the agricultural community and seeing that State money is well spent. I trust that we shall get a fuller explanation as to what action the Department are taking.
      8.28 p.m.
      The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I absolutely appreciate the point that has been made. Two steps have been taken by the Land Fertility Committee itself. First, the farmers who have received the subsidy under the scheme have been reminded of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1936, and the rights they have under it, and secondly——
      Mr. Westwood: I trust that the Minister is not seriously suggesting that that Act enables the farmers to take action? They can take action in the civil court only, if I understand the Act aright, and, as so many of them are actually indebted to the merchants who are supplying them, it is impossible for them, in many instances, to take action to defend their civil rights.
      Sir R. Dorman-Smith: But some would be able to do so, and those who could have been reminded. Secondly, the Land Fertility Committee have arranged for periodical visits by their inspectors. Just how far they have gone and what those inspections have in fact brought to light at this moment, I do not know, because they have just started—or at any rate, they have just been tightened up. I will get in touch with the chairman of the committee to find out what the results of the inspections have been, and whether he considers them effective. I will take full note of what has been said, and, if it is necessary, I will certainly lend my support to the proposal that the hon. Member makes.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      8.25 p.m.
      Mr. T. Johnston: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for a little information before this Vote is finally passed. It is a matter of very great difficulty to discover exactly which Minister is responsible for food, or which Minister is responsible for each section of the food supply. There are no fewer than six Ministers involved here, and I will endeavour to pin the Board of Trade down to responsibility for one-sixth part of the food defences of this country. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that there is no desire on this side of the House to raise embarrassing questions which it would not be in the public interest to answer. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I shall put no question of that nature, but we are disposed to ask what part of the services of the officers and officials whose salaries are being passed to-night on the Board of Trade Vote are given to ensuring that the nation shall have an adequate food supply in the case of an emergency. I believe that it is true that up to now they have confined their attention to providing for a very short emergency, and that thereafter what is called the normal course of supply and demand would operate, but we should like to have a public assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that, as far as his Department is concerned, he is quite satisfied with the reserves in food stocks which have been prepared not only for a week-end emergency but for a longer one. The nation is preparing against a knock-out blow militarily, and we are entitled to ask that there should be adequate precautions taken against a knock-out blow in the stomach. I shall be glad, therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to give us an assurance on this point before this Vote is passed.
      Mr. Markham: May I raise the question again of the Atlantic Ice Patrol. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the——
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think that that matter arises on this Vote.
      8.28 p.m.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has finally hunted his quarry to its own home, because it is my Department which is responsible for food supplies in time of war. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious not to ask questions, or to press for answers, which it would not be in the public interest to give, and I think he realises also that I am anxious on my side, as far as I can, to reassure him as to the situation. He asked whether we had an adequate food supply. The principles which govern the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter were very fully described in the Debate on the Essential Commodities (Reserves) Bill last year. The right hon. Gentleman did not press me for details as to the present position, and, indeed, he knows that I could not give them, but I would say, with regard to our total supplies at any time, that the figures vary from season to season, very naturally, partly because of the quantities that are coming into the country, and partly because of the quantities of home-produced supplies we may have on hand at any one time. I have recently gone through these figures. My Department keep in touch with the trade organisations and they know pretty exactly from time to time the stocks of food in the country.
      As regards the reserves which the Government have laid down under the Essential Commodities (Reserves) Act, the position is not that we wish to put ourselves in a position to withstand a siege—that has never been the policy of His Majesty's Government—but rather that we should be in a position to withstand any severe initial shock resulting perhaps in a severe diminution or dislocation of our supplies. The supplies that we have on hand, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, are adequate, and I am satisfied that they are adequate to tide us over a period of difficulty, but it would not be possible for me to attempt to define that period in terms of weeks or months.
      Mr. Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether that last answer of his applies especially to the category of fats—to bacon, lard and

      2023
      other essential fats? Can he say specifically that he has adequate stocks of those fats?
      Mr. Cross: I do not carry in my mind at this moment what precisely are those stocks, but I was, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman, looking at the figures the other day. We are very much alive to the fact that fats are, as he clearly indicates, perhaps the most important of all the reserves it is necessary to accumulate, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires, namely, that we have adequate supplies of fats to meet an emergency.
      8.33 p.m.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could inform the House, and, through the House, the country, that there will be an adequate supply of food for the unemployed, and the lowly-paid section of the community?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that that does not arise on this Vote.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Surely, Sir, I am within my right in asking the Parliamentary Secretary, as he says his Department deals with food supply, whether there will be food that may be obtained by the lowly-paid workers and the unemployed in this country? Is not that permissible?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member should put his question in rather a different way if he wants to elucidate the position as to whether there is a sufficiency of supplies for that purpose. He cannot on this Vote raise any question as to how those supplies will be distributed as between one class and another.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I have raised this question on every available opportunity when I have been in the House.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has often succeeded in raising questions at times when perhaps it has not been strictly in order, but it is my duty to stop him doing so as far as I can.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Am I not in order in putting the question to the Parliamentary Secretary now?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, not a question with regard to the unemployed; certainly not.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Am I not in order in putting it in regard to the lowly-paid workers in this country?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No.
      Mr. Kirkwood: There is no getting away from the fact that, while there is food in this country, those who have the means to procure it will get it, but there is a section of the community who will be handicapped.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I see the hon. Member's point, and that is exactly why I say that it is not in order on this Vote.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I shall have to bow to your Ruling.
      Ordered, "That the postponed Resolutions be further considered To-morrow."—[Major Harvie Watt.]
      REPORT [2nd MARCH].
      Resolutions reported,

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1938, AND CIVIL ESTIMATES, EXCESS, 1937.

      Class III.
      1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding,£1,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the expenses of the maintenance of criminal lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum."
      2. "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 office of the Prison Commissioners and of the Prisons in England and Wales."

      CLASS VI.
      3."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,130, 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 Fishery Board for Scotland, and a grant-in-aid of piers or quays."

      CLASS II.
      4."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,010, be granted to His Majesty,
      2054
      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 Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma, and grants-in-aid of military expenditure from Indian Revenues."

      CLASS VII.
      5."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,500, be granted to His Majesty, to de fray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament buildings."
      6. "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 office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
      7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £491,800, 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 expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including historic buildings, ancient monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain housing estates."
      8."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,700, be granted to His Majesty, to de fray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of public buildings overseas."
      9."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,200, 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 expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and telegraph buildings in Great Britain, certain post offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with boats and launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."

      CLASS V.
      10."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 Health; including grants, a grant-in-aid and other expenses in connection with housing, certain grants to local authorities, etc., a grant-in-aid to the National Radium Trust, grants-in-aid in respect of national health insurance benefits, etc., certain expenses in connection with widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions; a grant in aid of the Civil Service Sports Council; and other services."

      CLASS IV.
      11."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, 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 a grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation."
      12."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,370, 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 British Museum (Natural History), including a grant in aid."

      CLASS V.
      13."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding,£200,000, he 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 Old Age Pensions, pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith."
      CLASS VII.
      14."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £611,200, 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 stationery, printing, paper, binding and printed books for the public service; for the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including reports of Parliamentary Debates."
      CLASS VI.
      15."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,400, 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 Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-Roumanian, Anglo-Italian and Anglo-Turkish Clearing Offices."
      CLASS III.
      16."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,850 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other law charges, the salaries and expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland."

      CIVIL (EXCESS), 1937.
      17."That a sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for the Foreign Office for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1938:

      Class and Vote.

      Amount to be Voted.

      CLASS II.

      £

      s.

      d.

      Vote I. Foreign Office

      10

      0

      0"

      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      10.17 p.m.
      Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Undersecretary of State for Scotland whether he will give us an explanation of this Vote? I understand it has something to
      2056
      do with the provision of the fishery cruiser; no doubt he will interrupt me if I am wrong. I represent a fishing constituency. It sends trawlers out to the Iceland and other waters. The amount of trouble that those trawlers get in those waters from the fishery cruisers of other nations is causing considerable anxiety to those who have to fish in those waters. I want to know what are the precise duties of these cruisers, and whether the Undersecretary is completely satisfied that they will be able not only to protect British home waters, but also to give adequate protection to British trawlers fishing within their rights outside territorial waters in other areas? I regard that as equally important, and I would like an assurance that that is in the mind of the hon. Gentleman.
      10.18 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I replied to a question on this subject yesterday. This sum is in respect of the additional charge for a new fishery patrol vessel, to replace an old one now being scrapped. The new boat, like the old one, will operate only on the West of Scotland, around the islands, and will not have anything to do with the waters near the hon. Gentleman's constituency. With regard to illegal trawling, I am glad to say that, as I pointed out yesterday, it has been very substantially diminished for some years, and the speed of these new boats now being built is much greater than the speed of the old boats which they are replacing. The function of this boat will be to patrol the waters of the West Coast of Scotland and the Outer Isles and the Inner Isles; it will not be possible for it to go to foreign waters to attend to the interests of our trawlers.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Sir Joseph Nall: May I ask the Undersecretary of State for Burma whether he has anything further to tell the House regarding the disorders in that country, whether the conditions are any better than they have been lately, and whether any further steps are being taken?
      10.21 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): My hon. Friend has raised rather a wide question. This particular Supplementary Estimate deals with the modernisation of the Army in India and certain questions relating to the re-equipment of Army units and of Royal Air Force units. I explained yesterday on the Committee stage that these grants arose on the report of the Garran Committee, which discussed certain matters which were in dispute between the Government of India, the War Office, and the Air Ministry. The particular point on which they immediately concentrated which had relation to these grants was the possibility of the Army in India being used outside India for general Imperial purposes. It was with that in view that certain grants were recommended with a view to modernising the Army in India in order to enable it to take its place outside India when it might be fighting side by side with units equipped in the modern fashion. That is the basis of these grants, and it is not really a question of internal security which is at issue.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      10.24 p.m.
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, to leave out "£18,700," and to insert "£18,600."
      This matter was before the Committee last night, when, in introducing the Estimate, the only remark on the point to which I wish to draw attention made by the First Commissioner of Works was the single sentence:
      "The amount required is still further decreased by the increase in appropriations-in-aid resulting from the sale of the Vienna Legation."
      Having told us that he said:
      "with this explanation I ask the Committee to let me have the Vote."
      The attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) was directed to this Vote, and it was not secured quite as quickly as the Minister expected. This transaction, in which the former Embassy and the late Legation at Vienna was sold for £9,150 of British
      2058
      money, is so astonishing that I do not think the House should let the Report stage go without some further explanation from the First Commissioner than he gave us last night. When he was pressed by my right hon. Friend he said:
      "We thought that the best thing to do was to sell it when we had an opportunity, which had not been presented to us before. The National Socialist Flying Corps offered us 250,000 marks, and we were only allowed to take this money out of the country at the registered mark rate, so that it came to only £9,000. On consideration we thought it was the best thing to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1939; cols. 1835–36, Vol. 344.]
      After a reduction in the Vote had been moved the Minister spoke again, and said:
      "If we had sold the property to a private individual, it is very likely, in view of the circumstances in Vienna to-day, that we should not have been able to get any money out at all. We are not in a position to dictate to the rulers of Vienna to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1939; col. 1840, Vol. 344.]
      I do not know that anyone suggested that he of all persons was in a position to dictate to the rulers of Vienna, but I think the explanation he has given a very inadequate answer to the questions put to him. We know that they had an offer from the National Socialist Flying Corps. The Minister was asked last night whether the Government had any other offer for the building, and we received no reply. I repeat the question to-night. Was this offer from the National Socialist Flying Corps the only offer which was received for the building? He told us last night that the building cost £39,000 in the year 1873, and I have been informed by an architect in London, who is in a position to estimate fairly well what the building is worth, that to replace it would cost somewhere about £100,000 of English money. Members of the House who have at one time or another visited this Legation have assured me that it really is one of the most magnificent buildings that our Ambassadors abroad have occupied. I do not think the Minister can expect the House to accept the explanation he offered last night as being the last word he should give the House on the subject.
      Is it an assumption on the part of the Government that this was the only way in which they could get the sum of money that they would be allowed to take out of the country? Did they make any inquiry from the German Government as to what would be the position if there was no

      2059
      other purchaser than the National Socialist Flying Corps? Do they assume that if they had upset the National Socialist Flying Corps by trying to get a better figure, the German Government would have shown their resentment of such a process by refusing to allow them to take out of the country the money which they secured for the building? We are supposed to be in friendly relationship with the German Government.
      Mr. McKie: We are.
      Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) says that we are. I should have thought that as a Scotsman he would have recollected at least this text from the Scriptures:
      "By their fruits ye shall know them."
      It does not apply to Germany, and it certainly does not apply to this transaction, if this is an example of the friendly way in which the relationships are being carried on. After all, it was in some way a recognition of the effects of German policy when we agreed to the sale of this Legation as an evidence that we accepted the Anschluss between Germany and Austria as an accomplished fact not likely ever to be altered. This is the amazing position. Right from the year 1870, when the German Empire was formed, down to 1914, I am informed that we maintained——
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is getting pretty wide of the somewhat limited point under discussion. This appropriation-in-aid, which is the sum paid for the Legation, cannot be discussed at great length.
      Mr. Ede: So little is the sum that has been received that it would be almost an insult to discuss it at great length. I want to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a transaction that ought to be defended with far more reasons than he adduced last night. Here we have the country's real estate in a foreign country being disposed of in this way, and it is not much better than confiscation for this very valuable house, with its historic associations, to be disposed of for this sum. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell), who can always be relied upon to draw the inapt parallel, asks about Russia.
      Sir Edward Campbell: I have not uttered a word in this House for about a year and a half.
      Mr. Ede: I thought it was the hon. Gentleman's voice that I heard; I am glad that I succeeded in breaking his silence. I do not know whether I should be in order in following up the interruption which certainly came from an hon. Member in that part of the House, by asking what happened with regard to the Legation at Petrograd after the capital of Russia was shifted to Moscow. I ask that question as an illustration of the policy which the Government have previously pursued. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the real history of this transaction. Was it a single bid that was made, was any effort made to secure a better bid, was any effort made to secure from the German Government an assurance that if we could obtain more money than this, we should be allowed to take it out of the country? Was any intimation given to the German Government that we should not regard it as a friendly act if they declined to allow us to get the best price for this house and to take the money out of the country?
      10.35 p.m.
      Mr. David Adams: Last night I inquired from the Minister whether there was no item in respect of the proceeds of the sale of the previous Embassy premises at Rio de Janeiro.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called the hon. Member because I thought he intended to second the Amendment.
      Mr. Adams: I do, Sir. I was not sure whether you were calling me or not. I beg to second the Amendment. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to know that the fact has given such gratification. I notice that this appropriation-in-aid to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has called attention, is described as "Proceeds of the sale of the old Legation premises at Vienna." Why should the term "old" be used except to depreciate the quality of the building? Surely the reference should be simply to the" sale of the Legation premises at Vienna." As I observed last night, the House may be unduly concerned about this matter. It may be that this is just a little extension of the price of appeasement which the Government have been very eager and anxious, and at all times willing, to pay in that part of Europe. If that be so, perhaps to take £9,000 for something

      2061
      which is valued at anything from £50,000 to £100,000 is a reasonable transaction in all the circumstances. With regard to the item for the purchase of a site in Rio de Janeiro for the erection of an Embassy, may I inquire whether there was not an Embassy there previously? If not, there must have been a Legation. Has there been a sale of those premises, and, if so, what were the proceeds of that sale?
      10.39 p.m.
      Mr. Mander: As one who on several occasions enjoyed the hospitality of the British Embassy at Vienna, I should like to make two comments on this matter. I think the Government have been altogether premature in coming to this decision and have made a very bad bargain. After all, it was the Prime Minister himself who said not long ago that these regimes did not last for ever, and it may be that in a year or so Vienna will once more be the capital of a great country and that a British Ambassador will desire to reside there once again. It will be a pity, in that case, if he should find that this historic and famous Embassy has been disposed of for a paltry sum.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We must not discuss the future on this Estimate; we can deal only with the present.
      Mr. Mander: In so far as the building is concerned with the present state of affairs, I should have thought that in view of the great deal of work which has now to be done in connection with Austrian refugees, in Vienna, it might well be made use of by the people who are working at the Consulate. I think it is likely that they could do with extra facilities for dealing with refugees, and that the Embassy might prove very useful indeed to them. With regard to the sum that the Government have taken, it is a small sum, and not one which many other countries would have consented to take. I am sure that the United States Government, who have their own way of dealing with this regime, would have insisted upon being paid the full market price for a building of this kind, and I imagine that our Government accepted the price that they did only because of their well-known cringing attitude towards the dictators.
      10.41 p.m.
      Mr. Dalton: I hope that, before we vote on this Amendment, the First Commissioner of Works will say something
      2062
      to us about this very curious transaction. The premises are described as the Legation premises at Vienna. I also am one of those who have visited these premises, which were, of course, the old Embassy premises in the days when Austria-Hungary was a great Power before the War. In 1934 or 1935 I was in Vienna, and the Minister was kind enough to ask me to lunch. I remarked to him that I thought it was a very large and sumptuous building for a legation in a small Central European Power, which Austria had then become. It was a very sumptuously furnished building in prewar style, and it really takes a great deal to persuade us that £9,150 was at all a reasonable price for such a large and impressive building. It was luxuriously furnished, and I should like to know whether this niggardly, miserable sum includes any furniture or removeable ornaments and other goods from within the building, or whether we were merely paid £9,150 for an empty shell, which was handed over, as I understand, to the Nazi Flying Corps for training in bombing—a rather symbolic purpose. Did they take over the furnishings, or any of them, or only the mere shell of the building?
      We should also like to know the date on which this transaction was concluded —whether it was before or after the famous pilgrimages to Canossa, or Godesberg, or wherever the places were at which our relations with Germany were supposed to have been so improved, owing to the Prime Minister's beneficent influence, that this country was to be treated once more with full respect. We should like to know, too, whether it really was the case, as was suggested when this matter was raised last night, that the German Government bluntly told His Majesty's Government that they could either take this sum and be allowed to bring it out of the country, or, if they would not close with this very miserable offer, they would not be allowed to bring out of the country the equivalent in sterling of whatever sum in German currency they were able to obtain. We should like a much more clear-cut and specific statement from the First Commissioner of the conditions under which this, as we think, very disgraceful bargain was entered into. I am not going to enlarge the field of debate by further comments on the attitude of His Majesty's

      2063
      Government towards the German Government, beyond saying that there are a number of other Governments who would, if they could feel sure that we should allow them so to treat us, be very glad to dispose of British Government property on the same kind of terms on which the German Government have been allowed to dispose of this historic and beautiful building. I think it is an insult to the House to come here and tell us that we have taken £9,000 for this very valuable building.
      10.45 p.m.
      The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am sorry that hon. Members should feel that I did not give as full an explanation as possible to the Committee last night, but there is little that I can add to what I said yesterday. It is in large measure a question of opinion whether values are constant or not. I am afraid that values are not constant, and I think very few Members will feel that a great Embassy built in 1873, at a time when Vienna was the capital of a great Empire, can have the same value to-day as it had then. Big palaces and big buildings in Vienna are to-day a drug on the market, as we were informed when this offer was made to us. We were faced with the alternative of whether we should cut our losses and accept a diminution upon the original cost—
      Mr. Dalton: What was the original price?
      Sir P. Sassoon: It was £39,000, which included the site and the furniture. I may as well answer now the hon. Member's question about the furniture by saying that it has all been brought away from the house and was not included in the sale. Many people in England and in London have houses which they would be very glad to realise for considerably less than they paid originally. We were faced with the alternative of selling the house or of not selling it for a period of years and having to spend between £1,000 and £1,500 a year on maintaining it. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked whether we had had other offers. Not only did we have no other offers, but we were informed by our representatives on the spot that it was very unlikely that we should have other offers, because it was a building
      2064
      which was not likely to be purchased by any ordinary person, and would probably be of use only for some Government purpose. As I said last night, the fact that it was bought by the Government enabled us to get the money out of the country. If it had been purchased by an ordinary person the money might not have been got out of the country, as I think is well known to hon. Members. Therefore, taking it by and large, although it is true that we accepted a smaller sum for the house than it had originally cost, we did as well as we could possibly have hoped to do in the circumstances, and I hope the House will take that view.
      Mr. Dalton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the date of the sale?
      Sir P. Sassoon: It was in July last.
      10.48 p.m.
      Mr. Garro Jones: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, of all persons, knows what he is talking about when he is speaking of values, but the complaint which is being made from this side is that every canon of sale and purchase was flouted when this building was sold at the most unfavourable moment in 100 years. Surely it must have been recognised by the British Government that at that time values were at their nadir in Vienna, and if they had merely let the building at a rental for a period of two, three, ten or 20 years——[Hon. Members: "They could not get a tenant."] We have not been informed that it was impossible to get a tenant. Have hon. Members who say that it was impossible to get a tenant any special sources of information? Were attempts made to get a tenant?
      Sir P. Sassoon: Certainly.
      Mr. Garro Jones: Why could not the place have been left unoccupied for a period? About two years ago I was passing a building in Queen Victoria Street and somebody said to me, "If you will come in to see a little property being sold here you will find that it is an interesting transaction." I was told that it was the sale of a small farm situated at Cockfosters, in the north of London and that just after the War it was worth about £5,000. So I went in to watch the sale of this farm. [Interruption.] I am entitled to give this as an analogy. I was very pleased to find that this farm, the property of the right hon.

      2065
      Gentleman who is in charge of this Estimate, sold for £116,000. I am quoting that perfectly valid analogy to show that if property is let for a short time it is perfectly possible ultimately to effect a sale. The right hon. Gentleman, of all people, knew what he was talking about when he said that values can change. If he had let this property lie fallow for a few years the Government would have made a much better bargain.
      10.50 p.m.
      Mr. Arthur Henderson: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the house had been sold to a private individual it would have been very difficult to bring the money out of Austria. Does that mean that if a British exporter sells commodities in Vienna he does not get anything in return? Surely under the clearing agreement the British exporter eventually receives payment in sterling? Would it not be the same in this case and if the house had been sold to a private individual the vendor would eventually have received payment in sterling?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss the clearing agreement on this Vote.
      Mr. Henderson: I am not asking the Minister to discuss the clearing agreement. I am asking him to explain why, in the event of this Legation being sold to a private individual, it would not have been possible to receive payment in sterling. In an ordinary commercial transaction the money would be paid, and I cannot understand why it is different in the case of the sale of a Legation.
      Sir P. Sassoon: It is well known that private individuals in Germany and Austria cannot take money out of the country.
      Mr. David Adams: May I have an answer to the question I put last night, whether there was any sale of property in connection with the new Embassy at Rio?
      Sir P. Sassoon: No, not yet.
      Mr. E. J. Williams: I was rather surprised that the Minister would have the House believe that, if the Legation were sold to a private person, the British Gov-
      2066
      ernment would not have the prestige or authority to demand the cash that the private person would pay. Surely the House is not led to believe that the Government would not have sufficient authority to obtain the payment in sterling which any private purchaser would pay for a building of the kind.
      10.54 p.m.
      Mr. G. Griffiths: We pressed the Minister very hard last night, but I think to-night he has really come out of this job worse than he did last night. He stated quite frankly last night that the British Government had not got power, if it sold this property to a private individual, to get the money out of Vienna. I certainly deny the statement made by the right hon. Baronet last night when he said:
      "If we had sold the property to a private individual, it is very likely, in view of the circumstances in Vienna to-day, that we should not have been able to get any money out at all. We are not in a position to dictate to the rulers of Vienna to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1939; col. 1840, Vol. 344.]
      It is not a matter of dictating, it is a matter of having a square deal. Here is £39,000's worth of property, and we give it to this Flying Corps for £9,000; and, yet when we come here and ask for some money for our own people, we cannot get it at all. The hon. Baronet added:
      "I do not see what else we could have done."
      Is not that throwing your arms up and saying you are helpless? If I had been concerned in the matter I should have done what the Minister did with his own property—hold it up until I got a good price. This great, all-powerful Government, the Government that rules the world, bows the knee to Baal for £9,000. There was, said the Minister, no other offer; who would make an offer against these people? They wanted it, and because they wanted it nobody else would make an offer; and so the hon. Baronet said, What could we do? Well, what we can do is to vote against him to-night.
      Question put, "That' £18,700' stand part of the Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 115.

      Division No. 55.]

      AYES.

      [7.32 p.m.

      Adams, D. (Consett)

      Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

      Owen, Major G.

      Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

      Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

      Parker, J.

      Adamson, W. M.

      Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

      Parkinson, J. A.

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

      Hardie, Agnes

      Pearson, A.

      Ammon, C. G.

      Harris, Sir P. A.

      Poole, C. C.

      Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

      Hayday, A.

      Price, M. P.

      Banfield, J. W.

      Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

      Pritt, D. N.

      Barr, J.

      Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

      Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's)

      Bevan, A.

      Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

      Richards, R. (Wrexham)

      Broad F. A.

      Hills, A. (Pontefract)

      Ridley, G.

      Bromfeld, W.

      Jagger, J.

      Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

      Brown, C. (Mansfield)

      Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

      Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

      Buchanan, G.

      Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

      Rothschild, J. A. de

      Burke W. A.

      John, W.

      Seely, Sir H. M.

      Charleton, H. C.

      Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

      Silverman, S. S.

      Chater, D.

      Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

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

      Cluse, W. S.

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

      Smith, E. (Stoke)

      Cocks, F. S.

      Kirkwood, D.

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

      Cove, W. G.

      Lathan, G.

      Smith, T. (Normanton)

      Daggar, G.

      Lawson, J. J.

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Dalton, H.

      Leach, W.

      Stephen, C.

      Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

      Leonard, W.

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

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

      Leslie, J. R.

      Stokes, R. R.

      Day, H.

      Logan, D, G.

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

      Dobbin, W.

      Lunn, W.

      Summerskill, Dr. Edith

      Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

      Macdonald, G. (Ince)

      Taylor, R. J. (Morpath)

      Eda,.J. C.

      McEntee, V. La T.

      Tinker, J. J.

      Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

      McGhee, H. G.

      Tomlinson, G.

      Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

      MacLaren, A.

      Viant, S. P.

      Evans, E, (Univ. of Wales)

      MacNeill Weir, L.

      Watkins, F. C.

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

      Mainwaring, W. H,

      Watson, W. McL.

      Frankel, D.

      Mander, G. le M.

      Wedgwood, Rt, Hon. J. C.

      Gardner, B. W.

      Marklew, E,

      Welsh, J. C.

      Garro Jones, G. M.

      Marshall, F.

      Westwood, J.

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Messer, p.

      Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

      George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

      Montague, F.

      Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

      Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

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

      Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

      Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

      Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

      Muff, G.

      Young, Sir R. (Newton)

      Grenfel, D. R

      Noel-Baker, P. J.

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

      Oliver, G. H.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mathers.

      NOES.

      Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P, G.

      Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

      Palmer, G. E. H.

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

      Gridley, Sir A. B.

      Peake, O.

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

      Grimston, R. V.

      Perkins, W. R. D.

      Aske, Sir R. W.

      Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

      Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

      Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Cmb'rwll, N.W.)

      Radford, E. A.

      Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

      Guinness, T. L. E. B.

      Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Batniel, Lord

      Hambro, A. V.

      Ramsden, Sir E.

      Barrie, Sir C. C.

      Hannah, I. C.

      Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

      Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

      Harbord, A.

      Rayner, Major R. H.

      Beit, Sir A. L.

      Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

      Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

      Bernays, R. H.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

      Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

      Blair, Sir R.

      Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

      Remer, J. R.

      Bower, Comdr. R. T.

      Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

      Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

      Boyee, H. Leslie

      Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

      Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

      Braithwaite, J. G. (Holderness)

      Higgs, W. F.

      Rosbotham, Sir T.

      Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

      Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

      Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

      Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

      Holdsworth, H.

      Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

      Holmes, J. S.

      Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

      Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A

      Bull, B. B.

      Hopkinson, A.

      Russell, Sir Alexander

      Campbell, Sir E. T.

      Howitt, Dr. A. B.

      Samuel, M. R. A.

      Cartland, J. P. H.

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

      Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

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

      Schuster, Sir G. E.

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Hume, Sir G. H.

      Selley, H. R.

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

      Hunloke, H. P.

      Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

      Channon, H.

      Hunter, T.

      Shepperson, Sir E. W.

      Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

      Hutchinson, G. C.

      Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

      Christie, J. A.

      Jarvis, Sir J. J.

      Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

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

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

      Smithers, Sir W.

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

      Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

      Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

      Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

      Colfox, Major W. P.

      Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

      Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

      Colville, Rt. Hon. John

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

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

      Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

      Spens. W. P.

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

      Leech, Sir J. W.

      Stewart J Handerson (Fife E.)

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

      Lees-Jones, J.

      Storey S.

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

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

      Cox, H. B. Trevor

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

      Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

      Craven-Ellis, W.

      Lipson, D. L.

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

      Lloyd, G. W.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

      Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

      Sutcliffe, H.

      Cross, R. H.

      MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

      Tate, Mavis C.

      Crossley, A. C.

      McCorquodale, M. S.

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

      Davies, C. (Montgomery)

      MacDonald, Sir Murdoeh (Inverness)

      Titchfield, Marquess of

      Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

      Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)

      Touche, G. C.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

      Turton, R. H.

      Denville, Alfred

      McKie, J. H.

      Wakefield, W. W.

      Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Maitland, Sir Adam

      Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

      Donner, P. W.

      Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

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

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

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

      Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

      Drewe, C.

      Markham, S. F.

      Wedderburn, H. J. S.

      Duncan, J. A. L.

      Marsden, Commander A.

      Wells, Sir Sydney

      Dunglass, Lord

      Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

      Eastwood, J. F.

      Medlicott, F.

      Williams, C. (Torquay)

      Edmondson, Major Sir J.

      Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

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

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

      Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

      Emery, J. F.

      Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel G.

      Emmott, C. E. G. C.

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

      Wise, A R.

      Fildes, Sir H.

      Moreing, A. C.

      Womersley, Sir W. J.

      Fleming, E. L.

      Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

      Wood Hon. C. I. C.

      Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

      Wragg, H.

      Fremantle, Sir F. E.

      Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

      Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

      Furness, S. N.

      Munro, P.

      York, C.

      Gledhill, G.

      Nall, Sir J.

      Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

      Gluckstein, L. H.

      Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

      Gower, Sir R. V.

      Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—

      Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

      O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

      Captain Water-house and Major

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Orr-Ewing, I. L.

      Harvie Watt.

      Eighth Resolution read a Second time.

      Division No. 56.]

      AYES.

      [10.59 p.m.

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

      Gluckstein, L. H.

      Raikes, H. V. A. M.

      Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P.G.

      Cower, Sir R, V.

      Ramsbotham, H.

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

      Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

      Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

      Aske, Sir R. W.

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Rayner, Major R. H.

      Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

      Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

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

      Gridley, Sir A. B.

      Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

      Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

      Remer, J. R.

      Balniel, Lord

      Guest, Hon, I. (Brecon and Radnor)

      Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

      Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

      Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

      Beit, Sir A. L.

      Hambro, A. V.

      Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

      Bernays, R. H.

      Hammersley, S. S.

      Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

      Bower, Comdr. R. T.

      Hannah, I. C.

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

      Boyce, H. Leslie

      Harbord, A.

      Russell, Sir Alexander

      Braithwaite, J. G. (Holderness)

      Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

      Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

      Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

      Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

      Samuel, M. R. A.

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

      Higgs, W. F.

      Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

      Bull, B. B.

      Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

      Scott, Lord William

      Butcher, H. W.

      Holdsworth, H.

      Selley, H. R.

      Campbell, Sir E. T.

      Holmes, J. S.

      Shaw, Major p. S. (Wavertree)

      Cartland, J. R. H.

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

      Shepperson, Sir E. W.

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Hume, Sir G. H.

      Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

      Channon, H.

      Hunloke, H. P.

      Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

      Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

      Hunter, T.

      Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

      Christie, J. A.

      Hutchinson, G. C.

      Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

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

      Keeling, E. H.

      Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

      Spens. W. P.

      Cobb. Captain E. C. (Preston)

      Kimball, L.

      Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

      Colfox, Major W. P.

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Storey, S.

      Colville, Rt. Hon. John

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

      Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

      Conant, Captain R. J. E.

      Leech, Sir J. W.

      Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

      Lipson, D. L.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

      Lloyd, G. W.

      Tate, Mavis C.

      Cox, H. B. Trevor

      Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

      Craven-Ellis, W.

      McCorquodale, M. S.

      Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

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

      Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

      Titchfield, Marquess of

      Cross, R. H.

      McKie, J. H.

      Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

      Cruddas, Col. B.

      Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E. '

      Turton, R. H.

      Culverwell, C. T.

      Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

      Wakefield, W. W.

      Davidson, Viscountess

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

      Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

      Davies, C. (Montgomery)

      Markham, S. F.

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

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

      Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

      Waterhouse, Captain C.

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

      Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

      Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

      Duggan, H. J.

      Medlicott, F.

      Wedderburn, H. J. S.

      Duncan, J. A. L.

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

      Wells, Sir Sydney

      Dunglass, Lord

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

      Eastwood, J. F.

      Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A J.

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

      Edmondson, Major Sir J.

      Munro, P.

      Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

      Nall, Sir J.

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

      Elliston, Capt. G. S.

      Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

      Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

      Emery, J. F.

      O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

      Wise, A. R.

      Emmott, C. E. G. C.

      Orr-Ewing, I. L.

      Womersley, Sir W. J.

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Palmer, G. E. H.

      Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

      Everard, Sir William Lindsay

      Peake, O.

      Wragg, H.

      Fleming, E. L.

      Perkins, W. R. D.

      Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

      Fox, Sir G. W. G.

      Peters, Dr. S. J.

      York, C.

      Fremantle, Sir F. E.

      Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

      Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

      Furness, S. N.

      Procter, Major H. A.

      Gledhill, G.

      Radford, E. A.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Captain Hope and Mr. Grimston.

      NOES.

      Adams, D. (Consett)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

      Day, H.

      Harris, Sir P. A.

      Adamson, W. M.

      Dobbie, W.

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

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

      Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

      Hayday, A.

      Ammon, C. G.

      Ede, J. C.

      Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

      Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

      Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

      Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

      Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

      Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

      Hills, A. (Pontefract)

      Banfield, J. W.

      Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

      Jagger, J.

      Barnes, A. J.

      Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

      Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

      Barr, J.

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

      Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

      Batey, J.

      Garro Jones, G. M.

      John, W.

      Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

      Bevan, A.

      Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

      Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

      Burke, W. A.

      Green, W. H. (Deptford)

      Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Chater, D.

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

      Cluse, W. S.

      Grenfell, D. R.

      Kirkwood, D.

      Cocks, F. S.

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

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

      Daggar, G.

      Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

      Lathan, G.

      Dalton, H.

      Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

      Lawson, J. J.

      Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

      Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

      Leach, W.

      2068

      2069

      Leonard, W.

      Parker, J.

      Stokes, R. R.

      Leslie, J. R.

      Parkinson, J. A.

      Summerskill, Dr. Edith

      Logan, D. G.

      Pearson, A.

      Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

      Lunn, W.

      Pools, C. C.

      Thurtle, E.

      Macdonald, G. (Ince)

      Price, M. P.

      Tinker, J. J.

      McEntee, V. La T.

      Pritt, D. N.

      Tomlinson, G.

      McGhee, H. G.

      Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

      Viant, S. P.

      MacLaren, A.

      Richards, R. (Wrexham)

      Walkden, A. G.

      Mainwaring, W. H.

      Ridley, G.

      Watkins, F. C.

      Mander, G. le M.

      Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

      Watson, W. McL.

      Marklew, E.

      Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

      Welsh, J. C.

      Marshall, F.

      Seely, Sir H. M.

      Westwood, J.

      Mathers, G.

      Silkin, L.

      While, H. Graham

      Messer, F.

      Silverman, S. S.

      Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

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

      Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

      Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

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

      Smith, E. (Stoke)

      Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

      Nathan, Colonel H. L.

      Smith, T. (Normanton)

      Young, Sir R. (Newton)

      Oliver, G. H.

      Sorenson, R. W.

      Owen, Major G.

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

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

      Resolution agreed to.
      Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Resolutions agreed to.
      Fifteenth Resolution read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      11.9 p.m.
      Mr. Benn: What Minister is in charge of this Vote? There is a Minister for Overseas Trade, and I presume he is normally in charge of a Vote of this character.
      Captain Wallace: This Vote is accounted for by the Treasury. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here last night he would have heard my brief, but I hope convincing, explanation of this Supplementary Estimate.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Sixteenth Resolution read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      11.10 p.m.
      Mr. Benn: May I ask whether there is somebody deputising for the Scottish Law Officers? It is a usual compliment to the House when the Government are asking for these large sums of money for the Minister to be present.
      Captain Wallace: I understand that it is also usual on a Report stage, if the Vote has been explained on Committee stage, for the Minister to see whether any observations have been made before replying to them. I made a brief statement on this Estimate last night and it
      2070
      was supplemented by a clear and lucid explanation from the Lord Advocate. If there is any particular question which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise I should be glad to answer it.
      Mr. Benn: The only question is why the Lord Advocate only arrived in hot haste a second after the Question was proposed.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Seventeenth Resolution read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. Benn: There is a certain practice in this House, whether on Report stage or Committee stage, that Ministers who present Estimates should be here. All the Estimates are accounted for by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and his name appears on them all, but he cannot possibly be responsible for the details of the many Departments. Unless there is a Minister representing the Foreign Office present in deference to the House, I shall propose that the Debate be adjourned.
      Captain Wallace: I really think that the right hon. Gentleman is taking this excess Vote a little too seriously. It was reported to the House on 28th February and, in accordance with the usual procedure, was described in a printed statement which no doubt the right hon. Gentelman has read. The facts have been considered by the Public Accounts Committee who reported to the House approving provision of this excess Vote. It is usual when excess Votes have been through the mill of the Public Accounts Committee for the House to be satisfied with their action as watchdogs.
      Mr. Benn: In that case I will move, "That the Debate be adjourned." I say that it is disrespectful to the House that the Minister is not present.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I do not accept that Motion.
      Mr. Benn: May I submit to you that your power to reject such a Motion depends on your opinion that it is an abuse of the Rules of the House?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is the reason I said I did not accept it.
      Mr. Benn: On a point of Order. I submit seriously that it has been the custom for Ministers to be present when their Votes are taken. There is no desire to prolong the Debate unnecessarily, but I do think that from the House of Commons point of view it is the appropriate Motion to make to ensure that a Minister is present when a Vote of his Department is being moved. If you rule that it is an abuse of the Rules of the House to ask for a Minister to be present, I bow to your Ruling.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This seems to me a reasonable Ruling to give, and I do not accept the Motion.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the Deputy-Speaker able to give a precedent for ruling that such a Motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House in a case where a Minister is not present to take part in the Debate on his own Vote?
      Mr. Garro Jones: May I submit that there are innumerable precedents for that Motion being accepted on no other ground? So far from being in accordance with precedent, it is a serious departure from precedent to refuse the Motion on those grounds. You have it in your power either to put the Question immediately or to permit Debate upon it. I suggest that you should at least allow the Motion to go to a Division without further debate.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will not allow further debate on this, because I have given my Ruling already. If the right hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with my Ruling, he has a remedy.
      11.16 p.m.
      Mr. Benn: I have not the least desire to challenge your Ruling, Sir, but I am
      2072
      entitled to submit that, by the practice of this House, I am entitled to make such a Motion and the Chair to accept it.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may have been the practice sometimes—I do not say on every occasion—but it is within the discretion of the Chair to decide whether such a Motion shall be accepted, and my decision is not to accept it.
      Mr. Benn: Then your Ruling is that to move the Adjournment of the House on account of the absence of a Minister on his own Vote is an abuse of the Rules of the House?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not so. I judge by the circumstances of the time.
      Mr. Attlee: I understood you, Sir, when my right hon. Friend first put his point, to give as your reason that you did consider it an abuse of the Rules of the House. Do I understand that that is wrong?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I did not consider that this was serious enough to justify me in accepting the Motion.
      Mr. Benn: I understand that, under the Rules, you may either put the Motion immediately or, if the matter is serious enough, permit a Debate.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow my Ruling to be questioned.
      11.18 p.m.
      Mr. Garro Jones: With very great respect to you, Sir, there is only one ground on which you can refuse to accept this Motion.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have said that I cannot allow my Ruling to be questioned. If I am wrong, the right hon. Gentleman has his remedy.
      Mr. Garro Jones: May I, with great respect, appeal to the Patronage Secretary to withdraw this Motion, because there is a very important principle, involving Parliamentary procedure, involved. I have no wish to question your Ruling, but I feel that a very serious precedent is being created, and before it is entered in the record I would ask the Patronage Secretary to withdraw this Motion.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. Benn Mr. Benn rose ——
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is this a point of Order?
      Mr. Benn: No, Sir, I am speaking on the Motion.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.
      Mr. Benn: No, Sir, I have not exhausted my right to speak on the original Motion. The Patronage Secretary last night was good enough to say we should have a statement on the "Stangrove" case. I was told by the courteous Private Secretary at the Foreign Office to-day that, after a full inquiry, that statement would be made. I wanted to be sure on this Vote, and that is why I desired to ask the Minister whether a statement made in such circumstances will permit us to go very fully into the case. We want to be quite sure that, when the statement is made, it shall be made in such circumstances as will permit of cross-questions in the House, so that we may get to the root of the matter?
      11.20 p.m.
      Captain Wallace: I think there is honestly some slight misunderstanding about the nature of this Vote. It is not really, if I may say so with great respect, a Foreign Office Vote. The excess Vote is for the year 1937, two years ago, and is primarily a matter for the Public Accounts
      Committee and the Treasury. That is the reason why it has always been the custom for the Financial Secretary to take it. This is not a case where the Financial Secretary as maid of all work is taking Votes for a Minister who is not present. I submit that this is perfectly properly a Treasury Vote. It is a question which had been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, who are the watch dogs of the House in this matter, and it is simply a question of the House ratifying formally the sum required for this particular purpose. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been here the greater part of the day, and as the House knows he has at this moment a great deal of other work to do. I honestly believe that in the ordinary way of things it is my duty to take this Vote. It is a Treasury Vote on which I am prepared to make a statement.
      Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer my question?
      Captain Wallace: In regard to the question of the "Stangrove," I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer on a Foreign Office Vote for 1937.
      Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 103.

      Division No. 57.]

      AYES.

      [11.23 p.m.

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

      Craven-Ellis, W.

      Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

      Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

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

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

      Cross, R. H.

      Hambro, A. V.

      Aske, Sir R. W.

      Cruddas, Col. B.

      Hammersley, S. S.

      Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Culverwell, C. T.

      Hannah, I. C.

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

      Davies, C. (Montgomery)

      Harbord, A.

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

      Duggan, H. J.

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

      Balniel, Lord

      Duncan, J. A. L.

      Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

      Beit, Sir A. L.

      Dunglass, Lord.

      Higgs, W. F.

      Bernays, R. H.

      Eastwood, J. F.

      Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

      Boyce, H. Leslie

      Edmondson, Major Sir J.

      Holdsworth, H.

      Braithwaite, J. G. (Holderness)

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

      Holmes, J. S.

      Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.)

      Elliston, Capt. G. S.

      Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

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

      Emery, J. F.

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Bull, B. B.

      Emmott, C. E. G. C.

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

      Butcher, H. W.

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Hunloke, H. P.

      Campbell, Sir E. T.

      Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

      Hunter, T.

      Cartland, J R. H.

      Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

      Hutchinson, G. C.

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Everard, Sir William Lindsay

      Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Channon, H.

      Fleming, E. L.

      Keeling, E. H.

      Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

      Fox, Sir G. W. G.

      Kimball, L.

      Christie, J. A.

      Fremantle, Sir F. E.

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

      Furness, S, N.

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

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Gledhill, G.

      Leech, Sir J. W.

      Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

      Gluckstein, L. H.

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Colfox, Major W. P

      Gower, Sir R. V.

      Lloyd, G. W.

      Colville, Rt. Hon. John

      Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

      Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

      Conant, Captain R. J. E,

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      McCorquodale, M. S.

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

      Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

      Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

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

      Gridley, Sir A. B.

      McKie, J. H.

      Cox, H. B. Trevor

      Guest, Lieut-Colonel H. (Drake)

      Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

      Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

      Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

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

      Remer, J. R.

      Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

      Markham, S. F.

      Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

      Titchfield, Marquess of

      Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

      Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

      Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

      Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

      Ross Taylor, W. (Wood bridge)

      Turton, R. H.

      Medlicott, F.

      Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

      Wakefield, W. W.

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

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

      Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Russell, Sir Alexander

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

      Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

      Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

      Waterhouse, Captain C.

      Munro, P.

      Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

      Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

      Nail, Sir J.

      Scott, Lord William

      Wedderburn, H. J. S.

      Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

      Selley, H. R.

      Welts, Sir Sydney

      O'Connor, Sit Terence J.

      Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

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

      Orr-Ewing, I. L.

      Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

      Palmer, G. E. H.

      Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

      Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

      Peake, O.

      Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

      Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

      Perkins., W. R. D.

      Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

      Wise, A. R.

      Peters, Dr. S. J.

      Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

      Womersley, Sir W. J.

      Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

      Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

      Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

      Porritt, R. W.

      Spens. W. P.

      Wragg, H.

      Radford, E. A.

      Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

      Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

      Raikes, H. V. A. M.

      Storey, S.

      York, C.

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

      Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

      Rankin, Sir R.

      Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

      Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Rayner, Major R. H.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

      Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr.

      Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

      Tate, Mavis C.

      Grimston.

      NOES.

      Adams, D. (Consett)

      Harris, Sir P. A.

      Poole, C. C.

      Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

      Hayday, A.

      Price, M. P.

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

      Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

      Pritt, D. N.

      Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

      Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

      Richards, R. (Wrexham)

      Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

      Hills, A. (Pontefract)

      Ridley, G.

      Banfield, J. W.

      Jagger, J.

      Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

      Barnes, A. J.

      Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

      Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

      Barr, J.

      Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

      Seely, Sir H. M.

      Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

      John, W.

      Silkin, L.

      Bevan, A.

      Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

      Silverman, S. S.

      Burke, W. A.

      Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

      Simpson, F. B.

      Charleton, H. C.

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

      Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

      Chater, D.

      Kirkwood, D.

      Smith, E. (Stoke)

      Cocks, F. S.

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

      Smith, T. (Normanton)

      Daggar, G.

      Lawson, J. J.

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Dalton, H.

      Leach, W.

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

      Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

      Leonard, W.

      Stokes, R. R.

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

      Logan, D. G.

      Summerskill, Dr. Edith

      Day, H.

      Lunn, W.

      Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

      Dobbie, W.

      Macdonald, G. (lnce)

      Thurtle, E.

      Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

      McEntee, V. La T.

      Tinker, J. J.

      Ede, J. C.

      McGhee, H. G.

      Tomlinson, G.

      Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

      MacLaren, A.

      Walkden, A. G.

      Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

      Mainwaring, W. H.

      Watkins, F. C.

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

      Mander, G. le M.

      Watson, W. McL.

      Garro Jones, G. M.

      Marshall, F.

      Welsh, J. C.

      Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

      Messer, F.

      Westwood, J.

      Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

      White, H. Graham

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

      Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

      Grenfell, D. R.

      Nathan, Colonel H. L.

      Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

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

      Oliver, G. H.

      Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

      Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

      Owen, Major G.

      Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

      Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

      Parker, J.

      Young, Sir R. (Newton)

      Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

      Parkinson, J. A.

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Pearson, A.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1938.
      CLASS I.
      1. "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.
      2. "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.
      3. "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 re settlement; expenses of training of unemployed persons and, on behalf of the Army

      2025
      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."
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      8.38 p.m.
      Mr. Johnston: Can we have any information from the Lord Privy Seal's Department about this expenditure? Where does the Lord Privy Seal come in, in the food organisation of the country? He deals with air-raid precautions, with preventing us getting, a knock-out blow, with preventing us from getting burnt out with fire and, presumably, also with water supplies to prevent the fire spreading, but where does food supply come in? We know that he is providing camps for persons evacuated from dangerous areas into the rural parts of England, Scotland and Wales, and surely a food supply will be required. We are to build huts, I hope with a water supply, with drainage, with bedding, and I hope also with food supplies. Are these food stocks to be laid in in advance? Are we to wait until there is difficulty with transport and chaos in getting food to these camps? If so, the plight of those people who are to be evacuated will be very serious.
      We ought to be told who is responsible for the provisioning of these camps. Are the stocks being laid in now? What Minister are we to approach about it? We have six Ministers on the Front Bench and we do not know which Minister is responsible. Is it the Minister of Education, who has charge of the school children who will be taken to these camps with the teachers? Is he responsible for the provision? Is it the Minister of Transport? Is it the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Health? Is it the President of the Board of Trade or the Lord Privy Seal? I submit that we should have some statement which will clarify the position so that we shall know who is responsible and to whom we can go regularly for information on these matters.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the only information the right hon. Gentleman can get on this Vote is how far the Lord Privy Seal is concerned.
      Mr. Johnston: If we can be assured that the Lord Privy Seal has nothing to do with the provisioning of these camps we should pursue the matter no further, but as the Lord Privy Seal is responsible for the policy of creating these camps to which children are to be evacuated, we submit that someone should tell us who is responsible for provisioning them when the children are there.
      8.40 p.m.
      The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The Government as a whole are responsible that provisions are available to all citizens, not merely to those in these camps. It has a general responsibility that there shall be supplies of food for all the citizens. In the case of war the final responsibility rests on the Government to provision the citizens. I do not think I can go any further than that. The Government accept the responsibility.
      Mr. Johnston: This frightens me more than ever. The Minister of Health has now said that no Minister of the Crown has a particular responsibility for the provisioning of these camps, but that the Government as a whole are responsible.
      Mr. Elliot: Surely the question of the responsibility for these camps cannot arise here, and indeed it is specifically barred because it will arise on the Bill which is to deal with these camps. The responsibility for sanitation and water supplies to these camps will be in the Bill, and clearly the responsibility for the provisioning of these camps is one of several responsibilities which will fall on the camp authorities.
      Mr. Johnston: We are perfectly well aware of that, but here we are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate for the Lord Privy Seal's office, and we are entitled to ask whether it is any part of the duty of the officers of this Department to look after the provisioning of these camps. The Minister of Health says that there is no difference between the provisioning of these camps and of the urban population in time of war. With great respect I submit that there is a vital difference. We are going to take people compulsorily from one area to another.
      Mr. Elliot: Surely not. The scheme of evacuation does not envisage that we are going to take these people compulsorily from one place to another.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I must make this clear. This Vote includes the salary of the Lord Privy Seal and the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) is quite entitled to ask what are the duties of the Lord Privy Seal for which he gets this salary. But we cannot discuss the duties of Ministers other than the Lord Privy Seal, nor can we discuss on this Estimate responsibilities which cannot arise until the legislation has been introduced.
      Mr. Johnston: I fully accept your Ruling, which curiously coincides with my own views on this matter. Our difficulty is this, that up to now it is nobody's business and I am seeking information from the Lord Privy Seal, as I have asked also on the Board of Trade Vote and on the Ministry of Health Vote, and for which I shall ask on every Vote until we can pin somebody down to accept the responsibility. All we are told on this matter from the Government Front Bench is that this is a general responsibility of the Government, and that it is the business of nobody in particular. I submit that the matter is too serious to be put off in that way. The Minister of Health has just said that there is no difference between the provisioning of camps and the provisioning of the urban population, whether it be the Lord Privy Seal's duty or not. I submit there is a vital difference. These people are to be taken to rural areas where there is not at present a wholesale or retail organisation with regard to food supplies. Surely, it is the duty of the Government and the duty of some Minister—I am asking whether it is the Lord Privy Seal's duty—to see that if 17,500 people are taken to these camps, there will be adequate supplies of food for them. It is the Government's duty to see that somebody is responsible for ensuring that there is an adequate supply of food in those areas.
      8.46 p.m.
      Mr. Elliot: I thought I had been precise, but I will be more precise if I can manage it. The responsibility for seeing that there are supplies of provisions is the responsibility of the Food Defence Department under the Board of Trade. If one takes the matter a step further and asks, with regard to this particular type of organisation which concerns the evacuated persons, namely, the camps, what will be the arrangements under
      2028
      which the food will be taken from the Food Defence Officer, whose business will be the general storage of the provisions, and transferred to the people in the camps, I reply that it will be laid down in the legislation which will be introduced in the House, and which it would be out of order for me to anticipate now.
      Mr. Johnston: The Vote for the Lord Privy Seal is now under discussion. The Lord Privy Seal is responsible for the policy with regard to camps. Are we not entitled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to ask whether up to now any part of the Lord Privy Seal's duties, or his officers' duties, has been in connection with the arrangements for the camps?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I ought to remind the House that we are not now in Committee. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to give way while a question is being answered, but we cannot carry on the Debate in this way.
      8.48 p.m.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that the Minister of Health has evidently taken upon his shoulders this matter concerning the Lord Privy Seal, may I ask whether he is in a position to tell us what provision the Government intend to make to ensure that the poor people, during the emergency for which we are making preparations, will have an equal opportunity with the rich people of being supplied with the necessities of life?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must remember that the Debate must be restricted to the question whether this is the responsibility of the Lord Privy Seal or not.
      Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister of Health has himself admitted that the Government are responsible for the food supplies. Surely, I am in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in asking what provision the Government have made to ensure that the poor will have the same opportunity of getting food as the rich.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to put that question. This Vote is concerned with the duties of the Lord Privy Seal. It is concerned only with the salary of the Lord Privy Seal and the salaries of the very small staff under him.
      8.50 p.m.
      Mr. James Griffiths: I understood the Minister of Health to say that legislation will be brought before the House to deal with the question of the establishment of camps. Am I also to understand that when legislation is brought forward it will contain plans regarding the provisioning of these camps, and that it will contain in detail the arrangements by which essential foodstuffs will be taken to the children in the camps? Are we to understand that there are to be two arrangements—one for the general citizens of the country, which I imagine will take the form of a rationing scheme, and another independent scheme by which provision will be made for the children taken to the camps? The matter is one of great importance. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will realise that if the camps are to serve the purpose for which they are to be established, they will be in rural areas where there is very little organisation for the storage of food. Consequently, some special provision will have to be made. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that when legislation to establish the camps is brought forward, it will contain detailed provisions indicating the way in which food and other essential commodities will be taken to the camps, we shall be satisfied.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must again remind the House that we are not in Committee. The Minister of Health has already exhausted his right to speak over and over again. I have no doubt that if he wished to speak again, he would get the permission of the House to do so at the end of the Debate, and I would prefer that course to be followed, rather than that the proceedings should go on as they are doing now.
      8.52 p.m.
      Mr. Mander: Since the Minister of Health has exhausted his right to speak, I will address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. I think this question may throw some light on the duties of the Lord Privy Seal. When legislation is introduced, will it be one part of the duties of the Lord Privy Seal to introduce that legislation?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Clearly that question is out of order.
      8.53 p.m.
      Mr. Elliot: With reference to your reminder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have exhausted my right to speak over and over again, may I say that my only desire was to serve the interests of the House; but if, with the permission of the House, I may speak yet again, I would say in answer to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that the legislation will lay down in precise and exact terms who is responsible for the camps. I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) wanted to be sure about. He wanted to pin down the question of responsibility. The legislation will make that clear. It will not, of course, set out in detail the scheme by which these people will be provided with supplies of water, food, sanitation and everything else, but the responsibility will be fixed precisely. I hope that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling and Clackmannan and the hon. Member for Llanelly.
      Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      8.54 p.m.
      Mr. Johnston: Before this Vote is disposed of, I would like to put a question to some Minister; presumably somebody will be responsible for answering questions on this. I will endeavour to hold fast to the Rules of Debate with grim tenacity. Under this Vote, there is a provision for evacuation expenses. That means taking people from the urban areas to the rural areas, and presumably feeding them on the road. Presumably it will be necessary to have stocks of food on the way. Then, under the Sub-head "Grants to Local Authorities" there is required an additional sum of £700,000. Will the Minister of Health, if he is to reply, be good enough to tell us whether these extra grants to local authorities include any assistance for the provision of water supplies in those rural areas to which children are to be evacuated?
      I asked a question the other day about the number of separate undertakers of

      2031
      water supplies in England and Wales and I was informed that there were 231 companies and 830 authorities supplying water to the public in England and Wales alone. In addition there are some hundreds in Scotland so that there are probably between 1,200 and 1,400 separate undertakers of water supplies in this country. A large number of these are local authorities who will get grants under subhead G. We are entitled to ask whether any of these are local authorities in whose areas evacuation camps under subhead BB are to be placed and whether any additional provision is to be made for providing water in those cases. Without water supplies, it will be impossible to have these camps. There are undoubtedly local authority areas in this country where if you take in any large additional number of children, particularly in the summer, you will have an outbreak of fever unless you make adequate arrangements for water supply and sewage disposal. Unless that is done, it will be a dangerous policy and a policy inimical to the public health of this country to proceed with these evacuation camps. But if the Minister is taking power now to link up the various water supplies in the country, in the manner of a "grid," and to assist local authorities to provide water for these children and other evacuated persons, then, on this side of the House there will be nothing but wholesale congratulations for him and we will have secured something out of these war emergency preparations which otherwise we might only have obtained with great difficulty and after a long struggle. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the two specific questions, first, about evacuation food supplies, and secondly, grants to local authorities in connection with water supplies.
      8.59 p.m.
      Mr. Elliot: I shall try to observe jealously in what I am about to say the rules of Debate and guard my right to speak, and I trust that if I should on this occasion exhaust that right nobody will accuse me of having withheld information from the House. In the first place, as to food supplies I understood that the right hon. Gentleman only asked his question in respect of the actual movement on evacuation and on that point I shall give the House the information in my possession. It is intended to provide
      2032
      emergency rations for evacuated persons in all reception areas. Those supplies will be sufficient to provide maintenance for 48 hours in the new areas, that is to say, during the change-over from the food supply which these people are leaving to the food supply into relation with which they are coming.
      Mr. J. Griffiths: What about initial storage?
      Mr. Elliot: I am coming to that. These supplies are already available. We accumulated them during the crisis last autumn and we hold in reserve supplies of canned meat, canned milk, and biscuits. Chocolate is also envisaged and of course is readily obtainable. It is intended that these supplies will be at the rail-heads and will be issued to the evacuated persons on their arrival at the rail-heads, and the necessary instructions will be sent to the responsible officers under the evacuation schemes. Does that meet the right hon. Gentleman's point?
      Mr. Johnston: If I am asked the question I take it that I may reply to it and I say, "No."
      Mr. Elliot: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, then, would give me some further indication of the point which he has in mind?
      Mr. Johnston: If I try to do so we shall probably both be ruled out of order.
      Mr. Elliot: It seems to me that I have covered the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I have indicated that there are emergency rations, and that these emergency rations are to consist of certain stocks which I have specified, of canned meat, canned milk and biscuits. I have indicated where these stocks are to be held, namely, at the rail-heads, and under whose authority they are to be issued.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Am I to understand that this food that is to be at certain stations, will be served out free—for nothing?
      Mr. Elliot: Certainly to those who were being officially evacuated it would be.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Then my question about the poor and the unemployed is all right. They are to be supplied?
      Mr. Elliot: I think that covers all the questions that were asked on that point. I am anxious to give the House the fullest

      2033
      possible information but not to exhaust my right to speak. Will the right hon. Gentleman now permit me to pass from that point?
      Mr. Johnston: Would the right hon. Gentleman, without sacrificing his right to reply later, be good enough to say what is to happen after the 48 hours period? It is proposed to take these children away for long distances to rail-heads, and after 48 hours of these iron rations provision of the kind he has indicated will be absolutely insufficient.
      Mr. Elliot: Naturally after the transition period they will come into relation with the regular food supply in the new area to which they have been moved, and plans are being worked out with the trade to augment supplies in the shops in the reception areas sufficiently to deal with the new influx. There are ad hoc committees of wholesalers and retailers concerned with meat, flour, bread, milk, sugar, tea, and other provisions and groceries. The persons who are being evacuated are at present in touch with a supply of food. While they are en voyage—travelling from one area to the other—arrangements are being made to provide them with rations for 48 hours. We are also making arrangements to augment the supplies of food in the reception areas to which they are going and we are doing that through the organisation which I have indicated of ad hoc committees of the trades concerned with the supply of those essentials. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now permit me to pass from that point?
      Mr. Johnston Mr. Johnston indicated assent.
      Mr. Elliot: Right. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about water supplies and sewerage. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will bear me out when I say that these subjects were discussed at some length with a deputation of local authorities I received this very afternoon. It may be of interest to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman if I indicate that there is already a considerable supply of piped water in the reception areas. In England alone there are approximately 8,000 rural parishes with piped water supplies and that represents a population of 7,000,000 out of the total rural population of 8,000,000. Thus the areas which have not piped water supplies represent only 1,000,000 of the rural population, and of
      2034
      course in siting the camps we shall be careful to see that we do not put them in areas where an adequate water supply is not available. I may say that officers of my Department are already reviewing possible sites, of which a great many have been under consideration, in order not to lose any time, and I think there will be no difficulty in obtaining sites with access to ample water supplies.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked also about the question of sewage. I have had calculations made, and those of my officers who are acquainted with water engineering and with the problems involved by a considerable influx of population into areas estimate, and I under stand it is agreed, that an influx of population as high as 50 per cent.—which is a very great deal above what is contemplated in the billeting scheme—would not mean an increase in the consumption of water or output of sewage of more than 20 per cent. That really means that the problem is not an unmanageable one. As regards rural sewerage, while the number of parishes covered is not as great as in the case of water supplies, it does cover 75 percent. of the rural population. Therefore, even as regards sewerage schemes, it is clear that we have already broken the back of the problem. That is not to say that the matter is fully and completely dealt with, but I think it is enough to show that danger of the scheme breaking down by reason of an insufficient supply of water or insufficient arrangements for sewage is not to be apprehended. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me if there was money in this Vote for grants to local authorities for the purposes of further supplies of water. The answer is that there is no provision in this Vote for further supplies of water, or for linking up one water company with another. I think I have fully dealt with the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked.
      9.8 p.m.
      Mr. Ede: I should not have taken part in this Debate but for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, referred to certain statements he made to a deputation this afternoon. I feel that it is necessary to say that he has repeated here certain statements that he made to that deputation of local authorities, but the statistics which he has placed before the House, and which he also placed before the deputation, are not accepted

      2035
      by the deputation as being necessarily a complete and final analysis of the situation. I will take one figure that he has given, and I want the House to note that, while his statement is perfectly accurate as far as it can be checked, it is not really an accurate presentation of the problem that confronts local authorities. He says that, in the parishes to which the population to be evacuated may be sent in England and Wales, there are 8,000,000 souls, and, of these, 7,000,000 live in parishes which have piped water supplies.
      I do not want the House to draw, and I am sure the Minister would be shocked to think that the House had drawn, from that set of figures, the comforting conclusion that all those 7,000,000 people have a piped water supply. When the Minister was pressed for the real figure this afternoon he was unable to give it, and when he started to mention my name this evening, I thought he was going to assure me that in the meantime he had looked the matter up and could now give me the figure. Is it not common knowledge that, in most of these parishes to which people are to be evacuated, and for the water and sanitary arrangements of which the right hon. Gentleman must accept very considerable responsibility when he evacuates people to them, there is a small core of houses with a water supply, but that frequently, in quite populous rural parishes, not more than a third of the population at the most will be supplied by pipe? Moreover, that third will be living in a very crowded group of cottages, and, if this doctrine of dispersal of the population means anything, that is precisely the part of the village to which people will not be evacuated. It is to those cottages which are without a piped water supply and are not connected to the main drainage system that the evacuated population will be sent.
      As the Minister alluded to the deputation he received this afternoon, and gave the version that he put before them, I thought it was only fair to the deputation that I should mention this. I may say that the deputation was a very representative one, representing the county councils of England and Wales, the rural district councils of England and Wales, and the county councils of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman was wise to confine
      2036
      such information as he gave us just now to England and Wales, because I gather he agrees with the Scottish deputation that, bad as the figures are in the English counties, they are infinitely worse in Scotland. I do not think it is quite fair, if I may say so, of the Minister to receive a deputation this afternoon and bring forward statements this evening as though they were accepted by the deputation, when, as a matter of fact, they were most fiercely contested. He secured no agreement from any member of the deputation to his version of the state of affairs, and I do not think it makes for ease of negotiation when he makes a statement as though it were the conclusion of the conference. If the idea is that what the Minister says to a deputation settles the matter, we may as well have the totalitarian State at once; but I hope that, if we do, we shall have the Ministers who will be capable of shouldering the heavy responsibilities entailed by such a position, and not a Minister who brings forward figures in the way in which they have been brought forward this evening.
      9.13 p.m.
      Mr. Garro Jones: I cannot find any great reassurance in anything that the Minister has said to-night with regard to these various air-raid precautions. It is true that we now have six pairs of hands gripping these problems, but the sum of the strength of the grip is no stronger than it was when only one pair of hands was available. My right hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the fact that a very disturbing report has been received from Scotland in regard to rural water supplies in that country. There is already a serious shortage of water supplies in areas where it is proposed, in the event of an emergency, to increase the population by anything up to 50 per cent.——
      Mr. Elliot: No.
      Mr. Garro Jones: Well, say 25 per cent. In those areas there is not enough water supply for the existing population; what is going to be done when the population is substantially increased? It is not as if this was only one difficulty; the same lack of grip seems to characterise almost every problem that the Government are tackling. Take the case of evacuation. It took them three years, in spite of repeated pressure from this side of the House—it is no use the right hon. Gentleman becoming upset at this

      2037
      criticism, because it was never more merited than it is now—it took them three years to come to a decision, and even now the evacuation arrangements are not complete. He would not even claim that himself.
      For example, we have heard that courts of complaint are to be set up, and assuredly they will be necessary. I do not believe that even yet the country has realised the variety of difficulties that will confront the civic administration in the areas where evacuation is to take place. There will be people who are ill, people of different habits living with others, people with various weaknesses and failings who are taken away from the attention of their loved ones and put in the hands of strangers; and there will be a continuous and endless stream of disturbance and discontent. It may be that the people are prepared to put up with this for the sake of the country, but in the long run, unless these evacuation problems are properly handled and arranged in the areas concerned, they will contribute largely to the demoralisation of the civil population in those areas. Therefore, I should like to hear from the Minister further particulars of what he calls the court of complaints, because it will be necessary to do something to reconcile disputes which will arise.
      Again, there is the question of shelters. I believe that part of this Vote provides for steel shelters and material for strengthening basements. What kind of steel shelters are meant and what strengthening of basements is to take place? We are told that the Government have not made up their mind whether deep shelters are advisable, or how deep they ought to be, because it is a complex question. We were told that evacuation was such a complex question that they could not decide it for three years. Every problem is a complex one if it is tackled by a vacillating mind. These matters ought to be worked out in lump sums. If they are worked out in detail you come to the same problem over and over again and find yourself working out a recurring decimal or recurring cyphers. That may be an admirable principle for the Prime Minister to act upon in reconstructing his Cabinet, but will not be very effective in bringing about decisions on these important matters.
      I wonder why the Lord Privy Seal is not present. He told us that he con-
      2038
      sidered that the period of notice of air-raid attacks was a vital question in deciding how deep these various shelters should be. Although I have not the advantage of the information provided by the public service I have made some small study of this question and if he thinks he is going to be able to prepare his shelter scheme on the basis of any period of notice he is being badly advised. Suppose there should be only 1,000 bombing aircraft available—an extremely small estimate. No hon. Member will say there might be fewer than 1,000 available for concentration upon the industrial areas alone, even supposing that we had allies. That would mean 80 squadrons of 12 aeroplanes. With that number of squadrons it would be possible to send over a continuous stream of bombing aircraft. They would not necessarily be intensive attacks but intensive attacks are not necessary to set in motion the whole apparatus of air-raid defence. One aircraft can carry 2,000 incendiary bombs, and with squadrons of 12 coming over three times an hour it would be possible to keep the whole of our fighting aircraft and half of our anti-aircraft guns in action, and how could we rely upon any period of notice to get people down into the deep shelters, or, for that matter, the shallow shelters?
      I contend that any abnormal concentration of the population which involves passing out into the open will lead to very serious casualties unless the whole scheme is properly considered. The truth is that there will be raids every few minutes. A few minutes after a warning, when people will be congregated in one place, will be the time when the attack will actually come. By the time they have got into the very deep shelters the attack will be over, and by the time they have emerged a new attack will have begun. Therefore, in the consideration of this shelter problem it is necessary to make provision for whole sections of the essential population to work permanently under adequate protection, not having to rush out in order to form mass parades of human targets. I should like to see the Minister tackling this question of permanent shelters before many more days have passed and I am going to give him an idea of the way in which I, as one very humble Member of this Committee, consider that it ought to be

      2039
      tackled. In September, 1938, the German Dictator decided that it was necessary to repair the western fortifications. He did not play with the problem. He got no fewer than 360,000 special workers, 100,000 men of the Labour Service Corps, and an extensive number of technical units in order to construct these shelters.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member can help me, but I cannot see anything in this Vote relating to deep shelters.
      Mr. Garro Jones: May I respectfully draw your attention to Item GG on page 14, which is a token Vote for the protection of vital services, to Item G, which deals with grants to local authorities to include provision for every kind of protection, and to Item CC, which includes steel shelters and materials for strengthening basements. These basements are being strengthened, sometimes at shallow depths and sometimes at greater depths, and it is merely a matter of opinion whether they are deep or shallow shelters.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member should confine himself to that aspect of the matter. He has been talking about something which could not possibly be described as the basement of a house.
      Mr. Garro Jones: What I want to impress upon the Minister is that it is no use playing with this problem. In a country which is our potential enemy, where labour is scarce, they assembled nearly 500,000 men to carry out defensive preparations in three months. In this country, where we have nearly 2,000,000 unemployed, we are dealing with the problem with 2,000 or 3,000 men at a time, in that way showing a completely erroneous perspective of the problem. I should like to see present all the Ministers responsible for these precautions, in order that we might bring home to them the seriousness of the task in which they are engaged.
      9.23 p.m.
      Mr. R. J. Taylor: I wish to draw attention to the question of evacuation. I remember that in February the Minister of Health complained that he had been bounded by arithmetic in making his plans for evacuation. That is not a trustworthy method of approach to the question. Because the Minister of Health has allowed
      2040
      himself to be bounded by arithmetic he has caused a considerable amount of perturbation in the minds of many local authorities. Let us take a situation where there is an important strategical position but where the population is not by any means of the density of the population in London or some of the larger towns. I refer to the Port of Blyth. The Admiralty made use of it in the last War, when it was a submarine base, and a supply ship lay there. Within a radius of seven miles of that port there are 36 collieries, at which nearly 7,000,000 tons of coal a year is loaded. The Germans, the only people we seem to be worrying about, are trading in and out of the port. Would it not be natural, the port being so well known, that it should be concentrated on? In the last War we had the first German Zeppelins over that district.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot see that this is relevant to the Vote.
      Mr. Taylor: On the question of density, of which the Minister of Health spoke in making his arithmetical calculations, he would be correct in saying, if you had not made provision for evacuation, that the proportion killed in two air raids, one in an area of great density and the other of less density, would differ. On account of the strategical position I am trying to show that the danger in the less dangerous area, where the strategical position makes those people liable probably to greater danger of air attack——
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot see the application of this. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself very strictly to the subject-matter of the Supplementary Estimate.
      Mr. Herbert Morrison: May I submit to you, Sir, that my hon. Friend is discussing a Vote which relates to evacuation, and the policy of the Government in that respect is under review. The point that he is making is that part of the county of Northumberland might well attract enemy aircraft, through reasons of military strategy, and he is arguing, I think, that for that reason that is an area that ought to be evacuated and, as far as he can understand, the Minister is not proposing to evacuate it. I submit that he is in order.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman might be able to persuade himself and the House by what he has said

      2041
      of the connection between evacuation and the hon. Member's speech, but unfortunately for him this matter is one of relevancy, which must be decided by someone, and that is left by the House to the Chair. In my opinion up to the present the hon. Member's speech has not had very much relevancy.
      Mr. Taylor: The local authorities in the Blyth district are very much perturbed. I leave it at that. May I say a word or two in regard to the assistance to local authorities? I am not sure how safe I shall be on this, because it is a sort of cat and mouse business. There are a large number of local authorities who are tremendously anxious to serve the interests of their districts to the best of their ability. It seems to me that grants could be so fashioned that there would be liberty to local authorities to spend money without having to go cap in hand for permission. That is very much handicapping their work. I feel sure that we could safely give them that liberty of action.
      The question of shelters is another matter which concerns us very considerably. We have a tremendous number of unemployed miners and we have a very serious danger in burning pit heaps, but we have also a number of pit heaps which have been burnt out and are standing there like extinct volcanoes. The miners have been used to tunnelling and they could easily make shelters by driving into the foot of these extinct pit heaps. Being burnt out, they would offer tremendous resistance against burning and they could be made very safe. They would not be deep shelters but basement shelters. They would be on a level with the earth. If this were taken into consideration we might do very useful work in our district until such time as the Government changed their mind about deep bombproof shelters.
      9.34 p.m.
      Mr. David Adams: In considering whether or not to agree to these Estimates, we must begin by inquiring whether, in the protection which it is proposed to afford to them, the workers will enjoy such a sense of security as to feel fairly certain that they will come through any conflict which may fall upon them. Otherwise there will be panic, and with panic, temporarily, perhaps permanently, an end of the civic and normal industrial life of the community.
      2042
      It is for that reason that we are entitled to suggest the form of protection that should be accorded. I have reason to know that on the North-East Coast we have a very large and active industrial population that is looking with much questioning to the methods of protection which the Government are proposing in the expenditure which we have under consideration to-night. I was certainly much alarmed when the Lord Privy Seal made this observation——
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must remember that we are on the Report stage, and on the Report stage of an Estimate we must keep very strictly to the limits of the Estimate. We cannot go into the question of alternative methods.
      Mr. Adams: I certainly do not desire to stray from the narrow path, but I may surely indicate to the Minister the type of shelter which ought to be provided in certain areas out of the money which Parliament is about to vote. One might certainly feel a lack of confidence inasmuch as the Lord Privy Seal has stated that many people will have to make the best of it in time of war. Our industrial population is entitled to as full and complete protection as the State can provide. We have been advised that certain forms of shelter would be costly, but the cost falls to a reasonable figure when such shelters could be utilised for underground street works, hospitals and garages.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member has listened to the Debate he knows that I have already ruled that this goes beyond the terms of the Vote.
      Mr. Garro Jones: On that point, is it possible to say with certainty that no part of this sum of £750,000 is to be used for the construction of the buildings to which my hon. Friend has referred? Certainly we have had no adequate statement, and we can only discuss these subjects if the Minister explains what the money is to be spent upon. In that case we must insist upon very much fuller explanations than we have had to-day.
      Mr. Adams: I was saying that the form of shelter which I anticipate the Government will ultimately provide, when they have made up their minds, could be pro-

      2043
      vided for a reasonable charge, and the money that we are about to expend could be allocated in the particular direction I have indicated.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It has already been allocated.
      Mr. Adams: The Lord Privy Seal has certainly not indicated yet the direction in which this money is to be expended. I am pressing this matter on behalf of a large constituency which is very greatly concerned about the situation. There has been no survey in Durham of various natural formations which could be utilised for protection at very small cost.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As there is no Estimate for such a survey, the Vote does not apply to such a survey.
      Mr. H. Morrison: I do not know whether you, Sir, would permit one of the Ministers to help us. I understood the Government have not finally made up their minds about deep shelters. I should appreciate your difficulty if they had finally rejected deep shelters, but we are not in a position to know whether deep shelters may be included in this Vote or not.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman has just given the best explanation of why this is not in order. If the Government have not 'decided, obviously the cost could not be covered by any Estimate, certainly not by this one.
      Mr. Adams: I can only conclude by saying that the Government have for the last seven years been considering the form of protection to be accorded to the industrial workers, and the statement of the Lord Privy Seal was that they had not yet made up their minds. Let us hope that the war is not upon us before they make up their minds.
      Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Minister a question? There is a sum of £750,000 being voted, but so far as I know the Minister has not told us what the money is going to be spent upon.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a point I have already dealt with, and I think the hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      9.44 p.m.
      Mr. Buchanan: Could not we have an explanation of this Vote? I understand that this arises out of the extra expenditure in connection with the National Service campaign. I regret the practice commonly followed to-day by which Ministers do not open with an explanation of their Estimates. The old practice was that each Minister explained his Estimates and gave us a chance of raising particular issues on the Report stage. In Committee we can speak twice, but here we can only speak once, and we are under the handicap that no statement has been made by the Government. I see on the Vote that certain officials of the Ministry of Labour have been transferred to the work of the National Service campaign. How far has this transfer taken place? In so far as it has taken place, how has it, if at all, interfered with the normal work of the Employment Exchange? I understand that one of the managers in a certain town has been allocated or transferred for this purpose, and I want to know whether during that period the work at the Exchange carried on the same as usual. If so, it seems to me that if a manager can be transferred for this kind of work, there was no need for his services at the Exchange before.
      The other point is about publicity, which, I take it, includes the ordinary advertising on the hoardings plus meetings that have been held up and down the country. I want to raise, in regard to public meetings, the question of how far expenditure was involved and how Government Members are paid, if at all, for addressing these meetings. Let me assume that a member of the Cabinet goes to a place to address a meeting in connection with National Service. Is there any payment made to that member of the Government for so doing? I do not mean personal payment in the sense of a fee, but are expenses payable to that member of the Government for addressing a meeting, and, if so, on what scale are the expenses paid? The second thing that I would like to ask is whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give us any idea as to the composition of these meetings and what payments, if any,

      2045
      other speakers may receive either as expenses or as fees. If members of other political parties or of no political party at all decide to help the Government by addressing public meetings, is any fee paid to them, or is there a scale of expenses?
      I also want to raise the question of the stewardship of these meetings. I understand that recently the Lord Privy Seal addressed a meeting in the City of Glasgow in connection with this publicity. The meeting was extremely well attended, and I would like to ask who were the stewards of the meeting. Were they civil servants? How were the stewards selected? At an ordinary political meeting the stewards are drawn from the political party that runs the meeting, and usually without any payment, but I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how the, stewards who attend National Service meetings are selected. Is it true that many of them are drawn from Employment Exchange staffs, that these men are practically compelled to attend these meetings as stewards, and that if they do not attend, they in some way jeopardise their position? I want to ask, specifically about the Glasgow meeting, how the stewards were selected for it, whether they were paid any sum at all for attending it, and, if so, what sum. At the Glasgow meeting there was considerable resentment by a large section of the population, so much so that a number of men who had already volunteered to serve in certain ambulance work left the hall in disgust at the treatment meted out by the stewards to certain members of the public who had attended the meeting.
      The Government were responsible for the stewards at the meeting, because it was a Government meeting, and I would like to ask, if the Government were responsible for it, how the stewards were selected and how the Government were guaranteed that the stewards would conduct the meeting in the ordinary way to which we are used in this country. There is a feeling that is widely expressed in the City of Glasgow that at this meeting which the Lord Privy Seal addressed there was a force used which was unknown or at least was not common in our West of Scotland meetings. Hitherto we have been able to take part in our political discussions and disputes without the display that was used at this St. Andrew's Hall
      2046
      meeting, and I would like an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary as to who selected the stewards and whether any payment was made for the work.
      9.52 p.m.
      Mr. W. A. Robinson: I am somewhat perplexed at the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) as to the rates of pay which are being given to men who may be speakers or workers or stewards at public meetings. I thought they were trade union rates of pay, and from the trade union point of view, if work has to be done and men are scheduled for the work, they ought to be paid trade union rates.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not saying that the hon. Member is not in order, but it depends upon, and I should like to know whether the meeting in question was organised by the Ministry of Labour and whether the expense comes under this particular Estimate.
      Mr. Buchanan: I made some inquiries before leaving Glasgow as to who ran the meeting, and I was informed that the people in charge of the meeting were Ministry of Labour officials.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know that the hon Member says that, but what I do not know is whether it is covered by this Vote.
      Mr. Buchanan: It is covered, surely, by publicity.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think only the Government can tell us that.
      9.54 p.m.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): All these meetings in different parts of the country are organised by the National Service Committee. In the case of the meeting in Glasgow, it took place under the chairmanship of the Lord Provost and the committee, formed in the way that the hon. Member knows, were responsible for the organisation and running of the meeting. These cannot properly be called Government meetings at all.
      Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. I see on this Vote so much for publicity, and I would like to ask whether publicity does not include the public meetings with which I am dealing. If not, what does publicity mean?
      Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that responsibility for the meeting was the particular point which the hon. Member had in mind. That rested with the local committee who organised the meeting.
      Mr. Buchanan: Who found the money? Someone had to pay for the rent of the hall.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the money was not found out of this Vote.
      Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The money is found out of this Vote, but I understand that the particular point the hon. Member had in mind was the responsibility for the organisation of the meeting.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then it is in order.
      Mr. Buchanan: No, I want to know how you spend the money.
      Mr. Robinson: Perhaps I may now continue. I am concerned about trade union conditions. During the last War considerable expenses were given to Horatio Bottomley and Lord Charles Beresford. I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that the protests he has made are entirely wrong. I want to be quite satisfied that everybody speaking for the Government is given fair, decent remuneration. I want to be satisfied that if there is work to be done for the Government those who do it will get about expeditiously and will do the work under the best conditions. The Government do not pay too much for expenses. I know that from my own experience as a member of a trade board. They do not give you more than you spend; in fact, they do not give you as much as you spend. The hon. Member for Gorbals is a representative of the Pattern Makers' Union. What sort of a pattern is he setting? It is stupid.
      Mr. Buchanan: At least he is sober.
      Mr. Robinson: That is most unfair.
      Mr. Buchanan: If you insult me you will get it back. Do not start your nastiness with me.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Robinson), if he wishes to go on with his speech, to do so.
      Mr. Robinson: A question has been raised on an important issue as to whether
      2048
      the Government expenses are high or low. They have been charged with spending undue money in expenses, on travelling and on hotel expenses. That charge is most unfair. They never pay very high expenses. There is important Governmental work to be done, and whatever expenses are allowed no Government, not even a Labour Government, pay excessively. I have been engaged in trade board work for a long time and I know, and I am content to believe that the Government do try to economise in travelling expenses. In connection with this terrible international crisis, if hon. Members or other people are called upon to do work in speaking, I hope that the expenses allowed by the Government will be reasonable and fair. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has made a charge which is most unfair. It is a pity that he made a certain reference to me. He made that charge because he knows his case to-night is wrong.
      9.59 p.m.
      Mr. Cartland: I should like to ask two questions in regard to publicity and the National Service committees. In regard to publicity can the Minister say whether the committees are carrying out any publicity other than meetings, and whether he has looked into the question whether the public who come to the meetings are really the public with whom we want to get into touch? I have seen it suggested that many of the seats at these public meetings are charged for. If a charge is to be made for attending these meetings, naturally we shall not get the people to whom we want to make the greatest appeal in regard to National Service. I should also like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that all the National Service committees are actually working. They may be in being, but are they working? I believe that there are committees which have been set up in name but have not yet met. If that is the case, I should like to know whether it is possible for the Department to take any steps to get these bodies working as soon as possible. Further, are any steps being taken to follow up the National Service booklet? The booklet has gone into the homes, but I am afraid in many cases it has gone into the wastepaper basket. I wonder whether the Department has any further steps in mind to follow up the booklet.
      10.1 p.m.
      Mr. Garro Jones: I am sure the House appreciates your desire, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to get us up early to-night, but it would be as well if we were not to allow the Government to escape from telling us for what purpose this money is being spent. There is one particular aspect in regard to publicity on which I should like to have information. Hon. Members must have noticed that the newspaper Press in the last few months have contained very large spaces of advertisements for air-raid precautions. I put a question to the Prime Minister whether the newspapers are making any charge for these advertisements. These advertisements advise the people to give their voluntary services for the defence of the country, and I should like to know whether the Government are paying the full rate for these advertisements—£6 an inch and so on in the "Daily Mail," the "Daily Express" and other national and provincial newspapers; 12 inches across four columns, advertisements on an enormous scale. I should think that it is at the rate of about £20,000 a month.
      I should be glad if the Minister would let us know whether these advertisements are being paid for at full rates. If so I am going to make a proposal. It seems to me that it would be a very invidious thing if Ministers in charge of Departments should be given enormous sums of money to spend in newspaper advertisements. A few years ago I made some criticism of a practice of Cabinet Ministers receiving £50 to £100 for writing articles for the Press. If Ministers to-day are to be able to dispense lavishly sums of money amounting to thousands of pounds for newspaper advertisements, it will be putting upon them a task more than a frail human being ought to be expected to carry. If the large-scale air-raid service advertisements appearing in the Press are being paid for, I say that there is something distasteful to the majority of the people of this country in enriching already wealthy newspaper trusts by spending this money for their benefit. Surely, they are not charging full rates for these advertisements, which ask the public to give their voluntary services. If they are, I hope the House will return again and again to this question and that they will insist that where advertisements are being published inviting people, even poor people, to give their time and energy
      2050
      after their day's work is done, they will not be a charge on the Exchequer. I hope that before the Vote is passed the Minister will give us some explanation.
      10.5 p.m.
      Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to deal with the point which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) quite properly raised on this Vote. I can assure him, in regard to his first query, that though the services of Exchange managers have been used and have been of the utmost value in helping to organise meetings in different parts of the country, there has been no diminution of the ordinary routine work of the Exchanges or of that useful public service which they will continue to perform. He inquires how this can be possible if the staffs of the Exchanges have not hitherto been unnecessarily large. The answer is that in a time of emergency and of national stress, people are asked to undertake work which normally, in more peaceful times, would not be imposed on them, and it is reasonable to assume, not that the staffs have been more than adequate hitherto, but that we have without impropriety called on the Exchange managers to render help on this occasion.
      Mr. Buchanan: Were they in any way penalised if they refused?
      Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am coming to that point. The hon. Member will appreciate that I am not in a position to answer detailed questions in regard to particular meetings. I can say, however, that the meeting in Glasgow, which I understand was well attended by just those people we want to see at these meetings, and which was under the chairmanship of the Lord Provost, was organised locally, and if any members of the Exchange helped in order to make the meeting a success they would not have been penalised had they not done so. No attempt has been made to impose on members of the Exchanges or any members of the public, because it is hoped that this service will be voluntary on the part of all. As to the question of expense, the hon. Member will notice that the Supplementary Estimate makes provision for payment of travelling expenses and other allowances to members of National Service committees under the usual scale applicable to members of advisory committees appointed by the Minister. I do not think it unreasonable that people who are put to expense through activities of this kind

      2051
      should have their expenses met. There is no question of payment for work of this kind.
      My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) asked what steps were being taken to follow up the issue of the National Service Handbook. The issue of the handbook synchronised with the formation of many National Service committees in different parts of the country. The purpose of the handbook was to give all who were a little uncertain as to how best they could serve the country, a guide as to the form of activity most suited to them. From that moment the onus was on the local committees to assist recruitment for the different services. I come to the point about publicity raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). The Vote which we are now considering makes an allowance for incidental expenses, including publicity, of £3,600. The hon. Member will appreciate that this is for expenses up to the 31st March, 1939. The hon. Member is in a little doubt as to what form the publicity has taken. Our publicity has been of a general kind and has been concerned with the issue of the handbook. The different services, like air-raid precautions, fire services, and so on, continue their own publicity, and any comments that the hon. Member may have to make on any expenses that have been entered into by other Government Departments cannot properly be addressed to me, because I am dealing only with the £3,600 which is partly for publicity entered into by our Department in connection with National Service.
      Mr. Garro Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman state that there is no money in this Vote which is being spent on newspaper advertising? If so, I shall not press the matter, but I ask for a definite assurance about that.
      Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that I cannot answer this definitely. I do not know, but I will have inquiry made and I will bring the information I get to the attention of the hon. Member. A point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton about charging at these meetings. Occasionally charges have been made, and I do not think it unwise to say that we would all like to see meetings which can be run and organised without charge so that they are
      2052
      open to everybody who wishes to go. I feel that as a great deal of the organisation and control has been left to the local committees, this matter can properly be left to them and that they can be relied on to handle it as well as they are handling other incidents of this National Service campaign.
      10.12 p.m.
      Mr. H. Morrison: I wish to enter my protest that the Parliamentary Secretary has come to the House to-night, presumably to defend this Vote, and that he is not in a position to answer an obvious and important question which my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) has put. He really ought to know whether newspapers advertising is included in this amount, and I protest against the Minister coming to the House and defending a Vote when he does not know the details of the expenditure upon which it is based. It is not good enough to say that he will find out and inform my hon. Friend. He ought to know, and he ought to be able to tell the House any reasonable question about the Vote. The question which my hon. Friend put about newspaper advertising is perfectly reasonable and, indeed, an obvious question which any Minister competent to discharge his duties, ought to be ready to deal with. I wish to protest very strongly against the un-readiness of the Parliamentary Secretary to do his job. He was put some questions by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) about payments to speakers at public meetings and he has not answered them. He has answered a point about expenses of members of National Service committees, and he ought to answer that question. I spoke at one meeting in London and I was not offered any fee or any expenses, but if I had been offered them in the case of a London meeting I should not have accepted them. I say that because I think it should be made clear.
      There is a point to which I would like to refer if I am in order, but I cannot know, and I imagine that you, Sir, cannot know unless the Minister can tell us. There have been appointed recently by Mr. Herbert Morgan, who is adviser to the Government on publicity in connection with National Service, a number of special officers in the regions throughout the country. Their duties are partly publicity, partly co-ordinating the work of

      2053
      the local committees, and partly stimulating the work of those committees. If the expenses of these offices are in this Vote, I would like to put some questions to the appropriate Minister, or to the inappropriate Minister if he can be advised by the appropriate Minister. I shall be glad to know how many of these officers there are, what their qualifications are for this work, what their salaries are, and what their expenses, if any, are.
      Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps I might interrupt the right hon. Member. The expenses of these new officers were not on this Vote; therefore, I imagine that we shall not be in order in discussing it now. These are expenses up to the end of this month, and do not include these new officers, these "ginger" officers.
      Mr. Morrison: In that case I cannot pursue the matter. I wanted information on it, but I understand my hon. Friend the Member for North Camber well (Mr. Ammon) will put a question on the point.
      REPORT [6th MARCH].
      Resolutions reported,

    CANCER BILL.
    As amended, considered.
    CANCER BILL.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of local authorities.)
      11.32 p.m.
      Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "England," to insert "and Wales."
      When this Bill was considered in Committee, I called the attention of the Minister and the Committee to the fact that Wales was ignored in the Bill. The
      Minister replied that if we were sufficiently interested in the subject, we ought to put down an Amendment to include Wales. Consequently, our first Amendment is to that effect. Happily, the right hon. Gentleman, has already seen the error of his ways, and I gather, from the Amendments he has placed on the Order Paper, that he may accept this very sensible Amendment.
      I am sure that the constituents whom I have the honour to represent—practi-

      2077
      cally all of them English people—will forgive me for being proud of the land in which I was born. I was a little amazed to hear the Minister say, during the Committee stage, that for the purposes of administration Wales is in England. I do not think that is a proper attitude to take, and I have moved this Amendment in order to show the House that Wales is a country of its own—very much more so than Scotland.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Oh, no! Wales was conquered by the English, but Scotland never was.
      Mr. Davies: I was about to say that it is not commonly known that the Welsh people have a culture that is apart from English culture. They have a language of their own. They have a literature of their own. They have an educational system of their own—a National Museum, a National College and Universities of their own. It may interest hon. Members to know that the Welsh have a language which, for the purposes of expression, is very much more forcible than English.
      Hon. Members: Give us an example.
      Mr. Davies: "Còs gwr na charo'r wldd a'i macco." On all those grounds, I think there is justification for the Amendment. I am under the impression that the term "England and Wales" was common form in Bills before Parliament up to a few years ago, and I ask that it should be restored. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the insertion of the word "Wales" in this Bill, so that it may become a precedent for the future. Hon. Members must understand one thing, that if Wales had Home Rule, it would have a Labour Government, which shows that the people of Wales are much more progressive even than the people of Scotland. I think I have made a case for the recognition in these Bills of the separate identity of my country.
      11.36 p.m.
      Mr. Elliot: I readily respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that I should accept his Amendment. Indeed I go further, because I have put down two further Amendments to the same effect in relation to other parts of the Bill. As an illustration of the perils attaching to confusion of thought, I would point out
      2078
      that the hon. Gentleman has put down an Amendment which would have the effect of imposing a duty upon the Welsh authorities, but has omitted to put down the corresponding Amendments which would enable them to claim grants in respect of those duties. To show that there is no grudge against Wales and that we are anxious to make this a non-party Measure in which all parts of the House can share, I ask the House to accept the Amendment now moved, and also the consequential Amendments when we come to them later.
      Sir Francis Fremantle: If Wales is not included in England, then, surely, to add Wales will be to increase the charge?
      Amendment agreed to.
      11.38 p.m.
      Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after "power," to insert:
      "subject to the consent of the councils by which the joint board, or joint committee was appointed."
      This Clause grants the power of Co-option to the various joint boards and joint committees, and while I do not raise any objection to the appointment of co-opted members, who may be very useful, I desire to retain the powers of the appointing bodies, that is, the councils by which the joint boards or committees will be appointed. That is the object of the Amendment which provides that the exercise of this power shall be subject to their consent. It may be argued that the reference in the Clause to the number of members on a joint board or committee would rule this question. Fortunately, in practice the people who are co-opted on such bodies as these will be, are very often people who are keen on the work, and are useful members. On the other hand, some of the members appointed by the original body may be put on to make up the number and may not be regular attenders at the meetings of the joint board or committee. Thus, we may find control passing out of the hands of those who are the elected representatives of the public.
      Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to second the Amendment.
      11.40 p.m.
      Mr. Elliot: After some conversation with the hon. Members whose names are attached to this Amendment, I think I appreciate what they have in view. I

      2079
      sympathise with the point which they are putting, but I think the actual words proposed in the Amendment are not the most suitable, and I should like to draft other words which, I think, would more accurately ensure what we both desire. If my hon. Friends will withdraw this Amendment, I will give an undertaking to look into the matter before the Bill goes to another place, and do my best to see that words are there inserted which will carry out the purpose we have in view.
      Sir J. Lamb: In view of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      11.41 p.m.
      Mr. Herbert Morrison: As this Amendment, which involves an important principle, has been on the Paper for some time, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been ready with an Amendment which would have cleared up the matter. Now it will have to be dealt with in the other House, but I think it might have been dealt with here.
      11.42 p.m.
      Mr. Elliot: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I meant no discourtesy. A deputation from the Council Councils' Association came to see me this morning. I had at first intended to oppose the Amendment, but the arguments of the deputation converted me to their view. That is the only reason for what may seem to have been my discourtesy in not having put an Amendment on the Paper to-day.
      Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Financial Provisions.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 3, line 30, after "England," insert" and Wales."
    In page 5, line 13, after "England," insert "and Wales."—[Mr. Elliot.]

    CLAUSE 4.—(Prohibition of certain advertisements.)
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): With regard to the first Amendment, in the names of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffiths) and other hon. Members—in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    2080
    "(3) A prosecution for an offence under this Section shall not be instituted without the consent in England of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General and in Scotland of the Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General."—
    I understand that they desire to move the Amendment in a slightly different form, and I think it should come in a slightly different place, namely, in page 7, line 37.
    11.44 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, after "members," to insert "of either House of Parliament or."
    Sub-section (4) of Clause 4 enumerates a number of classes of persons to whom advertisements or circulars relating to cancer or possible cures for cancer may be sent without committing an offence under the earlier part of the Clause. If there is one class with whom people who think they have something that would be useful to the public would want to communicate, one would think they were the Members of this honourable House or of the House of Lords; but apparently they cannot be communicated with in this way without committing an offence under the Clause.
    Sir J. Lamb: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Elliot: I feel that this is a reasonable Amendment which improves the Bill, and I would advise the House to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    11.46 p.m.
    Mr. Clement Davies: I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, at the end, to insert:
    "A prosecution for an offence under this Section shall not be instituted in England or Wales without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General."
    I have changed the wording of my Amendment as it appears upon the Order Paper, because in view of Clause 7 some of the words are now unnecessary. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the right to prosecute under Clause 4. This Clause very properly prohibits certain advertisements, and gives aright to prosecute in circumstances which are there set out, but it is felt that that right might be abused, and so it is proposed that a prosecution shall not be instituted except with the fiat of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. We think that will provide sufficient protection for the public.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.
    11.48 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): My right hon. Friend is prepared to accept this Amendment. Paragraps (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) have had to be drawn in extremely wide terms, because it will be necessary to catch any offer of an advertising kind and also to catch any article calculated to lead to the use of a purported remedy for the treatment of this disease. So far as I am aware there is no statutory definition of an advertisement, and it has been represented to my right hon. Friend that bona fide newspaper articles descriptive of treatment might conceivably in certain circumstances be made the subject of a prosecution, and that is not desired. It is almost impossible within the limits of an Act of Parliament to define an advertisement in such a way as to exclude the kind of statement that nobody wishes to see made the subject of proceedings. I think the words of the Amendment effect a compromise by putting the responsibility for a prosecution where it can rightly lie, on those who are responsible to this House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 38, at the beginning, insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing Sub-section."—[Mr. Clement Davies.]
    11.50 p.m.
    Mr. Leach: I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, at the end, to insert:
    "and the said expression shall not apply to reports or accounts of treatments for cancer issued or published, orally or otherwise, by registered or unregistered practitioners, to persons or in publications other than those enumerated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (4) of this Section."
    The chief purpose of the Amendment is to keep wide open the door of exploration in regard to cancer treatment and cure. I cannot help thinking that Clause 4, as it now stands, goes a great deal further than the Minister and his advisers calculated on. I presume it will not be disputed that it is gratuitous interference with the liberty of the subject. By gratuitous I mean in this case that it does not propose to put a stop to any existing evil. As far as I am aware, there are no swindling cures for cancer afflicting the columns of the daily Press at
    2082
    present. If the Minister has had complaints of such, perhaps he will let the House know about it. I believe the law provides against fraudulent remedies, and surely that ought to be sufficient. In my judgment the Clause puts a stop to exploration and study on the part of unregistered practitioners. If one such discovers a satisfactory cure and reports or advertises it, he becomes at once a lawbreaker. The Minister informed me on 25th February that Clause 4 does not prohibit an unregistered practitioner from reporting or advertising the successful treatment of cancer as long as the report or advertisement did not contain any offer to treat or prescribe or give advice on cancer. Surely that statement is very nearly meaningless. What is such an advertisement but an implied offer to treat? The relevant words of Sub-section 1 (b) are:
    "No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement. … in terms which are calculated to lead to the use of that article, or articles of that description."
    If an advertisement of a successful cure for cancer can be so worded that no sufferer will dream of asking for its application to his own case, I should like to see it. I imagine no such advertisement is possible. The Minister went on to add a footnote to his letter:
    "The prohibition against advertising or offering to treat or prescribe applies, of course, to registered as well as unregistered practitioners."
    So it does, and that will not worry the registered practitioner in the slightest degree. He does not advertise, anyhow, and what advertising is necessary on his behalf is very well done for him elsewhere. His freedom in that respect seems very well preserved in this Bill. It must be clear that the effect of a rigid application of Clause 4 would be to put a ring-fence round cancer treatment and to say, "Inside this ring only registered practitioners are allowed." It is all very well for the Minister to assure us that nothing in the Bill prevents an unregistered practitioner from treating cancer. As long as the results of such successful treatment are hidden from the eyes of the public, what chance has this unregistered practitioner at all? The public may have rejuvenation pastilles, slimming drugs, baldness lotions—I speak feelingly there—obesity cures—even that is not outside my range. These may be advertised by the mile, but

    2083
    we must not hear a word about cancer. The only thing to be seen in the daily Press in regard to cancer, if the Bill passes, will perhaps be the Registrar-General's qualified death figures. One could understand the Clause better if the record of the registered practitioners was a story of brilliant success, but unfortunately the exact opposite is the case. I recommend anyone seeking information on this matter to read "Cancer; the Failure of Modern Research," by M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. I give it this free advertisement.
    Surely the Minister must agree that on the whole subject of cancer we want the fullest possible light and publicity, and not the darkness prescribed by this Clause. If I had my wish, the Clause would be withdrawn altogether and consigned to the dustbin. If any hope is to come to cancer sufferers, the fullest freedom must be granted for the unorthodox as well as the orthodox. Cancer, as we have already freely admitted, is a deadly menace. In closing the doors to its treatment we may be dooming many to death who might be saved. I, therefore, implore the Minister to accept the Amendment and keep the door open.
    11.58 p.m.
    Mr. Hayday: I beg to second the Amendment. It proposes to make it quite clear that the Clause shall not apply to reports or accounts of treatment issued or published orally or otherwise. There is no guaranteed cure for cancer, and therefore you ought not to close the possibilities for expert investigation and research and, where such research takes place even by an unregistered expert, you ought not to prevent those methods being reported. At the moment I am thinking in terms of the medical herbalist. Even the registered practitioners make errors——
    Mr. Leslie Boyce: Is the hon. Member speaking for the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) when he says that?
    Mr. Hayday: I am speaking from my own experience in these matters as a believer in the nature treatment. I would not close the door to individuals who feel that, by inquiry through his faculty, easement and a possible discovery of a cure can be found in nature treatment. They should not be told that if they report to their annual conference the results of
    2084
    their inquiries they must not publish the report in their periodical or any other periodical. Under the Clause that would be taken as advertising. This Clause would also prevent a person who had had treatment saying to somebody else, "I have been treated by a medical herbalist, and I would advise you to see him." Such a person would be responsible for orally conveying a belief that something might be done for a person suffering from this dread curse. We should not shut the door to those who are prepared to devote their energies to finding a remedy.
    The broader and wider we can make the sphere of investigation, the more we shall be able to call to our aid the experience that has been accumulated, and the more likely we are to find something beneficial for the victims of this disease. I know of persons who have been diagnosed as suffering from it and who have been told by the qualified people, "We can cut you, but we cannot guarantee that we shall cure you." I also know of persons who have gone to medical herbalists for nature treatment, and while no cure has been certain, they have had ease and comfort and a prolongation of life. I feel that such people ought to be able to contribute from their experience towards the development of the research associated with this problem. At any rate, we should not say to them, "You must not speak of your work; you must not address your annual conference on your experience or publish an account of it in your periodical," while the medical practitioners are allowed to do so through the "Lancet" and other medical publications.
    There was in my mind another point which I would have liked to mention in this connection, and it is one of some value. When the Government are making this grant, for what purpose are they making it? They are making the grant in order that investigation and research shall take place. I am all for the abolition of the advertisement that scares and frightens people. I am all for the restriction of an opening to the quack that he may play on the emotions of people and get them to pay heavily, clutching at a kind of false hope of rescue. I believe everybody is against that kind of advertisément, but it is the interpretation which may be put upon that Clause about which I am concerned. If you are going

    2085
    to stop people talking of it and from their experience trying to make their contribution and are going to bring them within the scope of the Clause and open to prosecution, then I think it is entirely wrong, and I hope that the Government will not restrict the operation. Just as in other realms of science Pasteur was not what you call a qualified man, you have no right to close down the area of research, but should call to the aid of your labours all who may be able to make a contribution.
    12.8 a.m.
    Dr. Peters: I want to support this Amendment, and in doing so I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has said. There are very many people up and down this country who can cure, and have cured, cancer and who are not practitioners. It is well known that the Reverend J. Maillard, W. T. Parisland many other great healers are carrying out this work. I, myself, have had some unwanted publicity, but I have never given any publicity to those papers. For years I have been healing people of that disease. Now we are met by a Bill which, while the Minister has very kindly tried to meet my point of view, his correspondence leaves me entirely cold. This is a matter of very serious import and I would ask the House to give it their attention. Not only do spiritualists do this but there are faith healers and all sorts of people, some who claim no connection with Divine power or anything else, but who are definitely doing this work. An hon. Member may laugh but that only shows ignorance. When you have treated and seen the cancer in all their roots what is medical science going to say about that? What I say is that if all the letters that I and other people get are to be laid on one side, and we are not to be allowed even to advise people where to go, and we are not to be allowed even to telephone them and give them any advice where to go, when they have already been to medical science and have had operation after operation and have had their trouble then recurring, I say that the Minister is doing something very wrong to suffering humanity.
    I do not mind what people say with regard to this subject; there is an ever-growing feeling that we want more and more investigation of it. I have for some
    2086
    three years or more been President of the Psychic Investigation Society, of Cambridge, and we have investigated many cases, and I say that if the Minister feels that he cannot meet us now, possibly he can give further consideration to the matter and bring in some safeguarding Clause. I think that his acceptance of the previous Amendment, that brings in the fiat of the Attorney-General, goes a long way to meet us, because I cannot conceive that in well-known cases of people who have been devoting years of their life to this sort of thing, and often without any payment whatever, but merely forth love of humanity, any prosecution ought to take place. I support the Amendment.
    12.12 a.m.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: I rise to oppose the Amendment, and in doing so I must express my regret at having to oppose some of my colleagues on these Benches. The hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Dr. Peters), who has just sat down and who has told us of the cases that he has treated, is in fact a Doctor of Literature.
    Dr. Peters: No.
    Dr. Summerskill: I should have said a Doctor of Law, and he does not approach this question from the medical angle.
    Mrs. Tate: What a mercy!
    Dr. Summerskill: I suppose I need not apologise for being a Doctor of Medicine, and I can assure the House that I and all my colleagues are conscious of the debt that we owe to people like Pasteur and others who have not been members of the medical profession.
    Mrs. Tate: Your profession were not conscious of it until he died.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, we were. I feel that these interruptions are a little feline. As I was saying, or trying to say, my profession appreciate the debt that we owe to these men and realise the contribution that they have made to medical science. If this Amendment applied to some other disease than cancer, I might be inclined to support it, but it is almost frivolous for the Mover of the Amendment to compare cancer with obesity or baldness. Cancer is a malignant growth. It is said that we have little knowledge of its origin or

    2087
    its cure, but in condemning our profession you must remember that 150 years ago we had little knowledge of the origin and cure of smallpox, yet I believe that this year there have been no deaths in this country from smallpox and that there have been only five mild cases reported. I think we owe this achievement to a humble little medical practitioner called Dr. Jenner.
    Mrs. Tate: What about the deaths from vaccination?
    Dr. Summerskill: May I remind the House that this disease cannot in any way be compared with any other disease? We have certain evidence, which cannot be disputed, and it is on that that I argue my case for the rejection of this Amendment. That evidence is that after analysis of about 3,000 cases of cancer, it was discovered that if cancer is taken in the first stage there is an excellent chance of cure. I quoted the figures on the Second Reading. They are astonishing. Unfortunately, I did not bring them to-night, because I did not realise that the Bill would be before the House. But it was discovered that if cancer is taken in the first stage 60 per cent. of the patients are alive at the end of 10 years; if it is left till the second stage the percentage drops to something like 30, and if it is left till the third stage the percentage drops to something like 10. If this Amendment is carried, you will allow any Tom, Dick or Harry in the country to try his nostrums, almost certainly, in this vital first stage. It is no comfort to say that, the herbalist's cure having failed—and the herbalists, of course, have no qualifications at all—[Interruption.] Rubbish. I beg pardon; the hon. Member is misinformed. Anybody, with no qualifications at all, can start in a little shop as a herbalist. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would confine her remarks to alcohol, and leave cancer to me. I feel that this matter is of such seriousness that it does demand the attention of the House.
    This is a dangerous Amendment, and I want people to be fully informed so far as I can inform them. It is no comfort to say that after the herbalist, or whoever he may be, a boiler-maker or anybody else, has treated the patient, then the patient can be sent to the doctor or the
    2088
    surgeon. Then, almost certainly, it is too late. Perhaps the glands are involved, there is a secondary growth, and the patient is in the second or third stage. The innocent patient has submitted to this treatment in the first place believing that in that way he can avoid an operation. I am asking hon. Members to consider the patient. I bear no malice towards anybody who believes he can treat disease. I hope the House does not feel that I am bigoted in my attitude, or that I think the medical profession should have a monopoly of disease. I appeal to the House to reject the Amendment, because I believe that if put into effect it will be a source of danger to the community.
    12.19 a.m.
    Mrs. Tate: I rise to support the Amendment. While I bow to the superior knowledge of the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), in that she is a registered medical practitioner and I am a lay person, I believe many of her arguments are without substance. I think I am stating the truth when I say that cancer is one of the diseases about which the medical profession have still most to learn. The hon. Lady says that, if we allow these advertisements, we shall prevent people from being treated in the first stages of cancer, but I would suggest that it is generally after the medical man has failed and they have been operated upon perhaps once, twice or even three times, that they turn to these unqualified men. It is not in the early stages. I was astonished to hear the hon. Lady mention vaccination as an illustration of the achievements of the medical profession and tell us here in this House that there had not been one case of death from smallpox in this country during the last year. I wonder whether she has looked up the number of deaths that there have been from vaccination, and whether she is quite convinced that what the medical profession put forward as a cure for smallpox is indeed a cure.
    We have no right to regard and treat the disease of cancer, about which we all admit little is known, as being different from all other diseases; we have no right to say that the quack-medicine man, the herbalist and the spiritual healer may all advertise and make public such knowledge as they consider they possess in the treatment of any other diseases, but that this one disease, which up to date very few doctors can say they never diagnose

    2089
    wrongly, has to be treated quite differently from all other diseases. The hon. Lady must have forgotten the speech which she made on the Health Estimates in this House last year, when she told us that she had taken her degree as a doctor and was qualified to go out into the world and treat mothers in childbirth, although in fact she had never treated a woman in childbirth herself when she was qualifying.
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that if the hon. Lady will look up the Official Re port she will find that I said that it was possible for a student to go out after having treated 20 cases——
    Mrs. Tate: And not to have treated one person.
    Dr. Summerskill: And not to have been near the bed.
    Mrs. Tate: It is extraordinarily difficult to treat a mother in childbirth if you have not been near the bed. Personally, I am not in the least a fussy woman, but if I were relying on medical attention in child-birth I should like the doctor somewhere near the bed. The abysmal ignorance with which some doctors are allowed to treat mothers in childbirth is as nothing compared with their abysmal ignorance when they sometimes find themselves in the position of having to diagnose what may or may not be cancer. The mere faith of a human being in what may be a possible cure is of some value, and for that reason, and until our knowledge is far more extensive than it is to-day, we have no right to take this one disease and treat it differently from all other diseases.
    12.25 a.m.
    Mr. Lansbury: We are discussing a very serious and terrible disease, and I am sorry that it has to be discussed at this very late hour. We are at the moment considering the question of publicity on the part of people who may think that they have a cure. I have, personally, known Mr. Maillard practically all his life. He started life without any thought of becoming a person connected with faith-healing. There have been some most remarkable instances of downright cure. I am quite certain that the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) has quite good reasons for her faith that Mr. Maillard and those who believe in him are just stupid, silly,
    2090
    sentimental fools, but facts are facts and there have been cures which can be substantiated, and it is no use anyone saying that this is not so. I should not have intervened but for the statement of the hon. Member for West Fulham that people will go to quacks in the early stages of this disease. I have had a very bitter experience in connection with this disease, in fact several. In the early stages much money was spent on diagnosing by the ordinary practitioner and experts in medicine. I have much to be thankful for to medical men, surgeons and nurses, but it is a mistake, if the hon. Lady will allow me to say so, for the medical profession to be as dogmatic as she has been to-night on this subject.
    I could detain the House with, from my point of view fearful to know, incorrect diagnoses of children and young people in my own knowledge and connected with myself. I do not blame the medical profession. They are only human, they do not know everything and never can know everything, and about cancer they know precious little. There has been one case which I knew well from beginning to end and in that case it never was diagnosed—although very large sums of money were spent on expert advice—until the last three months. Directly it was decided what was wrong, every sort of proposition which offered any relief we wanted to try, because we were in despair with the medical profession. I am not standing here in judgment on the medical profession. I repeat that they cannot know everything and cancer has defeated them up to the present time. I would not have spoken to-night but for the notion which has been expressed that it is people in the early stages of the disease who rush to the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham thinks are quacks. That is not so. It is when they are in absolute despair that they go from one to the other. I know a case from my own personal knowledge where we went from one man in Harley Street to another, and each had a different remedy. We could have spent hundreds of pounds on the case, going from one man to another, with each having a different remedy for dealing with it.
    I do not want—and I hope the Minister will not imagine that I do—to open the door to all kinds of quackery, but I do

    2091
    wish the people who think they have a legitimate cure shall not be penalised for it and prevented in any way from bringing it forward. I protest altogether against the notion that there is no such thing as faith healing and scientific healing through faith. I believe in it and I would not be here to-night if I did not believe in it. I owe a great deal to doctors and nurses but I owe a great deal more to the mercy of God, in whom I hope I may claim that I put trust.
    12.32 a.m.
    The Solicitor-General: Especially after the moving remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) the House will not expect that, answering on behalf of the Government, I should enter into any dispute in the question-begging area of whether cancer should be treated by registered or unregistered practitioners or whether "quack" is the appropriate term to apply to somebody who does not happen to possess particular qualifications. I do not think it is along that line of approach that this Amendment can be judged at all. The real question underlying the whole discussion and the whole case made by those who put forward the Amendment was that put by the hon. Member for Bradford Central (Mr. Leach). He said, "I would like to see Clause 4 withdrawn altogether." That, and nothing else, is what the House is considering in this Amendment, because I hope it will accept it from me that on an analysis of the Amendment there certainly might not be a Clause at all if the Amendment were accepted. What does the Amendment do? It exempts from the provisions of the Clause reports or accounts of treatment for cancer, whether they are published orally or otherwise, by anyone—because within the category of unregistered practitioners you can include anybody—to anyone, because it is to persons and in any publication.
    Mr. Hayday: That is the present law.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, that is the law which he wishes to see sustained. Almost the whole voice of the House of Commons on Second Reading and during the Committee stage Debate desired that it should not be, and desired particularly that the public in this country should be protected from it. The hon. Gentleman based his case for doing what he seeks
    2092
    to do on what he said was opening wide the door to exploitation. I should prefer to put it in this way: If this Amendment is carried and indiscriminate advertisement of this kind, following the campaign which this Bill will inaugurate, is permitted, it will open the door to exploitation of the most hideous form of suffering. It is just exactly that that this Clause aims at preventing. I want to make things perfectly clear on this point, because misapprehension seems to have underlain some speeches. There is no discrimination in this Clause as between the doctor and the unregistered practitioner. Any defence is open to a doctor which is open to an unregistered practitioner. Provided that the publication of the matter is made only within the limits set down in Sub-section (4) it does not matter a rap whether the person who publishes the matter has a medical degree or not. There is no discrimination of that kind effected by this Clause.
    Let us then for a moment examine what the Clause does, because I am still convinced that there is a. good deal of misapprehension on the matter. The first thing is that to infringe the Clause the matter which is published must be an advertisement. Far be it from me to try to define what an advertisement is. It has never been defined in law. It is something like the boy and the dromedary. He could not define it but he knew one when he saw it. If there is any difficulty in deciding whether a matter comes within the limits of an advertisement I would remind the House that we have just passed an Amendment which requires the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General before a prosecution shall be instituted.
    Mr. Hayday: If I were to speak to him and say "I have been treating a person for cancer and I could look after you, too," would that be orally an advertisement? That is the sort of thing which is in my mind. Would my conversation constitute an advertisement?
    The Solicitor-General: I do not think so. At any rate, as a Law Officer of the Crown I would not permit a prosecution upon it. Before this Clause comes into operation at all the first essential is that the publication must be an advertisement. The only case decided on the point which I know of was where a newspaper was distributed gratis in the streets of London

    2093
    and it was held not to be an advertisement within the meaning of a particular Act, and it is quite obvious that the mere publication of a written statement with regard to something is not by itself an advertisement. Secondly, it must either offer to treat or it must be calculated to lead to the use of an article. Reading either of those restrictions of the term "advertisement" in conjunction with the generic word "advertisement" itself, I am perfectly satisfied that in law an academic statement, by which I mean a statement for the general information of the public or inquiry as to a particular method of treatment, does not come within the definition of an advertisement in law at all, quite apart from the discretion which is put upon the Law Officers of the Crown. I should say that it is inherent in the whole conception of the Bill that it should be a publication which was designed to effect a disposition of a treatment to the advantage of somebody.
    Mr. Hayday: The wording of the Clause is "and any announcement made orally." If two persons meet and one says "Mr. So-and-So has treated me, I should advise you to go there too," or Mr. So-and-So says "I treated somebody and I could treat you," would that be an announcement made orally?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) will recognise that I had the last Subsection in mind. There again he is under a misapprehension. The last Sub-section does not define what is an advertisement. All it says is, if a thing is an advertisement. The term "advertisement" is wide enough to include a notice, circular, label, wrapper and announcements made orally, and so on. In other words, it has got to be an advertisement, and advertisements may include the ordinary things which one recognises as being advertisements, such as a piece of newspaper containing a description of an article, with a recommendation for its sale or use or recommendation on payment, and, in addition to that, advertisement may now take place by means of some oral description of an article, and it will not be sufficient as a defence to say it was not an advertisement because it was merely words. It is not a definition; it is an amplification of the term so as to make it perfectly clear that you can include in
    2094
    the term "advertisement" something not put down in writing.
    What I submit is this: If the House accepts the principle that it is desirable in the present state of, shall I say, scientific knowledge, to limit the possibilities of exploitation for private gain of treatment of this dreadful disease, it will pass this Clause in its main principle. If it disagrees with that as a conception and it desires to leave the matter at large both for exploration and for exploitation, it will pass the Amendment on the Paper, but it should be in no doubt that the Amendment renders the Clause completely and absolutely valueless as a protection against exploitation and suffering by means of advertisement. That it interferes with the unregistered or unorthodox exploration of the remedies will not stand analysis for a moment, because there is no discrimination made between the one and the other. For these reasons, while my right hon. Friend appreciates very much the caution with which the House has approached this topic, and desires to express to all sides that there should be no undue limitation of reasonable scientific research, he cannot accept this Amendment, which would throw the door open wide to abuses of the kind that really are too terrible to contemplate, without an attempt by Parliament to deal with them.
    I think it was said by one of the speakers that this was an absolutely exceptional and unique power. That is not so. There is a parallel in the Venereal Diseases Act of 1917, the provisions of which against advertisements are more stringent than this. In that case, also, there is no definition of advertisements—simply the bald phrase and complete and absolute prohibition, and it can at any rate be said that in that case the remedies for the treatment of venereal disease are comparatively well known and that many of them are well tried.
    Mrs. Tate: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but is not that a disease which is clearly open to diagnosis, whereas cancer is, as yet, a disease which is not everywhere early diagnosed. There is a very great difference.
    The Solicitor-General: I should have thought that was one reason why you should prohibit advertisements offering

    2095
    treatment for something which after all is not yet well diagnosed. Whereas there are certain quite well known and specific remedies for various types of venereal disease, Parliament took a most strict line under the Venereal Diseases Act in saying that notwithstanding that these remedies are, so to speak, of household knowledge and well-known specific remedies, they shall not be advertised at all. With that example, which is a much stronger one than this, it is not the case that the House has no precedent for legislation of this kind. For these reasons I hope the House will resist the Amendment and allow the Clause to stand.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Supposing there was a herbalist society and they published in a paper not the ordinary kind of advertisement but certain things would aid in the cure of cancer, would that be counted as an advertisement.
    The Solicitor-General: I think that if the question is whether a statement which constituted an offer to treat, or represented an article as being calculated to effect a cure, was inserted in such a form as to aim at recommending the use of that treatment, then that would constitute an advertisement, but it would be a defence if the publication was made within the limits and to the persons specified in the Clause.
    12.46 a.m.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: It is quite evident to the Minister, as to us here, that the opinion of the House on this matter is very much divided in all the parties here represented. I think it would be a very great pity if at this very late hour a matter of such importance should be decided finally by the application of a strict party whip, in view of the expressions of opinion which have been put forward so sincerely from people of very different political views. I myself would be very loth to think that the House would be persuaded to a final decision and to the view of the Minister of Health by the legal address we have just heard. I speak with rather bitter experience, not unconnected with the trade in patent medicines. Legal opinions have been given from time to time, not only by the Law Officers of the Crown but by Departmental officials, but since then, having been tested in the courts, they have been found to be of
    2096
    no value. I have a case on at this moment, with regard to a certain pan of the business of pharmacy, in which we are pressing the Home Office for some relief from a decision of the courts which one would never have believed could possibly have happened from the assurances which had been given to us at previous stages of the passage of that Bill. The kind of opinion just given by the Law Officer of the Crown is of no value in asking the House to make up its mind. That is not said in any disrespect to the Solicitor-General, because he was very careful to lay down how difficult it was to define what an advertisement really happened to be. I hope the House will bear that in mind when it comes to make a decision.
    The next thing I want to say is that whoever speaks to-night from any quarter of the House will have to speak, as it seems to me, of his personal view. I certainly do not claim to speak as representing the Labour view on this Amendment, which happens to be moved by a Labour Member. There will be lots of people in my party who probably entirely disagree with me. I think it would be a great pity if we should have to vote on this particular issue to-night on a party basis because the Government put on the Whips. I have had some grave doubts in making up my mind about this and I put these points to the House and leave it to judge. I have been persuaded in the last resort to-night by a colleague of the House who has been treated for cancer by an unregistered medical practitioner. If he could have stayed to-night to address the House he would have been speaking in the course of his recovery from the disease. He is following the advice of the unregistered practitioner in going home to bed at a reasonable hour.
    What are the facts? Two years ago he went away to be treated for internal trouble. He was operated on to the extent of being cut open and examined and at the end of that process they assured him they could not go further with the operation and that he had two months to live. He was sewn up and returned home. It is simply the case that by an oral advertisement to him from another person who had received advantage from a cure not put up by a medical practitioner, he reverted to this cure. The consequence is that he is not

    2097
    only improving but he has already lived two years instead of the two months which were given him by the medical practitioner, and he is back in the House as a living witness doing his work as the result of the advice of an unregistered medical practitioner.
    The wording of the Clause leaves in the minds of hon. Members like myself complete doubt, after listening to the Solicitor-General, as to whether, when my hon. Friend, who authorises me to speak to-night, perhaps in three months time when feeling a little stronger, begins to talk of his cure by oral advertisement to people who are suffering, will be guilty of a crime. Will the Solicitor-General answer that?
    Mr. Elliot: Certainly. He will be no more and no less liable than anyone recounting a cure by a registered practitioner.
    Mr. Alexander: That is the view of the Minister of Health, because he is anxious for the Clause to pass.
    Mr. Elliot: I do not think anyone could suggest there is not a certain divergence of opinion. Some hon. Members think the Clause differentiates between a registered and unregistered practitioner. There is nothing anywhere which prevents anyone saying: "Doctor Jones cured me of my cancer" any more than saying "Mr. Jones cured me of my cancer" If there is doubt whether that statement would be an advertisement my answer is that that is why we put in the Law Officer as the person who must be consulted.
    Mr. Alexander: I appreciate the spirit of the Minister of Health and I accept some part of his argument, but what I do object to as a responsible Member of Parliament is leaving a point such as that to some future Law Officer of the Crown.
    Mr. Elliot: That is the Bill, but nobody has suggested that any part of the Clause says anything contravening what I have said as to giving the assurance of the Law Officer as a further safeguard. The Bill and the Clause together cannot be read in any other way than the way I have mentioned to the House.
    Mr. Alexander: I do not accept that, but in the particular treatment of the unregistered practitioner to which I have referred there is an actual bottle remedy. It may well be that from the experience
    2098
    of my hon. Friend, plus the experience of many other people, it would be in the public interest eventually if the experience of those people and the particulars of the bottle remedy be advertised. Why not?
    Mr. Elliot: Published, certainly, but I do not think anyone would say that it was desirable that these very important matters should be the subject of front page advertisements. If that is not so, then there is a clash of opinion. I think all would agree that it should be published, and widely published; indeed, the results of many forms of treatment have been published, but I do not think they should be commercialised.
    Captain Cazalet: Would such a man be allowed to write an article, have it published in a journal and circulated to a number of people?
    Mr. Elliot: Certainly, without the slightest doubt.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is not a Committee stage.
    Mr. Alexander: I would like to say that I feel the Minister of Health has not answered my point. I feel that the answer the Minister has given has not removed the doubt in my mind and I am quite certain that in his last answer he has not interpreted what the Clause means. There will be great dubiety about it. I myself would not leave that point in the hands of any Law Officer of the future to decide whether or not an important cure of that kind was to be the subject of a prosecution. I have made up my mind, after listening to the Minister of Health's reply, and although I cannot speak for anyone but myself I shall support the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: After hearing the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) I most sincerely hope it is not proposed to deal with this as any party question whatever and that we may vote as we like. There may be people in this country who believe in any form of faith healing which may be of advantage to them and who think they may get the consolation of cure by those means. I hope we shall be allowed to vote as we like.
    12.56 a.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I should not have troubled to intervene if the learned

    2099
    Solicitor-General had spared me a moment in his remarks. Although he did not feel able to do that I do think my point is of importance and justifies me in raising it now. I understand from the intervention made by the Minister of Health that all he wishes to attack in this Bill is the use of advertisements which might be fraudulent, and, even if not, would be commercial exploitation of a very dreadful scourge. If that is all he wanted to do he has provided altogether too widely. It may be, too, that the Amendment has been too widely drawn, but I am bound to say that when I listened to the Solicitor-General's interpretation of what the Clause did I was assailed by considerable doubts. I have in my mind, as I have no doubts many hon. Members have in theirs, another occasion when a Law Officer of the Crown was interpreting another Act—the Official Secrets Act. The Attorney-General of the day said it could not be used for certain purposes and would be used only for other narrowly defined purposes. He lived to become the Lord Chief Justice of this country hearing an appeal on that very point, and he found himself in the position of having to deny as Lord Chief Justice what he had advised on that very point when he was the chief Law Officer of the Crown.
    It is all very well for Law Officers of the Crown to say what the courts are going to decide on points in the law; but it is quite another thing to say that the courts will reach a decision of a certain nature. Let us look at Sub-section (7) of this Clause. It says that under this Section the expression "advertisement" includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds. Now the Solicitor-General says, quite properly, it is not a definition, and the only reason why it is not a definition is because it says it "includes," not that it must be an advertisement first of all but first of all that these things are advertisements.
    The Solicitor-General: It would be nonsense to say that a wrapper is an advertisement. All the Clause says is that it must be an advertisement. It does not cease to be an advertisement because you see it on a wrapper or hear it on a gramophone.
    Mr. Silverman: I am not concerned to say that what the hon. and learned Gen-
    2100
    tleman has said may not be the true interpretation; but I would like him to say whether he can conceive any court which had a document in front of it containing advice for the treatment of cancer which would not say it contained a reference to any article, or articles of any description, manufactured, produced, imported, sold or offered for sale in the treatment of cancer. I think it would be quite wrong to say that the courts would not hold that these were advertisements. This Clause is very widely drawn and is bound to give rise to the fears that have been expressed. I hope the Minister of Health will consider the points which have been raised.
    1.4 a.m.
    Mr. Holdsworth: I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Health to reconsider this proposal. Many of us have listened with open minds to the Debate on this particular Amendment. I have a tremendous respect for the medical profession, but listening to the Debate tonight I am convinced that should this Clause pass it might lead to a restriction of knowledge which would be useful for the cure of this disease. I asked the Solicitor-General earlier whether a journal could publish a statement regarding a cure for this disease and I gathered from him that it could. I believe that the. House thinks that this Clause is too restricted and I do want to appeal to the Minister to give further consideration to the Clause and to see whether he can meet the legitimate cases that have been brought forward. It may be that the words of the Amendment are too wide and perhaps they too may be reconsidered.
    1.6 a.m.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I also speak with considerable hesitancy on this problem. This is a Bill which provides money for local authorities to deal with this problem. One thing seems certain: we shall be no more agreed on this issue later on than we are this day. I should say, having read this Clause and the other Clauses, that I am in favour of the point of view of the Government. The first words of Clause 4 make it clear that no person shall take part in the publication of any advertisement. That is the kernel of the problem. I am not going to say a single word about faith healing; I know people who have satisfied themselves that they have been cured by means other than those employed by medical

    2101
    practitioners. Let me say on the other hand that we know of tragic cases where faith healing has not meant a cure but has aggravated the condition which could have been saved by medical practitioners. Let me say that it is the experience of anyone who sits in the office of an approved society and has to deal with every sort of ailment that the people of this country are probably the most gullible people on God's earth. They are being exploited right and left by quacks and advertisements and I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Holdsworth) when I say there might be a middle course between two conflicting ideas. My experience as the secretary of an approved society has shown that we should take some steps to prevent exploitation of the sick by advertisers who are making tons of money out of those who suffer.
    1.10 a.m.
    Mr. Eastwood: I rarely speak in this House, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I add my voice to suggest that this matter may be further and more deeply considered. I accept everything which has been said by the learned Solicitor-General and by the Minister of Health as far as the legal side of this Bill is concerned. It is perfectly true that this Clause applies equally in its wording to registered medical practitioners and to unregistered practitioners, but it is a very different thing when one turns to the practical application of the Clause. If hon. Members will look at the Clause they will see that it starts by saying that no person shall take part in the publication of any advertisement, and then in Sub-section (4) it sets out what shall be an adequate defence in case anybody is charged. It shall be an adequate defence if the advertisement was published only so far as reasonably necessary to bring it to the notice of the following class of persons: members of the governing body of a hospital, registered medical practitioners, registered nurses, registered pharmacists and authorised sellers of poisons, persons undergoing training with a view to becoming registered medical practitioners, registered nurses or registered pharmacists That is a defence which is available for both registered and unregistered men, but it means that so far as the unregistered man is concerned if, perfectly genuinely, he thinks that he has made an important
    2102
    discovery and wants to advertise—and I use the word in its widest sense—in order to have a defence he must go to that very class of persons who, however able they are, are by virtue of their qualifications inclined to be prejudiced against an unregistered man who may have got some extraordinarily good advance in the science of the discovery of a cure for cancer.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he has overlooked No. 7 of the categories, which is the widest possible one—persons carrying on a business which includes the sale or supply of surgical appliances. The only qualification is that it must be a person whose business includes the sale or supply of surgical appliances, and that is a very wide phrase.
    Mr. Eastwood: With the greatest respect to the Solicitor-General, surely to draw my attention to that is unworthy of him. What it means is this: If one confines this Clause which I have been dealing with to its practical side it means that the unregistered practitioner may not like perhaps to go to a registered medical practitioner with his discovery and perhaps may not like to go to the governing body of a hospital or to a nurse, but he can go to a person who carries on the business of supplying surgical appliances. That is very cold comfort to the unregistered practitioner. There is a second point, and again I accept what the Minister of Health and the Solicitor-General have said. There is considerable security given to the unregistered practitioner by the Amendment which has just been accepted, that no prosecution shall be started without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. But surely the practical side of that must be this: No unregistered practitioner, be he herbalist, faith-healer or spiritualist, wants to put himself in a position where he may risk a prosecution. It is not for him to say, "I think I can do that because I do not think that the Attorney-General of the day will take a strong view about it." If he is an honest investigator, anxious to find a cure for cancer, he wants no check put upon him in the nature of the check which would be put upon him here if he thinks he would be prosecuted.
    The fraudulent quack can probably be dealt with now under the criminal law.

    2103
    If he is trying to sell something that is not genuine he may be prosecuted for obtaining money by false pretences. If, as a result of his ill-advised quackery, someone dies, then there may be a trial for manslaughter. That is under the existing law. You have venereal disease diagnosed with certainty and cured with certainty. By all means stop the sale of any harmful drug that some quack may try to foist on the public, because you know how you can cure it. But here you have something in regard to which the medical profession has failed. The hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) said that in its first stage a large number of cases of cancer were curable by operation. But operation is in itself a profession of failure. Here is a disease which is the secret fear of a large number of people and for which many earnest people are seeking a cure. If that cure is found, then by all means confine the people to that cure. If the Minister of Health can tell the House that there has been a large number of complaints from people who have been to unregistered practitioners and have thereby suffered—but I am convinced that he cannot—then there would become justification for this Clause. I do not like the Clause and I do not like the Amendment, but I shall support the Amendment because I think it is better than the Clause without the Amendment.
    1.19 a.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that by postponing we shall not come to a clearer view of the issue. I think it is worth noting that it is not our doing that this matter comes up at this stage of the Bill, because when this Clause was under discussion in Committee there was only one voice raised, and that was the voice of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), who gave it his blessing. I am sure that the House is in a mood now to decide. I think it has been brought up in argument that there is a general desire that, if it is possible, the exploitation of advertisements of cures for this terrible scourge is repugnant to the feeling of the majority of hon. Members. Not all, because there are some who say, "Let us have complete freedom and liberty in this matter. Although a certain amount of damage is done, yet if one grain of corn is found in the chaff it will
    2104
    outweigh the damage that is being done." That is not the view of the majority of the House which considers that the commercialisation of remedies or alleged remedies for a thing so grave as this is repugnant to the sense of most of us. Part of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Eastwood) was that we should adjourn or reconsider or take into account these words.
    That argument was also put by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). I should certainly be willing to do so if I thought that by further consideration some further form of words could be found to resolve this difficulty. But it seems to me to be a difficulty which cannot be resolved merely by a formula of words. Let us face it. This Clause, if it is accepted by the House, will place certain restrictions on the advertising of cures for cancer, either by registered or unregistered practitioners, which do not exist now. If the House thinks it desirable that some step towards that should be taken, then it will vote for the Clause. If it thinks it is undesirable that such a step should be taken because of the risks—the admitted risks—to freedom and private enterprise which this Clause certainly involves, then the House will vote for the Amendment, and that will mean admittedly the end of the Clause.
    I beg the House to think twice whether that is the decision it should come to to-night. We have done our best to meet the dangers which hon. Members in many parts of the House see here, by bringing in the assent of the Attorney-General as a step without which no prosecution can go forward. I think it is admitted by all that that has gone a long way to meet the dangers which hon. Members see. I do not believe that we can advance along this road without at any rate making a certain amount of interference with the complete and unrestricted power of any private individual to advertise anything he wishes to an unlimited extent. No form of words will preserve the bona fide individual who does that against the mala fide individual who is merely seeking to make money, save by the judgment of some responsible person, and that responsible person, I suggest, is one of the Law Officers of the Crown, acting in a judicial capacity.
    If we were to say to-night that we will take no step along this road, I say that

    2105
    would be wrong. Committee after Committee, time after time, has suggested that some day, some how, in some way, we shall need to take some steps towards limiting and restricting the unrestricted exploitation of suffering by advertisements which admittedly does take place now. You will always find arguments put forward for not taking this step, but I beg the House to take this step. I am asked whether I will take off the Whips? I cannot do that. I have to give guidance
    to the House as the responsible Minister. It is my responsibility, and in asking the House to come to a decision, I say it is my belief that this is a step which the House should take. It is right to take the course submitted in the Clause, which I beg the House to accept.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 122.

    Division No. 58.]

    AYES.

    [1.26 a.m.

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

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

    Silverman, S. S.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Barr, J.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

    Burke, W. A.

    John, W.

    Sorenson, R. W.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

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

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Kirkwood, D.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Daggar, G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

    Dalton, H.

    Leonard, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Turton, R. H.

    Ede, J. C.

    Marshall, F.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Mathers, G.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Messer, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Ridley, G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Mr. Leach and Mr. Hayday.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Harbord, A.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

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

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

    Higgs, W. F.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Belt, Sir A. L.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Scott, Lord William

    Bernays, R. H.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Selley, H. R.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Holderness)

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

    Silkin, L.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Hunter, T.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Bull, B. B.

    Hutchinson, G. G.

    Southby, Commander SI. A. R. J.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Jagger, J.

    Storey, S.

    Channon, H.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

    Kerr, Colonel C. l. (Montrose)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

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

    Logan, D. G.

    Tltchfield, Marquess of

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

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Cross, R. H.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    McKie, J. H.

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

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

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

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

    Duggan, H. J.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Medlicott, F.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

    White, H. Graham

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Emery, J. F.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wise, A. R.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Peake, O.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Framantle, Sir F. E.

    Poole, C. C.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Furness, S. N.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Wragg, H.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Price, M. P.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J, A. C.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    York, C.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Radford, E. A.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grimston, R. V.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Major Sir James Edmondson and

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

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Mr. Munro.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Application to Scotland.)
    1.35 a.m.
    Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, after "England," to insert "and Wales."
    I hope the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) now he has been rescued from his predicament will appreciate, in view of his previous remarks, the benefit we are gratuitously giving him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 9, line 37, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:
    "(c) a county or a town council may, for the purpose of any arrangements made by it and approved by the Department of Health for Scotland under Section one of this Act, exercise the like powers as the council is entitled to exercise for the purpose of provision of hospitals for persons suffering from infectious disease."
    This Amendment fulfils an undertaking I gave on the Committee stage.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Short title, citation and extent.)
    Amendment made: In page 10, line 14, after "England," insert "and Wales." —[Mr. Elliot.]
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes before Two o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  HERRING EXPORTS.
  HERRING EXPORTS.
  TRADE DISCUSSIONS (GERMANY AND RUSSIA).
  TRADE DISCUSSIONS (GERMANY AND RUSSIA).
  EXPORT GUARANTEES (CHINA).
  EXPORT GUARANTEES (CHINA).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND NEW ZEALAND.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND NEW ZEALAND.
  SILK HOSE IMPORTS.
  SILK HOSE IMPORTS.
  MERCURY SUPPLIES.
  MERCURY SUPPLIES.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (FOOD CARRYING CAPACITY).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (FOOD CARRYING CAPACITY).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES).
BRITISH ARMY.
  ARMAMENTS (MANUFACTURERS, COMPENSATION).
  ARMAMENTS (MANUFACTURERS, COMPENSATION).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYÉS).
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYÉS).
  RECRUITMENT STATISTICS.
  RECRUITMENT STATISTICS.
  REGULAR ARMY.
  REGULAR ARMY.
  FOREIGN SERVICE.
  FOREIGN SERVICE.
TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES' STAFFS.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES' STAFFS.
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE (UNIFORMS).
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE (UNIFORMS).
  FIELD ARMY ESTABLISHMENT.
  FIELD ARMY ESTABLISHMENT.
  INFANTRY ESTABLISHMENT.
  INFANTRY ESTABLISHMENT.
SCOTLAND.
  THEFT OF EXPLOSIVES (FALKIRK).
  THEFT OF EXPLOSIVES (FALKIRK).
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JUVENILE CONTRIBUTORS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JUVENILE CONTRIBUTORS).
  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS.
  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS.
  DRUNKENNESS CONVICTIONS, GLASGOW.
  DRUNKENNESS CONVICTIONS, GLASGOW.
  AGRICULTURAL POLICY.
  AGRICULTURAL POLICY.
  HIGHLAND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.
  HIGHLAND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.
  HILLINGTON TRADING ESTATE.
  HILLINGTON TRADING ESTATE.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  LIFEBOAT SERVICE (ST. IVES HARBOUR).
  LIFEBOAT SERVICE (ST. IVES HARBOUR).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (WIDOWS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (WIDOWS).
  WATER SUPPLIES, NORTH DEVON.
  WATER SUPPLIES, NORTH DEVON.
  INSURED PERSONS.
  INSURED PERSONS.
  NEW INDUSTRIES.
  NEW INDUSTRIES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BREAKING UP OF STREETS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House relative to the Breaking up of Streets by Statutory Undertakers do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they concur in the Resolution of their Lordships, That it is desirable that the London Government Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
DEFENCE LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.

ROYAL WANSTEAD SCHOOL BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg
2
to move that in respect of the Royal Wanstead School Bill Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with. The Standing Order requires that this Bill, being a local Bill, should be read a second time not earlier than the fourth nor later than the seventh day after its First Reading. It was read a first time on February 7, and has been waiting for the Attorney-General's Report. That is why I now ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Order.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

DEER AND GROUND GAME (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, the purpose of the Bill to which I am about to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is to protect the farming interest against the depredations of deer and of ground game, and particularly, of course, of rabbits. Your Lordships are very familiar with the extent of the damage to the agricultural interest which is attributed and is attributable to

3
the depredations of rabbits, and you are also familiar with the proposals which have been made in the case of England and Wales for dealing with the trouble, for a Bill has recently passed through your Lordships' House dealing with that matter. It will be for your convenience, therefore, I think, if I devote the greater part of my remarks to the first Part of the Bill, which deals with the depredations of deer.
The deer forests of Scotland may be said to be of interest in the economy of the country from two quite distinct points of view. In the first place they bring in to the local authorities very considerable revenue in the form of rates. For example, in the case of the five counties of Argyll, Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Inverness the total rateable value amounts to £660,000 odd, and of that amount approximately £161,000 is attributable to shootings and fishing properties. That is to say, something like 24 per cent, of the total rateable value of those five counties is attributable to the shooting and fishing properties. Then again, of course, the sport of deer stalking provides a fair amount of employment, and in one way and another brings a good deal of money into the Highlands of Scotland.
It is sometimes argued, I know, that the deer forests of Scotland have to some extent displaced agricultural activities, and it is true that during the fifty years, let us say, before the War, the deer forests did very considerably increase in extent, with the result that by the year 1912 it was estimated that they covered in all some three and a half million acres. But it would, of course, be an entire mistake to estimate that this was the result of deliberate policy on the part of the landowners. It was nothing of the sort. It was due in the main to economic reasons—to the fall, for example, in the price of wool and in the price of mutton; and it was also due to some extent, I think, to a change in taste on the part of the consumers of mutton. There was a time when the old mutton of the mountains was greatly appreciated, and it may be that some of your Lordships recall two lines written by a Scottish playwright of the eighteenth or nineteenth century—I do not at the moment remember which—in a play entitled "Douglas," which ran as follows:
"Proud and erect the Caledonian stood:
Old was his mutton and his claret good."
4
Well, the taste for old mutton since those days has changed and everybody now demands a tenderer form of joint.
It would therefore be, I think, absurd to contemplate any large change in the character of the deer forests of Scotland from deer forest land to agricultural land. The economics of Scottish sheep farming would have to change very materially before that would be in any way possible. And it is not that, of course, for which the farming interests in Scotland are asking. What both the agriculturists and the landowners agree about is that in recent years the deer have strayed widely from the recognised deer forests and are becoming a perfect nuisance to the agriculturist, at any rate in some parts of the country, and especially on the fringe of the Central Highlands. This was largely a result of the difficulties in controlling deer during the War. Some protection during the War was given to the farmer and the crofter who, under an Order under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, were entitled to destroy, by any means which were available to them, deer that were found trespassing upon their crops and causing injury to them. This concession, however, was not very effective. The deer, as many of your Lordships know, is an elusive animal, and during the post-War period it is undoubtedly the fact that deer were permitted to stray on to lands far beyond the confines of the deer forests themselves.
I can recall from personal experience the great difficulty of keeping down deer, at any rate during the War years. It was represented to me on one occasion that it was very desirable that the deer should be killed, both from the point of view of providing food and from the point of view of preventing damage to agriculture by a large increase in their numbers. On one occasion, in consequence of this, I obtained six days' leave and proceeded to Scotland, and enjoyed I think as good a six days' deer stalking as I have ever had in my life. In the course of six consecutive days, as a result of fair stalking all the time—for it was impossible of course to find men to provide for driving or anything of that kind—I killed twenty-five stags. And since, in those times, communications were difficult with the remoter parts of the Highlands, I got back from my leave twenty-four hours late, and was severely reprimanded by the authorities for doing so.

5
Very well, that is the present position, and it is to deal with this state of affairs that this Bill has been drafted. Let me deal, very briefly, first of all then with the history of the Bill. My right honourable friend has naturally been most anxious, when embarking upon legislation of this kind, to secure as great a measure of agreement between all the interests concerned as is possible. Since the War various Committees have been constituted to consider the question. Consultations between the owners and the tenants have taken place, and the result has been, I think, to secure as nearly as is possible an agreed measure. We still hope that even if these powers are granted by Parliament and can be made use of, much will be done as the result of voluntary effort to improve the present position, and I should have great hope myself that the mere fact that provisions of this kind were on the Statute Book would stimulate owners, where they have been a little backward perhaps in taking such steps as were open to them to reduce the number of their deer, to do so.
Now let me refer briefly to the actual provisions contained in this Bill. Clause 1 gives the right to the occupier to kill and take deer on his enclosed land, which will, I think, be regarded by everybody as a reasonable proposal in present circumstances. The other clauses of Part I permit the killing of deer on unenclosed land, and I would like to explain to your Lordships the machinery which we propose to set up to secure this object. Let us suppose, for example, that complaints are made to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland of damage through depredations by deer to sheep farms on the fringe of the forest area, and that the Department are satisfied that some action is required. In that event a local deer regulation committee will be set up for a suitable area, consisting of representatives of the landowners, farmers and county council in the area, the purpose of the Committee being to investigate the complaints and to negotiate with the owners with a view to the reduction of the number of deer in that area. If an owner does what is necessary after negotiations have taken place all, of course, will be well. If not it will be open to the Department of Agriculture to take certain action.
They may give, for example, particular occupiers a right to shoot female deer on
6
unenclosed lands on their farms; or they may authorise the local committee to undertake an expedition to kill deer; or they may direct an owner to erect and maintain a deer-proof fence. The Bill does, in fact, give the Department power to apply any one or more of these three remedies, but I should like to say at once that it is not contemplated that the provisions in connection with the erection of deer-proof fences will be resorted to except in very exceptional circumstances. There might, for example, very well be a case in which an owner had a deer forest which had been protected by a deer-proof fence which had been allowed to fall into disrepair, and I can well imagine circumstances in which it would be by no means unreasonable to ask the owner at least to put his fence into a state of repair.
Your Lordships will notice that in Clause 2 of the Bill provision is made for the appointment of a Central Advisory Committee which will consist of persons who are very familiar with all matters appertaining to deer and deer forests. The Committee have to be consulted by the Department before a local committee is constituted, and again on the recommendations of a local committee when such recommendations have been made. At this stage, the Advisory Committee may make such further inquiry as they think fit, and are required to offer to interested parties an opportunity of being heard. Only on the receipt of the Advisory Committee's report will the Department be in a position to take action with regard to the recommendations which have been made to us. The Advisory Committee are also charged with the function of advising the Department as to the number of persons who may be authorised by an occupier to kill deer on unenclosed lands and as to the withdrawal of any authorisation granted to the occupier or any modification of the rights conferred on him. In Clause 8 the Advisory Committee are given the function of advising the Department whether to authorise an occupier, in an area where no local regulation committee has been established, to kill female deer on his unenclosed land. There may be cases where the trouble affects only one or two farms, and where it would be wholly inappropriate to establish a local deer regulation committee. In such cases, as I have said, the Central Advisory Committee can recommend the

7
Department to authorise the occupiers to kill deer on their unenclosed land.
Clause 6 relates to the apportionment of expenses in cases where a local committee enter lands to kill deer. It will be noted on reference to Clause read in conjunction with Clause 7, that where the committee have been of opinion that an owner has been diligent in endeavouring to control the deer upon his land, and has failed through no fault of his own, no charge will lie for a share of the expenses of the committee's operations; but where an owner has unreasonably failed to take steps to reduce the number of deer on his land, he will be liable for a share of the cost. There is a provision for an appeal by the owner to the Department with respect to the committee's assessment of the charges for which he is liable and for a reduction of the charges if there is good reason for it. It will also be observed that the value of the services given by an owner during these operations will be credited to him. The owner will also be liable to contribute to the cost of operations carried out under Clause 5, the object of which, as is obvious, is the prevention of any increase in the area at present devoted to the maintenance of deer. This provision is clearly in the national interest as well as in the interest of individual farmers, since any extension nowadays of the recognised deer forest areas must take place at the expense of the agricultural industry.
Of the incidental and minor provisions in this Part of the Bill, there are only two which I need specially mention. One is Clause 4 (9), which requires that where a local committee has been authorised to enter on lands for the killing of deer it is required to give one week's notice to the owner and tenant and to give these persons an opportunity of assisting in the work. Moreover, no such entry is permissible during the period from April 10 to October 16, which covers, roughly speaking, the breeding and shooting seasons. Your Lordships will also observe from Clause 11 of the Bill that the residual expenses of the operations carried out under the Act—that is to say, the expenses which are not recoverable from the owners—shall be shared equally by the Treasury and the county council concerned. We hope that that will commend itself as a fair arrangement.
8
On Part II of the Bill, dealing with rabbits, it is perhaps unnecessary, as I have already said, for me to say very much. I would inform your Lordships that amendments which have been made by this House to the text of the English Bill have been incorporated in this Bill, and it is desired that the two measures shall follow generally the same lines. There is, however, one important difference in the Bill now before your Lordships' House, for in Scotland it is proposed to vest the administration of the law in the central Department—that is, the Department of Agriculture—instead of in the county councils, as in the case of the English Bill. May I assure your Lordships that there is no sinister significance in this departure from the English Bill? As many of your Lordships will be aware, a great many agricultural services which are in charge of the local authorities in England are administered centrally in Scotland, and it has been made clear to the Government, in the course of the discussions which have taken place with the various parties interested, that it is the desire of all concerned—farmers, landowners and the county councils—that the same practice should be followed in this case.
Under Part III of the Bill it is proposed to effect some amendment of the Ground Game Acts extending from 1880 to 1906. These Acts were, of course, passed a long time ago in circumstances which differed very materially from the circumstances of the present day. Fifty years ago the rabbit was still regarded as an animal of some value and profit, and although the Acts admitted a farmer's right to prevent the rabbits becoming an extensive pest, a number of restrictions accompanied the exercise of his right. These restrictions were no doubt imposed in the interest of game protection generally, and also perhaps in some places to prevent the extension of the rabbit, which was still regarded with a more or less kindly eye. Thus, in the case of moorland and unenclosed land—such, for example, as the great bulk of the area of a sheep farm—the farmer is allowed to kill rabbits and hares only during the period from September 1 to March 31, and he may use firearms for the purpose only from December 11 to March 31. He may not tamper with the rabbits during their breeding season, from April onwards. So it comes about

9
that, however energetic he is in killing off the vermin on his arable land, he may still be sure that the stocks will be replenished from outside by the autumn. At the same time his unenclosed pastures are, of course, being denuded by rapidly-increasing hordes of rabbits of the food required for his sheep and cattle.
The object of the first part of Clause 15 is to enable the farmer to kill rabbits on unenclosed land all the year round, with the exception that he may use firearms only during the period from November 1 to March 31. The extension by six weeks of the period during which firearms may be used is a proposal which your Lordships may very well wish to discuss. It is inserted on the view that ground shooting is practically over by the end of October, if not before, and that some advantage may therefore be gained in the campaign against the rabbit pest by allowing the use of firearms after that date. There is no doubt, however, as many of your Lordships will agree from personal experience, that trapping and gassing are the most effective means of destruction, and that the important thing is to give the maximum of facilities in that respect to the occupiers.
The only other amendment of the Ground Game Acts to which I think I need refer is as follows. In present circumstances, apart from the occupier himself, members of his own household and farm employees, he may only employ one person to trap. Effective trapping, however, requires two or more people, and when the farmer and his hands are busy with farming operations the restriction creates a real difficulty. With the safeguards provided—that is to say, as to the number of additional persons who may be so authorised—I hope that your Lordships will agree that there can be no great objection to this amendment of the, Act, which is asked for by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland.
The remaining provisions of the Bill, I think, call for no special comment. I would only say in conclusion that, in commending the Bill to your Lordships, the Government hope that it will be generally welcomed, and that not merely as a measure for the assistance of agricultural interests but in the national interest as well. I am satisfied, from what I have heard of the discussions which have taken place and as a result of which
10
this Bill has been drafted, that the proposals in the Bill accord generally with reasonable opinion amongst all parties, including the landowners of Scotland themselves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends can satisfy the noble Marquess on the last matter to which he referred. We do not intend to offer any opposition to the Bill. We have examined it. We think it appears rather cumbersome and in parts rather complicated. One or two of the clauses are very difficult to follow, and we should have thought that the drafting might have been simplified. But on the other hand, there are a great many matters to be taken care of in the Bill, and perhaps that is inevitable. With regard to the remarks of the noble Marquess about the increase of deer so as to become pests in certain parts of the country, my information is that one reason for that is that there has not been enough shooting of hinds in the winter. The reason is an economic one: it is, I understand, that many of the proprietors in Scotland to-day are not in a position to employ enough men to do this. It is at a season of the year when hind shooting is rather inconvenient, as most people who have already been doing it for sport have gone south.
I have another observation to make. The noble Marquess said there had been a good deal of exaggeration about the land which could be used for agricultural purposes and which is now under deer. There has, of course, been a lot of exaggeration about that. Very large areas of the Highlands are only suitable for deer, and I personally hope that they will always be sanctuaries for deer; they could not be used for anything else. On the other hand, vast areas in Scotland which were under sheep or were tilled should be used again for sheep and/or agriculture. The Party for which I speak believe that all these Bills are only tinkering with the subject and that the land problem in the Highlands—and indeed in all Scotland—can only be solved by the whole of the land being taken over for the benefit of the community. We should then be able to say that certain areas are the most suitable for deer, other areas for sheep, other areas for settlement and agriculture, and proceed accordingly. However, we do not expect the Government to bring in a

11
measure of that kind just yet, and we can only wait patiently for our opportunity to arise when that and other problems can be dealt with.
The only other observation I would make is that I note that the Bill does not apply to deer other than red deer. The roe deer are not included. My opinion is that though roe deer have increased they do not do a great deal of damage, and personally I am very glad that these beautiful deer are not included in this Bill. I hope they will be allowed to increase a great deal more in Scotland. Generally speaking, my noble friends will be prepared to give the Bill their support.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, in making the few remarks I propose to make this afternoon on the Bill before your Lordships' House, I should like to make quite clear that I do so in no spirit of hostility to the principle of the Bill. I think I am representing the views of certainly most, if not all, proprietors of deer forests in Scotland when I say that I recognise the grievance that does undoubtedly exist—that is, the damage done by deer to grazing and agricultural ground, especially in winter when they are driven down by storms from the higher ground. I think, too, that we are all agreed in Scotland that there are far too many deer, and that owing to the very poor nature of the soil in most forests there is not enough food for that number. The truth of that is seen in the very inferior heads one finds in most forests, and the reason why deer come to lower ground is to seek better feeding than they can get in the high lands.
As the noble Marquess said, the problem has been discussed for many years and various suggestions have been made to deal with it. I should be only too happy if an agreed Bill passed which would remedy the undoubted evil. Having said that much, however, I feel bound to add that in my opinion there is a great deal of misconception, as has been said, in the minds of the general public about deer forests in Scotland. They are described as vast pleasure grounds which ought to be devoted to agriculture and which are kept entirely as playgrounds for the idle rich. That, of course, is very far from the truth, as has been stated already. In most cases the land is not fit
12
for any other purpose, and I would remind your Lordships that deer forests are really a very valuable asset to Scotland. They bring in money, they give employment to a great many people where no other employment is possible, and in some counties they provide a very large proportion of the rates. If anything were done to diminish the value or abolish the value of deer forests it would, I think, be a very serious matter for the counties themselves.
I realise that this is not the most appropriate moment to go into details, which can be better dealt with in Committee, but there are one or two points to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. One is the proposal that owners of deer forests should erect and maintain deer fences to prevent deer getting on to grazing and agricultural land. That, if I may say so, is an absolute impossibility. The cost of erecting, let alone of maintaining, deer fences would be prohibitive, and in some cases I know it would be quite impossible to erect fences at all owing to the nature of the ground. Again, I know of places where fences, even if erected, would be laid flat and entirely destroyed by one winter storm. Therefore I think that the proposal to erect fences is not a very feasible one.
Again, supposing deer are found on agricultural land, who is able to say from what forest they come? Who is the owner who is responsible? Who is the culprit? Another point I should like to mention is the composition of, and the powers proposed to be given to, the Advisory Committee, which I think will require very careful examination. I do not propose to say anything further about that, as I know that a speaker who is to follow me will deal with that subject. Expressing a purely personal opinion I should have thought it would be very much better to schedule genuine deer forests and make it obligatory on owners to kill off a certain proportion of the deer on their ground, according to their acreage, and allow all deer elsewhere to be destroyed. But I know that that does not find favour with His Majesty's Government, and therefore I do not propose to say anything further about it. As I say, the principle underlying the Bill has my hearty support, but I think it will be necessary to make a number of Amendments and I appeal to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill to deal with them

13
sympathetically, as I think it is of the utmost importance that a Bill of this sort should be carried with the unanimous approval of all concerned.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: My Lords, I pray the indulgence of your Lordships as a member speaking in your Lordships' House for the first time. I think in the past few years the habits of deer have changed to a certain extent in the county from which I come. In the forests people have been trying to kill as many hinds as they can in the winter and stags in the stalking season. That is all very well when you have stalkers available, but I am afraid the result has not been altogether too good. It has no doubt driven a lot of deer down into the low country to get away from regular shooting. There they have taken up their home in the winter and have done a good deal of damage. Unfortunately, on the low ground there is no one to push the deer back into the forest. I think that all people who own deer forests will agree that we should like someone to push them back into the forests but the only way to do that is by regular stalking. I do not think extermination in certain areas is practicable. You would only push the deer on to some other area, where they might do more harm than they were doing before. Therefore in my opinion the only way to overcome the damage is for the deer regulation committees to institute regular stalking in areas where damage is being done by deer, and I believe this would have a very good effect in time.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, there is only one point I would like to mention, and that is one which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone. It seems to me that the erection of fences might do more harm than good. Suppose the deer get through them, you cannot push them back to the forest: you have fenced them out of the forest. Fences may be more dangerous than useful.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I do not wish to claim the attention of your Lordships for more than a short time, but as proprietor of several deer forests I would venture to make a few remarks. Although this Bill may cause opposition in certain quarters, it must be generally admitted that it is long overdue. Owing to a variety of reasons, deer have of recent years increased beyond their bounds. They have done considerable
14
damage to afforestation, and in certain cases they have become a menace to agriculture. Given this state of affairs, it seems advisable and indeed inevitable to take active steps against them. It seems to me the success of this Bill will stand or fall by the members that comprise the Advisory Committee which w ill work in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture. No Government Department is remarkable for imagination or elasticity, nor should it be so. Admirable as the Department of Agriculture is, it seems imperative that it should be guided by a Committee composed of men with a personal knowledge of the management of deer forests and of the habits of deer. I may be wrong, but I fear that despite the wording of Clause 2 the Department may find power to nullify the advice of this Advisory Committee. I would like to be reassured on this point. As the Bill stands, the Department has complete control of the situation.
There are other clauses—in chief I refer to that about fencing which has already been dealt with by the noble Lord. But there is also a financial threat to the county councils. Both these clauses must be carefully reconsidered. A general ruling on fencing might cause ruin to a large proprietor, and there is another way of dealing with this question. In this connection I should like to mention the County of Ross, in the Northern Highlands, where the local proprietors have effectively combined to investigate and redress all causes of complaint. This measure has met with complete success in all cases. Your Lordships are aware that a deer forest proper can be managed in such a way as to provide sufficient keep for the necessary deer upon it. Unfortunately, Highland estates have been broken up and the old order has gone with them. Elsewhere winter feeding grounds have been planted over by the Forestry Commission, and again electric power schemes have all tended to drive herds of deer into low land and agricultural areas, with unfortunate results. It will be the task of the Advisory Committee to differentiate between the controlled and harmless denizens of the forest proper where there is no legal claim for such, and the tracks of sheep ground and grass moor bordering on cultivation which recently has become the uneasy habitat of tribes of Goths and Vandals badly stalked and badly super-

15
vised. This differentiation can be no easy task. It may cause unpopularity, but it is very necessary. In supporting an amended Bill I do so for two reasons: that it will grant benefit to the agriculturists and will give quality and not quantity to the deer forest.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, one always hesitates to intervene in a debate in your Lordships' House, which is so full of experts on so many subjects. The fact that there are so many people present who are more qualified than oneself does indeed make one hesitant, but on a measure such as this I feel that it is the wish of your Lordships that those who have deer interests and who have some measure of experience, however small, should give what humble advice they find possible on the subject. When I say those with experience, I mean those who have obtained their knowledge of the habits of deer not just from the autumn when they come to do the stalking, but from watching the deer at all times of the year. And it is only in that way that it can be properly obtained. Those of us who have been endeavouring to tackle this problem for some little time now are all, I think, agreed that there is a very real problem which has to be dealt with, and they are most anxious that the best means should be found to deal with the question.
But I think it would be advantageous if I might point out the reasons why this situation has arisen. It is not from neglect in any form. There are three reasons as I see them. The first and chief one is the economic factor, by which for a good number of years after the War forests remained unlet. The owners were unable to afford to shoot them, and for quite a number of years the deer were not properly dealt with. The second factor which I think had an influence was the fact of the general tendency, if I may say so, of the younger generation, to be less anxious to use the lower portion of their anatomy in the active pursuit of the game; they prefer to sit down and have it driven for them. The third reason was the fact that many forests were not let on lease, and therefore those who had forests let on lease were more anxious to obtain good rates and not so anxious to care for the forest as they should and kill off all the rubbish, which has actually been extended.
16
If I might—I will be as brief as I can—I would like to stress the point that the area which is covered by deer and occupied by deer is divided more or less into two categories. There is the deer forest proper, where, as has already been said, little other use in many cases can be made of that ground. There is ground of course where both sheep and deer occupy the same area, and the second part, the lower ground where, through this general increase with which we are trying to deal, the deer have been induced to stray, and not only to stray, but to stay if the hinds can drop their calves there. Not only have they stayed there because they have been undisturbed possibly, but in some cases they have been encouraged, and it is not an unnatural point of view from those who suddenly find themselves in a position to offer five or ten stags a year on their shooting leases which are an added attraction. Therefore you can hardly blame them if they have not wished to do all the disturbing which should really be done.
But the fact is that those conditions have reached a certain point where they are really becoming a serious menace to the agricultural interest. I am referring to the straying of deer on the lower ground. I would like to say just one word about the two interests, agricultural and sporting. As has already been said, the theory has been exploded that these tracts of ground are kept for sport and pleasure of the owner, because there are very few owners now who can afford to shoot their own places and, except in the case of high deer forests, nearly all ground is used for dual purposes, that is to say, grouse moor and grazing. What is good for grouse is good for sheep, and if you care for the land properly for sheep you are caring for grouse. Both have identical interests. Now we come to a point which I rather want to make. Of course we know that the agricultural industry is vital in Scotland. Most of us who happen to own deer forests are heavily connected with that industry as it is. We realise that, but we must not forget—and I cannot emphasize this too strongly; I think it has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone—that those sporting activities are not now just what they were, they are a business.
There is a real live industry employing an enormous number of men. They are

17
bringing a great deal of money into the country. They are bringing a great deal of money into the revenue and into the local coffers, and making it possible to carry on the administration of the country as it is now in the pretty efficient way in which it is carried on. I refer to police, roads, and other matters. It is through these sporting propensities that Scotland is able to maintain itself at the level it is. Seeing that it is a business, I do impress upon His Majesty's Government to use all the foresight and knowledge they can, and their power when taking these measures to see that its interests are not done away with. And I can say this, that whether the land remains in its present hands, or whether it goes into the hands of the State, they will be ill advised if they allow these valuable assets to disappear, because they bring such an enormous value to the country as a whole in maintaining various activities.
Having dealt with the preliminary case I come to the Bill itself, and I want to say, like all the other speakers, that having studied this measure, although we may not like some of it, yet we are quite convinced that generally speaking in principle this measure is necessary. We are convinced that some form of universal co-ordination is entirely necessary if you are to keep down the deer. Keeping down the deer is not an easy matter. It is not so simple a matter as sending out troops with machine guns, as some people seem to think. The deer do not belong to one forest or to one particular person. They drift enormous distances, and therefore it is only by a measure which can co-ordinate and deal with the problem in the manner suggested by the Government that you will be able to deal with this problem. I, too, would like to emphasize the fact that although this Bill is necessary it does not mean that measures have not been taken privately. They have. Enormous trouble and care has been taken, and large sums of money have been spent already, but unfortunately those efforts have not borne the fruits that we would like to see. The problem still remains a very large one, and one which can only be dealt with in the manner which has been suggested.
Therefore I fully support the Bill as it stands, but bearing in mind the facts that have tried to put before your Lordships. While I appreciate the various safeguards which the Government have
18
given, yet I would emphasize that it is vitally important that they should see that the best men are put on the various committees. They should be men who can command the respect and confidence both of the agricultural industry and the sporting industry, who through their own reasonable activities will, I think, be able to bring some measure of relief in regard to this matter. There are two or three points which I think will have to be amended in the Bill in Committee. One has already been mentioned, and it is the question of deer fencing. My own experience is that it is uneconomic and not practical. The fencing has been erected and maintained at enormous cost, and quite frequently when the drifts are big the fences do not serve the purpose, because the deer simply walk across them. Therefore I think the Government will have to consider whether this should be insisted upon. Another point to which I would call attention is on page 9 of the Bill, where it is suggested that the expenses should be paid half by the Treasury and half by the county council. From my own personal point of view I should be delighted that they should be paid by the county council, but do the Government think the councils will like it? We know already what bitter feelings there are with regard to expenditure which is put upon the county councils. However, I hope your Lordships will give this measure a happy Second Reading.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, the Government deserve and will secure support for their proposals to prevent damage by deer and rabbits, and for the destruction of rabbits and the better control of deer as to numbers and straying. This subject is one, however, which it is most difficult to legislate upon, and all sorts of points crop up when the effort is made. While I think the Scottish Office have been on the whole quite successful, they may perhaps feel themselves that this is not yet a perfect measure. They have at any rate done their utmost to secure agreement on the part of different organisations and people who are most concerned, and there will be a general wish to help the Government in securing their object. The aim is right, but the difficulty is how to secure the results. A reference has been made to the example in Ross-shire, and I think this is so

19
striking that it deserves an even wider recognition. It is still not too late, perhaps, to urge that it should be copied by people in other parts. The great majority of owners would welcome a solution of any outstanding deer forest problem, and an end to any grievance, but at the same time no one would wish to see the deterioration of our magnificent highland forests and stags.
At the present moment, while we are considering this Bill there are many who have studied the Report of the Highlands and Islands Committee, and in another place the Access to Mountains Bill is under consideration, and it is most important that neither in the Bill in another place nor in this Bill should any slip be made which will bring a loss to Scotland of local trade and employment. In the South of Scotland, and in other places where we do not have deer stalking, our only trouble is from another kind of deer. The trouble in our case is to the landowners more than to the tenant farmers. The trouble is to our plantations and our forestry operations, which are often seriously handicapped by the large number of roe deer and other deer roaming the country. If the Government would be kind enough to help others in a similar way such help would be very welcome.
Very little has been said, so far, about the rabbits. Speaking as a landowner I would advocate the destruction of rabbits, in the interest of landowners and tenant farmers, as being essential to good farming and afforestation. I am sure that all those who spend much time in personal attention to farming and afforestation realise the importance of the elimination of the rabbit. The amount of food consumed, and the injury done in the fouling of the ground, quite outweigh any possible advantages. Again, it is difficult to legislate for the extermination of rabbits and I think in addition some assistance from public opinion is very important. I would like to see a campaign in conjunction with this Bill from the Scottish Office and from all organisations both working for the landowners and the farmers, and also from the Press, to bring home to the owners of land and all who have the opportunity of reducing their rabbits, the importance of doing so. We know many cases of individual effort and
20
success but in those cases any advantage is generally reduced by the action, or lack of action, of their neighbours. Many others have similar experiences to my own in that respect. Under this Bill I suppose individuals will be expected to report on, or complain of, their neighbours, which will not be a pleasant task, but it has brought out how important co-operation between neighbours to reduce this vermin and this pest is now and will be in the future.
Then again, we know there are many who like to see a few rabbits about the place, or who on humane grounds do not like to see them killed; but I hope it can be brought home to those people that we must look upon this as an economic question. The argument is sometimes used, or the excuse is sometimes made by those who do not kill their rabbits, that if the imports from other countries were not so numerous and the price was better there would be more inducement to kill them; but this argument again is quite wrong, because it only encourages rabbit catchers to keep more rabbits so as to have a better crop the following year. Many tenant farmers think that a five-pound note for their rabbits now and again is worth having, but this is a delusion because the damage to their land and crops far outweighs that consideration. What is needed is a will and a determination to kill the rabbits and a recognition that that is the better policy. I hope, now that the Government have stepped in, that they will be able to take a hand in this. Only last summer I was privileged to take the Royal English Forestry Society through woodlands in Northamptonshire where, less than two generations ago, over 1,000 rabbits a day made a common bag. On this particular day during the course of several hours not one single rabbit was seen, and it was commented on with much surprise by those who take the view that it is not possible to stamp out the rabbit.
There are in the clauses referring to rabbits a few points which require attention. In Clause 12, subsection (1), I think the notice is a little ambiguous, and the proviso in that subsection is far from clear. Then a right of appeal for the occupant was asked for in the case of the English Bill only a short time ago, and I think it is quite fair that it should be included, as it will be required, in the case of this Bill. I would

21
thank the Government for their attention to this very serious problem of rabbits. I do not feel that the noble Marquess emphasized quite as much as he might have done the real damage that is being done to agriculture and forestry and the additional expense caused by rabbits. I hope this disciplinary measure will be useful.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, with the exception of the noble Duke who has just spoken and who directed his main attention to rabbits, all the speakers this afternoon have been forest owners, and the reason that I am inflicting myself on your Lordships for a few minutes is that I come under a different category—namely, that of those unfortunates whose ground up to a few years ago was entirely free from deer but who now, totally against their wishes, are obliged to carry a considerable stock. Perthshire has been largely the centre of the trouble about the excessive numbers of deer, and this has been due almost entirely to the action of one proprietor, who for a number of years after the War did not reduce his stock sufficiently until at last it became so large that one season several waves of deer, many hundreds in number, left the ground for good and spread far and wide. This forest is something like thirty miles from my own ground, separated by large areas of purely agricultural country, and yet there is no doubt that it is from that forest that the deer which are now on my land, or their ancestors, originally came.
Actually while they remain on the high ground, my own experience has been that they have done very little damage, as they seem to come down to the farms only on rare occasions in severe weather. What is more serious is that a considerable number of them are now reverting to the proper habit of the deer, which is a woodland animal rather than a dweller upon the high tops, and are taking to the woods; and once deer get down into thick young woods not only do they damage the plantations very considerably but it is very difficult indeed to extirpate them. It must be remembered that when they are on the edge of cultivated land and in woods of dense or semi-dense character it is hardly ever possible to use a rifle without grave danger to human life. Accordingly, the deer have to be pursued with shotguns, which is a difficult thing, and also a very brutal one, as usually three or
22
four deer are peppered for every one that is brought into the bag.
If we succeed, as I think we undoubtedly shall, in reducing to an absolute minimum the deer which have strayed from their proper haunts, and in many areas in exterminating them altogether, we shall still be faced with the possibility of fresh incursions from the forests, and I am afraid I cannot altogether accept the theory that it is not possible more drastically to reduce the numbers inside the forests themselves. Practically every forest in Scotland, however well administered, carries a certain stock of old deer or young stags which are never likely to be good, either in head or in body, and if proprietors and shooting tenants at the end of the stalking season proper would give instructions to their stalkers to shoot down a considerable number of these bad stags during the winter and early spring, we should, I maintain, avoid a repetition of these great waves of deer which leave overcrowded forest ground. I know that some people do not like the idea, because it means that stags shot after the proper season are unfit for human consumption and can only be thrown away, but the position is sufficiently grave that this waste of potential food would I think be justifiable under the present circumstances.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I do not like to interrupt the noble Earl, but this has been done to a great extent already, and a great many of us are doing it now all through the year.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am quite aware that there are many people who, like the noble Earl, are doing it, but there are a considerable number of forests, especially those which are not stalked regularly by their owners, where that is not the case. A few days ago a friend of mine was coming south by train, and over a few miles of country on the borders of Inverness-shire and Perthshire, but most particularly in Perthshire, he saw, within a fairly short distance of the railway line, vast parties of deer spread over miles of ground, whose numbers he computed at a moderate estimate to be not less than 10,000 head. My friend is himself the owner of, and himself habitually stalks, a very well managed forest, and he is a person of sane views and by no means super-heated imagination. It is true that this was in bad weather, which would naturally drive

23
most of the deer some way down on to the black ground, where they could get food, but still the fact that such a number could be seen is, I am convinced, a sign that there are far too many deer in that neighbourhood in north Perthshire. They will have to be severely reduced, and I believe that that can be done in a very short space of time if owners and tenants of deer forests will give the necessary instructions.
In regard to the rabbit question, I have only one word to say, and that is that I think it is rather unfortunate that in all these Bills dealing with ground game hares and rabbits are treated as one. The hare, although capable of doing considerable damage, is by no means such a pest as the rabbit, and can be much more easily controlled; and, particularly in regard to high ground and moors, I think it might be advisable on the Committee stage not to include hares with rabbits, as otherwise there will be considerable abuse of the right to pursue ground game towards the end of the shooting season. I should like in conclusion to express my entire agreement with the objects of the Bill, which, subject to various emendations in Committee, will, I am sure, go far to remedy what is a very real scourge at the present time.
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: My Lords, the matters contained in the various clauses of this Bill have been so adequately dealt with that I need not take up your Lordships' time, but, if the noble Marquess who introduced the Bill will permit me, there is one small point I should like to raise for his consideration. We have in Scotland now a National Trust. As many of your Lordships will know, it is in its infancy as compared with the National Trust in England. Our National Trust for Scotland to-day owns at least one large area which was in the old days deer forest, which has always been deer ground, and which I understand is entirely surrounded still by ground devoted to deer forest purposes. It is consequently impossible, and it would be in my view undesirable, to exterminate and to keep out always the deer from this area. I need hardly tell your Lordships that under the arrangements of the National Trust this large tract of land is open to the public to walk over where and when they will, and it would be a great loss were they not able
24
to see some deer luring the course of their travels.
I have been asked to put to the noble Marquess the point as to whether any provision tan perhaps be made in this Bill whereby the National Trust will be treated in a way slightly different from the ordinary landlord. It has to be pointed out that this land is held by the Trust not for sporting purposes. It is not for that purpose at all that they acquired it, nor is it I believe taxed on such a basis, and those who are responsible for this rather young production, of which many of us in Scotland are very proud, are anxious lest the provisions of this Bill may operate against the National Trust in a way which nobody would desire. I therefore in that general way put the point to the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, for his kindly consideration.
Dealing with the Bill generally, here is a Bill which we from Scotland all welcome. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has touched on the point that some landlords in his area do not properly kill their deer. That is exactly why we want this Bill; that is the reason for the Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that there is room in Scotland to-day for a drastic reduction in the number of deer, and it is for that purpose, I take it, that the Government are bringing this Bill before your Lordships to-day. Turning for a moment to the question of rabbits, with which my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch dealt, when it comes to rabbits it seems to me men are divided in two camps—those who wish to destroy them and those who cannot bear to be unkind to them. Between these camps is fixed a gulf which is deep and wide and cannot in my view be crossed. Either you are going to destroy your rabbits or you are going to be kind to them; you cannot do both. There is no halfway house. I speak from considerable personal experience when I assure your Lordships that if you are going to destroy your rabbits, you have to destroy them in every way you can, and at all times. There is no other way of doing it. I am sometimes interested to see the number of people who urge the destruction of rabbits and then loudly decry the use of any form of trap or method of killing them which would in their estimation be cruel or unkind to "poor little animals."
Finally, here is a Bill which, in principle, we all want. We welcome it. Deer

25
have undoubtedly done great damage for many years. Rabbits I regard as one of the enemies of British agriculture. If they can be reduced and kept within their proper proportions, and the deer within their proper areas, the country of Scotland will benefit, and I can think of nobody who will not be pleased.
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE: My Lords, everything on this Bill has been so well said that I would not venture to intervene in the debate except as a deer forest owner. It would be deplorable if any debate in your Lordships' House allowed the idea to spread for a moment that the owners of deer forests were in any way antagonistic to the measures proposed by the Government. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord on the other side of the House recognise that in his speech. Undoubtedly deer forest owners and deer forests do lend themselves to Party capital and propaganda. I only rise to say, as a deer forest owner myself, that I am sure all the proprietors in Scotland recognise there are too many deer. They would like to see them cut down, and in many cases, they make great personal efforts to do so. For the last five years I have, myself, spent the winter in Scotland and have studied the question. Undoubtedly the damage which is reported in the newspapers is frequently non-existent or largely exaggerated. I have tried to localise where the complaints have come from, and I have here a letter from the Department of Agriculture in which they say that complaints from individual landholders are comparatively rare. At the same time there is a feeling of grievance in Scotland, and I welcome this measure wholeheartedly. I believe that if it is worked with good will on both sides, a great deal of good will be done.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I would like to say a few words in welcoming this Bill. There is only one point of criticism I would venture to make, and that is that Clause 14 (2) on page 10, at line 23, may require some very careful wording. The noble Marquess who introduced the Bill talked about stimulating owners. I am not at all sure that occupiers do not require at least as much stimulation. I have known more than one case where the proprietor killed every head of rabbit on his property, and in at least one case the property was restocked, in part at
26
any rate, by the occupier. It is possible that Clause 14 (2) might tend to diminish the natural sporting interest of the proprietor in his property, and in the end might not be very successful.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, it is very gratifying to find in all quarters of the House warm approval of the principles underlying this measure, and it looks very much as if by the time we have finished with the Bill it will prove to be an agreed measure. I was grateful to the noble Lord who is leading the Opposition for his support. His chief criticism of the Bill was that the drafting of it made it difficult to follow, that the text was complicated. I agree with the noble Lord, but that is my experience of every Bill that comes before your Lordships' House. I always find great difficulty, myself, in understanding the language of Bills. In that matter we have to trust largely to the skill of the draftsman and accept his word for it that the words he uses are the words which must be there to express the intention which we have. It was gratifying to find that support was given to this Bill, not only by those who are keen agriculturists, but also by the owners of the deer forests themselves. Many of your Lordships have spoken with great knowledge both of agriculture and of deer forests, and amongst them may I include the noble Earl, Lord Dalhousie, who was addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, and whom I would like to congratulate upon his intervention in this debate. May I express the hope that we shall in the future often have the advantage of the noble Earl's contributions to our discussions?
Such criticism as there has been has concentrated in the main on two points. The first is the provision with regard to the erection of deer-proof fences. My noble friend Lord Elphinstone said that in many cases it would be impossible to set up a deer-proof fence. Of course I entirely agree with the noble Lord: I know places myself where a deer-proof fence would be an impossibility. But may I remind your Lordships that these powers will be exercised by the Department after consultation with the Central Advisory Committee? That Committee will contain men who have intimate knowledge of these problems, and it would therefore be very unlikely that the Central Advisory Committee would advise

27
the Department to ask the owner of a deer forest to set up a fence where it was clearly for practical reasons impossible for him to do so. Nevertheless, I am very willing, and my right honourable friend is very willing, to listen to any further representations with regard to that particular aspect of the Bill which your Lordships may wish to make to us. When the Commttee stage is reached, we shall be very willing to consider any proposal which any of your Lordships may make with a view to providing, let us say, further safeguards against the arbitrary use of this power. The other main point upon which, I will not say criticism, but comment has concentrated is the personnel of the Central Advisory Committee and of the deer regulation committees. I agree entirely with the noble Lord who stressed the importance of a careful selection of the persons who are to serve on these bodies, and he may rest assured that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will of course be responsible for the personnel of the Central Advisory Committee, has very much in mind the importance of selecting suitable persons.
My noble friend the Earl of Leven and Melville put in a plea for the National Trust for Scotland, and suggested that certain differential treatment should be meted out to the Trust. I need hardly assure the noble Earl that, as chairman of the sister body in England, I have every sympathy with the object and the wishes of the National Trust for Scotland. I am not sure, however, that I have appreciated precisely what it is that he thinks might be done. After all, the machinery of this Bill will not be set in motion unless there are complaints from persons suffering from the depredations of deer or of ground game. If the National Trust for Scotland own property which can harbour deer without inflicting damage upon the agricultural aspects of the property, then I presume no complaint will be made, and the machinery of the Bill will therefore not be brought into operation. I am, however, quite willing to look further into that matter in consultation with the noble Earl, in case I have not fully appreciated what it is that he has in mind.
My noble friend the Earl of Airlie expressed doubts whether the county councils would be very willing to accept
28
their share of the costs of putting the provisions of this measure into operation. On that point I am able to say that there has been some consultation with the representatives of those county councils which are likely to be most nearly concerned by this Bill. So far as my information goes, there has been no suggestion that they will be unwilling to bear their share of the costs.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I hope the noble Marquess is right.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: If I may interrupt for one moment, I may say that the Perth County Council strongly object to paying any portion of them.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: It may well be that further consultations will be necessary, but, so far as that matter goes, that is my present information. May I say in conclusion with what interest and pleasure I listened to all the speeches, and particularly, perhaps, to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, whose father took so helpful a part in the negotiations which have taken place between the various interests concerned and had so intimate a personal knowledge of all sides of this question, particularly of afforestation and kindred subjects? It was indeed gratifying to me to find that, though he had some comment to make on particular details of the Bill, the Bill as a whole met with his warm commendation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (LIMITS OF TIME) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Under the Patents and Designs Acts certain acts, mainly in connection with applications for the grant and renewal of patents and for the registration or renewal of the registration of designs, have to be carried out at the Patent Office within certain time limits. In general those time limits can or must be extended by the Comptroller within further limits if application for extension is made and certain conditions, such as payment of fees, are satisfied. It has been the practice of the Patent Office for many years, unless there was a direct pro-

29
vision to the contrary, to allow such extensions of time even if the application were not made until after the period permissible apart from extension had expired. A judgment of the Patents Appeal Tribunal has shown that this practice, in one case at all events—namely, that arising in connection with the acceptance of complete specifications under Section 8A of the Act—is wrong and may have resulted in invalidating patents granted upon applications in connection with which such extensions of time have been so allowed. This Bill is intended to establish for the future and validate for the past what has been the practice in this connection, and to provide for other cases where extensions of time are permissible but there is no express statement as to whether application must be made before the main period has expired or whether it can be made during the period of the permissible extension.
Advantage has also been taken of the opportunity afforded by this Bill to deal with another old-established practice of the Patent Office as to the validity of which doubts have been expressed. When a complete specification has been returned to the applicant for amendment but has been railed only at the last minute of the period allowed for its acceptance, or at any rate too late for a full examination to be made within the period, the practice has been to examine the refiled specification as soon as possible, and, in cases where it has been found to be in order for acceptance, to accept it "as of" the last day of the period allowed. This Bill validates this practice for the past and establishes it in substance for the future. The Bill is merely one of machinery with the sole object of legalising certain practices which have grown up, but which without the Bill might be considered ultra vires.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have examined this Bill, and on the whole we think it is a pod Bill and deserves support. There are certain matters concerning the patent law, with which I will not trouble your Lordships on this occasion in view of the other Orders on the Paper, but if I may I would like to send a letter to the noble Lord and he perhaps will be good enough to consult with the Department. With regard to this Bill,
30
the only criticism we have to make is with reference to Clause 2. This clause, we think, is somewhat clumsily drafted, and is apt to give rise to a certain amount of confusion more particularly in view of the use of such words as "completed" and "completing." For a long time now such words have been understood and used to mean the step of filing a complete specification on a patent application. But it appears from Clause 2 of the Bill that they are now to have a somewhat different meaning and will tend to give rise to the assumption—incidentally a wrong one—that an applicant for a patent has a longer period than hitherto for filing a complete specification on a patent application.
We think that the possibility of confusion would be less likely to arise if, instead of the words in question, other words are used in the clause, such as "in condition for acceptance," or their literal equivalent. We are inclined to think that the intentions of Clause 2 of the Bill could have been provided in a much more straightforward way, such as by a simple amendment of Section 8A of the principal Act which Clause 2 of the Bill is intended to replace. If the noble Lord will be good enough to look into that particular point, and see if better words can be found, we think the Bill might be improved.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had given Notice that he would move to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of 1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 28, s. 2 (1)
". Subsection (1) of Section two of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, as amended by the Official Secrets Act, 1920, shall have effect—
(1) as if after the word 'if' there were inserted the words 'for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State'
(2) as if the words 'or which has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under His Majesty or which he has obtained or to which he has had access owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under His Majesty or as a person who holds or has held a contract made on behalf of His Majesty or as a person who is or has been employed under a person who holds or has held such an office or contract ' were deleted; and
(3) as if after the word 'misdemeanour' there were inserted the words 'and for the purposes of this subsection such person shall be deemed to have so acted for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State unless the contrary is proved'
(4) as if after the word 'misdemeanour' there were inserted the words 'and in the case of any prosecution under this subsection involving the proof of a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, subsection (2) of Section one of this Act shall apply in like manner as it applies to prosecutions under that section'."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to narrow the Official Secrets Act, 1911, as amended by the Official Secrets Act, 1920. It is intended to narrow Section 2 of the Act of 1911. As I ventured to suggest on the Second Reading, while the Bill which is now before your Lordships goes some way to limit the intended use—intended by Parliament—of the Act of 1920, it leaves many loopholes for oppression which could be used as long as this section of the Act of 1911 remains unamended. I take it that the intention of Parliament at the invitation of the Government is to make it quite clear that these Official Secrets Acts are only to be used against people accused of espionage or who are directly hostile to or acting against the interest of the State. That was the intention of Parliament, without a doubt, and we were assured of that safeguard for the subject. If we leave Section 2 of the Act of 1911 as it is, there remains a great menace. This is a section which is capable of indefinite expansion to cover not only espionage—which we are all agreed the hands of the Executive should be strengthened to deal with—but to cover all manner of communications and information which may have been received from any one who holds or has held office under His Majesty.
If I may refer for a moment to the Act of 1911, your Lordships will remember that it is an offence for a person to have in his possession or control a wide range of articles—sketches, plans, models, notes, documents—or information which relate to or are used in a prohibitive place,
32
etc. It deals with post offices and all kinds of buildings which really have nothing to do with espionage at all, and if the executive wish to annoy some people, or wish to persecute certain persons, then the unamended Act of 1911 gives them a very wide power to do so. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would of course say—I am sure with complete sincerity—that it was not the intention to use the Acts of 1911 and 1920 oppressively, and if the matter rested with him I would be perfectly satisfied. But it does not rest with him. It rests with the police, and the police can, under the Act of 1911 if it remains unamended, use it very oppressively indeed. In times of stress and public excitement, when there is some crisis on, the police have a habit of proceeding rather harshly in certain cases. I am not making a general accusation against the police or against the Executive, but it is dangerous for them to have in their hands the very wide powers given by the 1911 Act. My Amendment—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): Will the noble Lord pardon me for interrupting him? I have been desirous that he should explain the nature and the extent of his Amendment before I made certain suggestions to your Lordships. The scope of the Bill which has received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House is strictly limited. It deals only with Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, which it is proposed to amend pursuant to an undertaking given in another place. The Title of the Bill, which of course can be enlarged, is merely:
"An Act to amend Section six of the Official Secrets Act, 1920."
The Government are wholly unwilling that this measure should be treated—by Amendments which would be entirely out of order in another place—as a Bill in regard to which the whole of the principles and the scope of the two previous Acts of 1911 and 1920 were to be considered and gone into.
It is far from being my intention to suggest to your Lordships anything more than that you should consider how far an Amendment of this sort ought to be gone into at this time. If you allow it, I do not know myself how you could object to an Amendment, for instance, to introduce something quite foreign to this Bill, such as an Amendment of the Army Act or any Act you please. You will

33
notice that if you do allow these Amendments, which are wholly beyond the scope of the measure which has received a Second Reading, you do two things. In the first place, you allow something which has not been discussed on Second Reading at all to be introduced on a Committee stage, and therefore you allow things that are foreign to the nature of the legislation to escape the necessity of being dealt with on Second Reading; and you also have the result a at you have no limits to the number of matters which may be discussed on such an Amendment.
This very matter of travelling beyond the scope of a Bill has been before this House in a previous case, which is to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 13, in reference to February 4, 1913. It is recorded there that the Bishop of Wakefield at toe time introduced an Amendment which was objected to by the Earl of Derby on the ground that it was outside the scope of the Bill. The then Lord Chairman, Lord Donoughmore, stated that the Amendment was wholly beyond the scope of the Bill, and the Earl of Derby moved that the Amendment be not considered as it was outside the scope of the Bill. The Lord Bishop at first required his Amendment to be considered, but the Marquess of Salisbury suggested to him that he should not move his Amendment and he took that course. I am, of course, under a bounden duty to be perfectly candid in my statement of this as of any other case, and I would observe that the Marquess of Salisbury, having said that he hoped in the circumstances that the Lord Bishop would refrain from moving his Amendment and putting the House to the necessity of definitely ruling it out of order, then he went on thus:
"I feel very strongly that it would be a dangerous thing for us to agree to a Motion of the sort moved by Lord Derby without very careful investigation, for any such Motion would be regarded as a precedent. As the sense of the House is clearly in the direction that the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, I hope the right reverend Prelate will not move it."
I think it is clear that this House is not bound by any definite rule in any matter of this kind, but I do venture to ask your Lordships to consider whether it is your will that Amendments which are completely outside the scope of the Bill—because all the Amendments of the noble Lord are within the same category
34
—should be debated in this House on merits. If your Lordships come to the conclusion that this is right I am content, but I do not think that the matter should be dealt with without some protest, and I hope that your Lordships will receive the advice and assistance of the persons who are much more able to deal with the practice of the House than I—the Leader of the House and the Lord Chairman who is now in charge.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble and learned Lord gave me notice that he was going to raise this point, and so I have looked up the precedent, as he also has done and has quoted it to your Lordships. You will see that the matter has not been raised for some 26 years, and that is the only precedent that I can find which bears on the subject. I need not repeat what the noble and learned Lord has said. He has given you an account of what occurred on that occasion. Of course I cannot give any decision on the matter, I can only give an opinion for what it is worth. It seems to me that unless your Lordships considered that the subject matter of the Bill was anything relating to official secrets, it would appear that these Amendments would be beyond the scope of the Bill. As I think the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, your Lordships not infrequently add to a Bill a matter which is not included in the Title and therefore the Title has to be altered. I remember very well that I was in charge of the Local Government Act, 1929, and a good deal of matter was introduced into that measure in your Lordships' House and the necessity arose for changing the Title. My noble friend behind me (Lord Strabolgi) has recognised this fact here, and he has proposed to alter the Title so as to conform with his Amendments. I need hardly say that your Lordships are well aware that your Lordships are all powerful and can take any course that you please, but if I were asked to give an opinion I should be tempted to say that in view of the fact that the Bill is entitled "an Act to Amend Section Six of the Official Secrets Act, 1920," in my personal humble opinion, which may be quite wrong, the Amendments of the noble Lord behind me would appear to be outside the scope of the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: I would like first of all to observe that I have not moved any Amendment. The noble and learned

35
Lord Chancellor did not allow me to do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I followed the precedent that was taken in a previous case of raising the point before the Amendment was moved.
LORD STRABOLGI: I understand. I thought the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was going to correct me on some statement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. I was following the precedent.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thought the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was going to expose the whole case against me. Nor did he, I am sure inadvertently, advise me of the precedent that he was going to cite.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry about that.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sure it was an inadvertence, but the Lord Chairman has the advantage that the Lord Chancellor has therefore over me. I did get a very courteous message from the staff of the Lord Chancellor to the effect that he was going to argue that my Amendments would be outside the scope of the Bill, but I did not know any precedent was going to be quoted and I have had no opportunity of studying it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry about that. I apologise.
LORD STRABOLGI: No apology is needed. All of us who know the noble and learned Lord are quite aware that anything of that sort would be due only to inadvertence. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor says that this was not discussed on the Second Reading. Not only did I bring this matter up of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, but your Lordships were good enough to allow me briefly to argue it. Now I am very courteously and no doubt properly rebuked by the Lord Chancellor for bringing up a matter which he describes as being outside the scope of the Bill. This obviously touches on a matter of very great importance to your Lordships' House, much more important than any Amendment I could bring before your Lordships or any argument which I could use. We are here invited to amend the 1920 Act dealing with official secrets.
36
That Act in its turn amended the 1911 Act. The object of the Bill now before your Lordships is to safeguard the subject against the too wide use of the words of the 1920 Act which, in a certain case which was quoted on the Second Reading of a journalist, had been felt to be used oppressively and against the wish of Parliament. My humble submission to your Lordships is that if it is your desire to safeguard the interests of the subject and to prevent the misuse of these Acts, you must not only amend the 1920 Act but you must also amend the 1911 Act on which the 1920 Act was largely based.
If I am told that that is improper, that that cannot be done under the rules of your Lordships' House, I, of course, immediately abide by that decision. If I follow the Lord Chairman, he considers that to attempt to amend the 1911 Act would be outside the scope of this Bill. Of course I will abide by that ruling, unless any of your Lordships care to question the matter further. Perhaps I may be allowed to observe this, that what the Lord Chancellor said, that an attempt might be made to amend the Army Act in the case of an Official Secrets Act, is to exaggerate the matter beyond reason. The 1920 Act is an amendment of the 1911 Act. I am, however, young in my experience of this House, and I do not pretend to be a student of Parliamentary procedure, but I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this may be a dangerous precedent. My contention is that the purpose of this measure is not carried out unless the original Act is also amended, and I should hate to be the unwilling instrument of creating a precedent which might in future limit your Lordships' action.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): This is, of course, merely a matter of opinion, because neither I nor any other of your Lordships have any right to lay down the law as to procedure in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships settle your own procedure and action. On the whole, everyone would agree with the noble Lord opposite if this had been an ordinary Bill. If this Bill purported to amend the Official Secrets Acts then I think the noble Lord would have been quite in order in seeking to amend the Act of 1911, but that is not the Bill which we have before us to-day. The Bill is drawn very closely,

37
to amend Section 6 of a particular Act. I think that to go outside that section, and still more outside that Act, would be to stretch the rules of procedure very wide. It would be going much further than the House is accustomed to go. I should be the very last to wish to limit the powers of this House as they are limited in another place. There, as noble Lords know better than I do, because I never sat in the other House, you cannot make an Amendment of a Bill which is outside the Title of the Bill. Here we postpone the Title until we have finished, and can then amend the Title if we wish. So we get over that difficulty and extend our procedure, but I think it would be stretching the rules of our procedure beyond reason and beyond our custom if we agreed to the Amendment of the noble Lord, and I hope he will not press it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say a few words out of courtesy to the argument which the noble Lord has put forward? As I understand it, he would limit the usual practice of the House—because it is no more than a question of practice—in reference to Amendments, by saying that you might amend any Act if there were a series of Acts amending each other, so that in one sense the Bill before the House was altering some of the previous measures which together created a composite piece of legislation. I perceive the ingenuity of that, and in many cases no doubt it is correct, but I would call his attention, and the attention of your Lordships, to the following facts. This Bill, which the Government have sponsored in order to carry out the pledge to which I have already referred, is of the most limited character possible. It does not alter the nature of an official secret, or the nature of the offences which, under the Acts of 1911 and 1920, become either felonies or misdemeanours. This Bill is confined simply to the question what questions can be asked by a chief officer of police, or by somebody appointed by him, in order to procure a conviction, and nothing more, and the pledge which was given in the other place was a pledge that the power of a policeman in this country to ask questions, in order to arrest somebody who had committed or was thought to have committed a breach of Section I of the Act of 1911, should be confined to cases of espionage, so that in all other cases no such powers
38
could exist. In this sense, that although of course a policeman may ask anything he likes of anybody, he should not be entitled to ask him with the result mentioned in Section 6 of the Act which is sought to be amended: there should not be a penalty for a refusal to answer a question. That is all that is being done, and nothing else.
Now let me just ask your Lordships this. Suppose you have a series of Acts with regard, for instance, to local government. There are sometimes a series of twenty Acts and perhaps a hundred or two hundred sections involved. Suppose a Bill is introduced by the Government of the day, or by a private member, to amend a particular section of one of those Acts—it might be in quite a trivial respect. For example, it might be to increase the salary of a particular official. Is it to be said that because there are all these Acts, there may be moved in such a case, in this House, a far-reaching Amendment of the law of local government as subsisting in this country? As I have said before, far be it from me to presume to advise your Lordships with any force at all as to my own personal opinion. I am, as your Lordships know, a newcomer, but I cannot think it would serve to make people in other places think we conduct our business in the best possible way if Amendments of that character can be permitted, when in fact the Bill before the House is of a very limited description and does not raise the question of the propriety or correctness of the kind of Amendment which the noble Lord wishes to support on this occasion.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It may be of interest if I say a few words on this matter, seeing that I well remember the incident in this House to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. I remember this incident because I was at the time consulting with my right reverend friend the Bishop of Wakefield. If I remember rightly, the occasion was an amending Bill to a Betting Act, called the Betting Inducements Bill. The Bishop of Wakefield was extremely anxious to bring in on this amending Bill what he considered was a question of far-reaching importance, and he strongly pressed that a matter which is now familiar to us as football coupons should be included. It was pointed out that upon that basis any point affecting the

39
betting laws in the country might be introduced, just as the noble Lord opposite thinks that any matter affecting official secrets might be in this Bill. The Bishop of Wakefield on that occasion was induced to withdraw the Amendment, and I think it was a precedent in this House exactly pertinent to the present case. I only proffer these observations as I remember the episode perfectly well.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to pursue this matter at too great length, though my personal inclination would be to continue the argument with the Lord Chancellor, and I think I have arguments to bring forward. But it is an important matter. I understand from the Leader of the House particularly that he considers that this Bill only amends one section of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, and must therefore be limited to that extent. If your Lordships would look at the Amendment Paper you would see that I also propose to amend the 1920 Act as well as the 1911 Act, and if I understand the advice given to your Lordships those Amendments would be out of order. I would like to be certain of that. If I understand the argument of the Lord Chancellor we cannot even amend the 1920 Act, with which this Bill deals.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord misunderstands me. I do not say the House cannot; the House can undoubtedly. All I am suggesting is that in the case of such a Bill as we have here it would be very bad practice to attempt to travel outside it and to amend anything but section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920.
LORD STRABOLGI: Therefore the advice the Lord Chancellor gives to your Lordships is that we can only deal with one section of the 1920 Act. I would only observe to your Lordships that our right to amend Titles of Bills has proved very valuable in the past, and that our wider procedure here has been of value to Parliament as a whole. This matter is very complicated and difficult, and in all the circumstances I do not propose to move any of my Amendments.
Clause 1:
Amendment of 10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 75, s. 6.
1. For Section six of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, there shall be substituted the following section:—
40
"6.—(1) Where a chief officer of police is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under Section one of the principal Act has been committed and for believing that any person is able to furnish information as to the offence or suspected offence, he may apply to a Secretary of State for permission to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection and, if such permission is granted, he may authorise a superintendent of police, or any police officer not below the rank of inspector, to require the person believed to be able to furnish information to give any information in his power relating to the offence or suspected offence, and, if so required and on tender of his reasonable expenses, to attend at such reasonable time and place as may be specified by the superintendent or other officer; and if a person required in pursuance of such an authorisation to give information, or to attend as aforesaid, fails to comply with any such requirement or knowingly gives false information, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
(2) Where it appears to a chief officer of police that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interest of the State immediate action is necessary, he may exercise the powers conferred by the last foregoing subsection without applying for or being granted the permission of a Secretary of State, but if he does so shall forthwith report the circumstances to the Secretary of State.
(3) References in this section to a chief officer of police shall be construed as including references to any other officer of police expressly authorised by a chief officer of police to act on his behalf for the purposes of this section when by reason of illness, absence, or other cause he is unable to do so."
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL had given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (2) of the substituted Section 6, in order to make the opening words read "Where a chief officer of police has reasonable grounds to believe" instead of "Where it appears to a chief officer of police." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises a very small point. The ones we have been discussing were large in their scope; this on the other hand is limited. It is a point I raised on the Second Reading. The Bill, as your Lordships know, authorises a chief officer of police to submit persons to interrogation when he has reason to think that an offence of espionage or something of that nature has been committed. But before taking that action he is required under this Bill to have the authority of the Secretary of State. Under subsection (2), however, he is allowed to dispense with an application for that authority where the case is one of great emergency, and

41
I think we are all agreed that this is a proper provision to be made in the Bill.
However, the Bill as drafted leaves the determination of the question whether there is or is not a great emergency entirely to the discretion of the chief officer of police himself, and apparently it is not subject to review in any quarter. That, I would submit, is wrong. The ipse dixit of a chief officer of police who may wish to short-circuit matters, and who may not have considered the matter very thoroughly, is not sufficient, and the case should be referable in the last resort to a Court of Law on the question whether or not the chief officer of police was justified in thinking that there was a great emergency. Consequently my Amendment would make the subsection read—not:
"Where it appears to a chief officer of police that the case is one of great emergency…."
but:
"Where a chief officer of police has reasonable grounds to believe that the case is one of great emergency…."
Those words, "reasonable grounds to believe," are well known to the law, and indeed precisely this point has already been raised on another Bill two years ago, the Public Order Bill.
The relevant paragraph of that Bill as introduced in another place was substantially in the form in which this Bill is now drafted, and it provided that a police officer of the proper status would have power to prevent a procession where he anticipated it would occasion a breach of the peace. The point I am now making was raised by an honourable member in another place, and the Home Secretary of that day, Sir John Simon, accepted the Amendment and the Bill as passed into law reads that where the officer of police "has reasonable ground" to anticipate that the procession would occasion a breach of the peace he may take certain action. That is, I submit, an exact precedent for the Amendment I am now moving, and I trust the Government will see their way to accept it. I beg to move:
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("it appears to").—(Viscount Samuel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government are unable to accept this Amendment, and I hope to be able to satisfy
42
your Lordships, and perhaps even the noble Viscount himself, that there are good reasons for not accepting it. In the first place I should like to admit that this Amendment is directly apposite to the Bill which we are discussing, and that there is therefore no question of its being beyond its scope. Next I should like to remind your Lordships of this. There are three factors involved when you are considering this subsection (2). The first is that the matter is one relating to espionage, and nothing else. The second is that a chief officer of police is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under Section 1 of the principal Act, the Act of 1911, has been committed—those offences are all espionage offences—and for believing that a person is able to furnish information as to the offence or suspected offence. The third point is that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interests of the State immediate action is necessary.
Now see what the noble Viscount proposes to put into the Bill. It is in effect that the action in a case of great emergency by a chief officer of police is not to be taken unless he can establish that he has reasonable ground for believing that in the interests of the State immediate action is necessary, or something of that kind. The result of that is this. The ordinary safeguard, that the Secretary of State has to give leave to ask the question of the person who is believed to be able to furnish information on the matter, will be useless if the time that elapses before you can get the consent of the Secretary of State will make it too late to arrest, or otherwise take steps to prevent the espionage being successful. As the result of the noble Viscount's Amendment, as soon as the chief officer of police or the person he has appointed to require the information goes to the person believed to possess the information, and asks the question, he is to be met by the answer: "What reasonable grounds have you for thinking that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interest of the State immediate action is necessary? Unless you can satisfy me that that is the case, I shall not answer your question."
As your Lordships can see, in the first place the person sent may not be able to answer that, because it is the chief officer of police who has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for

43
suspecting that an offence under Section 1 of the principal Act has been committed, etc. The man who is sent to ask the question may not know what particular offence under Section 1 of the principal Act is involved, what plan it is that is being stolen, what information it is believed has leaked out from an important Government office, and he may be perfectly unable to state what the reasonable grounds are. The subsection is drafted as it is because it does seem to the Government that where the case is one of great emergency it is necessary that the chief officer of police should be justified in sending some person who is not below the rank of inspector or superintendent to ask questions of the person suspected without going first to the Secretary of State, because the time that would be involved in taking that step might very likely defeat the whole object of subsection (2) where haste is the most important consideration.
It will be asked by my noble friend, no doubt: "Suppose in fact the chief officer of police has taken a step in a case of great emergency under subsection (2), and suppose he has acted wrongly, what happens then?" I tell your Lordships at once that he will be severely reproved by the Secretary of State, because the Bill provides that if he does exercise his powers under subsection (2) he shall forthwith report the circumstances to the Secretary of State. In other words, all that is involved in this is no more than that in every possible case where there is time these questions shall not be asked without the Secretary of State having approved, but where there is not time, because it is a case of great emergency, the chief officer of police must exercise his discretion. It is a discretion which is no greater or more important than the discretion which police officers have to exercise in countless circumstances in the administration of our criminal law; but in this case when he has done it, because he could not go to the Secretary of State he shall at once notify the Secretary of State of the circumstances, and if he has acted wrongly he will suffer a severe reproof. In these circumstances I must oppose the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Of course I cannot press this matter further in view of the attitude taken by the noble and learned Lord. At the same time I con-
44
fess I have heard his observations with surprise. The noble and learned Lord said that the chief officer of police will not be able to make this interrogatory unless he is able to establish that he has reason to believe the case is one of great emergency, and apparently the noble and learned Lord thinks he has to establish that to the satisfaction of the person interrogated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the Amendment is passed.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Yes. The noble and learned Lord thinks that the chief officer of police has to establish it to the satisfaction of the potential informant who is supposed to have facts in his possession relating to a possible case of espionage. Surely not. There is no question of imposing any delay or satisfying anyone before the interrogatory is put. He may be called upon to establish the fact that he had reasonable grounds for belief, but only if subsequently his action is ever challenged in a Court or otherwise. That is the only occasion on which he would have to give his grounds for thinking that it was a case of great emergency, and not when he goes to the person whom he wishes to interrogate. If that person were to answer by saying, "Explain to me why you have not got the Home Secretary's order, and why you consider this a case of great emergency," the police officer would not be called upon to answer anything at all. He would simply put his questions to the person, who would refuse to answer at his own peril and at the risk of penalty. That is the situation as I see it.
Very much the same position arises in the previous case I quoted—namely, the Public Order Act of 1936. There the case is one of great emergency. The Chief Constable has to prohibit a procession there and then if he thinks there is going to be disorder. The Act requires him to have reasonable grounds for the belief before he does it, and if it is not a reasonable case proceedings may, in a proper case, be taken against him. The noble and learned Lord says that this is only one case of the exercise of discretion among countless cases that officers of police have to act upon. But this is the only provision in the whole law of England where an officer of police is able to interrogate any person who is liable to a penalty—the heavy penalty for a misdemeanour—if he refuses to answer.

45
Therefore the matter does need to be carefully safeguarded by Parliament. I say it with due respect and all diffidence, but I cannot feel convinced by the noble and learned Lord's reply, and feel sure the question must be raised in another place. However, in view of the attitude of the Government, it is not possible to carry the matter further here, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I want to ask another question on Clause 1 before the Bill proceeds further. I raised another point on Second Reading and the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that he would look into the matter. It is the question whether an admission made in a case to which this Bill will apply can be used against a person who has answered the interrogatory. Noble Lords will see that here you have a person who is called upon by a police officer to answer certain questions in connection with espionage. He is obliged to answer those questions. When he has answered them, can his statement be used in a Court of Law to his own detriment? It is quite contrary to all the provisions of English law that such a thing should be done. Admissions by accused persons are held to be inadmissible if there is reason to believe that they have been extracted by any threat, promise or process of cross-examination. This compulsory power of interrogation was unknown to English law until 1920, when one of the Acts which is now being amended was passed into law. I raised the question whether a Judge in a case such as that which I postulated would feel constrained to declare that a statement made under the provisions of this Bill would be inadmissible to the detriment of the person who made it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has looked into the matter, as he was good enough to say on the Second Reading that he would, and would now give me an answer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I first looked into the question myself and thought that the answer was that which I stated to the noble Viscount. I am, however, not one of those lawyers who consider themselves infallible, and, having come to the conclusion that the answer I gave was probably right, I thought it expedient and proper to consult the highest authorities available to the Gov-
46
ernment. They have strongly taken the same view: that there is no question but that the reply of the person indicated in the section, compelled as it is by refusal to reply being a misdemeanour, could not be used against him in any proceedings at all. In those circumstances I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: On this occasion I am quite satisfied. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. I hope he does not think me unduly insistent, but the point is one of real importance, and I think it will be useful to have secured an answer given on his high authority.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is the Title being postponed now?—because I should like to make one matter quite clear. I have the less hesitation in doing so as I understand that my noble friend Lord Addison is not moving his very important Motion on unemployment. May I draw the Lord Chancellor's attention, and that of the Lord Chairman, to page 3 of the Amendments? In the discussion on procedure I inquired whether the advice given to your Lordships with regard to the scope of the Bill applied to the Amendment of the 1920 Act. My first Amendment applied to the 1911 Act, and the Lord Chancellor was good enough to indicate that in his opinion that was the advice which should be given to your Lordships: that that would be outside the scope of the Bill. Now, however, if the Lord Chancellor would be good enough to look at the bottom of page 3, he will see that I have other Amendments on the Paper to the Bill before your Lordships, and I take it that he does not propose to advise your Lordships that those are out of order.
Your Lordships will observe that the two Amendments are really alternatives. The first is to insert, as a proviso at the end of the substituted Section 6, the following:
"Provided that in relation to any question whether there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under Section one of the principal Act has been committed, the said Section one shall he read as if subsection (2) thereof had not been enacted."
I do not know if the Lord Chancellor has occupied himself at all by studying those three later Amendments, which are certainly in order and concerning which I took upon myself to bring to his notice by letter that they were alternatives. If he has studied them, perhaps he would be

47
good enough to give your Lordships his opinion upon them. If not, I can postpone them. If the noble and learned Lord thinks that they are all outside the scope of the Bill, perhaps we can bring them up on the next stage. If, however, he is prepared to state a case on them here and now, I should be glad of the opportunity of moving them—or, say, of moving the first one. They have the same object but are really alternatives, as I thought perhaps the Government might be prepared to accept one in preference to the other.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not quite sure of the precise effect of these three Amendments at the end of the printed list, and I am not quite sure what the intention of the section would be if Section I were read as if subsection (2) thereof had not been enacted. I remember them now; for the moment they had rather escaped my memory; but I am unable to say that they are not, within the practice of the House, quite proper Amendments to move. If my noble friend would care to move them now, I am in a position to deal with them.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I am advised that these Amendments raise very important matters. I beg to move, at the end of the substituted Section 6, to insert:
"Provided that in relation to any question whether there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under Section one of the principal Act has been committed, the said Section one shall be read as if subsection (2) thereof had not been enacted."
This Amendment and the two other Amendments on the Paper are really alternatives having the same object. The 1920 Act has two main objects. One object, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, is to deal with espionage. But then the Act goes on to give all sorts of powers, as I suggested earlier in to-day's proceedings, to deal with persons who come into possession of documents. We are not satisfied that the interests of the subject are properly safeguarded in the absence of some such words as I sought to have inserted earlier. I do not want to argue the case for words that would have been outside the scope of the Bill. I would only say that the object of this Amend-
48
ment is to make sure that subjects are only prosecuted for espionage, or something to do with espionage, and are not prosecuted for possessing documents, the possession of which may be inconvenient to a Government Department but does not do harm to the State. I may say that I would not have ventured to suggest the Amendment to your Lordships unless I had had respectable legal advice that such an Amendment was needed and would be to the advantage of all concerned.
EARL STANHOPE: From Sir Stafford Cripps?
LORD STRABOLGI: No, I am sorry to say I have not had advice from Sir Stafford Cripps, although I should have been very glad to have had it, and I think the Lord Chancellor speaking as a lawyer would have congratulated me on such advice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government are unable to accept this Amendment. I am still not very clear as to the precise object of it, but I must mention that subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 1911 and Section 2 of the Act of 1920 are not concerned with interrogation at all. The present Bill, as your Lordships know, is purely concerned with interrogation of persons suspected of having certain knowledge. These subsections with which apparently the Amendment is concerned relate to prosecutions, and were designed simply to facilitate the task of the prosecution by providing that certain facts or circumstances were to be taken as evidence for the purposes of the act with which the accused person was charged.
If this Amendment or either of the alternative Amendments is accepted it would seem that the chief officer of police is not to regard himself as satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting an offence under Section I of the Act of 1911 except on grounds which could be proved in Court without the assistance of the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1911 and Section 2 of the Act of 1920. It would seem, then, that powers of interrogation of the chief officer of police would be restricted to cases where he is already in possession of positive evidence that a person has committed an act for a purpose prejudicial to the safety

49
or interests of the State, whereas the main object—sometimes, at any rate, the main object—of the section is to enable the police to obtain information as to an offence or suspected offence against Section 1 of the Act of 1911. Accordingly the Amendment would have the result of greatly stultifying or taking away the value of Section 6 of the Act. For these reasons I must contend that the Amendment is wrongly conceived and must oppose it on behalf of the Government. I should perhaps mention that it may be that the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the chief officer of police must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence of espionage, and that, except in cases of great emergency, he must obtain the permission of the Secretary of State, and that permission will not be given to him unless there is some real ground for asking the questions which are involved in the law as it appears in Section 6 of the Act of 1920 as it is and will be after it has been amended by the present Bill.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I respectfully ask why the Chief Constable should not also be required to show that he has reasonable grounds for believing that it is a case of emergency?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am willing to answer that, but I am afraid I could only do so if I kept some of your Lordships here for some time. I will answer it in another place.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. He will not be surprised to hear that he has not satisfied me, but in the circumstances I do not propose to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD ADDISON,LORD ADDISON, who had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government if they have any proposals to deal with unemployment and, if so, of what character, said: My Lords, in reference to my Motion may I be allowed to say that in view of the fact that previous business has occupied your Lordships for a considerable time, it has been represented to me by several noble Lords that it would be a convenience to defer debate on the Question that I had intended to raise. I think it will be generally agreed, whatever our views on the subject may be, that the subject is one of first-class importance which ought to be debated. Several noble Lords have told me that they would have liked some considerable time devoted to the debate, and the most reverend Primate, in particular, told me that it would be very convenient and agreeable to him if the matter could be discussed at a later date. Therefore, if it meets with the approval of your Lordships and those in charge of the business of the House, I should propose to put down a Notice for Wednesday, March 22.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, as far as I know there is only one notice on the Paper for that date. It is a formal Motion by the Lord Chairman of Committees, which I understand will take only a very short time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Maryport Harbour.
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Staffordshire Joint Hospital District).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (SOUTHALL BOROUGH ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Southall:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

BREAKING UP OF STREETS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.